Stricter conditions for the independent school sector

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I am proud that today we will vote through stricter conditions for the independent school sector. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the bill.

There have been schools that have hardly had any qualified teachers. There have been schools without school libraries. There have been school libraries in the form of a box in the attic. Quality deficiencies will be able to lead to profit prohibitions.

There have been schools that have suddenly closed down, leaving children and students at the mercy of the elements and placing municipalities in an impossible situation. Now we will ensure that this cannot happen.

School is politics' primary tool for people to have the opportunity to live their lives as they wish – that is, for freedom. Without a school that gives all children, regardless of background, the opportunity to shape their own lives because they have received knowledge, skill, and abilities in school, people cannot be free. That is why this issue is so incredibly important for liberals. It is in school that we create freedom for everyone, regardless of background.

Parents must be able to trust that their children receive instruction from qualified teachers and with real school books and staffed, well-stocked school libraries. School owners who do not behave properly shall receive sharp fines from Skolinspektionen.

For the freedom that schools shall create, because we want to safeguard freedom of choice with serious schools – temples of knowledge with long-term perspective – and because children shall be put first, I move for approval of the proposition.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! When the Tidö Government took office, it was promised that a complete renovation of the independent school system would be undertaken. Now we know what became of that complete renovation: almost nothing. The profit margins will remain. The system of fees for independent schools is unchanged. The school fees for independent schools are unchanged.

The government makes it sound as if they are now closing down the casino that has reigned for far too long in Swedish schools, but all they have done is turn off the one-armed bandit. The blackjack table remains. We in Sweden continue to gamble away children's schooling on the stock market. With legislation that only limits profit withdrawals for newly started friskolor, the large corporations will be able to continue to rake in large profits from our students' education.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals say, just like we do, that they want to prohibit limited companies from conducting school activities and stop profit extraction in Swedish schools. Why then do the Liberals not join the proposal to have a general profit ban in Swedish schools investigated, which the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party are putting forward for a vote later today?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to correct some oddities in Member Mixter's speech. The truth is that we are implementing the largest reforms in Swedish schools in a very long time. When it comes to the independent school sector, we are implementing the largest renovation ever. We ensure that only long-term actors shall be able to operate in this market. We ensure that a profit ban can be imposed if there are quality deficiencies. We ensure that unserious owners will be met with sharp fines from the School Inspectorate. We ensure that the problems that have existed in some independent schools, with untrained teachers, unmanned school libraries, and non-existent access to school books, are addressed. One shall not be able to conduct operations if one has those types of quality deficiencies. That is the reality.

If one wants to make some kind of flippant comparison with casinos, blackjack, or whatever it may be, one can certainly do that. However, I do not think that type of rhetoric belongs in a debate about the school. It is an all too important issue to joke away in that manner. These are important, serious reforms that we are implementing so that students can shape their lives and live their lives in freedom, and so that the schools will be serious.

Madam Speaker! The sharp question that Isabell Mixter poses bears witness to what we all know. The Social Democrats have succeeded in keeping the Left Party out of government throughout the entire history of Swedish democracy. I think that is good. I do not want communists in the government. But it also means that the Left Party has no experience of what it is like to govern.

One must negotiate and reach agreements with different parties and then present proposals that one stands for jointly. We would have liked to go further. But this is the largest reform and reforming that has ever been made, so one should also be proud.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell speaks about negotiating and reaching agreements. The Tidö parties said that when they agreed on when they would take office, it was to completely renovate the friskole system.

They were supposed to investigate the voucher system and a school fee that was differentiated for independent schools and municipal schools because municipal schools have a responsibility for the range of offerings. They have completely failed to do anything about it because the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna did not want to change that legislation. They want to continue to have the limited companies at their backs.

Madam Speaker! Joar Forssell considered it ridiculous when I spoke about casinos. What is ridiculous is to continue to gamble with our children's education. That is what is happening in the Swedish independent school sector every day.

One allows school fees to end up in the pockets of shareholders. They go towards luxury cars, waffle stands, and horse academies without horses. Certainly, that bill and the reform that the government presents today is a step in the right direction, but it is definitely not a complete renovation. I know that Joar Forssell's own party agrees, in that it wants to go further.

In the negotiation that Forssell's own party has made with the Sverigedemokraterna, it is said that they have agreed on a Sweden promise that during the next mandate period they will take a new approach to this. The Sverigedemokraterna have already come out and denied it. Nothing will come of it.

I wonder how good the Liberals themselves are at negotiating. I still want to know why the Liberals do not want to vote for their own policy in the chamber today and put a stop to the profit-seeking in Swedish schools.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Mixter for further questions!

We come back to the same question. Say that Vänsterpartiet would like to completely renovate the Swedish economy. I believe that is what Vänsterpartiet wants. Vänsterpartiet does not like capitalism, property rights, and a market economy. It wants a completely different economic system.

I do not think that Vänsterpartiet will succeed with that complete renovation, but unfortunately, it will come some way. It will not succeed with that renovation when it is to sit in government with Centerpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. Isabell Mixter will become aware of it if she gets to sit in government.

That is how politics works. You say what you want, you negotiate, and then you arrive at a result that takes you a bit further along the way. That is what we have done here. These are important steps for Swedish schools. These are important steps for Sweden's students, Sweden's teachers, and fundamentally Sweden's freedom.

We will ensure that unserious actors will no longer be able to extract any profit. We will ensure that unserious owners will be able to receive sharp fines. We will ensure that those who should not run independent schools will not be able to run independent schools. We will ensure that the students who attend an independent school can be sure that they have a school tomorrow as well, because one will not be able to shut down a school just like that and leave the municipality high and dry. We will ensure that, and these are important reforms.

They are important reforms for Sweden and important reforms for the school. That is why one should be proud of them. But as the saying goes: One should be proud but not satisfied. We want more. We have pushed through a great deal of liberal policy in the Tidö Agreement, and I am convinced that with a Tidö government we will push through much more liberal policy in Sweden's Riksdag and in Sweden's government. It is clear that different parties have different starting points in those negotiations. It is not strange.

Madam Speaker! I will not accuse Isabell Mixter for the Social Democrats' policy, because I know that Isabell Mixter wants much more. She wants to abolish the capitalist market economy.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! After four years with the SD government, the result is clear: The promised complete renovation did not even become a complete half-decent home styling. Never have the profits in the school corporations been so large. Never have so many students left primary school without passing grades. Never have the gaps in Swedish school been as large as they are now.

That is why the Minister for Education is the only minister who chooses not to defend her bill during this extraordinary session. This despite the fact that she has even been here in the Riksdag during the same time and held an imaginative press conference in the Riksdag foyer just a few meters from the chamber's entrance.

The government went to the election on a promise to tackle the problems in Swedish schools. But instead of the government renovating a school system characterized by growing inequality, the mandate period has become four lost years for Swedish schools.

