Regional development

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision in the report NU2.

Regional development may be a small expenditure area in the state budget, but it is nonetheless an issue that is engaging. This is visible, not least in the committee report, where there is clear consensus between the parties that it must be possible to live and work in all parts of the country, even if the views on how to achieve that partly differ.

It is clear, in any case, that the expenditure area's meager 5 billion kronor does not reflect the extent of the policy's ambition in the area, since the prerequisites for good regional development involve so much more than the budget items covered by this expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! This morning, when I flew here from Gällivare, I left a Malmfälten in beautiful winter attire behind me. We took off and flew over Europe's largest copper open-pit mine. Behind us, we had one of LKAB's gigantic iron ore mines. Had it not been so dark, after a while of flying we could have seen several of the hydroelectric power plants, in not least Jokkmokk Municipality, which contribute to keeping Swedish households warm and Swedish industry running.

I thought that Norrbotten is a fantastic place to live. Enormous values are created there through ore, power production and tourism. Norrbotten is the place of the world's extremities. Since a few days ago, it has been the realm of the polar night, to in half a year be the place where the sun never sets. There, iron ore is extracted one and a half kilometers underground. There, they also send rockets into space.

Norrbotten is fantastic and unique in many ways. And you know, the exact same thing can be said about many other parts of the country. They all have their unique characteristics and their unique conditions and together contribute to making Sweden fantastic.

The area of expenditure is, as I have previously touched upon, significantly narrower than one might think. What constitutes regional development policy and what does not is actually 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.

But, if we for a moment look at something that is directly linked to this expenditure area, we see that it is the support for commercial services in our rural areas. Here, there seems to be almost a political will to outdo one another. Good so!

The Sweden Democrats have for a long time advocated that the design, adequacy, and accuracy of these supports should be scrutinized to ensure that they provide the intended benefit. Pleasantly enough, the evaluations that have been carried out indicate that this appears to be the case. It is something we follow closely, and it is a matter of the heart for us.

Commercial services often constitute the hub in Sweden's various regions. The general store or the small gas station with an associated shop is in many places a combination of a shop, gas station, tourist office, post and parcel agency, collection point for medicines and Systembolaget products, betting shop, and bus station. We must be careful with these, not only in the budget but also through our own actions.

I therefore have an appeal to you who are listening to today's debate. When you travel in the country and pass smaller villages and towns, please take the opportunity to refuel or shop a little at the small gas station or in the small shop that is located out in the middle of nowhere. It might cost you a few kronor more. But you contribute at that moment to keeping all of Sweden alive.

Another thing, which actually has nothing to do with this specific expenditure area but which cannot be ignored in this debate, is fuel prices and transport costs. I want to assert that there were few things that made life so tough for people in Sweden's rural areas and small towns as the Magdalena prices on gasoline and diesel. When hard-working taxpayers were forced to pay up to 30 kronor per liter for diesel, it brought both families and companies to their knees. It also caused the prices of goods and services to skyrocket, with escalating inflation as a result. Now, thank goodness, we have replaced Magdalena prices with Jimmie prices. And not only that – we put a stop to the lousy proposal for a new travel deduction that otherwise would have been introduced by the Social Democrats and their supporting parties.

Madam Speaker! We are making historical investments in the road network, and we have abolished the destructive aviation tax. We are, in fact, convinced that reasonable transport times and reasonable transport costs are among the most important prerequisites 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 catch up.

If infrastructure and reasonable transport costs are important for positive regional development, there is one thing that is even more important, and that is that there are people with drive who want to and can live in all parts of the country. Human capital is simply central for Sweden to be able to live.

My personal, and also my party's, conviction is that these people and companies want and deserve good conditions regardless of whether they choose to live in the interior of Västerbotten, on the highlands of Småland, in the deep forests of Värmland, or on a wind-swept archipelago island. A successful regional development policy is about creating sensible conditions that do not reinforce an image of being a burden and in need of various support measures. It is important, not least for the self-image and pride out in the country.

We must simultaneously be better at removing obstacles and regulations that appear to be hindering. Let me emphasize that people living out in the countryside do not want to be seen as a burden or be pitied. They want fair conditions that give them reasonable opportunities to develop the abilities they themselves possess. There are incredibly many industrious and hardworking people out in the countryside who diligently do what we all – at least in words – want them to do, namely to ensure that the whole country can live. To you, I want to say: Thank you – you deserve our respect and gratitude!

Before I conclude this speech on regional development, I want to comment briefly on two of the Sverigedemokraterna's main points in this area. One is that it is time to evaluate the outcome of the reform that was made 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 carrying out the mandate in a satisfactory way? We have, after all, a collective responsibility to ensure that the funds distributed do as much good as possible.

The second thing is that the enormous production values created out in the country need to benefit the local communities to a greater extent. We advocate for a regionalization or municipalization of the property tax for industry and power production facilities. It is something that would benefit all the country's regions to varying degrees according to the calculations we have had performed. Such a model would in a reasonable way compensate municipalities where a large extraction of natural resources occurs without them getting a share of the profits, as is the case today. We are completely convinced that this is a path we must begin to take. But as you understand, those proposals are not something to be debated here today.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the members, the audience, the Speaker's Bureau and the officials a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in my final debate here in the Chamber for this year.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Eric Palmqvist for the speech.

The Sweden Democrats describe themselves as a rural party.

When we in the Social Democrats had the government power together with our coalition parties, we drew up a program for the relocation and relocation of state jobs. We said that all new state jobs should, if possible, be placed outside Stockholm.

After our eight years, the Swedish National Audit Office produced a report with an audit of how it had gone. It turned out that a total of 4,000 jobs had been added across the whole country, but also that approximately 6,000 jobs outside of Stockholm had been preserved. But after that – since 2022 – no follow-up has been conducted.

My questions to Erik Palmqvist are: What is the situation today regarding relocation and new location? Is there any will at all to have state jobs in the whole country?

The Social Democrats had decided that the Swedish Payments Agency should be located in Södertälje. But immediately after the government took office together with the Sweden Democrats, a decision was made that it should be located in Hammarby sjöstad.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Haider for the questions. I assume she is referring to the Swedish National Audit Office's review of the relocation of state agencies – not state workplaces. I do not have that report entirely fresh in my memory, but I do remember in any case that one conclusion in it was that it is not entirely worry-free to relocate agencies.

We have a genuinely positive basic view on relocating government agencies. Not everyone needs to be located in Stockholm. But the report was quite clear that it is not worry-free. Problems with, above all, competence supply as well as cooperation with other agencies and the like meant that one definitely did not consider all government agencies to be suitable for this.

I wish I had read the report yesterday – it is still some years since we handled it in the committee. The sincere answer is, as said, that we have a positive basic view on this. But it is easier said than done to outsource the state authorities.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer – which I did not receive. I asked: How does the government intend to proceed? Have any jobs been moved out? No follow-up has been conducted at all. Is it the case that the jobs have simply been moved to Stockholm? Is this what has happened during the mandate period? Is there any will at all to ensure that there are state jobs throughout Sweden?

