The National Audit Office's report on the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the corona pandemic

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It feels a bit special to stand here in the rostrum now that we are going to deal with the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's report on the cultural grants during the pandemic. I stand here now in a different role, as a Member of Parliament in the Culture Committee, but during the time period that the National Audit Office examines in its report, I was Minister for Culture with responsibility in the government for the pandemic support to this sector.

Mr. Speaker! It feels somewhat heavy, as it is with mixed feelings that I look back on the period. In the Swedish National Audit Office's report, the aim is to highlight how the different contributing authorities managed the provision of support during the period. It concerns several different authorities that had an extraordinarily important role during this time: the Swedish Arts Council, the Swedish Arts Grants Committee, the Swedish Foundation for Authors, and the Swedish Film Institute. We must also remember the Sami Parliament, which distributed targeted support to Sami culture, as well as, of course, all other actors, not least within regional culture, who worked with different types of cultural support initiatives.

I stand here with mixed feelings, as the Swedish National Audit Office points out in its overall conclusion that "the government and the granting organizations have designed and distributed the audited crisis supports in a substantially purposeful and effective manner." They point to the exceptional situation that prevailed during the pandemic and the enormous needs that existed. They point to the initial difficulty in actually knowing what kind of situation we were facing and what types of crisis supports we could design. It had to be done in the balance between quickly distributing crisis support to as many as possible of those who were having an extremely tough time and simultaneously ensuring legal certainty and the necessary transparency in the provision of support.

The government chose during this period to proceed based on existing regulations and to make use of existing authorities and not initially build up a lot of new support structures. That made it possible for the support to be issued very quickly - faster than many of the business supports that were targeted, which one had to apply for and which took a very long time.

This, Mr. Speaker, is testimony that I have received throughout the entire period: There are many businesses that both saw very positively that the support arrived quickly, and saw that they were indispensable for their survival and for avoiding bankruptcies. It is clear that it is positive.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the corona pandemic

Since then, it is always the case that one wishes more could have been done. We know that there are many companies and individuals who suffered enormously during the pandemic and who have not recovered. It is such as perhaps fell between the cracks - when it comes to both business support and cultural support - and who even today still suffer from the consequences of the pandemic. It is clear that it is heavy.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the enormous efforts that were made during the pandemic. The S-MP government succeeded, in broad consultation with other parties in the Riksdag, in providing many billions in targeted support to culture, to sports, to civil society, and to the companies. This was absolutely crucial, Mr. Speaker, for the actors to emerge from the pandemic as strong as they actually did.

I am also proud of the great efforts that the funding authorities made during this period of exceptional workload, many new hires, the pressure that existed, the will to help, and the will to provide support quickly. Great and important strong efforts were made, and for that, I am very grateful.

What I am absolutely most proud of, however, is what was done by the cultural life itself in terms of transitioning their activities, seeking support, and trying to navigate through quite difficult situations. They could also look forward and constantly continue to have a dialogue with us politicians to see what we could do to change, step by step, in the support that existed.

Mr. Speaker! It is important to say that adjustments were made during the period. This concerns above all the very first round of support – the 500 million that we decided on immediately after the consequences of the pandemic hit and we had to limit the audience numbers. It was there that it went fast, it was there that we used existing regulations, and it was there that the accuracy was not sufficient. But after that, we made adjustments so that the absolute majority of the supports distributed had other directions and hit better. I am both happy and proud that we were able to get it done so quickly.

It is also important to say that the views that the Swedish National Audit Office has put forward must, of course, be taken into account. I am pleased when I read the letter from the previous government and note that this will be followed up. This applies to both how the authorities handle the provision of support, how one can work more coordinately in certain cases, and how one should ensure that the decision-making processes become transparent and the justifications are presented in a good way. These are things that are being emphasized.

I am also glad that from the government's side it is highlighted that it is not so easy when it comes to the cultural area. Sometimes one tends to speak a bit generalized about that one should coordinate the support, because then everything becomes better. I believe that we do ourselves a disservice if we believe that it could be done so easily and that it would easily become better.

The Swedish Arts Council and the Swedish Arts Grants Committee are two agencies that handle very different types of support. The Swedish Arts Grants Committee handles support to individual artists, and the Swedish Arts Council has a broad cultural policy mandate. The government highlights this in its submission. It is argued that if these supports had needed to be coordinated even more deeply than what was subsequently done, it could have meant that the distribution of the supports had proceeded much more slowly. It might not have become better either, because the supports are directed at different target groups.

