Social economy and financial management

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report regarding expenditure area 2 Social Economy and Financial Management.

It is gratifying that the Sweden Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, have presented a budget that clearly demonstrates the mandate we have received from the voters. After a period of pandemic and an economy characterized by high inflation, we have now landed on a budget that accelerates growth across the entire country and which will create more opportunities for work.

But there are still pressing problems. Europe and our neighboring countries have things to do. There is still war in our immediate vicinity. Germany, which is our most important trading partner, has destroyed a functioning electricity system and is struggling with both low growth and high electricity prices, something that spills over and affects our country's conditions. France has enormous problems with its increasing national debt; I am glad that we have chosen not to proceed with a deficit target, which in the long run would mean that the national debt would increase.

Mr. Speaker! Since the beginning of the year, the Swedish Payments Agency has been able to counteract and detect incorrect payments and fraud. Benefit crime is a major threat to the welfare state and has grown significantly as a result of increasingly more serious crime, which we have allowed to grow for far too long. The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, therefore proposes to further sharpen the agency's mandate regarding these crimes. They both must and shall be reduced in scope. It is nothing that we can do enough of.

For example, Försäkringskassan was reported to the police just last year for incorrect payments of up to 1 billion. And as recently as the day before yesterday, Ekot could reveal that Pensionsmyndigheten for over ten years paid out incorrectly to people who were located abroad. It is nothing other than a major failure from both the state and the agency.

Regarding the financial market, the assessment is that we have a strong and resilient market. This was shown by the stress test that the European Banking Authority conducted. Furthermore, it appeared from the business barometer that up to 70 percent of companies were satisfied with the conditions for the availability of credit. On the whole, we have a credit market that meets the companies' needs.

Mr. Speaker! When parts of the Committee on Finance visited the Baltics a few months ago, we received a clear picture of what it looked like when there was a high demand for credits but a small supply, and how it affected the countries' growth and development. We also took with us the important work against money laundering and corruption that makes those countries ahead of us. They are today among the foremost in Europe in this area. It is a task that we need to learn from, which the National Audit Office has flagged, among other things.

The number of agencies needs to decrease. In over 100 agencies, work is currently underway to review the structure and with reorganization. Statens servicecenter, which provides many of the agencies' contacts with the public, shall receive a greater responsibility with the goal of achieving balance 2030 regarding the fee-financed part. The number of service centers needs to increase to increase the service to more citizens.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: The Swedish Agency for Public Management published a report last year on the extent of incorrect payments from the welfare systems. It showed that around 15 billion were paid out incorrectly in 2021 alone. This corresponds to approximately the same amount of money that the government will spend on civil defense in two years' time. 90 percent of these incorrect payments were not due to the authorities themselves, but the applicant had provided incorrect information – intentionally or otherwise.

We must do everything we can to make that figure approach zero. Now we have a new agency that will reach full operational strength in 2027. And the growing organized crime, not least within welfare crimes, must be pushed back.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Finance Committee's officials for a good job and wish everyone, not least the Speaker, a Merry Christmas.

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD) agreed.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member mentioned service center in a sentence or two in his speech and referred to the fact that the number of service centers should increase around the country. I assume the member was referring to service offices.

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat astonished that the member makes that statement, against the background that the SD government in this budget and within the expenditure area that we are discussing now is making a large and substantial cut on precisely the service offices. They are cutting the budget for the service offices by 150 million kronor over three years.

It is offices that around the country provide good guidance and service to citizens who in many cases also have a long way to travel to the state authorities that the service centers are to provide service regarding.

Mr. Speaker! Has the member not read the budget and seen that there are cuts? How else does the member expect it to be possible to have an increase when one cuts by 150 million kronor to just the service offices?

(Applause)

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the question.

It appears very clearly in the preparatory work what ambition the government has, not least when it comes to the service offices, and it was precisely the service offices I was referring to in my speech. Next year we are expected to cut 50 million kronor, which you Social Democrats do not want to do, Peder Björk.