At the same time as classrooms are overcrowded and rowdy, teachers are pressured and students do not receive the support they need, the government has prioritized tax cuts for high-income earners instead of investments in the school.

The promises to tackle the marketization of schools have not been fulfilled. The pursuit of profit is allowed to continue, while what was promised has become investigations that are already gathering dust. In the meantime, resources continue to leak from the schools and the differences between students continue to increase.

Swedish schools need a new direction. The Social Democrats want to take back control of the school. School funds should go to more teachers, smaller classes and better support for every student and not to profit distributions. All children should be met with high expectations and receive the help they need to succeed.

The teacher shall be the classroom's self-evident leader. The disruption in the classroom must be eliminated. For this to be possible, the teacher must also be given the right conditions with time, peace of work, and support in their mission.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Education's absence today is no coincidence. None of the Ministers for Education and Training who have been in office during these four years of government have defended the government's own school policy in a committee debate in the chamber. The failure thus speaks for itself.

It also means that Joar Forssell has received the dubious pleasure of becoming historical. If the election goes as the opinion polls predict, he will be the one to deliver the Liberals' final address in the Swedish Riksdag.

Today we are debating the bill Tightened conditions for the independent school sector. The bill shows that the government and the Sweden Democrats have failed to remove the profit-seeking and the perversions of the market school. It shows that the government fundamentally lacks the will to ban profits.

Once again, the Moderaterna, Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna side with the large school corporations instead of the students and teachers and choose to defend profit-seeking instead of the children's schooling.

During the 2014–2018 mandate, the Tidö parties worked hard to ensure that profit-driven companies would continue to have unlimited opportunities for profit extraction. In 2018, they voted down a proposal from the Sledda government which meant that companies within school and care that are financed by tax revenue would be forced to agree to a profit limitation in order to receive permission to conduct their operations.

During the previous parliamentary term, 2018–2022, they devoted themselves to blocking all proposals to remove the profit-seeking and the school corporations' privileges from the school system. Among other things, they voted down proposals submitted by the S government to ban unfair and segregating school queues as well as to remove the overcompensation in the school funding which every year leads to billions leaking from the school and the classrooms.

Seven out of ten voters want to ban profit in schools. Nine out of ten teachers want to ban profit in schools. Today's vote will be the eighth in a series where the Tidö parties side with the school corporations instead of with the students and teachers.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are trying, with the bill now being presented, to give the impression that they are finally dealing with the profit-seeking. But that is not true. In fact, the government actually prevented the profit investigation from even investigating a real profit ban.

In June 2022, the Government appointed an inquiry with the directive A school without profit interest (Dir. 2022:102) which was to be reported by February 29, 2024, at the latest. The inquiry included, among other things, directives to investigate and propose how a ban on profit distribution from private owners can be implemented.

When the Tidö government took office, they crippled the profit investigation and prohibited the investigator from even investigating a profit ban.

Swedish school is alone in the world in allowing unlimited profit-seeking in a publicly funded school. Investigations from the Riksdag's investigation service show that only the largest school corporations in recent years have made a combined profit of 8.5 billion kronor, with EBIT as the measure. The investigation reveals only the tip of an iceberg. Only a fraction of all profit-driven schools are included in the corporations that were investigated. EBIT is also a conservative measure of profit, which rather describes the size of the profits at the lower end. If one instead uses the measure EBITDA, that is, operating profit before depreciation and amortization, one sees that the profit levels for only the largest school corporations land at over 20 billion over four years.

For-profit schools have received a series of privileges from the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna that cause several billion kronor to leak out of the classrooms, with cuts to teachers and increased inequalities as a consequence.

Swedish schools must be for the children, not for profit-driven corporations. Students and parents should be able to choose their school, but school corporations must not be allowed to choose the students they consider to be most profitable.

We Social Democrats are running for election on a platform to ban profit extraction and ensure that school funds stay in the school and go to what they are intended for. We want to implement a small school reform with small classes for small children and finance it with overcompensation from large school corporations. Tax money for the school should go to more teachers, smaller classes, and better teaching, not to luxury cars, waffle stands, or archipelago plots. All children in Sweden shall have the right to a good start in school and strong life chances. This must take precedence over the pursuit of profit. Students and parents shall be able to continue choosing their school. School corporations shall not be allowed to choose students. We want small classes for small children instead of large profits for the large corporations.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know where Anders Ygeman found that script somewhere. When he said that nothing is happening, it was perhaps a script from 2022 that he dug up from the filing cabinet.

Was there something that the Socialdemokraterna were very good at during the eight years when they governed the country? It was investigating, but it was a bit like what happened. Anders Ygeman stands here and says that many leave primary school without becoming eligible. What did the Socialdemokraterna do about that? Well, they implemented a read-write-count guarantee. How did it turn out? What was the effect of it? It didn't go so well. Somewhere, before one starts criticizing others, one must reflect on what one did oneself.

We have made the biggest reforms in the school area in 30 years. I believe that all of Skolsverige agrees on this and sees what is happening. Journalists are constantly writing about it. But Anders Ygeman does not seem to care about what others write. He usually cares more about what he thinks himself.

Which schools are it that choose students? I would like to hear Anders Ygeman list ten examples of schools that choose students. It would be interesting to hear. Take one example!

I would also like to hear how many of the independent actors who spend money on luxury cars and waffle huts, that is, loose-ended things that no one in this chamber thinks is okay. This is not something general for the independent sector. But the Social Democrats are generalizing, because they have no other policy than to vent out rudeness against the entire independent sector. I will return to that in my speech.

Answer those questions, Anders Ygeman!

By the way, I am glad that we are not standing here and discussing new figures on how large profits the independent actors take out, as those usually change from time to time when Anders Ygeman is up at the rostrum.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Mr. Speaker! The reforms may be as large as they like, but the results speak for themselves.

You may think it was wrong to have a guarantee that people would learn to read, write, and count, but after four years with the Tidö government, more people are graduating with failing grades. Never before have so many had failing grades, so the reforms do not seem to be helping.

That is why the voters want to replace Patrick Reslow and the Tidögänget. Seven out of ten voters want to ban profit. Nine out of ten teachers want to ban profit. Why does Patrick Reslow think that is the case?

I don't think I need to give any examples regarding the selection of elevators, because the Tidö Agreement was clear on that. To remedy that, there should have been a common queue. It is stated in the Tidö Agreement. The only problem is that you have not implemented it. You saw the problem but ignored it, just as with the profits.

Yes, it is possible to mock waffle huts, hunting lodges, and Porsche cars. During SD's four years as a support party to the Tidöregeringen, 8.5 billion kronor have leaked out of the classrooms – 8.5 billion kronor that could have become 3,000 more teachers, which could have become more support hours for those with special needs, and which could have gone to new teaching materials. But instead, they have gone to waffle huts, hunting lodges, and Porsche cars. You can call it a marginal note. But the difference, Patrick Reslow, is that I want to put a stop to the school corporations' profits. You want to let them continue. You see no problem with someone buying a hunting lodge with your tax money. I want to do something about it.