The Swedish Film Institute and the Swedish Foundation for Authors are two agencies that have a very good overview of their supporters. Consequently, they have also been able to work quickly to distribute the grants. This, Mr. Speaker, is something we shall safeguard.

In conclusion, I want to say that what is now most important for us politically is to look forward. The consequences of the pandemic are still highly relevant. We have a restart investigation that has presented a number of proposals on how we can strengthen cultural life moving forward. That, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to debate here in the chamber.

We must continue to draw the lessons of the pandemic, but the consequences of the pandemic are not over yet. Here, we politicians must show perseverance.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Amanda Lind for her speech. We are now debating a matter that is history, and as is known, it cannot be changed.

The member is now a member, and I do not intend to place the responsibility on her now. But since the member was previously Minister for Culture, I would like to hear a little about this. The National Audit Office's criticism concerns a lack of transparency and a lack of accuracy. It is extremely serious.

More could have been done, says the member, and there are still people suffering after what happened. The lack of accuracy meant that there were people, musicians, theater people within the performing arts and so on, who did not receive any money. On the other hand, there were others who received very much money. The accuracy was lacking; we know that. It is not acceptable. I wonder how the member wants to comment on precisely that lack of accuracy.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roland Utbult, for the question! I touched upon this in my speech, and I share the view that the Swedish National Audit Office highlighted: In the first round of support, the one that we quickly decided on and also quickly could pay out, there was a lack of precision. The existing regulations were used, and there was a requirement to be able to demonstrate loss of income, which we know is very difficult for the cultural sector.

It was only the first round of support that had this problem. This changed before the large rounds of support in the autumn and then further into 2021. I want to say, therefore, that the criticism was quickly picked up and that the deficiencies were also quickly rectified.

Then there are other challenges regarding the crisis support that do not actually concern the direct design of the culture support. We know that the business support was not fully functional. These could have supported a great deal of entrepreneurs, not least self-employed individuals, in the cultural life if they had been a bit more generous and to a greater extent taken into account the needs of cultural creators. Even there, adjustments were made, for example when it concerns the unemployment insurance (a-kassan). There, several successive changes were implemented to enable more cultural workers to access the reliefs of the unemployment insurance that were made during the pandemic.

Now, I have not read the current review of, for example, the turnover support for sole traders or of the large event support that the Moderaterna, among others, were instrumental in developing. How did they turn out? I am doubtful whether these business supports were so effective. I might have thought it would have been better if in the last round – it was actually as late as last winter that we presented additional crisis restart support for the cultural life – we had not put those funds on the event support, which I unfortunately do not believe was so accurate, but even more on Kulturrådet, which actually has found an increased accuracy during these years.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The member said in her speech that she was proud of this period. I can understand that. All the support that went out was also supported by the opposition, i.e., the current government. One could say that the result would have been the same regardless of the government.

But it was a rather messy period. At first, no more than 50 people were allowed to gather. Then it was 300 people, and one was supposed to keep distance between each other. We remember all of that. It was quite messy. I would like to hear how Member Amanda Lind, former Minister for Culture, comments on the messiness that existed in the decisions and which many perceived as disturbing.

Then we should know that the intention was to counter the spread of covid-19, which naturally outweighs when it comes to this issue. But there was irritation, and quite a few wondered what was about to happen. When one, for example, went to 50 people who were allowed to gather, it was almost dictatorial – or it could at least be perceived that way.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the restrictions during the pandemic are not the subject of this debate. I hope, however, that the strong words such as "dictatorial" used by the member are not synonymous with the Christian Democrats' view on the restrictions during the pandemic. I believe I will leave the comments on that to another debate.

However, I want to agree with what Roland Utbult is saying now: The pandemic had major consequences for cultural life. It was a very messy and difficult period. In that case, it is important that we can now, in hindsight, look at it with open eyes, that we continue to follow the evaluations that will be made and that we take the conclusions of the restart investigation most seriously. This applies in particular to us here in the chamber who are members of the Culture Committee.

The consequences of the pandemic are not over. I regret that the new government has not taken the conclusions of the restart investigation seriously and has not brought forward the majority of the proposed measures.