I can, of course, agree with the member that criticism was presented in the National Audit Office report. That is always the case. I have never read a National Audit Office report that is only positive; there is always criticism. Included in the criticism in this case was that perhaps not enough people accompanied [the project] into the country and took the jobs that were available. On the other hand, that is part of the point for us Social Democrats. We believe that jobs should be added to the affected region and that people living in the surrounding area should be able to apply for those jobs. In that regard, we Social Democrats may not agree with the criticism; we think that is the point.

But my question remains: Is there any will at all from the government and the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna to have state jobs out in the country? You don't seem to have any clue at all about where the jobs are today.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the questions.

There are government agencies throughout the country. I answered the question – as stated, we have a positive basic view on outsourcing this type of work.

It is exactly as the member says: There are no audits from the Swedish National Audit Office that are free from criticism. Here, there was still quite substantial criticism. It was difficult to find the correct competence for some of the authorities and to fill the competence gaps that arose when the competence did not move with them, there were no adequate trainings in these places in the country, and so on.

Regarding whether the government wants to make more relocations of state agencies, I suggest that Monica Haider asks one of the government representatives. Our starting point in this is that we are positively inclined towards it. It is something we carry with us in the negotiations we have with the government in any case.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Eric Palmqvist for a pleasant introduction in his speech. It was such a poetic depiction of the flight from Norrbotten. I am from Blekinge myself. But the times I have been in Norrbotten, I feel a similar feeling. It is in some way the place of opportunity. It was nice.

Then there was another thing that caught one's attention when listening. It is when Eric Palmqvist mentions one of all the things that Eric Palmqvist is proud of. It is about putting a stop to the bad travel deduction, as I believe Eric Palmqvist expressed it.

There was a proposal for a transport-neutral travel deduction that all parliamentary parties except the Sweden Democrats supported at one point in time but which has since been stopped. It was a travel deduction that would make it possible to also deduct for travel with public transport and by bicycle when traveling to and from work. I would actually like to ask what it was that the Sweden Democrats thought was so bad about the deduction. From my perspective, there are primarily advantages.

I am a bit surprised that the Sweden Democrats are in favor of a deduction that primarily benefits high-income earners in cities and which excludes approximately 300,000 people. They would have been eligible to receive the tax deduction if it had been introduced. Why was it such a bad proposal?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the kind words. It is not every day that one is called poetic, but it shall be a first time for everything. Blekinge is also fantastically beautiful. I want to emphasize that. I was there just recently. It is an incredibly beautiful landscape with its archipelago islands.

We had the proposed travel deduction calculated. One can certainly calculate for Stockholm's inner city, where one has SL as a reference, and see that it could benefit people here.

One of the parameters in the travel deduction proposal was that a very long distance should not be covered. I want to recall – it is, as said, several years ago – that under seven miles or ten miles there would be no possibility to make any travel deduction.

It would have completely unreasonable consequences in the interior of Norrbotten, where it is not at all unusual for people to commute ten miles to work every day. One has very little traffic. Traveling ten miles there takes approximately the same amount of time as it takes to travel two or three miles in the morning in Stockholm.

We had it calculated both with state income tax and without state income tax for a number of different scenarios. We could basically only see losers in the countryside with the proposal, which is completely unacceptable for us.

It is very possible that a group of voters in Stockholm's inner city who take the bicycle or the subway to work would win from it. But the people in the countryside would definitely not be winners with the proposal that was then presented.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

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

It surprises me a bit. Now I must admit that I cannot recite the entire proposal by heart just tonight. But I know that when the Ministry of Finance calculated the proposal, it was seen that it was primarily men in large cities who drove cars and it was high-income earners who took part of the tax deduction that existed. It was primarily rural municipalities that lost tax revenues when the proposal was subsequently not moved forward.

It is a deduction that could have benefited many more than those who have access to it today. I believe it was just over 300,000 who now do not have access to the deduction. Emissions could have been reduced by getting more people to choose collective transport, walking and cycling – though perhaps not walking for long distances. But it would have given more people access to the deduction.

I am still a bit surprised by the conclusion. The Sweden Democrats have reached a completely different conclusion than the one reached in the Ministry of Finance's analysis.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for that contribution to the debate!

I did not perceive a real question. I am only stating that it has been Lucia. We have probably devoted ourselves to singing other songs than this. We are both not entirely convinced about how the proposal was constructed.

It was not only our calculations that we made in the chamber. It was calculations that we received from others. I do not remember if it was Rut or who it was that had calculated it.

We received figures that were alarming. I can attest that people who, for example, live four or five miles outside of society in my own home municipality do not take the bicycle or public transport when we have snow.

Nurses, teachers, school catering staff and the like who are women and low-income earners or middle-income earners do not travel by public transport, but they take the car.

It is not only well-paid men in the big cities who drive cars. It is, to a very high degree, very many women who are dependent on the car.

It might look a bit different in Södermalm. But perhaps we should lift our gaze a bit higher than that.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin with approximately the same praise that Katarina Luhr gave. It was nice that Eric Palmqvist began his speech with a look at how well we have it in Norrbotten. It was nice to hear, Eric.

It is my disadvantage as a politician that I am honest. I requested figures from Rut regarding the travel deduction. Eric Palmqvist is on to something. Those who had long commuting distances lost. Those who had three or four miles into a community and could take public transport had their entire journey paid for. I perhaps should not have said that if I had been a good politician. But my disadvantage is that I tend to be honest.

I do not like lies either. Eric Palmqvist mentioned Magdapriser on gasoline and Jimmiepriser. I am going to ask a question to Eric Palmqvist.

What was the difference in the price of gasoline and diesel in Finland and in Sweden in 2022? That was when it was at its highest. How large was the difference then? Were they Magdapriser or what we are now going to call Finland's gasoline prices and diesel prices?

When the reduction obligation disappeared in 2023–2024, how large was the difference between Magdapriser and Jimmiepriser on diesel and gasoline respectively?

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the contribution and the questions, and thank you for the support regarding the travel deduction! There is nothing wrong with giving that type of recognition, even if one as an opposition politician is supposed to criticize the government parties and the supporting parties. I am thinking of the old sketch with Sven Melander – if you remember it – where he had difficulty pronouncing the words "I was wrong."

I do not know what the price was in Finland. I know that Member Lahti has much closer ties to Finland than I do. One should not say that people commit that type of action, but when one lives where Birger Lahti lives, perhaps one fuels so-called PÖ in Finland. I do not know, therefore, what the diesel price was in Finland, because I was practically never there and fueled.

I note that we had as our goal to lower [the price] by 10 kronor at the pump. Approximately one and a half years after we took office, the price had been lowered by 10 kronor, and today it is more than 10 kronor cheaper.

We had a government that blamed Putin prices. I note that Putin remains, and he is still waging the same heinous war against Ukraine. But Magdalena is not remaining. It was, therefore, not Putin prices.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

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

Here is the situation: In 2022, Finland's prices for gasoline and diesel peaked at over 3 euros. Finland's fuel prices were higher than Sweden's in 2022. When the reduction obligation disappeared at the turn of the year 2023/24, the gasoline price was lowered by over 2 kronor. It did not become more than that. The diesel price, on the other hand, was lowered by 4 kronor, but it did not become 10 spänn.

I just want to ensure that no lie is spread that there was a 10 kronor difference when the reduction obligation was abolished, because that is not true. If one wants to call them Magdapriser or Jimmiepriser, one can at most say that the reduction was 4 kronor for diesel and 2 kronor for petrol. It did not become a larger difference; one just has to follow the price development.