It becomes clear in this debate that a vote for the Sweden Democrats is a vote for four years of gains in welfare.

(Applause)

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

TALMANNEN

I gently remind you that we speak through the Speaker in the chamber.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, Anders Ygeman does not want to abolish the profits of the school corporations. He wants to abolish the school corporations, period. That is the ultimate goal for the Social Democrats. There should be no private activity in the welfare sector. It has been the great Social Democratic wet dream for several years.

The Honorable Member says that it is still students who cannot read and who cannot get into upper secondary school after four years with the Tidöregeringen. Four years. We started the reform work and began investigating things in 2022, and the first reforms were implemented in 2023/24.

But those who are graduating now, what kind of reforms have they lived under? Those who graduated this spring in 2026 have had seven years of Anders Yngveman's read-write-count guarantee. It hasn't yielded any results. Why is that? The Social Democrats are always good at pointing out mistakes and deficiencies when they are in opposition, but when they govern the country, there is very little workshop. Much talk and little workshop is a motto that applies to modern social democracy.

The question of the common waiting time was not about schools choosing. Schools do not choose students. Students choose schools. They stand in line. There, the idea was that there should be a common set of rules. But it was a question that we did not have time for because we had so many other reforms since the Social Democratic power had totally missed making necessary reforms for the school. Then we had to prioritize. We did not have time for more, but we are very proud of what we have done. And in the next mandate period, we will continue on that path.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats have made themselves the political arm of the school corporations. The profits are accelerating and the school results are failing. It is not as, Mr. Speaker, as Patrick Reslow says, that it has become a little better and that slightly fewer now leave school without passing grades. No, it has become worse during this time. Never before have so many left school without passing grades. In Sweden, there are four times as many who leave school without passing grades as the average in the EU. It is twice as many in Sweden as in the country in Europe that has the second highest proportion of those who leave school without passing grades: Spain, which is not usually one of your favorite countries, Patrick Reslow.

Mr. Speaker! On the Tidö side, one is very proud of having made so many reforms. But what is the result of the reforms? Regarding the profits, one didn't manage to get it right. They have increased instead. One didn't manage to get to the point that Swedish school knocks out more than any other school in Europe. The results continue to fall. These are major reforms with disappointing results. I believe that is the background to why so many want to replace the Tidö Government. Seven out of ten voters and nine out of ten teachers want to ban profit in school, because they see how harmful the profit leakage is for the entire Swedish school system.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost express my approval of the proposal in the report.

Sweden has a fantastic school system. I would like to emphasize this for the Social Democrats, whom I also see sitting and nodding. Nowhere else in the world can students and parents choose between different schools, public and independent, without it costing anything extra for the student and completely independent of the parents' wallets. No student fees are charged for the education. The parents' incomes are completely irrelevant for the choice of school.

So, for example, it is not the case in our neighboring countries Denmark and Norway, which the Social Democrats so often refer to. In Denmark, the parent who wants the children to attend a free school must pay between 1,000 and 2,500 Danish kroner per month and child. In Norway, the corresponding cost is between 1,000 and 3,300 Norwegian kroner per month and child. Such a system is clearly not open and accessible to everyone.

In Sweden, 100 percent of the costs of school fees are covered. It is therefore this system that the Social Democrats constantly criticize. The result of a Social Democratic policy will therefore be a significantly limited supply of independent schools, no free schools at all, or possibly an introduction of student fees, just as in Denmark and Norway. This is not what we want to see.

For us Sverigedemokrater, the right to choose a school is of central importance. That right did not exist when I myself grew up. Back then, one was placed in a school based on a map that politicians and officials had drawn up. If you were lucky, it was a good school. If you were unlucky, you simply had to be satisfied with the politicians' choice. It is a system that I believe few people, few parents, and few students would want to go back to. For those who have attended school since the 90s, I believe that this system would be very difficult both to understand and comprehend as well as to accept.

For a student who, for example, is bullied or has a diagnosis, the mere possibility of choosing a school can be a game-changer, as well as for students who are outstanding or who for other reasons are not satisfied with the school placement they have received. Our message is clear: It is the students and parents who should choose the school themselves. Politicians and officials shall not do it for them.

Let us now be honest: The only thing the Social Democrats talk about and are interested in regarding school issues is the profit ban. And when the Social Democrats talk about a profit ban, it is actually, at its core, a genuine opposition to all private activity in the welfare sector that emerges. They are fully aware that 80 percent of all students in independent schools attend schools run by limited companies and that most of these are profit-oriented. A profit ban would mean that these schools would have to be closed, and the Social Democrats are very well aware of that. That is their long-term strategy. It is a policy that we Sverigedemokrater will never, ever stand behind.

During the previous parliamentary term, the then Social Democratic government commissioned an inquiry into potentially introducing a profit ban for independent schools. That we Sverigedemokrater, together with the other Tidö parties, chose to change the directives almost immediately after the 2022 election should not have come as any major surprise, even if it appears so in the Social Democrats' reservation in this matter. When corresponding proposals were raised in the committee during the previous parliamentary term, there was compact opposition from the then opposition, with Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and also Centerpartiet.

The Tidö parties' position after the election has been that we should have a regulatory framework that prevents the occurrence of unserious actors in the school world. It is them we are to strike against. It is the problems we are to attack, not that which works. It is about unserious actors driven by a different philosophy than that one should conduct teaching in the best way and deliver results. It is extremely few actors who are affected. But the actions still create a negative image of the entire independent school system in the political debate. The regulatory framework must ensure that we get an end to the few who exploit the system.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are now proposing a regulatory framework that shall ensure long-term sustainability in the operations. That is good. We Sweden Democrats have long called for independent actors to have a financial buffer in order to be able to guarantee that students who begin an education can also complete it. In the bill, it is now proposed to introduce a prohibition on value transfer in both new establishments and changes of ownership. In the case of new establishments, the prohibition on value transfer shall apply during the first five years, and in the case of changes of ownership, for three years.

The meaning of a value transfer ban during new establishment is that the money shall remain in the operation and that one shall build up and strengthen the quality and ensure that students can stay. It should not be the case that any actor has problems in purely financial terms because money is used for something else. When it comes to the value transfer ban during change of ownership, the purpose is to prevent short-sightedness. These proposals are furthermore supplemented with requirements for separate reporting so that it is easy to follow the money.

In addition to what applies in the case of new establishment and change of ownership, a supervisory order regarding deficiencies can also be combined with a value transfer prohibition when such is invoked and proportionate. We think it is entirely reasonable. If an individual principal has serious deficiencies in the operation, public funds should, of course, primarily be used to rectify the deficiencies.