We must show perseverance when it comes to the recovery grants. As Roland Utbult says, we agreed on them, and there was support to introduce them. Now we see in black and white that when the right governs itself, it does not push to introduce restart grants. It is we who are now in opposition who present it in our shadow budgets. It is weak, and I deeply regret it.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, the Moderate Culture Minister Parisa Liljestrand had her budget presentation. She expressed then that the pandemic relief had had a positive impact and that the restart grants that the Social Democratic-led government, together with the Green Party, introduced in the previous budget had served the cultural life well.

So far we agree. But then the Minister for Culture stated that cultural life has recovered after the pandemic and that, therefore, no significant cultural policy initiatives are being made for the restart of culture.

I do not share that picture, of course. Last Monday, I met the county music [association] on Gotland, who confirmed the picture that two years of pandemic and audience restrictions have left deep marks in all parts of cultural life, not least regarding the conditions for art and culture creators. The industry organization Svensk Scenkonst, which organizes all performing arts activities in our country, confirms an audience loss of 20-25 percent per performance. This is a comprehensive issue for the entire sector.

We Social Democrats now have an analysis where we are concerned about the number of art and culture creators who during these years have left the culture industry. We are concerned that the audience has not returned in the same extent after the pandemic, that the participation of children and young people unfortunately is decreasing, and that the households' strained economy in the wake of inflation, raised electricity prices, and an upcoming recession primarily affects children and young people's opportunity to experience and practice culture and sports.

In summary, two years of pandemic have had a significant impact on Sweden's cultural life.

During the pandemic, I spent a lot of time talking with various cultural companies, trade unions, institutions, sole traders, and even social media movements, who generously shared how the conditions de facto were during the pandemic – partly how it looked before the pandemic but above all how it was during the pandemic.

It cannot be avoided that the cultural labor market is characterized by time-limited and insecure employment. This is evident from all government inquiries in the area and from representatives of the industry. It is common for cultural workers to combine project employment, activities in their own companies, and periods where they support themselves on grants. Art and culture creators work under worse economic conditions than other groups in society with corresponding requirements for education and professional experience.

The latest investigation, which was presented a few years ago, is titled "Artist - regardless of conditions?" and shows that artists have lower utilization of parental leave benefits, housing allowance, and social assistance despite having a lower average income. Artists also have, to a lesser extent, collectively agreed occupational pensions.

It was under these conditions that art and culture creators underwent the pandemic's restrictions and closures.

The trade union Klys wrote in its referral response to the cultural restart investigation that most art and culture creators were not covered by either the short-term layoff support, the transition support, or the turnover support because more than half were self-employed and lacked major fixed costs and regular income. The cultural crisis supports can therefore, in summary, be said to have had a completely decisive impact for the culture sector to stay above water during the pandemic.

We can also see the results: It was not many cultural companies or sole traders that went bankrupt. But a number of things have also happened below the surface that we in the Riksdag's Cultural Committee must continue to analyze.

Mr. Speaker! With this knowledge, we cannot return to the previously pursued policy. It is now high time for the Riksdag's Culture Committee to actually engage for the conditions of artists and cultural creators.

We Social Democrats believe that security policy for art and culture creators requires more permanent employment. It is not sufficient that only slightly over 250 actors within the theater have a permanent employment out of 3,000 professionals. The permanent employments at the cultural institutions have since the 2009 bourgeois cultural inquiry decreased in favor of administrative staff. Here, the policy can change direction.

Areas that require interventions are the center formations, the performing arts alliances, and the state grants. Here, we Social Democrats have been driving to increase the appropriations. Most recently, we strengthened the compensations and grants by a full 43 million kronor. Now the right-wing government proposes further interventions in the area, which is good – but insufficient. We have also commissioned an inquiry into SGI, which will soon submit proposals on how art and culture creators can be able to take part in the social security systems. This week, we are also adopting a bill on the implementation of the copyright directive into Swedish law, which will promote better copyright.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's review Operation Save the Industry - the state's crisis support to culture and sports during the corona pandemic, which is the subject of today's debate, confirms the picture that few social sectors saw their conditions changed as fundamentally as sports and culture during the pandemic. The National Audit Office argues that the design of the crisis supports took place in a short time, with limited information and under very difficult circumstances, which previous speakers have described well.

The review covers the government and the Government Offices as well as the granting authorities and organizations, such as Konstnärsnämnden, Statens kulturråd, Riksidrottsförbundet, Sametinget, Svenska Filminstitutet and Sveriges författarfond.