Finland had several times before the reduction obligation disappeared prices as high as Sweden's, and we can hardly blame Magdalena for Finland having the same prices. I just wanted to have this said so that no such lie is spread.

Then I agree when it comes to high fuel prices. I do not like them either, because I am unfortunately still dependent on gasoline and diesel vehicles. But I just think, Madam Speaker, that right must be right.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for that contribution!

It is good to hear that the member also does not want high fuel prices. I know what it is like in the place where the member lives. In Gällivare, where I live, there is not much in terms of public transport, but it does exist. In Pajala, it is even more difficult. Furthermore, the member does not even live in central Pajala, so I know that he is to the highest degree dependent on the car.

We saw what the high fuel prices gave rise to. We had skyrocketing inflation, food became more expensive, and it became expensive for the farmers. Goods and services, that is, also services where companies are to charge travel costs to the consumers, became more expensive. It is therefore not only expensive for the individual who fuels the car, but this has consequences for everyone who uses a car and who then passes the cost on to the collective or to their customers.

The high prices made it tough for municipalities with long distances when it comes to home healthcare, home services and the like. All these costs were driven up by the extremely high fuel prices we had until 2022, or actually until 2023, because it took time before we actually lowered the fuel prices.

This is something that I hope we will never return to. We are not to place ourselves in the top tier among the highest fuel prices in the world. I hope that we never end up there again.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 19 Regional development. The Riksdag has determined the expenditures for the area. The Social Democrats' proposal for appropriations lies above the framework, so we cannot reserve ourselves in favor of our proposal. We have instead submitted a special statement.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is drifting apart. The gaps are widening between large cities and smaller towns and between expansive regions and municipalities that struggle to manage both welfare and local business. The gaps between people are also increasing. Today, Sweden has 100,000 more unemployed than when the government took office. Bankruptcies and layoffs are increasing, and in this situation, the government is worsening the situation.

We need a new policy to create new jobs and welfare. We need to pull ourselves up from the bottom of the EU regarding growth, and we need long-term perspective in the policy.

The policy we Social Democrats advocate for aims for all of Sweden to live and grow and for the developmental power that exists throughout the country to be strengthened and utilized. The gaps between people and between city and countryside must decrease. To meet our time's societal challenges, every region must be given the opportunity to develop based on its unique conditions.

In order for Sweden to be able to lead the green industrial transition and create new jobs, we Social Democrats believe that regional development policy needs to be in harmony with many other policy areas. Not least, a functioning labor and skills supply is an important part of a powerful regional growth policy. We also need housing construction and digitalization.

We want small and medium-sized enterprises to receive better support to reach new markets but also to develop regional export promotion. We want the government to continue with the relocation of agencies from the large cities to increase efficiency, utilize expertise throughout the country, and contribute to regional development.

Madam Speaker! The regional fund programs are important for large parts of Sweden. The programs that the Social Democratic government has launched and which apply until 2027 should be completed. Likewise, it is important that the Fund for Just Transition continues to be used to support the green industrial transition in the specifically designated regions.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats propose, among other things, an investment in business development in small and sparsely populated municipalities in order to be able to carry out strategic development work. There, we allocate 120 million in addition to the framework that the government has, because we see that businesses in smaller localities face specific structural challenges.

Access to nearby basic services such as food purchases and pharmacy products must be a given. We see that population decline and long distances affect the conditions for maintaining commercial service. We stand up for rural grocers, gas stations, pharmacies, and other basic services.

Madam Speaker! We need coordination of new industrialization and transition, because we are in a historical industrial transformation. The development requires housing, education and skills supply, digital infrastructure, labor supply and investments in local innovation environments. We also need energy throughout the country.

It is not enough to talk about the green transition, it must be organized. The government and its support party cannot cut back on the support for the green transition.

In our motion, we clearly highlight that new industrialization must be linked with regional development and that the support from the existing funds needs to be completed.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the view on state presence, the difference in policy is great. We Social Democrats have long worked to relocate state agencies and create state presence throughout the country.

We need a program for the relocation and relocation of state agencies. Agencies shall consider relocation outside of major cities, and the government shall resume the systematic follow-up of the agencies' locations, which was previously carried out via Arbetsgivarverket.

At the same time, however, something else is happening in Sweden under this government. State services are being withdrawn. In 2024, there were 148 service offices. Now there are 125. Due to the government's cuts, 23 offices have therefore disappeared in two years.

This affects people who need help from, for example, Försäkringskassan, Pensionsmyndigheten, or Skatteverket. It affects the elderly, people without cars, and people who lack digital solutions, and it affects places where the state is already absent. In our motion, we state clearly that service centers must become more numerous, not fewer. Having access to state services nearby is actually a matter of democracy.

Madam Speaker! Regional development policy is not a minor detail in the state budget. It is one of the most important keys to holding Sweden together. If we do not do more, we risk two parallel realities: a Sweden where faith in the future and investments flourish, and one where service, entrepreneurship, and state presence are gradually dismantled.

We Social Democrats choose a different path. We want to strengthen the development power of small municipalities, ensure that people have access to services regardless of which zip code they have, coordinate the new industrialization, increase the state's presence throughout the country, continue to relocate agencies, and fulfill the regional fund programs that exist. That is how we build a country that holds together.

I would like to conclude by wishing everyone here in the chamber – the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office and other staff and of course all my colleagues sitting here in the room – a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Monica Haider, for your contribution to the debate! I had not intended to take the floor – a rather common opening here in the speaker's chair, I have noticed – but I could not help myself.

Statens servicecenter is fundamentally an old bourgeois reform. I want to remember that it was Mats Odell who was minister when it was implemented. Since then, the authority has grown and grown. Good so, one might think, but then one sees that the authority itself reports that it is incredibly few people who come to some of the offices. They are hardly visited at all.

We have increased digitalization, and almost all agencies have digital services. Then there is a small group that cannot accommodate that. That in that situation one tells the agency to review the possibility of mobile devices and to work differently, I think is reasonable. It is not that we should not have Statens servicecenter, but it is also strange that Statens servicecenter has very many offices in Stockholm inside SL's line network. There one could definitely remove some offices. Instead, the agency has chosen to remove offices in other places in the country, something that I perhaps do not think is good.

How many visits does the member think it is reasonable for an office to have?

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Eric Palmqvist for the question!

Right now I cannot find the statistics on the exact number of visits, but I have read them. But it is not the case that these state service offices have particularly few visits. Most have quite a lot.

In Växjö, the office in Araby, which is one of the vulnerable areas in Kronoberg County, was closed down. Now, everyone who needs to visit a service office has to travel into the center of Växjö. When you get there, there can be a queue of about 50 meters outside the office, because everyone cannot fit inside. I do not think that is reasonable. It worked very well out in Araby in Växjö.

I know that there are a few municipalities where there have been very few visits, but many of the offices that have been closed down, for example in Trelleborg, I believe had quite a lot of visits every day or every week. Eric Palmqvist's rhetoric about there being very few visits therefore does not match the follow-up that I have seen.