Mr. Speaker! It is the Sweden Democrats' firm opinion that the proposal in the bill is fully sufficient to put a stop to unserious actors, while we continue to stand guard over the existence of independent operations and thus also the diversity of schools and parents' and students' right to choose a school. A profit ban would hit the entire sector enormously hard and be completely disproportionate. But the Social Democrats, as they have said, have a completely different ideology, which justifies a disproportionate profit ban. According to them, the independent schools should be removed.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, in this mandate period's final committee debate, I would like to extend a warm thank you to the Speaker's Presidency and to the Riksdag Chancellery for your efforts during these four years. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for all the work it puts in – for all the briefings, all the texts that are produced in an excellent manner, and all the help we receive. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues in the other Tidö parties for a fantastic cooperation during these four years, with cheerful shouts, laughter, and pleasant group meetings.

Finally, I also want to extend a big thank you to the opposition. We have not always agreed – sometimes far from it, I would say – and sometimes there have also been very harsh debates. But behind the scenes, we have still been pleasant and respected each other, and the opposition's work is also important to drive development forward.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Reslow spoke a lot about freedom of choice in his contribution, and one might ask: Freedom of choice for whom?

Is it freedom of choice to be able to choose a horse gymnasium without horses? Is it freedom of choice to be able to choose a school with few qualified teachers because the teaching is conducted in English, which means that a Swedish teacher's license is not required? Is it freedom of choice to be able to choose a school or preschool where the children do not receive enough food because the owners want to take out large profits?

What we have today is a freedom of choice for the limited companies to freely choose where they should establish themselves and how many school children they should have in their school – and thus how large profits they can take out – regardless of whether there is a need for more school units in that municipality or not.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are discussing small, tiny improvements here, but the pursuit of profit in Swedish schools will continue. The Sweden Democrats were previously against profits in welfare, but after 2014, they seemed to change sides after some heavy drinking with free school lobbyists. Jimmie Åkesson has clearly declared to the voters that the limited companies in the school shall remain.

The Sweden Democrats defend a system that almost no one wants. 70 percent of the Swedish people, as well as nine out of ten teachers, want to remove profits from Swedish schools. The Sweden Democrats continue to staunchly defend a system where tax money intended for students' and children's schools and preschools goes out as profit to shareholders – school owners who buy luxury cars, waffle stands and so on with our tax money. It is obviously more important for the Sweden Democrats to ban vegetarian food, such as pancakes, than to ensure that the school money goes to the students and not to buying waffle stands.

Why do the Sweden Democrats defend a system where tax money intended for schools ends up in the pockets of shareholders?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That is precisely what we do not do; that is why we have submitted the proposal that is on the table today, which aims precisely at getting rid of the unserious actors.

Of course, horse training should not be conducted without horses. Why has it been allowed to continue for all these years? Why did Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna do nothing about it when they were in power? This is nothing new; we have seen these discussions before. The problem could have been addressed.

Instead, one should take the sledgehammer and ban profits generally, because it is known that it would cut the legs out from under all independent actors. That is not what we are prepared to do. We shall cut the legs out from under those who have an interest other than providing education, that is to say, for those who are interested in exploiting the system. We shall not keep them, and we are now ensuring that this is rectified.

When it comes to the fact that 70 percent want to remove profits, the question should be asked in relation to freedom of choice: Okay, we remove the profits, but then your opportunity to choose a school also disappears – are you still prepared to abolish the profits? Such a question has never been asked. That correlation has never been made. I am a hundred percent certain that one would get a completely different outcome if one asked those two questions together.

As is well known, with statistics one can show anything. With statistics, one can prove that a horse is a dog.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The statistics on how many people want to preserve freedom of choice have been compiled by the lobby organizations on the right.

The point is not to remove freedom of choice, but to ensure that tax money intended for the school goes to students and teachers. It doesn't matter how much Reslow claims that one will solve this problem with the bill that is on the table today; that is not true. It has also been clearly declared that one continues to stand for the fact that limited companies shall exist in the school world.

Reading the Companies Act, one clearly sees that the primary purpose is to generate profit. For me, it does not add up to have the primary purpose of making a profit and to provide education for children and take care of children in preschool. The government's own investigator has also concluded that it is not possible to determine what good quality is.

With this bill, profits will be limited only at startup and if a fine has been issued from the School Inspectorate. It therefore means no guarantee that there will be good quality in the schools that the Sweden Democrats and the rest of the Tidöre Government will allow to continue extracting profits. There is no guarantee that the quality will improve.

For example, one has failed to carry out reforms that would ensure that all schools in Sweden are required to have teachers with a Swedish teaching license. In that regard, nothing has been done. To say that there will be good quality in Swedish schools with these reforms is actually unserious.

I still want to ask Reslow why he wants to defend the profits – why he wants to defend that our tax money goes into the pockets of private shareholders despite the needs being so great in Swedish schools.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that this is difficult to understand for a party that does not understand free enterprise, entrepreneurship, and the like. It simply becomes too difficult for the thinking process.

We do not defend taking out profit, but we defend the right to choose a school. 80 percent of the students who attend independent schools attend schools run by limited companies. What happens if we introduce a profit ban? Well, then these schools will no longer exist. What happens to those students then? Well, you get them into municipal schools – and that is exactly what Vänsterpartiet wants. Vänsterpartiet does not want any private activity in any welfare sector at all. Speak plainly, Vänsterpartiet!

I also think it is quite remarkable to start talking about this with teacher certifications and the like. We have a major problem getting qualified teachers in Sweden. In the rural areas, it is even harder to get qualified teachers. Still, the Vänsterpartiet keeps on saying: No, if one does not have a Swedish teacher certification, one should not be allowed to teach.

This apparently applies regardless of whether the teacher masters the Swedish language or not. It is the teacher's license itself that Vänsterpartiet wants. Someone who has a teacher's license from England but masters the Swedish language is not a teacher here. What is it that says that one is a great teacher because one has a license and a very poor teacher because one lacks a license?

I think that serious politics should mean creating systems that ensure all unqualified teachers can quickly become qualified, and we have begun that work. Thank goodness that the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö Government got to tackle school issues! We will continue to work with them for four more years, because if the Left Party gets to rule, it will be chaos and catastrophe.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was a bit interesting to hear that the Sweden Democrats are suddenly in favor of multiculturalism and that one can speak other languages in Swedish workplaces. I found that to be a bit refreshing.

I will, however, return to the matter. This is the mandate period's final debate, and I take the liberty of summarizing a bit for the Swedish people what they have received after four years with the Tidö government.

It has become 10,000 kronor more expensive for a Swedish family with children to live, and 100,000 more people are unemployed. The healthcare queues have become record-long. The government has backed down regarding the climate goals. Sweden's teachers are sounding the alarm about a crisis in schools, and in preschools, the staff are burning out. Instead of investing in schools, the government has however chosen to lower the tax for the very richest.

When the Tidö parties reached an agreement after the election, they promised a complete renovation of the independent school system. However, there was no reduction of the school fee for independent schools. There was no ban on making a profit. Nor was there any change to the admission system.

