The National Audit Office's report on the General Inheritance Fund

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has audited the General Inheritance Fund because there is a risk that the inheritances accruing to the fund will not be used in the way intended. It is a welcome audit.

The taxpayers' money must always be managed responsibly and go to what is intended. Every krona that does not go where it should means an unacceptable waste of the taxpayers' money.

In the same way, obviously, the large amounts of the citizens' money in the form of inheritance that accrue to the General Inheritance Fund every year must go to the right purpose. And the right purpose in this context is to strengthen the association life and civil society.

Against that background, there are serious tasks that the Swedish National Audit Office has presented in its report, which was submitted to the government in March 2024. The Swedish National Audit Office states that the General Inheritance Fund neither functions in an appropriate manner nor effectively. There have been too few applicants in relation to the large amounts that the inheritance fund manages, and thus poor competition among the applicants. There is also an overrepresentation of criminally charged persons among the applicants. It is also reported that there is a lack of control and incorrect use of the paid-out funds.

The National Audit Office will come as a result of this with several wise recommendations. It is easy to agree that the work needs to be intensified to ensure that authorities do not favor economic or organized crime. It simply requires greater opportunities for information exchange between authorities.

The Government has begun a development process to strengthen the control and oversight functions of the authorities responsible for the Inheritance Fund. A uniform democratic condition will exist from 1 January 2025 in the Act on the Inheritance Fund. This can contribute to addressing the problems and to strengthening the trust and legitimacy for the Inheritance Fund.

Several other proposals are also being submitted. The question of a central database covering all available state grants to civil society and the organizations that receive a share of the support is being analyzed and prepared within the Government Offices. The same applies to the question of a register of representatives for non-profit associations that receive public grants. The association's board members, authorized signatories, and auditors shall be able to be registered.

The authorities clearly need better conditions to put a stop to crime and prevent incorrect payments. Welfare crime needs to be taken most seriously.

The Swedish National Audit Office's recommendation that the General Inheritance Fund should be completely phased out and replaced with a new system that handles inheritance after deceased persons without heirs or a will is, however, a far-reaching proposal. The conclusion that the Swedish National Audit Office has reached is, despite everything, based on a limited audit basis, which only covers a small part of the system for the inheritance fund. Furthermore, they have looked at a rather special period, during the covid-19 pandemic, when organizations' conditions for conducting operations and seeking funds differed significantly from today. Now, the number of applications has increased again.

It also needs to be highlighted that the General Inheritance Fund has an important role in strengthening civil society's efforts for children, young people, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

We Christian Democrats often speak about the great importance of civil society. Our ambition is to see stronger associations and organizations in Sweden. We have therefore implemented a number of reforms to support civil society and associations that engage in charitable activities.

Tax deductions for donations to non-profit organizations is one such thing. We want to expand that so that it also covers companies. We have also pushed to investigate waived VAT for companies that donate goods to charity. And we have introduced a permanent support of 100 million kronor to civil society organizations to support socially vulnerable persons. These are just a few examples.

What we are pointing out is that an in-depth analysis of, among other things, what consequences it would have for civil society would need to precede any potential process, should one decide to phase out the General Inheritance Fund and change the system. A review of the rules on inheritance and wills in the Inheritance Code is currently underway. This may have consequences for the General Inheritance Fund. My view is that that work needs to be completed before a further analysis is relevant.

The Christian Democrats are concerned that taxpayers' money and public funds are used in the right way, but we do not want to contribute to worsening the conditions for non-profit organizations and for civil society in Sweden. Civil society makes valuable contributions for vulnerable people in different situations, contributes to personal development and community, and is an expression that society is so much larger than the state.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! This matter touches on economic crime a bit. If one really wants to look at crime within the welfare sector, I think one should take a look at the welfare companies. That is a hot tip for the sitting government.

It was with a certain relief that I read the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report, Allmänna arvsfonden - pengar som söker mening.