It is actually important for those who live in different places around the country that one can go and get in touch with a state authority. We have a state service office in Älmhult that is open one day a week but not for a whole day. It is of great significance for Älmhult, because we have quite a few foreign people who work at Ikea, and they have a huge amount that they need to sort out with the authorities. It is very important.

It does not need to be open every day, I agree with that. But I do not agree with Eric Palmqvist's conclusion, because I think the service offices are important.

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

Eric Palmqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Monica Haider actually puts her finger on one of the things this is about. The member gives an example of an office that is open half a day per week. It is precisely such an office that can be closed with advantage and replaced by a mobile office. One can very well have an office that serves several of these towns with the same staff instead of having a premises that stands empty six days a week. In that way, one can work efficiently, and tax funds shall be used efficiently.

Both I and Member Haider know that some of the offices are used to a fairly high degree, while others, as the authority itself points out, had an extremely low utilization rate. As we know, we do not have ministerial rule in Sweden, so we in politics cannot tell the authority which offices should be closed. The authority must answer for that assessment itself.

As a politician, I can venture to question some of the decisions. From a rural perspective, I might think that there are too many service centers in Greater Stockholm where one can travel by SL, while offices have been closed in other parts of the country. But I also know that we in Sweden have a system with self-governing agencies that make their own priorities and make that type of decision.

I believe in any case that with increased digitalization, increased IT maturity, better apps and mobile devices, it is not unreasonable that the authority works more efficiently and smarter. It must still be a basic hypothesis within politics that we are to use tax funds effectively.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know what Eric Palmqvist is thinking of when he thinks of a mobile office, whether the staff are to travel around in a motorhome or have a caravan behind the car. I do not really know that.

The point is that if they are only open for half a day or a day a week, it is the staff who move around. It is not the case that there are employees in Älmhult who are there for half a day. Even the state does not have such bad employment conditions, and I am very happy about that. It is the staff who move around, and so there is a location where people can come.

When it comes to Stockholm, one might perhaps think that there are too many offices there, but there are quite a lot more people in Stockholm than in, for example, Älmhult municipality. One might therefore need to have more offices there, because there are very many more people visiting them. Otherwise, it could end up like in Växjö, that is to say that people have to stand in a 50–100 meter queue outside, and I don't think that would be a reasonable situation either.

When it comes to which offices were to be closed, there was not always a strategic thought behind the decisions, as we understand after having read up on how it went. Instead, it was sometimes a matter of the contract on the premises in that specific community, that village or that city expiring and that one could then leave the place.

It was not the case that there was a long thought process behind it. There certainly was regarding some offices, but far from all of them. But it is clear: When the government makes gigantic cuts that are to take effect from the turn of the year and one does not receive any money, one is obviously forced to do what one can to keep the budget.

We are therefore not in agreement on this issue, Eric Palmqvist. I think that the service centers are important for the population – especially for those people who are not digital.

(Applause)

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When the Moderates and the coalition partners took power in Sweden in 2022, we succeeded a government that had had the stated goal of saving Sweden's rural areas. But did Sweden have regional development throughout the country then? The answer is no.

Instead, we had double-digit inflation, skyrocketing electricity prices and some of the world's most expensive diesel. Domestic flights were on their knees, food prices were out of control and the Riksbank was forced to brake hard when we went from zero interest rates to 2.5 percent in just one year. The restaurants, which had finally started to catch their breath after the pandemic, got more expensive raw materials, unpredictable electricity bills and fewer guests. Small businesses saw their margins eaten up by interest rates, freight and rents. Bakeries, pizzerias, greenhouses and others who are dependent on electricity were particularly hard hit.

This was 2022, a year when it became clear that the red-green government we had then had lost control over things such as the state's core tasks. Many of the problems that Sweden feels the aftershocks of today are inherited problems.

Madam Speaker! The journey that Sweden has made since the change of government can be described with something resembling a film title: back to sanity.

Inflation has been fought and now lies close to the Riksbank's goal. The state has stepped in with targeted support for those who have been affected by red-green electricity bills, and we are now changing course to create new fossil-free base load in southern Sweden.

Fuel prices are clearly lower following both tax cuts and an adjusted excise duty that aligns with the rest of the EU. In parallel, investments in charging infrastructure for electric cars are being expanded. A new electric car premium is being developed, and charging at the workplace is made tax-free.

Entrepreneurs in a broad sense have seen the receipt complications decrease through new legislation, and they have seen profitability improve with new 3:12 rules. Entrepreneurs in the specific tourism industry have seen farm sales introduced, and by the summer, the food requirement for alcohol service will be abolished.

In addition, the aviation tax has been abolished, Bromma Airport remains – I landed there this morning – and the punctuality in the rail traffic has increased, even though much work obviously remains.

Why is the government working on this then? Well, it is because accessibility and competitiveness throughout the country matter. We talk from time to time in this chamber about how Sweden must not become isolated from the rest of the world, and as a resident of Gotland, I want to add to that: regions far from the capital must also not be isolated from participating on similar terms.

Madam Speaker! The recent years have been about crisis management. High prices in the grocery store, at the gas station, and in the wall outlet have required great reform power from the government. Now it is important that we continue on the chosen path and do not risk stability, competitiveness, and cohesion – in short, that which makes Sweden into Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The budget for expenditure area 19, which we are debating here today, is not an idea text on how regional policy should be designed in the smallest detail. It is instead a toolbox of money that is intended to make a difference in reality.

The allocation for regional development measures amounts to 2.1 billion. It is the lubricant that can make things happen on the ground, where municipalities, regions, companies, and academia can join forces. It is about regional business support and support for commercial services so that there can be a presence even where the customer base is thin.

The transport contribution in the expenditure area amounts to 450 million kronor, which is a compensation aimed at ensuring that distance does not become a penalty tax. Through an earmarking to the four northernmost counties, they will come a little closer while processing and local jobs are stimulated.

The EU funds in the expenditure area amount to 2.2 billion and are the exchange that allows the Regional Fund and the Just Transition Fund to be paid out and actually converted into innovation, entrepreneurship, and competitiveness. These are not funds to be administered away, Madam Speaker, but they shall be converted into more jobs, more companies, and an easier everyday life throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's rural areas and regions do not need more well-intentioned plans written in Stockholm. They need freedom, predictability, and respect for people's work and ownership. They need roads that hold up, reliable electricity year-round, and fuel prices that allow one to take that job in the neighboring municipality, drive the children to football practice, or visit grandmother.

We shall be a society where the person who wants to start a bakery, take over the family farm, or expand an industrial company is not met with higher taxes, uncertain rules, and political finger-pointing, but with clear rules of the game and reasonable conditions. Regional development is not created in the Riksdag's reports but in workshops, barns, trucks, and shops. Yes, the state has a role when it comes to creating conditions for infrastructure and competitiveness as well as providing basic services, but it is people's own diligence that is decisive. Therefore, we shall continue to tear down obstacles so that grit, diligence, and hard work pay off.

Madam Speaker! If we are to have wonderful days ahead of us, we as a country need to find our way back to that – to a Sweden that does not measure its self-worth based on a percentage goal that has been set by some agency, but that finds its self-image and vision in all the people who create, use, and manage our country. It is about those who know what courage, entrepreneurship, and work actually mean – those who see potential where others only see a patch of grass.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jesper Skalberg Karlsson for the speech. I have two actually quite simple questions.