When one listens to the debate on the profit ban and hears the fear that exists on the right regarding completely removing profits within the school system, one can almost believe that the right to make a profit is more important than Article 26 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to education. At the same time as the school corporations are making gigantic profits, we have masses of students who leave school without complete grades, who do not receive the support they need, and who are in far too large classes. These students cannot move forward in life because of the shattered school system that has been created.

The results of the largest school groups over three years amount to 19 billion. This corresponds to 10,000 teachers. This money could have remained in the school.

Mr. Speaker! I was previously a local politician in Sundsvall, which is a city with a high density of independent schools. It was no coincidence that many independent schools sought out that specific location. Sundsvall had a relatively high school fee, which made it lucrative for the companies.

As the system is currently structured, all schools receive exactly the same amount of money per pupil, regardless of what costs the school has. The independent schools can optimize the number of pupils in each class, as they have a queuing system. They can choose to exclude pupils who they consider to be too demanding. The queuing system also leads to more children of well-educated parents attending independent schools compared to municipal schools. The schools thus receive exactly the same pupil grant despite it being known that the needs are different.

During the time I was a municipal politician, Sundsvall Municipality received a judgment against it in the administrative court. School fees were to be paid out retroactively to independent entities because the municipality's schools had run a deficit. We were also forced to pay out money to John Bauer's bankruptcy estate. How can it be reasonable that school fees should be paid out to a free school that has gone bankrupt?

We in the education committee then needed to save money, and some years later we were forced to present a budget cut. We were then approached by a number of principals at independent units who argued that it was an unreasonably low school fee and that they would not be able to survive on it. Some years later it was revealed that one of the schools had taken out million-profit profits during the same year.

The municipalities also have no power to say no to independent schools, even if new establishments affect their finances negatively. Even municipal politicians from the Moderaterna see this. The other day, we could read in Dagens Nyheter that Moderate politicians warn that a new independent school can cost the municipality millions.

Mr. Speaker! The irregularities within Swedish independent schools have been many. At Hälsans preschool, crispbread and water were served for breakfast. The preschool then changed its name to Tellusbarn but continued to ration the food, among other things by having a lock on the refrigerator.

The school funds have also been used to buy a Porsche and to open various side companies, for example a nanny business in a sky bar in Hammarby sjöstad. A horse gymnasium has been run without horses at Realgymnasiet in Trollhättan. Alarms have been raised about friskolor in Malmö that hardly have any qualified teachers, but the owners still buy luxury cars with the money.

Many independent schools conduct teaching in English, and it does not happen by chance. That is because they can then employ teachers without requirements for a teaching license. It is also a nice way to earn a little extra money.

The owner of Watma Education bought a waffle hut in Åre and claimed that the purpose was to teach children about entrepreneurship. The owner was a former CEO of the John Bauer Group, which went bankrupt in 2013 and saw to it that 10,000 students were left without school.

Mr. Speaker! Before the free school reform in the 90s, Sweden had a world-class school. The school was equal and well-functioning. Then came a financial crisis and heavy cuts in the school in combination with a growing free school market. In the beginning of the 00s, the free school market exploded. It had been understood that it is possible to make money here.

One might ask how this could have continued for so long, even though we see the results in Swedish schools. The entry of private companies into Swedish schools has made it worse in every conceivable way. It has become more expensive for the municipalities. The results in Swedish schools have deteriorated. It has become more unequal. Grade inflation has become a major problem, and teachers at universities testify that the students can no longer write a coherent text.

Over 70 percent of the Swedish people, and nine out of ten teachers, are against schools being allowed to make a profit. Still, this is allowed to continue year after year. One can ask why.

Mr. Speaker! I want to read a passage from the book Bananrepubliken Sverige: There is a large gap between what Swedish politicians decide in the issue of profits in the welfare sector and what public opinion thinks about them. In Sweden, around 70 percent of the electorate are against them. When the gap is so large, there is usually a strong special interest that is well-organized, researcher Anna Tyllström states bluntly in an interview with Dagens ETC.

There are lobbyists who lobby hard to ensure that the charter schools are not threatened. They are frightened by the idea that freedom of choice would disappear and that the school would become worse without profits.

If one looks at who sits on the boards of the independent schools, it is not difficult to see that there seem to be revolving doors between politics and the independent schools' boards and that many of the government's party comrades are found there. The Prime Minister's wife sits on the board of Europaskolan, which she also invited to Sagerska. Lotta Edholm, now Minister for Research and Higher Education, previously sat on the board of Tellusgruppen, which among other things owns what was formerly called Hälsans preschool. This is, therefore, the preschool that gave the children crispbread and water, even though they hardly had teeth to chew with.

Two Moderate profiles own their respective school groups. The country's largest primary school group, for example, has Moderates on the board. Peje Emilsson, formerly a Moderate, is the founder of Kunskapsskolan. Peje Emilsson has himself said that he occasionally sends SMS messages to Ulf Kristersson when he thinks he has been good.

Hans Bergström and Barbara Bergström are well-known figures in the board of Internationella Engelska Skolan. One of them is also known for having measured girls' skirt lengths in a DN report. They sit on the board together with Gunilla Carlsson, former Moderate Member of the European Parliament.

The list can be very long, but I will not bore you.

Mr. Speaker! The government's so-called complete renovation is not a complete renovation. In June 2022, the Social Democratic government appointed an inquiry that was to investigate a general profit ban in Swedish schools. The current government chose to scrap the directives for the inquiry and turn it into an inquiry that would look at a profit limitation or a ban on profit withdrawal at new establishment. The new directives were presented on July 6, 2023. What the government presents here today is therefore nothing other than a significant step backward from what we could have discussed here.

On November 3, 2023, the government appointed an inquiry into school funding for independent schools. On June 12, 2025, the inquiry on a national school funding norm was rejected. There, a deduction of 6 percent was proposed because the municipalities have a supply responsibility. They have a legally regulated responsibility to accept all students and need to have ongoing preparedness for it. The municipalities also need to take into account demographic changes. The municipalities take the main part of the supply responsibility, and the supply responsibility entails costs at the school level.

All of this can be read in the investigation; it is nothing that I am making up here and now. Nevertheless, the government chooses not to address this.

On December 10, 2025, we could read that the Moderaterna wanted to throw the school fee investigation in the trash. The government rift became clear. The Liberalerna still wanted to proceed with the investigation, but the Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna said no.

This announcement came by chance one day after Almega had stated that these proposals would cut the legs out from under the profits of the friskolor.

Mr. Speaker! Now a ban is to be introduced against withdrawing profits during the first years when a new school starts. But this does not affect the already well-established corporations but can, on the contrary, protect their position on the market. A value transfer ban shall also be introduced in the event of changes in ownership and in the case of injunctions.

What we are to make decisions on today is absolutely a small step forward and nothing I oppose, but it is a far too small step to be called a complete renovation. I do not know how you do it when you renovate, but I usually do not settle for a little silver tape.