The Swedish National Audit Office has audited the General Inheritance Fund. The overall conclusion is that the system with the General Inheritance Fund neither functions as intended nor efficiently, and that a new system for handling inheritance after deceased persons without heirs and a will should be introduced. The Swedish National Audit Office recommends that the government initiate a process with the goal of phasing out the system with the General Inheritance Fund.

I consider it to be a rather strange report. For example, they have not looked at the conditions for organizations to conduct operations, nor at the significance of the inheritance fund. It feels quite superficial. I was very surprised, given the Riksrevisionen's other, very good reports.

Madam Speaker! The Government has not announced any proposals to phase out the General Inheritance Fund. It is healthy for the Government not to always do as SD wants. I think that is good.

The General Savings Foundation has been of great importance for the development of civil society and for several generations of Swedes. Since its start in 1928, that is nearly 100 years ago, the savings foundation has financed tens of thousands of projects that have led to, for example, universal preschool, mother and child health centers, and personal assistance. Even the helpline at Bris, Glada Hudik-teatern, Cirkus Cirkör, Friends, and the Suicide Line have their origins in projects funded through the General Savings Foundation. The National Audit Office has somehow missed exactly that.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet views the development of the General Inheritance Fund positively and believes that some of the Swedish National Audit Office's proposals can contribute to that, but to dismantle the fund would be to go in completely the wrong direction when it comes to civil society. The General Inheritance Fund contributes 800 million kronor a year to young people, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. A large part of the support naturally goes towards the development of activities.

The National Audit Office has not audited this in a valuable way. The Government has also responded reasonably well. Despite that, we want to point out that one must be able to develop the General Inheritance Fund. It is always important to develop.

The government mentions some measures in the letter. But a collective grip is also needed. We lack that. There is also a concern that in the next turn, something will be returned regarding the Inheritance Code that undermines civil society and where there is no respect whatsoever for what will happen in that case.

The government should promptly return with a plan that strengthens and secures the inheritance fund's long-term work. If one stands up for civil society, conditions must be provided. That is something to consider. We believe that things are reaching a breaking point.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Yasmine Bladelius (S)

Madam Speaker! If a person dies without leaving any closer relatives than cousins, the General Inheritance Fund automatically becomes the heir. The prerequisite is then that the deceased has not bequeathed their inheritance to anyone else. According to law, the General Inheritance Fund shall promote activities of a non-profit nature for the benefit of its target groups, which at present are children, young people, persons with disabilities and the elderly.

Madam Speaker! The General Inheritance Fund is an absolutely crucial resource for our civil society. Every year, the fund contributes approximately 800 million Swedish kronor to the development of non-profit activities, premises, and meeting places for children and young people, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. Since its start in 1928, the fund has financed thousands of projects that in many cases have been completely fundamental for the development of important social services, for example, public preschools, maternal health centers, summer camp activities, and transport services. Initiatives such as the Bris helpline, the Suicide Line, and many more have started with support from the General Inheritance Fund.

Madam Speaker! The need for civil society's efforts, not least for our children and young people, is more acute now than ever before. We are witnessing at this moment an increasing mental ill-health among children and young people and a worrying trend where gangs are recruiting at younger ages. We see a growing anxiety about the future, a sense of powerlessness, and diminished trust in society's institutions. Precisely because of this, we believe it is of the utmost importance that the money available in the General Inheritance Fund also continues to go to civil society organizations. There is also broad support for the fund to continue its operations in its current form with certain improvements. For example, it is not particularly good that there is currently a long-term imbalance between the fund's contributions and expenditures.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's review of the General Inheritance Fund must be taken seriously, and the deficiencies that have been highlighted must, of course, be rectified. Since the General Inheritance Fund's work is largely based on funds coming from individuals who do not have any close relatives, it is naturally also very important that the public in itself has a broad confidence in the inheritance fund. And of course, Madam Speaker, all types of grant fraud are completely unacceptable.

The National Audit Office's review should be seen as a good opportunity to further strengthen the fund's effectiveness, transparency, and social benefit, while simultaneously safeguarding its entirely unique function as a kind of innovation engine for social development in our country. Many of the proposals that the National Audit Office presents in its review I think are good and absolutely necessary to implement.