How many flights must land at and take off from Bromma for it to be justifiable that Swedavia operates a state-owned airport? That is question one.

Question two is: How does the member mean that electricity prices would have been high because Sweden had a red-green leadership?

It is two simple questions.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Birger Lahti for the questions.

First and foremost: Domestic aviation is important for connecting our entire country and ensuring that even smaller regions, for example the one I come from, can be connected with the labor market region of Stockholm. I also mean that Bromma airport will be needed perhaps regardless of how domestic aviation develops, for preparedness, crisis preparedness, and transport of socially important services.

We also need to create conditions for domestic aviation to grow, for example through abolished aviation tax and through support for regional airports so that they can get the traffic started, and we certainly need to do more to attract new airlines to start flying at Bromma so that we get better economics for the entire airport. But having an emergency airport in Stockholm is something that is difficult to put a value on.

Madam Speaker! I can imagine that Birger Lahti, who is a member of Vänsterpartiet, wants to imply that it was the outside world that caused electricity prices to be high in 2022. That is partially true, but the high electricity prices we saw in 2022 were half a consequence of the stable base power having been shut down in Sweden. It is not necessarily me who is saying this, but it is independent Energiforsk.

Of course the outside world has an impact, but what we do in politics here in Sweden is far from insignificant.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

Regarding emergency airports and domestic flights, there are plenty of regional airports that can do exactly the same thing as Bromma, considering the small number of flights that depart from there.

Swedavia has been forced to keep Bromma Airport afloat, which has resulted in all other small airports in the country having had to reduce staff and save money so that Swedavia can keep an empty airport afloat. It is not reasonable. I want to assert that it is a poor use of taxpayers' money.

I myself am dependent on aviation. I would not be able to have this assignment if I didn't have a small airport in Pajala. Then I change in Luleå and can get here. I am, therefore, aware of the value of aviation in Sweden, but given the cost that Bromma causes Swedavia, it is in my and Vänsterpartiet's opinion not reasonable to keep Bromma under the arm. The flights that come to Bromma could be accommodated at Arlanda. Arlanda has problems with long distances, and I want to assert that the logistics are sometimes not good at all, but it is not reasonable that the state pays for Bromma – with Swedavia's money – while other airports have to make savings.

I move on to the electricity price. If there is any time we have exported a lot of electricity, it is actually during these years. We have only been net import-dependent for 140 hours. It is not these 140 hours that have caused us to have high electricity prices, but it is the system of marginal pricing that has caused us to be infected by these electricity prices. It is not about it being politically steered. If one had wanted to remedy this, one would have introduced the Bekkes model to get Swedish prices. Then the problem would have been gone.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Lahti for the follow-up questions.

Let me begin by saying that I find it very surprising that the Left Party has such an aversion to Bromma Airport. In this debate, we have talked about individual service offices or individual grocery stores closing. Then it has been talked about as if the country is being torn apart. But when it comes to keeping an airport open for the capital's preparedness and for the preparedness in the Stockholm region, where around 2 million people live, it is dangerous to use tax money for socially important services.

Madam Speaker! It is also surprising from a Left Party perspective to be so critical of Bromma Airport. If you fly to Arlanda and want to get into the capital, it costs approximately 300 kronor to take the train. If you fly to Bromma, you can instead take local transport; it costs 42 kronor. It is much better for everyone who does not have the very highest incomes. It is faster and cheaper. It is a transport system that holds together. For many of us who come from different parts of the country that some people call peripheral, the construction of the cross-track to Bromma may be the best infrastructure investment we have seen in recent years.

Madam Speaker! As Birger Lahti says, we have exported a considerable amount of electricity, perhaps especially to the struggling Germany. The solution to the fact that we have exported electricity there is not to copy their energy policy, because if we do as they do, we will become like them. It does not look bright for their industrial development, for the cohesion in the country, or for the everyday economy, which people are so dependent on, to add up.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, for your speech!

When you began your speech, I thought it was truly miserable when you took over government power in 2022. It was a crisis and a catastrophe, and it was only in Sweden – not anywhere else in the whole world. It was not as if there had been a pandemic or that Russia had invaded Ukraine.

Whoever looks at what Europe's economy looked like in 2022 sees that all of Europe had high inflation. Energy prices skyrocketed across Europe due to the war. Interest rates rose as efforts were made to combat inflation. The war in Ukraine caused enormous geopolitical uncertainty throughout the world, but especially in Europe. We had a climate crisis with extreme drought and very large forest fires. Growth naturally decreased due to the global uncertainty.

All of this – the entire crisis in Europe and the entire world – was the fault of the Social Democratic government. Surely it cannot be the member's intention that it was the Social Democrats' fault that it was so miserable in all of Europe and that other countries were affected by all the things I just rattled off? Is that really the member's opinion?

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Haider for the questions.

It is clear that Sweden is affected by the rest of the world. Probably it is the case that we are affected more by the others than the others are affected by us. It is not, however, so, Madam Speaker, that it does not matter who rules in Sweden.

When we had an economic boom in Sweden, the Social Democrats spent heavily on public expenditures. When inflation hits, one needs to reduce public expenditures. However, when I have listened to the Social Democrats' party leader Andersson over the past few weeks, she has spoken about how one should have spent even more in 2022 and 2023 with large public expenditures. That, Madam Speaker, would have ensured in a very effective way that the inflation fire would still be burning brightly in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It matters what decisions we make in Sweden. It matters which government we have here. What is important is what one does in the era one finds oneself in. Does one use the tools that are available?

We Moderates saw that inflation was the greatest threat, and therefore the first years of the mandate period were spent fighting it. Some of this is absolutely related to the global situation, but it is not the case that high electricity prices and high fuel prices, which were at least half a consequence of political decisions in Sweden, do not lead to higher inflation. On the contrary – if it is expensive to drive a car or to run a greenhouse, bakery, pizzeria, etc., high prices propagate, which affects the Swedish people.

Of course the outside world has an impact, but it is not unimportant who governs in Sweden.

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

Monica Haider (S)

Madam Speaker! That it matters who governs Sweden is truly something that Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and I completely agree on. I naturally believe that it is the Social Democrats who govern Sweden best – not the government and its coalition parties in the Tidö agreement.

It is clear that some of the things just mentioned affected inflation in Sweden, but just as Birger Lahti said here earlier, the fuel price was 3 euros in Finland in 2022. It was therefore not only the reduction obligation that drove up fuel prices – or energy prices – in Sweden.

I think it is very exaggerated of Jesper Skalberg Karlsson to say that all the misery that has occurred during this mandate period is due to Social Democratic policy. But if that were the case, you should have been corrected on that now.

I am the budget you are dragging on as only you and putting I don't know how many billions. You usually accuse us of wanting to give everything to everyone, but now the government and the Sweden Democrats are really giving everything to everyone in their budget – and it is only matters of the wallet.

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

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Monica Haider for the contribution.