Mr. Speaker! It is clearly stated in the Companies Act that the primary purpose is to make a profit. This is not compatible with running a school. Obviously, the main purpose must be that the students should learn something and that the preschool children should have a safe preschool, not that the owners should be able to extract profit.

Therefore, the government's proposition is a drop in

the sea. It will not stop the flow of tax money into the owners' pockets or solve the problem of municipal schools being depleted while shareholder-driven schools extract billion-dollar profits. It will not solve the problem of 20 percent of students graduating without complete grades while Academedia's shares soar on the stock exchange, or that more and more students become stay-at-home students because they do not receive enough support in school while the owners buy luxury cars and open private schools in Saudi Arabia with the school money. The bill will also not solve the problem of preschool staff becoming burnt out while the owners extract profit and it is saved on butter at the preschool at the same time.

as the groups become larger.

We need to introduce a deduction for the friskolor in the school fee. They do not have the same responsibility for the range of subjects as the municipal schools. We need to scrap today's voucher system for the friskolor and get rid of the limited companies in Swedish school. One should not be able to make a profit on students' education or children's preschool.

A total profit ban must be introduced in Swedish schools. School money shall go to the students, period. In our follow-up motion, we had a motion to investigate a ban on operating schools and preschools in the form of limited companies. It was however not considered to be within this report, so we cannot motion for it today. But we will return to this issue after the election.

Today, however, we will vote for the proposals that entail a general profit ban and a value transfer ban.

Mr. Speaker! It is completely obvious that Sweden needs a new government, a government that truly solves these problems, that ensures that school fees go to students and not to profits, that ensures that children in preschool have hands to hold and that hands are not saved to generate profit for the owners and that ensures that children's need for support takes precedence over luxury cars. It must be game over with children's schooling now. Swedish school shall no longer be a profit machine.

The election on September 13 stands between 19 billion to the shareholders and 10,000 more teachers.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Isabell Mixter mentioned in her speech that Swedish schools have become worse since the friskola reform was implemented. I understand that it is an attractive narrative if one shares the Left Party's ideology. The problem is only that it does not correspond with the truth.

Let me give some examples of that. The fact that 80 percent of the Swedish people want to be able to choose school is a fairly good reason to continue to safeguard and develop the free school reform. In the PISA survey with externally graded tests conducted in different parts of the world, we see that Swedish free schools perform better. Students know more in free schools than in municipal schools regardless of socioeconomic background. Furthermore, research shows that competition is good for the quality of the school. Research from both IFN and IFAU establishes that competition benefits both the quality of the operation and the students' knowledge levels, and I have not seen any criticism of this research, which was presented several years ago.

The truth, my friends, is that Vänsterpartiet does not want to see any friskolor. That is what this is about. Therefore, one fumbles for arguments to back up one's own ideology. But the fact is that these problems do not exist. It is not true that Swedish school has become worse. On the contrary, it has become better.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is extremely strange. Previously, the Moderates have had a very high tone and been extremely worried regarding the results in Swedish schools and the falling results in the PISA measurements.

Swedish school has gone from being world-leading, egalitarian and compensatory to today knocking out very many students who cannot proceed to upper secondary school. That was not the case 30 years ago when the free school system was introduced.

It is news to me that the Moderates think that Swedish school has not become worse in recent decades. But one only has to look at the statistics. It is a fact that more and more students are being dropped out of Swedish school.

What we also know from school research is that cohesive classes where different types of students are mixed perform better. Low-performing students perform better when they end up with high-performing students. But with today's school choice system, very many high-performing students end up at the same schools, while less high-performing students from homes with lower education levels are gathered at other schools. If one wants it that way, it requires much more resources. If one wants all low-performing students to attend certain schools while the high-performing ones attend other schools, one must compensate for this through sufficient resources, and the government fails to do so.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now Member Mixter slides from her first assertion to a new, slightly adjusted assertion. But I would like to remain with Isabell Mixter's assertion that the free school reform has made Swedish schools worse. That is not true. It is not in accordance with the truth. Solid research shows that is not the case. On the contrary, we see that some of the country's best schools are free schools. We have schools in Sweden that perform in absolute world-class, and we should be proud of that and protect it. I want to see more world-leading schools in Sweden, not fewer.

Here, the Moderaterna and Vänsterpartiet clearly differ. The Moderaterna want to see more good schools that educate children. It is not the form of operation that matters. But for Vänsterpartiet, the form of operation matters. They want to ban friskolor regardless of how high the quality is. That is the major dividing line between our parties.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Let me remind the members here in the chamber that we are responsible for all the country's schools. It is therefore not about a specific school happening to have good results. Our goal must be that all students should manage through primary school and upper secondary school. That is at least my goal. It is not enough to say that there are independent schools where the students perform well.

We must look at the whole. I actually believe that Malmqvist agrees with me that the results in Swedish schools have deteriorated, looking at all of Skolsverige. This is of course connected to the fact that the independent schools can pick out billion-dollar profits while the municipal school is being depleted.

There is, of course, a connection between them. When new independent schools pop up, municipalities must shut down other, well-functioning schools. The independent school also has an unequal advantage by always being able to have full classes, in contrast to the municipal school, which has to make do with the student base it happens to receive.

It is an extreme difference, and I believe Malmqvist is well aware of that. It is also why her government does not want to do anything about the school system that exists within the friskola today. There is a fear of how it would go with the Swedish friskolor if they are forced to take care of all types of students. This is what has happened in Swedish school.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I know that Mr. Speaker is a person who has a great historical interest. It struck me now as I listened to Isabell Mixter that I remember when one read Atlantica, the fantastic work by Olof Rudbeck the Elder. Rudbeck sketched Sweden and claimed that it was the origin of the lost Atlantis. Sweden was thus the cradle of civilization and the original home.

Now it is not national romanticism but almost pure nationalism in that respect, but it becomes a bit national romantic when one hears Isabell Mixter say that we had the world's best school before the friskola reform. I mean that prominent historical school researchers would say that Isabell Mixter is wrong because the decay in Swedish school began much earlier.

One would cast everyone in the same mold. The student exam was abolished. Grades in the lower grades were abolished. Pedagogical experiments were initiated at the teacher college. Given the development of the measurements themselves, knowledge has rather increased over the last ten years, while it decreased previously.

Interesting in Isabell Mixter's speech was also what she said about the economic crisis and that Sweden had the world's best school at that time. But did anything else happen in Swedish society after 1990? Is there anything else that has shaped Swedish society and influenced the educational situation? I did not think I heard about anything such.

Isabell Mixter can certainly reflect and see what it is that has influenced Swedish society as a whole, including the school, and which has resulted in us having poor results.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Reslow received an applause for claiming that it is the immigrants' fault that we have a poorly functioning school in Sweden.