But when the Auditor General, at the Social Affairs Committee meeting on 2 April 2024, informed us about the audit and the very drastic conclusion that the General Inheritance Fund should be abolished, I expressed my surprise. The problems that the National Audit Office highlights must, of course, be addressed in one way or another. But, Madam Speaker, it is a very strange and drastic conclusion they draw when they say that the only alternative is to simply abolish the fund. I have great understanding for the strong reactions that came from civil society at that time.

Madam Speaker! Civil society is the backbone of our society. It is the non-profit organizations, associations, and grassroots movements that work daily to support the most vulnerable, to promote equality, and to create a better society for us all. Through their strong commitment and through their presence in people's everyday lives, they create changes that have great positive effects throughout our entire society. To dismantle the fund would be devastating for all the children, young people, elderly, and persons with disabilities who would be directly affected. The focus must be on developing the fund instead of dismantling it.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office also claims in its report that the inheritance fund as a phenomenon in itself is outdated and therefore no longer needed. Even that conclusion surprises me. Honestly - surely no one in all seriousness believes that civil society organizations have all the resources they need, that they are no longer in need of support for their projects and that all the premises that are needed are available and in good condition? No, naturally it is precisely the opposite. Rather, it is the case that civil society and the funding for it is needed now more than ever before.

Madam Speaker! For the Social Democrats, civil society is an important part of our common society. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the money in the General Inheritance Fund also continues to go to civil society organizations, to suitable premises, and to a better society for everyone.

(Applause)

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for the approval of the Centerpartiet's follow-up motion and to reservation 2 in the committee report on the handling of the Riksrevisionen's report on the Allmänna arvsfonden.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is a self-evident fact that civil society in the form of associations, non-profit organizations, religious communities, and study associations constitutes one of the foundations of democracy in Swedish society. It is within civil society that people organize themselves to play sports and compete, to perform theater or start bands, to care for our common cultural heritage, to develop our local communities, to organize protests against a proposed school closure, to support people in flight or in loneliness, or to form and educate themselves in all kinds of subjects and areas. It is within civil society that many meet in their spare time around common interests and a common commitment. Without a strong civil society, both our democracy and our social construction would be significantly weaker.

Madam Speaker! That is why the Centre Party continues to stand up for the interests of civil society, not least when cuts are proposed or when there is a desire to shift responsibility from civil society to the public sector. We have therefore opposed the Tidö parties' draconian cuts to study associations. Over a period of three years, 30 percent of the state funding is being withdrawn. We also oppose the Tidö parties' proposal to establish a leisure card; hundreds of millions go to state administration when the money could have instead gone directly to the associations in civil society.

That is why it was also with concern that we received the Swedish National Audit Office's report on liquidating the General Inheritance Fund and placing these funds directly into the treasury.

The General Inheritance Fund is, in fact, one of the major contributors to civil society in the form of local and project support. Every year, hundreds of development projects are carried out, and support is granted to just under a hundred construction projects. These are invaluable contributions for sports clubs, cultural associations, and disability organizations. These are funds that primarily go to children, young people, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. Despite this, the National Audit Office is therefore proposing that the fund should be liquidated.

The government's proposal, however, is not to call the Swedish National Audit Office to a meeting but to place the letter in the records. We think that is good. Thus, the voluntary sector can breathe a sigh of relief this time, even though I note that the government in its writing expresses that "an in-depth analysis would need to precede any potential process with the aim of phasing out or otherwise changing the system with the General Inheritance Fund". This was also read out by the chairman of the Committee on Social Affairs just now. That is to say that the government does not dismiss the proposal entirely, but it does not intend to initiate such a process at this stage.

At the same time, there are relevant proposals from the Swedish National Audit Office that should be taken seriously, for example, that it is necessary to ensure that funds actually go where they are intended and do not end up in the hands of, for example, organized crime. We in the Centerpartiet naturally support this fully.