Let me first and foremost remind you that we in Sweden have an active economic policy. When times are good, we save, and when times are bad, we spend. Over a business cycle, this should balance out. Right now, times are bad, with war in Europe, a global trade war, and a recession in the EU. In that case, it is reasonable that we use our sound public finances to stimulate the economy so that Sweden recovers and rises again. Independent assessors say that growth is back at around 3 percent in 2026, and that is good.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is on the right track. The layoffs are fewer, inflation is lower, people are able to keep more of their wages, and electricity prices are lower and more stable. Yes, the list can be long of the areas where we have tried to clean up after the red-green mess that left behind a battered Sweden in 2022.

Madam Speaker! To the Social Democrats, it sounds as if Sweden is a small, bobbing boat that can only keep up with the world's great journey on a very stormy sea. In some sense, that is true. Of course, the world affects us, because we are a small export-dependent country. We are dependent on our allies and our European Union, and it is important that we are active in these arenas.

But I did not become a member of Parliament so that Sweden would compete on equal terms with Finland. I became a member of Parliament so that Sweden should be the world's best country to live in. Then it is not enough that we at least were not much worse off than Finland, but then something much, much more is required.

(Applause)

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! When one hears many lies, one sometimes says: I hope one finds one's way home.

We are now debating expenditure area 19 Regional development. I shall try to give a picture of how it looks in small towns in the interior, especially in Norrbotten because I am most familiar with their fates. As I have said many times here in the speaker's chair, my home municipality once in time had 15,000 inhabitants. Today we are down to 5,700 inhabitants. But it is a good municipality in many ways, and it contributes to a great extent to Sweden's GDP.

That the economy is poorly managed right now is one thing, and there is one thing or another to be desired here. But to allow an entire region to die out just to feed the state treasury and build subways in Stockholm stings the eyes. When the schools have been closed for a long time, when the newspaper has stopped arriving, when the regional transport has stopped running and when the country store has closed, the negative spiral begins to spin even faster. Small municipalities also lack people and cannot staff schools and elderly care, and must instead hire agency staff who cost three times as much.

When I search for what regional development is, I get the following – I don't know if it is AI or not, but I hope it is fact: a broad effort to strengthen the entire country's development power by reducing differences between regions, with a focus on sustainable development in areas such as economy, infrastructure, skills supply, environment and social welfare, where different actors collaborate to utilize the location's unique potential. It is about creating viable regions with equal opportunities for housing, work and welfare.

You, colleagues! Does that sound good? Isn't it time that we roll up our sleeves and put these words into practice?

In DN Debatt yesterday, a resident in my home municipality, Pajala, wrote about an incident she experienced this spring. When their farm caught fire, she could not call 112. She wrote that she screamed in panic but that it was impossible to reach 112. This is in Sweden in 2025. Doesn't that say quite a lot about our failure with regional development? They cut the copper cables before a functioning alternative is in place. Why? Well, because it is apparently too expensive to maintain functioning telephony. I am not against new technology, absolutely not. But the new technology is supposed to be for everyone in our country? Here it becomes so clear that sparsely populated municipalities are always left with the crumbs.

We must achieve a regional policy worthy of the name. When did people stop caring about regional policy in this country? When industry cried out for labor, it was justified to give people the opportunity to move to places where there were jobs. A good friend who is over 80 years old today and whom I hunt with told me that when he drove a taxi in northern Finland, he would drive Finnish guys to Övertorneå in Sweden, because four large Swedish companies had come there seeking labor. We are talking early 60s. If they accepted the job offers, they were given housing, and if they had belongings, the move was paid for. It was not only Tornedalen and northern Sweden's countryside that were drained of youth. Parts of Finland also contributed to Sweden's growth and welfare.

It was a time when society collectively met the challenges. The state and the business sector ensured together that we received welfare and growth. Today, the state instead expects someone else to rake the arena so that AB Sverige can take the profits while the countryside is allowed to be a colony for everything that the green transition requires.

Today we have a government that has tasked authorities with throwing people out just because they have a different skin color or are not Swedish enough. That Christian people stand up for this, I find hard to swallow. Talk about a change having occurred in our fine country! I ask as in the TV program: Where are we headed? That question we must ask ourselves.

Now the green transition is coming with all that it entails of more energy production, more mines and more forestry. Much of this is now to take place in the localities that once let go of their youth and emptied their farms. Now these localities are to contribute with minerals, electricity, forest products and experiences for tourists who see northern Sweden as a park where they should come to ease their conscience for having exploited their own nature.

We can accommodate many of these wishes for Moder Svea, but it must not lead to the depletion of these localities continuing and to everyday life simply becoming harder with each passing day. We cannot continue on that path any longer.

We lack people – human capital – in many parts of the country, where urbanization has been most severe. Now I shall again, Madam Speaker, take a clear example from my home region. If we do not get people to move to the mining towns and the countryside in Norrbotten, it will become fly-in/fly-out personnel who live in barracks that will wipe my ass when I become demented and old. I am not joking, Madam Speaker.

We must establish a system where more of the values produced for our joint AB Sverige go back to these localities, which actually sacrifice their natural resources. Only then can we make the localities attractive so that it becomes interesting to move to these forgotten parts of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that if we can establish a system where the values of natural resources are distributed in a more just way, the development will lead to living rural communities. I am simply saying: It would be wrong not to do anything in this situation. Would it not be fair if the compensation went to the municipalities and regions where the fuel for our growth and welfare is extracted?

Again: I am convinced that what is described today as luxury in the suburbs of major cities can become what the towns that are now in the process of dying out can offer tomorrow to the families who are struggling with overcrowding, unemployment, and segregated schools or workplaces.

They could get cheap rental apartments where nature is just around the corner, a school where all students get the same opportunities, and a farm where the dream of animals and silence becomes a reality. Yes, I don't know, but these are examples of things that could become reality with a different policy and distribution. If we had that, it would not be difficult to entice these families to move toward a brighter future, but then a different view on the distribution of resources would be needed.

I do not participate in the decision on the allocation but thank you for the floor.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report on expenditure area 19 and for the rejection of all motions.

The goal of the regional development policy is to strengthen the conditions for living, working and living in the entire country. It is about harnessing the development power of people and providing the business sector with the conditions to strengthen its competitiveness, develop digital and green innovations and create new jobs.

This government meets the societal challenges and preserves the opportunities to find solutions through a regional development policy where cities and urban areas as well as sparse and rural areas are given the opportunity to develop based on their specific conditions.

Madam Speaker! In a time characterized by geopolitical unrest, demographic changes, climate transition and increased demands for supply preparedness, we must build a robust Sweden where strength exists in the entire country, not just in a few growth regions.

The Government's proposal for expenditure area 19 covers nearly 4.9 billion kronor for 2026. It is a level that combines economic order with priorities for growth, competitiveness, and cohesion.

The funds are used for regional development measures, business support, commercial services, transport subsidies in northern Sweden, as well as the implementation and co-financing of the EU's regional fund and the Just Transition Fund. This, Madam Speaker, is not subsidy policy for the sake of subsidies, but it is investments in jobs, entrepreneurship, and local vitality.

When the general store closes, when the pharmacy disappears or when the gas station shuts down, it is not only the service that is weakened, but also the community and the security. Against that background, we welcome the Christian Democrats' new regulation on support for commercial services, which entered into force this year, as well as that the maximum operating support for grocery stores in remote and rural areas is further increased during 2026.

