The National Audit Office's report Skolpengen - efficiency and consequences

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

We now have to discuss the Swedish National Audit Office's report School Money - efficiency and consequences. It does not sound so sexy, but it is actually quite important if one thinks that school, education and knowledge is something very central to Sweden's development. It is also something I am completely convinced that we all believe.

The Swedish National Audit Office has audited this, Mr. Speaker. It concerns free schools, more specifically independent primary schools. They have a number of observations, which the government also comments on in its letter to the Riksdag regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's audit.

Let me go through some of the results and some of the criticism the National Audit Office presents, Mr. Speaker.

It is argued, among other things, that the framework for paying out school funding to schools in Sweden does not take into account the fixed costs. The school has large fixed costs, and these do not decrease because some students change schools. They do not necessarily increase either because some other students come to the school. In many municipalities, however, the school funding is determined without regard to the fixed costs, which can have quite large consequences for schools. It is pointed out, for example, that schools with an uncertain student base may become more prone to hiring staff on fixed-term employment.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, that the Swedish National Audit Office presents is that equal compensation to independent schools and municipal schools does not necessarily provide equal conditions. The contribution to independent schools shall, after all, be determined based on the same basis that the home municipality applies to distribute resources to its own school. This is what we call the principle of equal conditions. The Swedish National Audit Office argues, however, that this does not result in equal conditions because the municipal principals have a responsibility that the independent schools do not have, namely to ensure that the compulsory school attendance is upheld, that everyone has the right to receive a place of study, and that everyone covered by the compulsory school attendance also attends school.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Swedish National Audit Office also raises negative effects of the regulatory framework for school funding. It is about the fact that it can have quite large negative consequences if independent schools are established in municipalities or in areas where there is no direct capacity need. This means that they are established somewhere where there are already very many school places, and then they just take students from other schools. In that case, we have schools left, often municipal, which sit on a large overcapacity in the form of premises and other things.

The Swedish National Audit Office also points out some positive things, for example that a relatively large proportion of students in Sweden have the opportunity to make a school choice. That is very positive. For us in the Liberals, it is important that students and parents make active choices. Two years ago, approximately two-thirds of all students could choose an independent school within five kilometers of their home.

We also see that an active choice is being made to a greater extent. It is not a huge reduction in itself, but it is a reduction of 3-4 percentage points of students who now attend the municipal school compared to 15 years ago. This means that more students and parents have chosen other schools.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office also addresses another matter in its review. It concerns the establishment of independent schools. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate interprets the regulatory framework narrowly. Rather, it is the case that the law is interpreted as it is intended to be interpreted, but the legislation, its preparatory works, and the practice that has developed are somewhat too narrow. If the establishment of an independent school is going to create tangible problems in the slightly longer term, five or six years, for the municipality and the students where it is to be established, the school should be able to be denied the right to start.

The National Audit Office points out a concern regarding the preparatory works for the legislation. A number of examples are raised for when this could be used to refuse the establishment of a new independent primary school. But those examples primarily concern rural municipalities. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has, therefore, in some larger municipalities with a strong establishment of independent schools where the municipality has wanted to reject the application, not found that there is legal scope and practice to do so. The National Audit Office assesses that minor adjustments are not sufficient to address those problems.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, the National Audit Office proposes a nationally decided flat rate for the school fee. It is quite close to what we in the Liberals have advocated and which is now included in the Tidö Agreement, that the government shall investigate a national school fee norm. It is very positive.

It is necessary to follow up on the friskola reform. It came in the 90s, 30 years ago now. If changes need to be made, the Riksdag and the government must have the power to do so. Unfortunately, very little happened in the last eight years. But now, even more will happen. We are now moving forward with the largest deregulation of the system of friskolor in 30 years.

For example, municipal schools need to be compensated for their additional costs. The municipality's school activities are required to keep a certain number of places in reserve. That simply means that one cannot adapt the activities as much as one might want to. That responsibility costs money and should be distributed more equitably.

It is a problem that the Skolinspektionen's regulatory framework for stopping school establishments, which I have just gone through, has some negative consequences. That legislation needs to be reviewed, which the government has also opened up for. When a school is established, it can, for example, lead to significantly increased premises costs per pupil in the municipal school. It is not fair that a portion of some children's school funding should go towards paying for premises that stand partially empty.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The Government will also have the introduction of a new state school fee norm investigated. It is important. I assess that these measures more than adequately respond to the recommendations put forward by the Swedish National Audit Office.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Malm says from the rostrum that not much happened in the school area during the last eight years. That is not true. But what happened was that the Liberals blocked necessary reforms in the school area.

The Social Democratic government presented a number of proposals in the direction that the National Audit Office highlights in its report. But the proposals were voted down by the Liberals and the parties that now form the government basis.

It has almost been a year. The Liberals have suddenly pivoted. Now, proposals in that direction are being welcomed—proposals that less than a year ago were on the Riksdag's table and which they voted against. But the question is to be buried in further investigations, even though it is already well-investigated.