The background to this is precisely that the service offices shall be fee-financed. The idea is that the agencies that join shall pay a fee and that these offices shall, in the long run, be able to finance themselves. This is also stated in the report. The hope is that they shall be able to finance themselves at least until 2030.

In the preamble, it is further stated that there is a problem in that the state continuously provides funds while simultaneously wanting these offices to move towards a more fee-financed approach. These are two sides of the same coin that are at odds with each other. One cannot guarantee, in this case the service offices, state funds and at the same time say: It is important that you stand on your own feet. It does not add up. The member surely understands that.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not two sides of the same coin. It is just a single side on a blank piece of paper with an idea that does not exist.

The consequence of cutting 150 million kronor over three years will be that service offices around the entire country will be closed. The assessment now is that the cut covers 35 service offices in the whole country.

It is said that it should be fee-financed without pointing out how it should be done. Why should one even do it? It is to take from one side of the state and move it to the other side, but one creates worse conditions for service centers and service offices around the country to be able to perform their task.

Does the Prime Minister seriously mean that it is a free choice for the state agencies that today are linked to the service centers to decide for themselves whether they want to be there or not? In that case, the SD government has truly capitulated before the task of ensuring that there is state service that is accessible for all citizens in all of Sweden. Is it the Sverigedemokraterna's thought, idea, and policy to completely capitulate, ignore the possibility of service in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, and let the agencies decide for themselves whether they should be included or not? The Sverigedemokraterna are, after all, putting forward the idea that it should be fee-financed.

No, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a smokescreen just to hide the fact that one does not care about service to people in the whole country, but the member is welcome to clarify how he and the Sverigedemokraterna intend to act in these matters.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member is taking a bit too much from the toes. One can see from what the previous government did in the area of rural policy. It was far from sufficient.

In addition to the fact that in your proposal you have an investment of 50 million on the service centers during the coming years, I note that you also want banks to be able to connect to these offices. How is that going to work? Are they to be procured? Are they to fight to be there, or are all to be connected? The proposal does not seem to be sufficiently well-thought-out.

If you take the 50 million more than the government proposes that you want to spend on this and divide the sum among all 136 service offices across the country, you land on an increased appropriation of approximately 360,000 kronor per service office. That does not even correspond to a full-time position. Does the member mean that it is the difference between us hitting the countryside and us preserving it? In this case, it concerns 360,000 kronor. In that case, I think one should look a bit more at the policy that the previous government pursued. Then, the countryside was depleted to a significantly higher degree.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I had not actually intended to request a reply in this debate because I was thrown in as a substitute. But I could not help but hear David Perez express his great joy that there will be no deficit target going forward. Then an obvious question arises.

We face incredibly large investments in Sweden. We must make gigantic investments. The Government and the Sweden Democrats themselves have spoken about investing hundreds of billions of kronor in, among other things, nuclear power. If one does not have a deficit target, one should keep in mind that Sweden is one of the countries within the OECD that has the absolutely lowest national debt. We have a national debt that is so low that even macroeconomists judge that Sweden should increase its national debt to have a sound economy.

How do the Sweden Democrats intend to finance investments of the magnitude that we in Sweden need to make? In that case, it is not possible to do with loans. One must either choose between raising taxes and making large cuts within the welfare system. What of this do the Sweden Democrats plan to do?

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Samuel Gonzalez Westling for the question. I think it reveals an ideological difference. In the Left Party's world, cuts or increased taxes are required to invest in Sweden. There is absolutely no other possibility. But yes, there actually is. There is a possibility, and that is to increase Swedish GDP and growth, which would mean more state funds in the form of taxes back to the treasury. Then we can make the necessary investments.

We therefore need to increase growth in the country. There are also other things to do. We can draw inspiration from the other side of the Atlantic and streamline the state apparatus. Just as I said in my opening speech, we are talking about 15 billion in incorrect payments from various agencies. There, Samuel has 15 billion to spend on other things, for example on road construction or on the high-speed railway that I am glad we did not invest in but managed to stop. Or why not spend the money on the nuclear power initiative that we propose?