Madam Speaker! Regional development is cohesion policy. It is about dialogue with regions, state agencies, and relevant actors. The Forum for Sustainable Regional Development and the monitoring committees for the regional fund programs are important for this dialogue. The programs strengthen the conditions for innovation, renewal, entrepreneurship, and business throughout the country, which contributes to the green and digital transition that is so important. It is important that responsible agencies, together with the relevant regions, continue their work with mobilizing relevant actors to promote the implementation of the programs.

Madam Speaker! There are further examples of how the government strengthens the business sector and the everyday lives of people who have chosen to live and work outside the major cities.

Food supply is a part of regional development, and food production is often the basis for local business chains in rural areas: agriculture, processing, logistics, and service. By supporting production, distribution, and entrepreneurship in rural areas, jobs and economic activity are created even outside the major cities.

In addition to pushing back against red tape within these industries, the government has developed a food strategy 2.0, with initiatives on animal welfare, support for agriculture and skills development within food, which contributes to creating sustainable, attractive and vibrant rural areas. Through investments, advice, turnover stocks and pilot projects, it is ensured that the countryside has stable conditions for food production and local trade.

Madam Speaker! In order to follow the development and develop our regions based on their respective unique needs, the government has taken important steps to improve governance, monitoring, and reporting of results within regional development policy, through clearer indicators, better links between goals and actions, as well as increased transparency, to provide a real effect for people and companies and so that one can live and reside in the whole of Sweden.

Madam Speaker! With this budget proposal, we strengthen cohesion, competitiveness, and faith in the future.

I move again for the approval of the proposal in the report on expenditure area 19 Regional development.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! Expenditure area 19 Regional development for the budget year 2026 is an expenditure area that is modest in its size but nevertheless completely crucial for Sweden's future.

For the Centre Party, the goal is crystal clear: All of Sweden shall live and develop. It is about creating development power with strengthened local and regional competitiveness, for a sustainable development in all parts of our country.

Like other parties, the Center Party has presented its own budget alternative which is to be seen as a whole, and here too I would like to refer to our specific statement in the report.

Our policy is based on the insight that Sweden's strength lies in the entire country – in our cities, in the countryside, and in rural areas – but for that strength to be unleashed, a policy is required that sees and strengthens the local and regional conditions, not a policy that centralizes and micro-manages.

Madam Speaker! In the government's budget proposal for 2026 in this area, we can see a saving on the appropriation for regional development measures. Even though it concerns a smaller sum – 2 million kronor – the signal value is clear. In a time when our regions are struggling with great challenges and at the same time possess enormous potential for green transition and growth, the government chooses to cut back. It is the wrong way to go, I believe.

Centerpartiet opposes this reduction. We believe that regional development work should be strengthened, not weakened. Policy must be based on regional needs – the regional development funds should primarily be managed by the regions, which have the best knowledge of their local conditions.

But for us to have a Sweden that develops in the whole country, in every rural area, in every city and in every region, the government must use every tax krona in an effective way. The government cannot just point at the regions and leave them to develop on their own, but one must take its share of the responsibility.

The State has an overall responsibility for the infrastructure for roads and railways and for ensuring that the trains function, for ensuring that we have education that makes us employable and education with an edge that promotes our competitiveness, for ensuring that processing times for relevant permits for business establishments are reasonable, and for ensuring that there is an energy supply that is sufficient for our base industry but also so that new establishments can take place.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about growth, it is easy to believe that we are talking about our large cities every time. But we know that is not the case. Establishments that require land availability naturally seek themselves outside the already built-up city. When this happens, the state and its agencies must be on their toes together with the municipalities and facilitate so that the establishment becomes a reality.

Let me take an example. Svenska kraftnät is currently expanding the main grid in the Nordsyd project. On the map, a transformer station in Mehedeby in northern Uppland is drawn. There is also a company that wants to establish itself in the area. The planning process at the municipality has proceeded, but when the matter reaches the state authority – in this case Svenska kraftnät – it takes eight months for it to meet the company that wants to make an establishment in the hundreds of billions class, only to then give the notice that the requested power can be allocated at the earliest in 2033. This means that electricity from Nordsyd cannot be of any use to either existing base industry or for new establishments in the area, which has long suffered from high unemployment.

This is naturally not sufficient if we want every region to develop. It is extremely important to be on one's toes when it comes to companies that want to establish themselves. Here, the government needs to show clear leadership and take on what is the state's responsibility when it comes to, for example, processing times.

Madam Speaker! A large part of regional development is financed by the EU's cohesion policy. Here we see great potential to both simplify and streamline.

In the new proposal for the EU's long-term budget, the cohesion policy appears to have changed drastically. It looks as if the cohesion policy will be merged with the agricultural policy and that the distribution of funds will be centralized to the state rather than to the regions.

Centerpartiet considers that there is a risk that the cohesion policy will be politicized by the government and that local knowledge will be lost. Ahead of the next programming period, 2028–2034, it is crucial that we pursue a line that focuses on competitiveness, innovation, and transition, with special consideration for the sparsely populated regions of the EU and Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Like previous speakers, I also want to highlight a central part of a living countryside, namely the access to commercial services.

The local shop or gas station is often the hub of the community. The cost increases of recent years, not least regarding electricity and the high inflation, have hit these entrepreneurs hard, who have a limited customer base. These businesses are also, as Tillväxtverket has pointed out, crucial for Sweden's crisis preparedness. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the state's support for commercial services remains and is adapted to meet the real needs regarding both operations and necessary investments.

Madam Speaker! Regional development is not about distributing grants, but about creating conditions – conditions for companies to grow, for people to live and work where they want, and for all of Sweden to manage the green transition. For us in Centerpartiet, it is obvious. Emissions must go down, and jobs must increase. It is a policy that truly gives strength to all of Sweden.

With this, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for the floor in my first debate in the Committee on Industry and refer to the Centre Party's special statement.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals want the entire country's development power to be utilized. It is entrepreneurship and economic development that are the foundation for our prosperity in Sweden. Therefore, people and entrepreneurship across the whole country must also be given opportunities to grow and develop. We believe that a generally improved business climate with lower taxes and less bureaucracy will benefit all companies but perhaps especially those located outside the larger cities.

The general efforts at the national level for jobs and education and an improved business climate naturally need to be combined with regional growth efforts. This applies in particular to job creation. We have problems across the entire country with skills supply and a lack of matching. It is extra palpable, I want to assert, outside our larger cities and has major consequences for Sweden's growth and wealth creation. It applies today, and it applies tomorrow. If trained labor with the right skills is not available, there is a risk that companies will be forced to shut down their operations or move them to places where it is easier to get hold of trained personnel.

In order to avoid facing the same skills supply problems in the future, we need education with adult education, colleges and universities of high quality but also with geographical distribution.

We have debated several of these issues earlier today, but there is nothing in the urban environment that is different out in the countryside. We need to ensure infrastructure, both digital and physical, throughout the entire country. We need to ensure that we have a stable and secure energy production that also increases.

What distinguishes the cities and the countryside is that Sweden is an attractive country to visit. We have nature and cultural environments, especially outside our larger cities, that many want to travel to. That we continue to care for and take care of this cultural heritage is important for several reasons.

The potential for tourism is one of them. The tourism industry specifically has for some time been one of Sweden's fastest-growing industries. It often concerns smaller family businesses that are strongly connected to the local area and not infrequently engage in food production in some form.