The Riksrevisionen's overall conclusion is that the government and the granting organizations have designed and distributed the crisis support in a substantially purposeful and effective manner. The audit simultaneously shows that there are deficiencies in the transparency of the granting and that the responsible actors' focus on delivering the support to the culture sector as quickly as possible has to some extent led to reduced accuracy.

These are important recommendations to the government and the Government Offices and to the authorities and organizations. Better crisis preparedness must be designed here. We do not know what the future looks like. May we never go through a pandemic again! But crisis preparedness must exist within the state's authorities and organizations that distribute crisis support and not least within the Government Offices. It is therefore the responsibility of the new government to continue working based on these recommendations.

Regarding the current situation of culture and the budget priorities, I await proposals for the upcoming budget debate.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lawen Redar from the Socialdemokraterna did not speak about the matter for more than a couple of seconds at the end but chose to use the speaking time for other things. But since Mr. Speaker did not stop Lawen Redar, I choose to reply to her in those parts.

Mr. Speaker! This is interesting. Now the Social Democrats have been in opposition for a month, or one and a half, and can criticize the current government for every evil in cultural life and the cultural industry. But the Social Democrats have held government power for eight years. Why, Mr. Speaker, have they then not done anything about the insecure forms of employment?

Lawen Redar spoke about combination services. Yes, a completely obvious problem within culture is that very many have insecure employment and combine different forms of scholarships and project grants with their own companies and other things. The Social Democrats did nothing about this. And it was the Moderates who had to initiate an extra 2.5 billion to the culture industry with Lisa Nilsson at the helm during the pandemic because, in principle, all artists would otherwise have gone bankrupt.

Nothing was done over eight years by the social democrat-led government to improve things for the culture industry. I pleaded for us to have parliamentary deliberations about a new opera house. The Minister for Culture said: I hear you, I hear you. I pleaded for us to have parliamentary discussions about the forms of employment for culture workers. The Minister for Culture said: I hear you, I hear you. Not a single invitation came.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have now had a Minister for Culture in place for a month. I am convinced that a good deal of positive proposals will be put forward. I think the Social Democrats, with Lawen Redar at the helm, could show a little decorum and humility regarding the fact that the Social Democrat-led government for eight years accomplished nothing to improve culture in Sweden.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is noticeable that the member did not take part in my speech at all. I initially described why we needed an art and culture crisis support aimed at art and culture creators. Very many art and culture creators do not have limited companies, and the short-term layoff support did not reach these. Due to the conditions that art and culture creators had, neither the turnover support nor the transition support reached them either.

When the pandemic started, we quickly initiated an analysis of what the conditions looked like and what was happening. We were able to quickly make decisions that 500 million would go straight out to the cultural life via the authorities and the various state-granting organizations.

This fell through, which is also what the Swedish National Audit Office's review says. This is exactly what I attest to. Some descriptions are made of what could have created increased accuracy. Half a year into the pandemic, we also reformulated this through targeted support. We were up to almost 6-7 billion kronor in crisis support to culture and sports.

It is thanks to that that the current Moderate culture minister can come to the table and realize that there remains a cultural sector that can begin work after the pandemic. What I am criticizing is that a budget proposal has now been presented where there is hardly any restart support.

Furthermore, the Moderates' approaches during this period are mentioned. An action was taken in January 2021 to support cultural life. One of the approaches concerned business support of 2-3 billion SEK. How much of that was distributed to artists and art companies? We withheld those resources precisely because they were entirely linked to the shutdown. We initiated a reopening of society in February-March. I therefore do not entirely share the member's perception of the Moderates' approaches.

During these eight years, we have taken enormous measures to strengthen the culture and its conditions. It is up to the Moderaterna to continue that work now.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lawen Redar claims that there are not particularly many within the culture sector who are self-employed. That is actually incorrect. It is a fairly large proportion who run their own companies.

I am proud that we Moderates helped to provide the funds. We went 2.5 billion over the government's [proposal] when it came to saving the artist industry. It was hardly any industry that was hit as hard by the pandemic as the culture industry and, of course, also the sports industry.

Mr. Speaker! I will return to my main argument regarding the matter of the debate, which concerns the Riksrevisionen's report on how the state's support during the pandemic functioned.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to listening to the speech.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Even though the pandemic is over, all restrictions are gone and we have returned to how life looked before 2020, it is difficult not to talk about the pandemic. Today, it is the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the corona pandemic that is being debated, even though – or should I say despite the fact that – the entire committee stands behind the report in its entirety.