My question to Fredrik Malm is: How many more millions should the private school corporations be allowed to take out before you consider that you have fully investigated the issue?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats and the other red-green parties came into government in the autumn of 2014. Then nothing happened, except for the then school minister Gustav Fridolin's hand heart. The year 2015 came, and nothing happened. The year 2016 came, and nothing happened. The year 2017 came, and nothing happened. The year 2018 came, and nothing happened. It did not happen in 2019, 2020, or 2021 either.

In March 2022, a few months before the election, two government bills were submitted to the Riksdag. They were so poorly written and so substandard that the Riksdag could not approve them. It was, for example, a question of application for interest in schools or queues.

It would have been enough for the Social Democrats to have called Fredrik Christensen from the Center Party, who was then sitting in the committee, or to have called me. They didn't even have to involve the Sweden Democrats if they didn't feel like talking to them. It would have been possible to get a majority in any case. But the Social Democrats did not do that; instead, they submitted proposals that they knew would fall in the Riksdag, solely so they could use them in the election campaign. I am critical of this. I believe that one should take government power more seriously.

We are now undertaking the largest deregulation of the free school sector in 30 years. I wish it could have happened sooner. But I note that the Social Democrats were incapable of pushing it through. They were more interested in writing articles and creating fancy pictures that people share on Facebook. They were less interested in doing the heavy lifting, rolling up their sleeves, investigating, going through things carefully, and sitting down to review the legislation in order to be able to present well-worked-out proposals to the Riksdag that can then obtain a majority. I truly regret that.

I hope that we can do more moving forward. The Social Democrats are welcome to support that development.

(Applause)

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

Aylin Fazelian (S)

Mr. Speaker! With all due respect, but I do not know what bubble Fredrik Malm lives in. He says that the Social Democratic government did nothing and rambles on about years. I can correct Fredrik Malm by saying that among the first things the Löfven government did in 2015 was to appoint a school commission. A group of researchers were given a solid mandate to investigate proposals on equality in Swedish schools. What came out of that, which Fredrik Malm actually knows, was Björn Åstrand's solid investigation, which led to two propositions. They chose Fredrik Malm and the Liberals to vote no to.

To correct the historical description that Fredrik Malm gives, I can say that it was not the case that nothing happened. It was Fredrik Malm and his party who blocked what needed to happen.

My question remains. I never received an answer to it. How much longer will Fredrik Malm and the Liberals bury important reforms in the school area in investigations? There are already investigations that can be looked at and moved forward with here and now.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! If the Social Democrats want to see what they did during the eight years, it is sufficient to look at the private school groups' financial statements to see how well they succeeded with all the reforms they were to implement. If one wants to change school policy, one must ensure that the Riksdag is on board. One can get the Riksdag on board with quite a lot, but perhaps not with everything that the Social Democrats want.

The fact is that with the reforms the government is now proposing, the intention is to create regulatory frameworks that are robust and stable and provide good conditions. In such cases, I think it is better if it takes half a year longer for the regulatory framework to be properly investigated, go through the Council for Legislation's review, and be anchored in a good way in the Riksdag. The government does not have the ambition to present poorly substantiated legislative products in the Riksdag a few months before the election just because one wants them to be voted down so that they can then be used in the election campaign. That is not quite how we view politics.

When it comes to, for example, the school fee, which the National Audit Office raises, it is linked to the lack of equality in Swedish schools. It is primarily a consequence of the municipalization that the Social Democrats pushed through 30 years ago and which they still have not managed to reconsider.

The Social Democrats are like an octopus that has become round and sluggish. It has eight arms to be able to distribute grants in eight directions at once, but it is not powerful. The Social Democrats have not rolled up their sleeves. They have not managed to reform Swedish schools. It requires liberals at the Ministry of Education and a bourgeois government to make these changes.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that I too would have liked to see a bourgeois government, but unfortunately, we did not get that.

I am very happy that the Liberals now want to make the largest reform of the independent school policy that has occurred in very many years. It is very good. But I and Fredrik Malm must also be honest that our parties may not always have made it easier to reform the independent schools. It may also apply to other parties here in the chamber as well. That honesty we probably must have.

I completely agree that the Social Democrats did a lousy job ahead of the election. From a social democratic perspective, they certainly did a good job of developing election issues, but when it comes to reforming Swedish schools, they did not do a particularly good job. They, in fact, submitted propositions that they knew would not pass and did not talk with the other parties about what would have been required to get them through. We could have done better. Who knows, maybe we wouldn't have reached an agreement – but we could have done better than it is now.

One can observe that the Social Democrats should have talked, and that they should have rolled up their sleeves instead of making fancy gestures and writing debate articles with harsh words. But why are you in the government not ready to have the conversation? Why have you not invited [them] yet? That is the big question. Why have you not rolled up your sleeves and acted regarding the school fee now instead of appointing yet another inquiry? That is the interesting question. The Social Democrats did not do their job properly, but now it is you who have the power. Why do you not do the job properly? That is the question here and now.