That I specifically highlight this is to emphasize how important the bill we have now presented regarding the farm sale of alcoholic beverages is. It may seem like a minor change, but I believe it demonstrates the potential in the Swedish countryside and in Swedish food production. We need to facilitate and liberalize from a political standpoint so that this type of production can continue in the countryside. It is also a long-awaited freedom reform, even for many of us who live in the cities, which opens up for a growing industry to continue developing and distributing its products to us and to visitors from Sweden and abroad. Entrepreneurs who have crafts should be able to drive their business forward. They have had limited opportunities to sell their product but shall now be able to do just this.

It should be obvious that customers visiting vineyards and microbreweries should have the opportunity to take bottles home with them. This is now possible even in Sweden. This ensures that the Swedish tourism industry, Swedish craftsmanship, and Swedish traditions will have the opportunity to exist, and perhaps even develop, in the future.

I have mentioned this before, but I want to emphasize once again that from the Liberals' side, we want to go further. We want to allow wine and beer to be sold in license stores. We believe that it would provide continued, and greater, opportunities for Swedish beverage production, while we will, of course, continue to have a safe and responsible sale of alcoholic beverages in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I shall not prolong this debate with this statement – we are all starting to get tired. I move to approve the Committee on Economic Affairs' proposal for a decision under expenditure area 19.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not so lively in here right now, and the time is approaching 21:00.

Miljöpartiet wants all of Sweden to live. Right now, we are in a time when cities and municipalities in Sweden that for many years have lain somewhat in dormancy are actually starting to come to life. In several places, it is happening with an almost explosive development, and in other places at a slightly calmer pace. Small businesses are flourishing, and people are thriving and can transition their working lives to something else.

Many places have great hope for the future regarding better public services and a bright future, but they also face major economic and practical challenges on the way there, especially in the municipalities that are currently growing rapidly. But there are also many places where people today feel abandoned and left in the lurch. These are places where the post office, the bank, and the pharmacy have long since disappeared and where the bus has stopped running, and where the health center with doctors and the dentist have varying opening hours and new staff every time.

What may be interesting in this context is that the same issues can be found both in our urban-adjacent million program areas and in rural regions. The feeling is that no one cares about the place where one lives, despite working and having contributed. One feels isolated from both service and community. This is something that we need to improve together.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has submitted proposals for many measures within other expenditure areas that shall strengthen rural areas and the countryside. Some important parts of our policy for the whole country to live are, for example, to ensure access to good healthcare throughout the country. To build a strong society, we must, of course, have a functioning healthcare system for everyone.

We also need to strengthen available communications throughout the country. Existing railways across the country need to be utilized for fossil-free transport of both freight and passenger traffic. We want to introduce a minimum standard for state roads to ensure that the infrastructure can be used in a purposeful, safe, and sustainable way. This includes, among other things, road surfaces, lighting, and weather protection at bus stops. No child should be exposed to life-threatening danger while waiting for the school bus.

We want to streamline transport, develop electric charging for vehicles across the entire country and promote biogas, sustainable fuels and new sustainable transport solutions across the entire country. We also want to sponsor electric car leasing in rural areas.

We must quickly expand broadband across the entire country so that one has the possibility to work and be connected broadly regardless of which part of Sweden one lives in. We also want to promote local economic development and create better conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises. It can sometimes be about better access to venture capital and opportunities for business consulting.

We also want to strengthen locally produced organic food and food crafts. We want to see targeted support for food rings so that more rings can be started. It gives small-scale food producers better opportunities to find outlets for their products.

Many expansive municipalities that are growing rapidly today due to the green industrial transition also feel left in the lurch by the state, as large profits can be made after successful investments while the municipalities need to do a mammoth job and take the risks. Here, the state needs to step in and share the responsibility when infrastructure needs to be upgraded and expanded. This can involve road and railway investments, ports, schools, and housing that need to be built faster than ever before.

We also need a more accurate equalization system so that municipal taxation becomes more equitable. Property tax on wind turbines and existing hydropower plants shall go to the municipality or region where the power plants are located, and we want the profits from energy production and raw material supply to better flow back to the regions that provide these values.

We want people to pay tax where they live, even for shorter stays such as summer or seasonal residences, and we want to see strengthened service throughout the country.

Government agencies such as Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen and Skatteverket shall ensure good accessibility throughout the country.

Competence supply is a difficulty for many municipalities. We want to ensure that there is competence within public services such as pharmacies, healthcare, and education.

One should be able to live, work, run a business, and have a good quality of life in all of Sweden, and everyone should be able to trust that society is there for them. This means that regardless of where one lives and how much one earns, one should have access to the public and commercial services required to be able to live a functioning life. A fundamental prerequisite for sustainable societal development is access to public and commercial services.

For a long time, both government agencies and services in the form of grocery stores, gas stations, post offices, and pharmacies have disappeared in many places, despite the fact that access to public and commercial services are cornerstones for the development of a place. The government's cuts to support for commercial services and state service centers – where citizens can come into contact with several central agencies – exacerbate this development.

Miljöpartiet wants, in contrast to the Tidö parties, to instead invest in and develop the state service offices, just as we did when we sat in government, and we want to secure the support for commercial service.

Miljöpartiet therefore proposes that the state service offices shall be allocated 40 million kronor more than in the government's proposal for 2026 – but it is under expenditure area 2, if you are looking for money in this report.

Through the service centers within Statens servicecenter, residents can receive support and guidance regarding services from, among others, Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, and Pensionsmyndigheten. The service centers therefore play an important role in providing service in rural areas and in socially disadvantaged areas. Most recently, I saw that 29 service centers were planned to be closed during 2025–2026 with the help of the Tidö parties' policy.

In addition to this, Madam Speaker, we also propose the new reform of the rural area agreements. The rural area agreements are similar to the urban environment agreements in design but have a broader scope. Municipalities and regions can apply for co-financing for measures that improve access to services and reduce transport needs.

The rural agreement means that the state enters into a contract with rural municipalities, regions and private actors. The agreements shall enable local solutions to local problems. This can, among other things, involve investments in neighborhood offices, reinforced digital accessibility, better conditions for bicycle commuting, on-demand public transport or improved local service. Accurate local solutions are best created by the citizens, local politicians and companies who are affected. Miljöpartiet is allocating 300 million this year to the reform as a two-year support.

Today, there are projects under both state and non-profit management with similar setups. One example is Tillväxtverket's initiative Kommuner för serviceutveckling and the interest organization Hela Sverige ska levas project Service i samverkan. We believe that the state needs to take a clearer responsibility to enable a scaling up of these types of local solutions.

In conclusion, I want to say that the Green Party's proposal for appropriations within the expenditure area is above the decided level. Therefore, I refrain from taking a position when it comes to the distribution of appropriations within expenditure area 19. The Green Party's budget alternative must be seen as a whole, where no part can be broken out and treated in isolation. Taken together, I would have wanted to allocate 300 million kronor more than the government to expenditure area 19 for 2026.

With this rural agreement, which could perhaps become a nice Christmas present in the future to rural municipalities and regions, I would like to thank you for a pleasant debate and wish the entire Committee on Enterprise and all the listeners a good Christmas holiday when the time comes.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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