Madam Speaker! One thing that we from the Center Party have noted and want to highlight is the need for more long-term project support from the General Inheritance Fund. Currently, the supports are distributed over shorter periods, which means that far from all projects become permanent parts of the operations after they are completed. This is what is commonly called project sickness, and it is not unique to the money from the General Inheritance Fund but is also found when it concerns project funds from municipalities, regions, or other parts of society. But there is reason to review how the General Inheritance Fund works with long-term perspectives and whether it is possible to find more long-term forms of support than today's project support. For that reason, we also submit a proposal that this should be investigated.

Overall, we in the Center Party continue to safeguard Swedish civil society. We know how important it is for people's everyday lives, for people's development, and for our common democracy. In that work, the support from the General Inheritance Fund constitutes an important part, just like state, regional, and municipal support for association life and study associations.

The subtitle of the National Audit Office's report is Money seeking meaning. A more accurate heading for what the General Inheritance Fund actually contributes to society today would have been Money that constitutes meaning.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! "Turning in one's grave" is an expression that I am actually surprised no one has used here today. That is what I would have done if my money had been handled by the National Inheritance Fund. Of course, it does not apply in all cases – we have heard several good examples here today – but unfortunately in far too many cases. It is millions that go to Islamism or left-wing activism. Sometimes it is just extremely unnecessary waste. It is clearly not what the money of deceased Swedes should be used for.

This makes the issue extra sensitive. The National Heritage Fund manages money that has belonged to Swedes who lacked heirs when they passed away. These are funds that should be handled with extra care and with the utmost respect.

The people who earned the money are therefore not there to influence how the money is spent. It is their inheritance.

The Act on the General Inheritance Fund is clear. In Chapter 1, Section 1, it states: "The General Inheritance Fund has the purpose of promoting activities of a non-profit nature for the benefit of the target groups children, young people, elderly persons and persons with disabilities." We see that the inheritance fund has departed from this principle on repeated occasions. That is why we stand here today.

We in Sweden have inherited a situation where it is a matter of plugging all holes and deficiencies in the various subsidy systems. The inheritance fund is a part of this equation. It is also the reason why the National Audit Office now chooses to propose an intensification of the work to ensure that authorities, in their granting of subsidies, do not favor economic, organized, and democracy-threatening crime. It is, therefore, extremely serious.

Then we must nevertheless conclude that the inheritance fund has proven to be a worthy capital manager. If one takes a look at their annual report, one can see that they have more or less succeeded in beating the index year after year. That may not be the purpose.

When it comes to the actual payments of funds, however, not least the Sweden Democrats have seen deficiencies over a long period. Therefore, it is very pleasing that we can now look forward to a number of different measures, among others with this report as a basis.

It is important to increase control and to increase competence regarding the crime I mentioned, not least economic crime. It is about introducing stricter conditions so that, for example, Islamists and fraudsters will never again receive grants.

You may wonder what the Sweden Democrats' position is regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's proposal for decommissioning. We Sweden Democrats want to see an in-depth analysis with reform proposals aimed at addressing the problems with the current order that are described. Should these reforms not be expedient or sufficient, we do not rule out supporting a decommissioning of the inheritance fund in the future.

The National Audit Office's report is very welcome, and measures are needed so that we can maintain the public's trust in the system.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! We do not have a single debate in this chamber without the Sweden Democrats immediately starting to talk about Islamism. But I have a few questions for Leonid Yurkovskiy.

The first question is: How do the Sweden Democrats believe we should develop civil society? In the proposals that have been submitted, I have mostly seen how you intend to dismantle civil society. How do you take into account that a number of organizations have gained momentum through the General Inheritance Fund? How else are they to gain momentum in a depleted budget from the SD-dependent government?

The next question is: Do you see any alternative to the inheritance fund? Is it cousin inheritance that is the alternative?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Of course we often speak about Islamism because it is such a tangible and serious problem in Swedish society. Unfortunately, it has seeped into all sorts of areas - not least in politics and in the inheritance fund, which is extra tragic given how sensitive the subject is.

When it comes to how the civil society should be developed, we see first and foremost that we must have confidence in civil society as a whole. In that case, it is a matter of closing the gaps that exist. We must stop payments to those who cheat away money. We must stop payments to criminal actors. That is the first and most important step for civil society to have a strong future in Sweden, which is also what we want.