The nuclear power initiative will, however, finance itself. That is what the government proposes. The state shall take the initial risk, and then the market will handle the rest.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The market will solve everything. That is obviously the answer we get from the Sweden Democrats. It is a rather strange attitude toward how society functions. Even a united body of right-wing economists speaks about what Sweden needs to do right now. And Svenskt Näringsliv agrees with LO that Sweden needs to use debt financing to be able to quickly expand the infrastructure and quickly ensure that the electricity supply can be guaranteed. But then the Sweden Democrats say that the market shall solve this.

It is good that the Sweden Democrats give this message to Swedish business. It is good that one is clear in their declaration of intent.

The fact is that even if one were to bring in 15 or 25 billion - I don't remember the figure - it is far from the sums required to be able to finance the investments that are needed. Sverigedemokraterna and the government want to spend 300 billion on expanding nuclear power, and it is to be in place within ten years.

Then it is supposed to finance itself. This is to be done by, according to what the investigator proposes, ensuring that the Swedish people receive a guaranteed high electricity fee so that the electricity companies can finance the whole thing.

This just doesn't add up. One must make pluses and minuses balance in an economy. If one wants to spend the incredibly large sums on investments that must be made, one must either finance them through loans or choose the alternative that the Sverigedemokraterna stand for, that is, cuts or tax increases. It is not Vänsterpartiet that is proposing it, but it is the Sverigedemokraterna who will be forced to choose.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the Left Party proposes that we should listen to the expertise when one wants to abolish the Fiscal Policy Council, which reviews the government's economic policy.

Nuclear power has nothing to do with this expenditure area at all, but if we are talking about it, it is about the state stepping in and taking the initial risk so that other actors can then step in and take over the loans. It will therefore not be a minus item for the state, but in the long run, it will become a plus item. I see the member shaking his head.

But if we are talking about nuclear power and the 15 billion, 15 billion is also the cost that previous governments invested in the Ringhals nuclear power plant. It was done shortly before it was decided that the same power plant should be closed. It is therefore just as much money as was invested to upgrade the nuclear power plant. Then they shut it down.

When we talk about responsible politics, the Left Party cannot stand here and advocate for it and then shut down well-functioning nuclear power plants. It is a waste of resources. I do not want to burden future generations because you make the wrong decision here in the chamber.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me get straight to the point. What most clearly distinguishes us Social Democrats from the SD government within expenditure area 2, which we are now debating, is the view on the prerequisites for state presence and service throughout the country. In the budget we are now discussing, the SD government puts forward a proposal to cut the financial resources of the service offices by 150 million kronor over the next three years. We reject this entirely, Mr. Speaker.

The cuts correspond to 10 percent of the total budget for the service centers. Such a reduction will clearly have consequences. An assessment is made that approximately 35 service centers need to be completely shut down in order to meet the drastic spending requirements from the SD government. What I am talking about is an operation where citizens all over Sweden receive guidance and service from Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Migrationsverket, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket in one and the same place. It is 2.6 million people annually who use this service, and it is very much appreciated. According to a survey from 2023, 96 percent of the visitors to the service centers are satisfied with the service they receive.

Mr. Speaker! In a debate here in the chamber a little over a year ago, Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner said the following: "I view the state service offices and the activities of Statens servicecenter very positively. The number of state service offices has increased at a rapid pace during recent years. I think it is a very good measure. . I believe that we can develop the service offices even further. It is an activity that has increased at a rapid pace in a short time. As I said, I view this very positively."

Mr. Speaker! I wonder what has happened since then. Why has it become less important for the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates and the Liberals to safeguard the service offices? It cannot be interpreted in any other way when the SD government now puts forward a budget proposal where they are simply going to cut back on the service offices.