Overnight, the pandemic hit, with restrictions and changed life and work routines. Everyone was affected. Everyone had to adapt. Culture and sports were hit particularly hard, as we have heard. There was no group training and no audience. With lost revenue, rapid support was needed. Such support was indeed delivered by the government, but it went a bit too fast during the first distribution, which resulted in the support not being accurate. There was also criticism of this, which the Swedish National Audit Office also writes about, and it was corrected by the government – good. Moving forward, in the next crisis, we can hope that the lack of clarity does not appear again and that the routines that were established show a learning from experience.

Mr. Speaker! The pandemic may be over, and we have returned to old routines. We see that more people are visiting concerts, buying tickets, and want to support cultural and sporting life. It is everyone's responsibility that we find our way back and support cultural and sporting life. It is now, above all, that we must support the entire events industry.

Even though no party submitted a follow-up motion on the communication, it is worth mentioning a few things to take with us forward. I want to mention three things.

Firstly, the National Audit Office gives a recommendation to coordinate the granting of grants. We can partially share that view. The cultural area has many agencies, large and small, and several foundations and administrative areas. It is in everyone's interest that the granting of grants is accurate, fast in times of crisis, and above all, legally secure. By bringing it under one common roof, or at least fewer roofs, one would strengthen the level of knowledge and probably further streamline the work. At the same time, one could review the number of agencies within the cultural area.

Secondly, I want to mention that S and MP have not done enough during their time in power to strengthen the cultural and creative industries. It was only when it was revealed how poorly our cultural and creative industries are faring that an investigation was commissioned. In August, the investigation SOU 2022:44 presented its proposals.

That our cultural creators have had poor conditions, and have not been able to participate in sickness benefit-based income or pension, is something that has been reported about long before the pandemic. We naturally hope that the current government adopts the proposals presented by the investigation to improve the conditions for our cultural creators so that they do not end up in the same situation again during the next crisis.

For the third, the funding for culture needs to be broadened. This government should appoint an inquiry that looks at how the funding for culture can be broadened.

I have previously spoken from this rostrum about the Danish model where private businesses and foundations are involved in financing culture. In Sweden, we have moved in the opposite direction. The pandemic showed that. Here, instead, the state has pumped in money to keep the flame alive. It is not sustainable for the state alone to finance the entire cultural life in the long term. We propose that more should be involved in this part.

If the pandemic clarified anything, it was precisely how dependent the cultural sector is on the state, because the previous government pursued a policy that led to this situation. Now, it is a matter of finding a model that ensures more are involved and financing, so that we do not end up in the same situation again.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Member Angelika Bengtsson regarding the coordination of authorities and the provision of support. Just as the Member says, there are such recommendations in the National Audit Office's report, for example, what experiences one can take away from the pandemic. But the National Audit Office does not provide any sharp proposals.

Just as appears from the government's communication, which I mentioned in my speech, several approaches were made to strengthen coordination during the pandemic. Not least, the exchange of information between the authorities was increased. There was dialogue and work was done with knowledge dissemination so that individual cultural actors would know whom they should seek support from.

It is actually already the responsibility of Sweden's authorities to carry out that type of coordination and information. The Government agrees that it is important that that work was done and that it shall be followed up.

The Sweden Democrats and also other representatives from the right sometimes highlight coordination and the closure of some agency in the cultural field. Here I would like to ask Angelika Bengtsson which agency one intends to close and what merger one intends between the support systems.

What the National Audit Office highlights, and also the government in the letter, is that there is a strength in that there are targeted agencies that know their areas well. That the Swedish Film Institute has such a good grasp of the film industry meant that they could distribute the grants in a well-targeted way and received very little criticism. The same applies to the Swedish Authors' Foundation. The Swedish Arts Council and the Swedish Arts Council (Konstnärsnämnden) have completely different focuses. We in the Green Party (MP) believe that this is good; artists in Sweden deserve their own supporting agency and should not drown in the Arts Council (Kulturrådet).

Miljöpartiet has also taken steps to coordinate certain grant-giving, for example, Musikverket's music funding. But I mean that more accurate commitments are needed when talking about that type of coordination. Therefore, my question to Angelika Bengtsson is: Which agencies are to be abolished or merged?