That is why we also do not propose that the inheritance fund should be abolished in its current state. We also want all the good forces that benefit from the inheritance fund to have a clear alternative in the state budget before such a measure is taken.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to economic crime and so on, there is an area that the Sweden Democrats are completely uninterested in. It is the enormous market that has emerged when it comes to, for example, welfare companies, HVB homes, vaccination centers - you name it. It is about when it is palpable that the money is just rolling out to just the mafia, if I may put it that way, Madam Speaker. There, you have zero interest, from what I see. There are actually no sharp measures to close that.

But you would like to brand organizations, small organizations that can barely survive. I have never, Madam Speaker, seen a vigorous proposal from the Sweden Democrats on how civil society should be boosted, that is, flourish, but it is all the time about various platitudes that you put out when it concerns just Islamism and so on. It just never ends.

I would be very pleased, Madam Speaker, if there were any ideas regarding civil society from the Sweden Democrats. That would be excellently good.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the questions.

It is clear that we must fight crime everywhere. Step one is perhaps not to import it, I might think. It is now becoming a reality - fortunately.

When it comes to the measures in the rest of society, it is clear that we also take them. There is no party in Sweden's Riksdag today that ignores the problems with crime - even within the welfare sector. Welfare crime is an entire area for the government. It has been spoken out about many times. It is clear that, for example, bad HVB homes will be closed down step by step.

That this regarding Islamism would be clichés is an extremely problematic statement. It is not only us who point out these problems. There has been information to be retrieved since long ago, not least from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, whose report also involved the General Savings Foundation. It turned out that money went to actors who were linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is, therefore, an enormous Islamist organization. This is then the Swedish branch, which directly opposed Swedish society.

This is just one example of several. That it should be a cliché is of course completely incorrect.

I also mentioned other problems, such as unnecessary waste. That deceased people's money goes to brochures about anal sex for middle school students is extremely inappropriate, but those are obviously democratic issues. Islamism and crime are more tangible.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe we are in complete agreement among all parties here in the chamber that money that has entered the General Inheritance Fund should be used carefully. No one has said otherwise. We also support the initiatives that exist to ensure that money does not go to organized crime or irregularities.

This is what the Sweden Democrats take as a motive to question the National Heritage Fund altogether. It is clear that there is some other motive in the background than just wanting to safeguard the public funds we have. We have, time and again, seen how the Sweden Democrats have despised popular education, study associations, and free association life and, in different ways, with roughly the same motive, tried to pull the rug out from under these activities. The clearest example is that it is the Sweden Democrats' proposal to withdraw funds for study associations that is now being implemented broadly by the Tidö Government.

Regarding the General Inheritance Fund, I said in my speech that I became frightened when the report came with a proposal for liquidation. I was still able to breathe a sigh of relief when the government did not follow that line. But I also read out the passage that was in the writing which was somewhat inexplicable about how a potential liquidation would require an in-depth analysis. Now I understand why it was included in the writing from the government and in the report from the majority in the Social Affairs Committee. This is obviously the concession to the Sweden Democrats, who fundamentally want to liquidate the General Inheritance Fund and also withdraw those funds from the association life.

The Sweden Democrats are welcome to clarify this. Is there an intention to remove the General Inheritance Fund in the long term?

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the questions.

I certainly do not appreciate the incorrect claims regarding the Sverigedemokraternas grounds for movement or view on civil society. Of course, we have been critical of large parts of the study associations. But if one has listened to what we have said, one has heard that it has been about precisely Islamist organizations – such as the former study association Ibn Rushd, where we have now de facto been proven right in hindsight – or for example when money has been given to gang criminals through the Social Democratic ABF.

It is this that we are tightening. It is clear that measures will be required there as well.

There may also be other activities being carried out that are not dependent on public funds, we believe. But otherwise, we are not against civil society in any way.

Ultimately, this is a matter for the Culture Committee, Madam Speaker, so I refer the further debate on the issue to them.