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, however, it is self-evident that the state should be present throughout the country in the form of both state jobs and state agencies. During the period 2014-2022 with Social Democratic-led governments, a large number of state jobs and operations were relocated or newly located to places all around Sweden, especially outside the major cities.

But it was not only relocation and relocation that took place. Decisions were also made to develop the service centers. After a thorough investigation, it was decided to invest in a total of 28 new offices in the coming years. This concerned not only rural and sparsely populated areas but also vulnerable areas in cities. Two months ago, Mr. Speaker, State Secretary Slottner inaugurated the last of these 28 offices in Rinkeby.

A state presence throughout the country builds public trust and gives legitimacy to the exercise of authority, something that I believe the SD government is now destroying with its decision to reduce resources so drastically to the state's service offices. My questions to you who are participating in the debate from the Tidö parties are therefore quite simple: Which offices do you want to see closed? Which offices do you want to have reduced opening hours? There must still be an idea of how the operations should be conducted moving forward. Or is it just that simple that the SD government needed to find savings in order to be able to carry out the large tax cuts?

Mr. Speaker! Just tax cuts for the very richest are the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's most important priority. Of the reform space of 60 billion, half goes to tax cuts. Instead, one should use this historically large reform space to tackle social problems, give ordinary people more in their pockets, prioritize growth, and accelerate the Swedish economy.

The SD-government is putting all its effort into implementing an exclusive tax cut that only hits the richest. This is not only immoral. It is also a really bad growth policy. If you want to get Sweden moving, investments in the public sector and in giving ordinary people more in their wallets are much more effective.

We Social Democrats want the finances of ordinary Swedes to be strengthened here and now. We want the child allowance to be increased by 200 kronor per month. We propose a fair tax cut that affects all earned income and targets low- and middle-income earners. And let me be clear: We want the unfair funkisskatten to be completely abolished.

We also propose a rural discount which means that a family in a rural area would receive 1,000 kronor per car, which is significantly more than what the government's brown tax cut provides at the pump. We want to strengthen the pensioners' finances with an increase of the housing supplement by 200 kronor. We also propose that the housing supplement in the child allowance be increased and made permanent.

In our budget proposals, we have also shown that it is possible to have a completely different ambition for Swedish welfare than what the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have chosen. In our budget alternative for 2025, we propose 6 billion more to municipalities and regions in general state grants. In addition to the general supplements, we also want to see a specific staffing initiative in healthcare to shorten the healthcare queues. In total, Mr. Speaker, we from the Socialdemokraterna want to increase the supplements to municipalities and regions next year by 15 billion kronor more than the SD-government.

Mr. Speaker! The SD government has now governed Sweden for more than half of the mandate period. It has in no way succeeded in solving Sweden's problems. Gang violence is creeping down into the younger ages. The government has itself created a national healthcare crisis. Unemployment is at a record high. Sweden's growth is among the worst in all of Europe.

A completely different budget would have been needed to meet these challenges. We Social Democrats, with our budget alternative, have shown that it is possible to prioritize differently. That budget was tested here in the Riksdag and was voted down. With respect for a unified budget process, we will refrain from demanding anything regarding expenditure area 2.

With that said, Mr. Speaker - let there be no doubt whatsoever that a Social Democratic budget in its entirety, and also within expenditure area 2, would have created growth, strengthened ordinary people's household finances, reduced unemployment, increased security, and ensured state presence and service throughout the country in a much better way than the SD government's budget. That, Mr. Speaker, would have been to take responsibility for Sweden - a Sweden that holds together, a Sweden with hope for the future, a Sweden that becomes both wealthier and safer. Sweden would then have been a bit more like Sweden.

(Applause)

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to hear Member Peder Björk prefer what the government wants and does not want.

When it comes to the talk that it is only the rich who profit from the government's budget, he could not be more wrong, if I am honest. The big winners in this budget proposal are actually families with children where both parents are in employment. They are the ones who receive the largest tax cut. They are the same group that has had to stand back when we have had high inflation because they have not been able to be fully compensated by wage formation.