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. It was unclear during the pandemic when it came to the distribution of the crisis supports. What is the situation? There were many authorities that were to distribute different types of crisis support. I believe that a coordination of authorities and a merger of authorities would have clarified that matter.

It is no secret that there are many agencies under our preparatory area. There are many agencies that I believe would have done more good and had a greater effect in a merger. I believe that an agency needs to review the issue. I will not stand in the speaker's chair today and say that this specific agency shall be abolished. It is not my responsibility, but the issue shall be prepared in an investigation.

It is true that a great deal was done to clarify the supports, but perhaps it would not have been necessary if there had been fewer and better coordinated agencies.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, there are some sweeping statements about it being complicated and that there were many authorities. The fact is that there were five contributing authorities in the cultural area.

The Sami Parliament directed support towards Sami cultural creators and artists. That they were given the opportunity to distribute support was at the direct request of them themselves and Sami artists. I think we should safeguard this. It was good that they were given the opportunity to distribute crisis support.

The Swedish Film Institute already provides support to the film sector today. There was no criticism of the Swedish Film Institute's support. On the contrary, because they have a limited target group, they could maintain a close dialogue, know where the needs were, and plan the support in an independent and effective way.

This also applies to Författarfonden. They also had a relatively limited target group and could design the support in a wise and good way.

Then remain the Swedish Arts Council and the Swedish Arts Council (Kulturrådet). I ask Angelika Bengtsson if it is the Swedish Arts Council that is to be abolished. What does one then think about the importance of artists' conditions and opportunities and having an agency that directly looks at their needs? The Swedish Arts Council has come to the culture committee, and we have heard that the Swedish Arts Council also considers it important to be an independent agency and can operate based on the mandates it has – that is to say, to support and strengthen artists' conditions in Sweden.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting when one talks about artists' conditions. I have for several years motioned to review the conditions for cultural creators. Miljöpartiet and other parties have voted down the motions.

First in August, an investigation was presented on the conditions for the cultural and creative industries - good. But it was only in August.

For eight years you had the opportunity to appoint an inquiry, but only during the pandemic, when it was revealed how poor conditions artists and cultural creators had, when they were on their knees and crying before us, did you appoint an inquiry, Amanda Lind.

I mean that much must be done to strengthen their conditions. Now we have a new government that I hope will take the investigation to heart, just as I mentioned in my speech. There were so many problems that were uncovered during the pandemic. The government has been in power for about six weeks, and we must give it time to appoint an investigation after the referral bodies have had their say.

I look forward to returning to the debate. We will certainly do so.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today's matter that we are now debating concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the corona pandemic. Hopefully, we will never have to draw any lessons or distribute any pandemic support again. I personally appreciate the Swedish National Audit Office's reports and think there are valuable facts in them to learn from.

The Swedish National Audit Office concludes, in principle, that the granting of grants and support to sports has functioned well. When it comes to culture, some criticism is issued, which I nevertheless think we should take to heart and include in the proceedings—even though we should hope that we will never have to end up in that situation again.

One criticizes the government at the time, which one considers should have calculated some things in advance that it did not do. Now we have, as said, changed government, so that is how it is.

But then it is this that Amanda Lind also speaks about - the criticism regarding the differences between the Arts Council and the Swedish Arts Council, which have been problematic when they have distributed the state support for the pandemic.

An example described in the report is that the Swedish Arts Council received 87,000 emails and 14,000 phone calls to its crisis support in 2020. That speaks for itself. With those numbers, there is a problem with the information. Much has been about the cultural workers who have sought support not really knowing where to turn – to the Swedish Arts Council or to the Swedish Arts Council (Konstnärsnämnden). Then, one has not received notification when turning to the wrong place, nor has one received a sufficient justification, hence this rather chaotic number of artists who have been frustrated and did not know where to turn.

Mr. Speaker! We have met with the Arts Council. I know that the Arts Council changed much in the support functions and the provision of information, and also in the communication regarding why people had been rejected, so I believe many of those errors have been rectified. One is also well aware of what the National Audit Office describes.

I think we should add this to the records and, as I said, pray that the state never again finds itself in a situation where it has to distribute billions in pandemic or crisis support. Then we can learn from the things that we perhaps have not corrected yet.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said earlier, I looked forward to Kristina Axén Olin's speech.