When it comes to the potential analysis and a potential subsequent shutdown, it is not a concession to the Sverigedemokraterna, but it is about the fact that we do not want any lock-ins at the current time. We see that there is a number of different problems that need to be handled, and we cannot know in advance whether the measures that will be taken will be sufficient. If they are not sufficient and the problems persist, one must have this possibility open.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not think I agree that there were any incorrect statements regarding the Sweden Democrats' view on civil society. That view is reflected in the decisions that the Sweden Democrats are involved in making in the chamber and in various contexts. There is no doubt that there is a strong contempt for civil society and that it is seen as a threat. Civil society constitutes one of the strong democratic foundations in society with the possibility to express oneself and form opinions on issues that perhaps do not fall on the Sweden Democrats' lips.

The General Inheritance Fund is one of the funders that exist for the broad civil society and the association life we have – and the non-profit organizations that we have there. After having listened here, I do not think there is any doubt that the idea that one should conduct an in-depth analysis of the Inheritance Fund to perhaps eventually abolish it is rooted in the Sweden Democrats and in their rhetoric and agenda. I have not heard anyone else who has fought for precisely that in-depth analysis in the way that we have heard the Sweden Democrat member do.

I believe that this should be taken with the utmost seriousness from the side of civil society. One has been able to see how the struggle against association life, study associations, and the like has continued from the Tidö Government. I said that one could breathe a sigh of relief in this matter, but the picture after this exchange of remarks is not that one can breathe a sigh of relief, but that there is an imminent threat even when it comes to the money that civil society receives via the General Inheritance Fund.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

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

I experience it as if Sverigedemokraterna's policy is being deliberately misinterpreted. There may be a political tactic in that. But we, from our party, have been very clear about what it is we direct criticism towards when it comes to civil society. It is Islamism. It is cheating. It is activities with varying degrees of seriousness that potentially do not deserve the taxpayers' money. That is what it is about.

Freedom of speech and opinion formation are in our DNA. The Sweden Democrats as a popular movement have, in an almost impossible political uphill climb and headwind, through just those tools created resonance for the public will, so it is something that we hold very dear.

Again: We are very clear about exactly what it is we are directing criticism towards. Otherwise, the colleagues in the Culture Committee can elaborate on the reasoning.

Regarding a potential shutdown, I can only repeat that we cannot commit to it at this stage, given the problems that exist. We must first see if the measures are sufficient. If they are not, we must look at further measures. Among them, a shutdown could be an alternative, but it is nothing that we advocate for now.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The subject of today's debate is therefore the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the General Inheritance Fund, which they submitted to the government in March this year.

As we have heard many before me say, the Swedish National Audit Office had the proposal that the General Inheritance Fund should be abolished and that a new system for handling inheritance after deceased persons without heirs and a will should be introduced.

The National Audit Office argues, among other things, that the General Inheritance Fund does not function in an appropriate or efficient manner, that there is a risk that the system can be exploited for crime in various ways, and that it is not legally secure. They also emphasize the need for legislation that regulates common democratic conditions and greater opportunities for information exchange between authorities. They also suggest that a representative register should be established, that is, a kind of central database covering all available state grants to civil society and organizations that have received such support.

Miljöpartiet always welcomes audits, but this time we do not agree with the Swedish National Audit Office. We do not think it would be a good idea to dismantle the General Inheritance Fund, and it is very pleasing that the government in its response also does not agree with this.

The government also highlights a number of activities that we have today but which would not have come to fruition if it had not been for the General Inheritance Fund. Several before me have mentioned some of these, but I can, for example, mention mother and child health centers, transport services and personal assistance, the helpline at Bris, Glada Hudik-teatern, the Suicide Line and a large number of sports facilities. We largely agree with what the government highlights in its letter.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also argues that the Allmänna arvsfonden should naturally function as well as possible and that deficiencies in the system must be corrected, not least so that the support for the fund's activities can continue to be great. We have heard that there are different opinions, and Miljöpartiet believes that it is absolutely central that the trust in the Allmänna arvsfonden continues to be great.