I find it very interesting to hear that you want to introduce a fuel discount of 1,000 kronor. How will that work with the reduction obligation? Is the reduction obligation to be constant, or is it to return to previous levels?

I also remember how colleagues of the member laughed at the government and said that we would not be able to lower the price at the pump by ten kronor. Now we stand there with the results in hand, and we have succeeded in lowering the price at the pump by ten kronor.

Then gang violence came in. As all politicians know, it is not something you do anything about in a heartbeat. This is about gross, systematic violence and a gang criminality that is creeping down in age. It has done so for a long time due to previous governments' policies which have caused people to end up in exclusion and have had no other alternative than to go to the gangs.

It is the policy that the member's party has made possible for this country, and I would like to have an answer to this.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let us begin where we are now and have been for a few years - in an economic crisis with high inflation, where unemployment just keeps increasing and increasing and increasing, where corporate bankruptcies increase and increase and increase and where Sweden's growth is among the lowest compared to other European countries.

That is where we find ourselves, and in this situation, we also have the highest child poverty in all of the Nordics. During the economic crisis, many countries around us chose to strengthen household economies, because it was incredibly tough for those who have the absolute fewest resources. A measure that would have had a direct effect on people's situation would have been to increase the child allowance. It was the other Nordic governments that were wise enough to do so, but the SD government refrained from doing so.

Why? Yes, because money was needed for what the member started with, namely tax cuts - tax cuts that primarily go to those who earn the most. Specifically, billions upon billions are allocated to those who earn 62,000 kronor or more. And is it not particularly telling, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister for Finance, when asked what she will do for the slightly over 3,000 kronor more per month that she gets in her wallet, answers "I don't know"?

I can promise the member that every child-rearing family across Sweden would know exactly what they would do with an increase of 3,000 kronor a month. It is the member who owes the Swedish people an answer to that.

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

David Perez (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member chooses not to answer the most important question, namely what the Social Democrats have planned regarding the fuel price. That question, one chooses to refrain from answering.

It is also the fuel price that ultimately affects prices, not least when it comes to goods in stores and when it comes to jobs and the conditions for companies to keep their operations running. It is largely about fuel prices, naturally also as a result of inflation.

We have had very high inflation, we know that, and the growth in Sweden may not have been as it should have been. But on the other hand, that is how it has looked across all of Europe. What I can be pleased about is that in the upcoming forecast for next year, we will have significantly better figures, and do the member know why? It is precisely because of the budget that we propose from the SD government, as the member says.

Child poverty was also raised. The member may have spoken incorrectly in a previous post, but he spoke about an increase of the child allowance by 200 kronor. Does the threshold for child poverty lie at these 200 kronor, or is it perhaps about the child's mother or father having a job to go to thanks to the growth policy that we propose?

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! We can definitely discuss the fuel issue. We can definitely discuss the gang violence. But the fact is that in the economic situation that we have been in and that we still find ourselves in, the SD government chooses to prioritize those in society who are doing the very best.

This is not just about ensuring that those who have it toughest get 200 kronor more per month in child allowance, which would make a significant difference for the families with children who would receive it, Mr. Speaker. This is about looking at the economic policy as a whole and creating conditions both to manage the crisis we find ourselves in and to actually achieve growth that creates more tax revenues.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the absolute best way to create growth and an economic boost is to ensure that households get more in their wallets and to invest in public activity. Those two things yield by far the best results for growth.

Then it is not about, as the SD government prioritizes, giving just a few more coins in the wallet, but rather it is about giving many, especially those who have it the toughest, more in the wallet.

There, the SD government has chosen a completely different path than we Social Democrats. We will continue to stand up for both creating growth, investing in the public sector, and ensuring that household finances are strengthened. In that way, we create growth and confidence in the future.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have plenty of time today, so I could give a rather long speech and point out the value of keeping track of the state's finances or emphasize the value of wise priorities in the state budget, something we have many examples of in our budget bill.