It is true that this was an extremely chaotic time – hence the political management during it. I thought there was a clear transparency from the government to the parliamentary Culture Committee during this period regarding how difficult it was. The then Minister for Culture came to the committee several times and also requested support and help in the work.

And given that we have now changed government, given that it is now a Moderate-led government and a Moderate Minister for Culture in place, what lessons does Kristina Axén Olin believe will be drawn from this report? What changes in agency structures or reflections does the member believe the new Minister for Culture will make in light of what the Swedish National Audit Office, with its report, sends to the agencies but, above all, to the government?

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Lawen Redar asks how the current government will act following the National Audit Office's report.

I think that it might be more for those of us who are in this house, but perhaps also for those currently responsible, to read and consider and take to heart what the Swedish National Audit Office presents.

I know that, for example, our authorities have done so. Those who are affected in this case have also been in the Culture Committee and described how they have addressed the criticism that the National Audit Office so well describes in this report.

There is a finding and a recommendation from the Swedish National Audit Office in this report. It is recommended that the government reviews whether the granting of subsidies in the cultural area can be coordinated to a greater extent in order to create better conditions and utilize the authorities' combined resources and expertise.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates have requests regarding this in committee motions and have proposed in several budgets a review of the cultural area, where we have 53 agencies or companies with agency structures. I hope that the current government takes the recommendation to heart and starts this review to optimize so that culture receives the strength and channeling it deserves.

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

Lawen Redar (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is at precisely this point that I am curious, in light of what appears in the Moderaternas previous committee motions regarding the analysis of the agency structure within the cultural area.

It is not suggested anywhere in this report that there is anything wrong with the agencies' structures. It is rather about the communication between the agencies during a very difficult and exceptional societal event. There, there have been deficiencies in the information provided to individual art and culture actors and operations in order to convey support.

The Moderaternas cultural policy motions during these years have pointed out that the cultural sector's authority structure needs to be changed. I am a bit curious about what type of authorities, according to the Moderaternas analysis, should no longer exist in the cultural area and how one evaluates the effects of everything from mergers to the removal of authorities. It is a bit difficult to discern from what the motion states. What is it that one actually wants to achieve with what the motion states?

It is in any case nothing regarding crisis preparedness that the National Audit Office points out that would be a concern with the agencies' organization as such and the activities as such, but rather it is the communication between them. But it is something completely different that the Moderaterna advocate for in their committee motion - everything from mergers to fewer agencies and organizations in the cultural field.

My concrete question is what one actually wants to achieve with such an analysis.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the National Audit Office is not here to answer for what has been written. But actually, there are two different recommendations.

The one that Lawen Redar speaks about concerns the communication between Konstnärsnämnden, Kulturrådet, and Författarfonden and that they must develop routines regarding the making of various decisions.

The second one concerns another matter that the National Audit Office takes up. It is recommended that the cultural area be coordinated to a greater extent for the applicants and in order to "create better conditions to utilize the agencies' combined resources and expertise." That is not the same thing as increasing communication, as Lawen Redar says.

Mr. Speaker! Lawen Redar asks if the Moderates' proposal is to conduct a review of authorities, and that is correct. We have not sat in a chamber and pondered which authorities should be merged, but a professional assessment must naturally be made of what can be done to enable a clearer structure in the cultural area.

But 53 authorities or companies with government mandates under the Ministry of Culture alone becomes completely unreasonable, Mr. Speaker. Money disappears in administration and overhead, and it becomes enormously difficult to unify culture and, above all, to benefit the cultural industry and streamline so that resources can actually go to culture and cultural workers, not to administration because we choose to establish authorities and departments as soon as we want to make an impact.

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

Anne-Li Sjölund (C)

Mr. Speaker! The culture and sports industry was, as is well known, hit very hard during the corona pandemic. Not least were the companies and associations that were dependent on ticket revenues affected – ticket revenues that were absent for practically two years. There were also other clear and tangible effects that did not primarily concern the economy. The associations lost members, and there were fewer physical activities. This probably led to increased physical and mental ill health. Furthermore, many associations were hindered in their integration work. And not least, sports and culture were not given the same opportunity to spread joy and community.

Today's debate, as has been said, concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the pandemic and how it has functioned.