For example, it is important with a functioning and consistent democratic condition. Those who do not stand up for democratic values should not conduct activities with public funds. It is of course also extremely important that crime that has crept into various activities is stopped and that we find functioning ways to catch such risks. It is very important that more is done here, which the government also highlights. We are pleased with this consensus.

Regarding the proposal for a register of representatives, i.e., the database, the government refers to another communication concerning the Swedish National Audit Office's report on state grants to civil society and states that it will return to the issue of establishing this database. Whether to include personal data or sensitive personal data in such a database is a matter that is currently being analyzed. We want to emphasize the importance of the fact that the management of a potential database needs to have high security linked to the handling of personal data. Such a database should not contain more personal data than is necessary.

Madam Speaker! We also want to take the opportunity to mention some of the criticism that came from civil society organizations when the Swedish National Audit Office's report with the proposal for closure was released. The reactions were very strong, not least from disability rights organizations. Funktionsrätt Sverige pointed out that the state grant to disability rights organizations at that time had only increased by just over 3 percent since 2008. That is why the project funds from the General Inheritance Fund have become increasingly important over time.

Society has become better and more inclusive thanks to the disability rights movement's opportunity to apply for funds from the fund for over 50 years, and it is therefore no coincidence that it was from the disability rights movement that some of the clearest reactions to the proposal to abolish the Allmänna arvsfonden came. For a long time, it has been possible to apply for funds from the fund for precisely projects with a disability rights perspective. Children's rights projects have also been able to apply, and in recent years, also projects that focus on the elderly.

If it is considered to be a problem moving forward that competition is too low and that there are more funds in the General Inheritance Fund than what is being applied for, which is a problem that the Swedish National Audit Office highlights, one solution could be to investigate the possibility of opening up for more different types of projects. The target group could be expanded.

I move for approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation 3.

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

Thomas Ragnarsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Social Affairs' report 2024/25:SoU8, the National Audit Office's report on the General Inheritance Fund. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Inheritance Fund's work has been and is an important actor for civil society's efforts for and for children, young people, persons with disabilities and the elderly. The Fund's work has served these groups well, and it can be stated that these funds have done good. But it is also important that we scrutinize this type of activity, and it can be stated that the National Audit Office's report was very sharp.

Madam Speaker! The report is a snapshot of the situation as it stood at the time of the investigation. Unfortunately, this coincided with the ongoing covid pandemic, which has likely influenced the investigation's proposals to some extent. A continued analysis of the situation is therefore required before any work on changes is initiated.

In the report, the Swedish National Audit Office issues four sharp recommendations: that the fund be phased out, that the work to ensure that authorities do not favor criminal elements in their grant-giving be intensified, that a register of beneficial owners be established for non-profit organizations that receive public grants and, finally, that an appropriate authority establishes a central database covering all state grants that civil society and organizations receive.

Madam Speaker! I believe and hope that no one in the chamber thinks that the report and its recommendations are reasonable based on the results. But as I mentioned earlier, the underlying data must be complete, and it is not because of the pandemic that was raging at the time. To abolish the fund and create something new based on the fact that not so many funds were paid out during this period is not reasonable. We see now that the applications have increased significantly in volume both in 2023 and 2024.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the General Inheritance Fund

A fund like this should not be an end in itself, and incoming funds must, of course, be balanced by outgoing funds. The money should be used and not sit in an account and grow. It may perhaps require some changes in how the money can be used, but that is something the future will have to show.

When it comes to welfare crime, the Moderate-led government has taken action. This is another area that needs to be highlighted, and we will do that. Criminal elements should not feel safe for a single second when it comes to fraud against the public. It is, however, important that such a measure is investigated so that it is correct from the start.

Madam Speaker! In February 2024, an inquiry was appointed with the mandate to conduct a review of the rules on inheritance and wills in the Inheritance Code. The goal is to achieve a modern, clear, and secure inheritance and will law that to a greater extent reflects the society we live in today. That inquiry may also affect the work of the General Inheritance Fund in the future, which should be considered before any major changes are made.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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