I could speak about the value of not pouring money into black holes or perhaps that we should have control over our tax money and our payments and that we should reduce the fraud.

When we now talk about service offices, I could have led a discussion with the Social Democrats about the S-government's slaughter of the entire Arbetsförmedlingen, and I could have countered Peder Björk, who claims that we do not solve social problems but only lower taxes. I would like to point out that high taxes are actually a social problem.

But I will not give this long speech, but will content myself with stating that the opposition has not motioned for any alternative proposals. Therefore, for the sake of order, I only wish to motion for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since the member does not want to take up time talking about his and the government's policy, I give the member another chance to do so for a few minutes.

I want to return to what the debate began with, that is to say, a discussion about the service centers.

The SD government proposes a drastic reduction of service offices across the country, something that will hit the service in rural areas and the countryside hard throughout our entire country. This is a policy that the member obviously stands behind, so my question to the member is simply why he thinks it is important in this situation to reduce the service across the country. Which offices in the member's own constituency does he believe should be closed?

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can only refer to all the excellent answers that David Perez gave on exactly the same question. I do not think we will get much further by me repeating everything that we have in the material.

But I still want to remind of one thing. A very important function in society is our employment agencies. Under the previous S-government, with the support of other parties on the left, nothing other than a pure slaughter of employment agency offices around the country was carried out. This is something the Social Democrats, who sat in the government then, bear the responsibility for. One perhaps should not throw stones when sitting in a glass house.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am still a bit surprised that the member does not take the opportunity to elaborate on why it is important to reduce the resources for the service offices. It would also have been interesting to hear what the Moderaternas position is on this and what their view is on the whole thing. Or has it reached the point where they simply submit to what has been decided by the Sverigedemokraterna or some other coalition partner?

But, Mr. Speaker, if we are to talk about Arbetsförmedlingen, we can of course discuss whether it was a good or less good reform that was implemented. I have no memory of the Moderaterna opposing the reform particularly loudly. But if the member thinks the reform was bad, what is it then that prevents the government from making other priorities and investments when unemployment is also skyrocketing and is among the highest in all of Europe while we have the lowest growth?

I wonder and am sincerely curious: If the reform regarding Arbetsförmedlingen was so bad, in what way does it become better by cutting down on the service offices around the country that offer services from just Arbetsförmedlingen? One does, after all, become a bit curious about that.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes it must be tiring as a listener to hear the same question time and again. The answers also come time and again, and yet the question is repeated.

The answer to this question is that there is no ambition from the government's side to close any service offices. We are simply going to finance them in another way.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag has, through its decision on 27 November 2024, established the total expenditures for the expenditure area.

The Left Party's budget alternative regarding expenditure area 2 implies that a phase-out of the Fiscal Policy Council is initiated and that the appropriation is reduced by 6 million kronor in 2025. The agency should be completely phased out during 2026. In its current form, the Fiscal Policy Council lacks the competence to conduct a discussion on economic policy outside the frameworks that a unilateral macroeconomic model entails. The Council can therefore instead be replaced by an institute with a significantly broader competence, the Stockholm Institute for Interdisciplinary Socio-Economic Research. A new appropriation of 20 million kronor for this purpose should therefore be established.

Social economy and financial management

To strengthen the Finansinspektionen's work against money laundering, it is proposed that the agency's appropriation be increased by 10 million kronor in 2025. Furthermore, Vänsterpartiet rejects the government's proposal to reduce the appropriation to Statens servicecenter by 50 million kronor. Statens servicecenter fulfills an important function in society, especially when it comes to increasing the state's presence in the country.

Finally, in our budget, we propose an appropriation of 70 million kronor for 2025 to establish a climate investment agency. The agency shall plan and coordinate a climate investment program. In total, 144 million kronor more than what the government proposes should have been allocated within the expenditure area for 2025.

In other respects, I refer to our special statement.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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