In the large picture, the Swedish National Audit Office sees that it has functioned well and that the crisis supports were designed and distributed in a reasonably effective and purposeful manner. But the criticism being put forward is that the transparency of the grant awarding and the responsible actors' focus on reaching out with the supports meant that the accuracy was not as good. The Swedish National Audit Office therefore proposes that the government should review how the supports can be coordinated in a better way in the future.

The committee agrees with the Swedish National Audit Office, but it is also important to remember that the need for crisis support was great during the period in question and that it was a priority to distribute the support as quickly as possible. This meant that the accuracy of the targeting did not always work as it should have, but the situation also required the policy to be agile.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: When I have spoken with representatives within culture and sports, both regionally in my home county of Västernorrland and at a national level, they have largely been positive. But they add that even though the supports fulfilled their purpose, it has been pointed out that certain associations and companies around the country have been forced to cease their operations.

I also want to praise, for example, the sports movement, which, despite high pressure, managed to distribute and manage the support well. This is because they know their activities very well and have good statistics and could therefore shape a model that ensured the support reached many associations.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are therefore debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report Operation Save the Industry - the state's crisis support to sports and culture during the pandemic. I will devote my speaking time to the culture sector's situation during the pandemic, which started in March 2020.

On March 12, I sat here in the chamber and felt a bit unwell. We had a debate on fisheries policy. I had to go home afterwards and was admitted to Karolinska with covid-19 for four weeks of isolation. But now I have restarted and am back to one hundred percent, and for that I am very grateful.

In July 2020, the turnover for cultural activities in Sweden had decreased by more than 50 percent compared to July 2019, i.e., one year earlier. From the middle of March 2020 to May, i.e., in two months, ticket revenues for events fell by around 90 percent. Entertainment events fell to zero during the summer of 2020. This is part of the background.

Mr. Speaker! No motions have been raised in connection with the government's communication. It is quite symptomatic of this gloomy period in our contemporary history. Great efforts were made by the government to support sports and culture financially during the pandemic. What was done was supported by the opposition at the time, which is now in government. One can say that it would have resulted in a similar outcome in terms of grants regardless of who was in power.

However, the former government's pandemic support missed, at the start, the cultural workers who had sole proprietorships, which the vast majority have in the cultural sector. We Christian Democrats pointed this out before the summer of 2020, and in September of that same year, support was also directed towards this large circle of cultural workers.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's conclusion is that the government and the granting organizations designed and distributed the crisis support for sports and culture in a substantially purposeful and efficient manner, as it is called. But the audit also shows that the short time they had and the quick decisions that had to be made then resulted in imperfect transparency and, which is even more important, a lack of accuracy. Within the culture sector, there were those who received very much money. Others received nothing or small sums, due to the granting institutions' stress and lack of transparency and accuracy. This is serious.

Mr. Speaker! For several years, I supported myself as a freelance singer and musician. I know something about how it feels. It is an uncertain and tough situation, where one works in great uncertainty. You may have a family to take responsibility for, and it goes without saying that it becomes pressured. At the same time, there is nothing better than realizing one's dreams – to be able to work full-time with what one is most passionate about.

We can try to imagine that when you were freelancing, you had gained momentum in your engagements and that everything was running smoothly. Then suddenly, overnight in March 2020, the situation changed. All public appearances were prohibited in a way that could be perceived as almost dictatorial, and furthermore, confusion arose regarding the rules for how the whole thing should be carried out. In March 2020, the government decided that 50 people could gather at public gatherings. Later it became 300 people with a certain distance between each individual, and so on. That is how it continued.

The country's primary schools closed their doors to visits from cultural actors. Culture schools switched to digital teaching. They should receive a special round of applause for the great work they did and the change they underwent then.

All this was naturally done to counteract the spread of covid-19. But the ban on public gatherings became, in practice, a business ban for everyone who was dependent on an audience. Many freelance cultural workers were thus affected by the institutions' lack of precision when it came to the grants. This became a truly tough match for many cultural workers, perhaps the toughest in their lives.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office notes that there were advantages to placing the management of the crisis support with several organizations - the Swedish Film Institute, the Sami Parliament, the Swedish Authors' Society, the Swedish Arts Council, and the Swedish Arts Council - which knew their target groups. And there may be some understanding that the grant cases, due to time pressure and high workload, did not have time to be sufficiently investigated before the money was sent out. But it is never acceptable that a large number of grant recipients miss out on compensation due to a lack of accuracy.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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