We in the Center Party are ready to sit down together with the government and other parties that are ready to take responsibility. I do not believe that another investigation is needed. If this is to become robust, it must be broad. A broader agreement was needed so that independent schools and municipal schools do not also have to hover in uncertainty about what their finances will look like after the next election. The consequences are here and now. Are we going to wait until 2024 to even begin tackling the problem? I do not think so. What do the Liberals think?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the government is bourgeois. I believe that Niels Paarup-Petersen was referring to the government base, which includes an additional party, but the government is bourgeois.

It is of course so, Mr. Speaker, that the government shall do a proper job. It is precisely for that reason that this needs to be investigated. I envision that the greatest possible broad consensus should be sought in the Riksdag, for example, in order to be able to increase the state commitment for the school.

I would like to see Centerpartiet also shift its positions and open up for greater state responsibility for the school. Centerpartiet may not need to go as far as my party and some other parties want. The question concerns, for example, what the National Audit Office addresses in its report regarding a nationally determined flat rate for the school fee – or the school fee norm, which is the word we use and which is indeed somewhat similar. Exactly how it will look must be investigated, but I would like to see a broad consensus regarding this and also regarding a number of other issues. I perceive that both School Minister Lotta Edholm's and Higher Education Minister Mats Persson's approach to the Riksdag is attentive and that they want a dialogue to obtain broader support for the reforms we are implementing.

There are questions in politics that have very long lead times, for example, the defense policy that was just discussed, or school policy for that part. If one goes in and changes the curriculum or the teacher training and so on, it has consequences for generations to come, but if one increases or decreases some tax deduction, it has an effect immediately. Such things can be changed on a whim if you think they are hitting the wrong target. That is precisely why it is very important to have broad support for large, school policy reforms in Sweden.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Member Fredrik Malm considers the parties in the government to be conservative. I judge by the policy and not by the party names, and then it takes a lot to see the liberal perspectives - and that also applies to a large extent to the conservatives - because the only thing you have done with the taxes is to raise them. It does not feel typically conservative, but we can certainly have different views on that.

Now we are talking about the school. The Liberals were in Linköping this weekend, if I am not completely mistaken. It is a fine city. We Center Party members have had a party leader from there. But it is a city that is now closing a lot of schools. Norrköping is also doing that. M, KD and L rule there, and perhaps that can be recognized in some places. In Linköping, it is M and S who together are closing, not least small schools, because they are expensive. And why are they expensive? Yes, because you pay for them twice. First once and then yet again when you pay for independent schools, which are not small. That arrangement exists.

All quality-enhancing efforts in municipal schools shall, as a starting point, be paid twice because money must also go to the independent schools. This is known, and it is also known that it creates major problems and involves a lot of school closures.

If the municipalities are to invest more in student health, they must also pay for it for the independent schools. That is the starting point. Consequently, all quality-enhancing measures in school become very expensive. The more qualified teachers you have – and that is what you want – the more expensive it is. The municipalities must pay to independent schools that do not have as many qualified teachers as they would if they did. It is a crazy arrangement. It is a completely absurd arrangement that has nothing to do with the market and is not liberal. One could say that it is "sossigt" to throw a lot of tax money at things that do not work.

The Speaker mentioned the defense. There is a defense preparedness. It is a great example, Fredrik Malm! Let us create a school preparedness that sits down, takes these issues seriously, gathers the Riksdag and speaks about what needs to be done, reaches an agreement and takes the long leap forward. Perhaps that was a poor choice of words – it sounds a bit communist. But to actually tackle these issues together, we do not need to wait until 2024 to get started.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is very uplifting to listen to Niels Paarup-Petersen. It is actually the first time I have heard a Center Party member argue in that way. For 30 years, the Center Party has argued the opposite when it has come to free schools, resources, and other matters.

I can admit that my party too has made changes step by step and is moving more concretely forward to implement them so that we move away from the imbalances in the incentive structure that exist, if I express myself a bit camera-consciously, regarding the resource distribution in the school.

Mr. Speaker! We can of course have a school preparation. The entire Riksdag is actually a preparation. We prepare proposals all the time, and that is based on the election result. We handle matters in committees and debates. Sometimes we have broad investigations that are parliamentarily composed, and sometimes they are single-person investigations. Things are processed all the time.

We must nevertheless be humble, Mr. Speaker, and realize that there are some ideological differences, for example in the view of how large the state's responsibility over the school should be and how much state control we should have. It can be about how strictly one wants to regulate in detail. There are certainly also a number of different views on pedagogical issues. The Center Party, for example, voted no to teachers being able to seize students' mobile phones if they disturb the lessons and referred to private property rights. It is an approach that I do not quite share.

We have, as we have said, different views on a number of issues. The Riksdag is therefore a good forum to handle that. Hopefully, we can achieve a broader consensus in a committee context or other contexts.

Linköping was, moreover, a very nice city during the weekend.

(cont. § 7)

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