I want to talk about how Sweden is the only country in the world that allows free withdrawal of school fees and free profit extraction. It is only Sweden in the entire world that has such a school system. Therefore, I do not think it is strange to claim that it has damaged Swedish schools that one can extract unlimited profit from the students' school fees while at the same time we have students who do not pass school. For me, it does not add up. That shareholders should be allowed to buy waffle stands and luxury cars with the school fees, I think is theft of Swedish tax money.

Reslow wants to talk about immigrants, but I know who it is that is stealing my tax money. It is not the immigrants. It is the shareholders who own the Swedish private schools. It is they who are stealing my tax money. It is they who have ensured that Swedish school has gone from being equal and world-leading to becoming fragmented and poorly functioning.

I wonder why Reslow defends this system so fiercely. Why should one be allowed to extract unlimited profit? I do not want the answer to be about freedom of choice, because we discussed that earlier. I would like to ask: Why is it so important that one is allowed to extract profit from our tax money?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not say a word about immigrants. I only posed a hypothetical question, whether something in society has changed, but the first thing Isabell Mixter thought of was the immigrants. I am not saying that it was not what I was thinking of, but it is interesting that the first thing Isabell Mixter thought of was the immigration – very interesting.

Isabell Mixter also stated in her speech that there are many unqualified teachers at Malmö's independent schools, but what does it look like in Malmö's municipal primary schools? Are there many unqualified teachers there? What is Isabell Mixter's view on that?

We never hear anything about the municipal school from Vänsterpartiet, but we only hear about the independent schools. All the problems that exist in the school are blamed on them. Never do they lift up the municipal school.

Isabell Mixter said that we have a responsibility for all schools. Yes, we do. We should be proud that we have good municipal schools and good independent schools, and they should be highlighted. But when we have poor independent schools and poor municipal schools, we must act. Then we must put in all efforts.

One cannot do as the Left Party does and simply point out one form of operation and place all the blame on it and then just ignore the 85 percent of students who attend municipal schools. That is not taking responsibility.

When Isabell Mixter accuses us others of not taking responsibility for all schools, she should look at herself in the mirror and consider what it actually is she is standing and saying in the rostrum.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, there should be qualified teachers even in the municipal school. That is precisely why we want to remove the exceptions that exist today from the requirements for teacher qualification. The Left Party has submitted proposals regarding this in the committee, but you have chosen not to support them, Patrick Reslow.

Of course, there are problems in the entire school system. That is why my party, together with others on my side, want to increase the money for the school, so that we can invest in the school and ensure that classes become smaller and that there are more special teachers, special educators, leisure leaders, preschool teachers, and childcare workers who can take care of our children. Of course, that is the case.

We have a large debt to deal with in the Swedish school system because government after government has chosen to save on our children's education. I do not blame the free school for this, but it would help if the money that disappears into the shareholders' pockets every year could stay with the students and the teachers. There is no point in it going to private profits. It is not something that makes Swedish school better.

Yes, I want to invest in both the municipal school and the independent school, but the limited companies must go. There must be an end to the profit-seeking now.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Being able to choose a preschool or school for our children is an opportunity that most of us take for granted today. But it is actually only just over 30 years since our colleagues here in the chamber made the decision to move the power from municipal bureaucrats who have never met your child at the kitchen table to every family. Since then, it is hundreds of thousands of families that every year choose a preschool or school for their children. It is an incredibly important freedom reform. Right now, it is 420,000 children and students who thus themselves are given the opportunity to choose.

This reform opened doors for families. It would no longer matter what wallet one had or what zip code one happened to have. Here, Sweden is unique. Now, it is therefore possible to choose a school that suits oneself and the family's needs without any cost.

Today, every fourth preschool and school is independent. It is freedom of choice in practice, every day, for hundreds of thousands of families. Furthermore, we know from research that the competition that arises when we introduce freedom of choice also benefits the quality of the operations and benefits and creates diversity. That is what we want to safeguard.

During the last decades, we have seen both successful schools – some of them among the best in Sweden – and also unscrupulous actors who cheat with the students' education, who perhaps attract students with high grades or who have run schools without sufficient teaching time. Other schools have links to violence-promoting extremism. These aberrations should have been stopped long ago. Schools that deliberately or unintentionally neglect quality should not be able to profit from profits in the school. Abuse, cheating, and unscrupulous actors must be stopped significantly more effectively than today.

We are increasing transparency in the independent schools. We are tightening the ownership review. None of this threatens the serious actors that exist today and whose management has high ambitions – on the contrary. That we now stop the unserious actors so that they disappear from the school world creates the conditions to even be able to discuss all the important and large problems that exist in the school today.

The left-wing alternative here in the chamber talked about this for eight years without being able to deliver. We get things done.

Mr. Speaker! Let me briefly go through what this bill is actually about.

Firstly, we introduce a value transfer ban. When a new independent school is started or when the school changes owners, but also if there is a lack of quality that can be traced to insufficient resource allocation, for example, if there are too few qualified teachers or if there is a lack of proper laboratory equipment, the money shall remain in the operation. This is combined with a requirement for separate reporting so that it is actually possible to monitor and track that the ban is being complied with.

Secondly, we tighten the requirements for principals regarding long-term perspective and economy, both when applying to start a new school and during ongoing supervision, so that we ensure it is not about coming in and making quick changes or quick cuts.

For the third, we introduce a repayment obligation. If a principal has used the school money for a criminal activity, the school money shall be able to be reclaimed. It sounds completely obvious, but during eight years of Social Democratic government rule, they were thus unable to stop this. It should have been done a long time ago. Now we do it with this decision today.

Finally, I want to mention an important part of this bill which concerns giving the School Inspectorate sharper tools. We are introducing an entirely new system of sanction fees so that the School Inspectorate has sharper and faster tools to deploy. One can, therefore, be subject to sanction fees, or fines if we so wish, of up to 10 million kronor if one, for example, violates the ban on the transfer of value. Furthermore, we are introducing a possibility for the state to take over the management of schools that do not behave.

These are sharp and concrete tools that will matter for those of us who safeguard that all schools shall maintain a high quality.

Mr. Speaker! Overall, we protect the independent schools that behave and strike back against those that do not. It is a line that I am proud of. The Moderates stand up for every school that maintains high quality, regardless of whether it is municipal or independent, while the left side in this chamber wants to ban and restrict all independent schools, regardless of how high the quality of the operations is. It is a clear dividing line in this debate. We are against bad schools regardless of the owner. The left side is against independent schools regardless of the quality of the operations.

I have read the reservations from the left side in the chamber, and there is quite a lot to ask questions about. To Vänsterpartiet, I would like to say that it would not have mattered what proposal the government had put forward. Vänsterpartiet had nevertheless landed on the fact that you want to take away the freedom and the possibility of choice from the families, from the kitchen tables, and move it to state oligopolies, monopolies, and bureaucrats. It is not the families who should get to choose, but the bureaucrats. It is a clear dividing line between our parties.

The Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Centre Party say they defend the small, idea-based schools. But these schools only exist thanks to the free school choice. Otherwise, they would not have existed. They did not exist before. It is the same school choice that your intended government partners want to abolish. How is that equation supposed to add up?

To all of you who today argue for closing more independent schools, regardless of which flag you choose to do it under: Remember that it concerns over 400,000 children, students, and families who have therefore made an active choice! To say that the state knows better than those families is something I and the Moderaterna can never accept.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school has for a long time suffered from problems that different governments have talked about but not solved. This government chooses to act, not talk. We do not talk – we deliver reform after reform in this chamber. That is how we get things done.

With these changes, we are now taking an important step to make the Swedish school and the Swedish independent school system both freer and safer – freer because we continue to safeguard every family's right and opportunity to be able to choose a school, safer because we are now closing the gaps that have existed for unserious actors in the Swedish school system, freer when it comes to the opportunity to choose and safer when it comes to ensuring that no unserious actors can remain and operate in the Swedish school system. That is something I am proud of.

With that, I would like to take the opportunity during this parliamentary session's final debate to thank the officials of the Chamber Secretariat and the Committee Secretariats who are sitting here both in the gallery and in the Chamber for an important and good cooperation throughout the entire mandate period. Thank you for a well-executed job! Without you, we would not be able to do our important work. We are incredibly grateful for your help in this.

I also want to thank the committee members for the good cooperation during the term of office.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! Malmqvist spoke about freedom of choice and the right for families to choose school. But it is not a right that exists for everyone. It becomes a freedom of choice for those who manage to get first in line, for those who have made a well-considered choice long ago. I have heard about friends who put the child in the queue for independent schools already when the child is six months old.

It is so early that one must make a choice in order to have any freedom of choice. Freedom of choice therefore does not apply to everyone, but to the one who has entered the school system.

My point with that is not that we should increase freedom of choice. Instead, we shall ensure that all schools are good schools. It is not enough to talk about freedom of choice. The most important thing for me is that we can say that all children have the right to the best school.

That leads me to the fact that we cannot afford to let tax money go out as profits to shareholders.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates are usually a party that guards low taxes, so I actually cannot understand that one allows the waste of tax money that the free school market entails today. You are letting an unlimited amount of tax money go out as profit to the school company owners.

My question is therefore: Freedom of choice for whom, in Malmqvist's Sweden?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Isabell Mixter, for the question! It had two parts, and I intend to answer both.

The first concerned Isabell Mixter's interesting reasoning regarding the fact that there are queues for certain schools, that is to say, that they are so popular that more students want to go there than they have room for. An argument for abolishing the independent school system would thus be that because some schools are so good that many parents want their children to go there, they must be removed entirely, because that would be most fair. There, the member and I have fundamentally different views. We Moderates believe that these independent schools should be given the opportunity to expand and develop their operations so that more students can attend a school that delivers knowledge in a study environment that many want. That is our view on the matter.

The second part of Isabell Mixter's question also concerns a fundamental difference between our parties, namely the view on free enterprise. As a Moderate and a believer in the market economy – even here there is a difference between the Moderates and the Left Party – I know that free enterprise is beneficial. It contributes to developing an activity. Competition contributes to raising the quality in schools; we know this thanks to school research from both IFAU and IFN, which have looked at externally graded tests and compared and analyzed how the students' results develop. It is unambiguous, and it is something we want to safeguard and develop.

With today's bill, we are putting a stop to the deviations that have existed. It should not be possible to extract profit by, for example, compromising on quality. If you lack qualified teachers and do not have the correct laboratory equipment, we will introduce a value transfer ban. We are now giving Skolinspektionen the possibility to issue this. It is a fundamental part of the bill being discussed today. I believe Isabell Mixter is well aware of this, but she does not seem to really want to acknowledge it.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate education politicians perhaps should listen a bit more to their municipal politicians. The other day, for example, a Moderate municipal politician in Falköping warned that a new independent school there could cost the municipality millions extra. Raoul Wallenbergskolan wants to open a new school at the same time as the student cohorts are shrinking and the municipality is discussing a reduction in the number of student places. So that is what reality looks like in the municipalities.

The quality of municipal schools may be affected due to the right of free establishment in the Swedish independent school sector.

Malmqvist is obviously defending the Swedish independent school system as it looks today. One is thus to be allowed to extract unlimited profit and do whatever one wants with the school voucher. I wonder if Malmqvist also defends that Swedish school fees go to schools in Saudi Arabia. Does Malmqvist think that is a good use of Swedish tax money?

I know where I stand. The most important thing must be that student grants go to students and teachers – not to schools abroad and not to profits. We shall ensure that every school is truly, truly good. That is the most important thing for me. What does Malmqvist think about that?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I know that Isabell Mixter has read the matter. I assume that, but since it sounds in the debate as if the member does not know what the matter is about, I will now tell the audience.

What the Riksdag decides today is that, at the government's initiative, to limit profit distributions and thus the possibilities of taking out profit when starting a friskola and during the first years, when a friskola changes owners and during the years that follow, as well as if it turns out that there is a lack of quality in the operations resulting from insufficient resource allocation, i.e., that there is a lack of money. In those cases, one is not allowed to take out profit. That is what the decisions we make today mean. We also introduce a sanction possibility so that Skolinspektionen can impose fines of up to 10 million kronor on the school that nevertheless chooses to do so.

I think it is a problem if it is possible to extract profit by compromising on quality. That is also the background to the bill being discussed here today. But unlike the left wing, we do not just talk, we deliver. This is a thoroughly worked-out bill, for which we have sought majority support. It is not entirely insignificant when one is engaged in parliamentarism. One cannot just have opinions.

There is no majority in this chamber for most of the Left Party's views, thank goodness, but there is a majority for this proposal. We have gathered a majority for a well-elaborated proposal that the Riksdag votes on today and which will make a difference.

We differ regarding Isabell Mixter's description of the problem. What shines through in her post is that she does not want to see any free right of establishment for independent schools. She does not want independent schools to be able to start operations where parents and students request it. That is what sets us apart.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to send a greeting to all the teachers who might be listening. Thank you for the work you do and for being ready to take on your students again now! We appreciate it, not least we who have children of school age. It is fantastic to see, every week, what is happening out there.

I also have a greeting to all colleagues who are listening and waiting for the vote to begin. We are almost finished.

Mr. Speaker! A slightly funny thing was said just now, linked to a post from the Moderaterna. I know we may have different views on politics and what it should look like, but to call the Liberalerna left-wing just because they want to place all power with bureaucrats and abolish all independent schools etcetera was a bit of a stretch, wasn't it?

Today we are going to discuss the profits in schools and what should be done about them. The parties in the government, not least the Liberals, have been very clear that a complete renovation should take place. But this is no complete renovation, Mr. Speaker. It is a bit of putty. Perhaps some work is done with the windows so that at least it doesn't blow straight through, but otherwise, this involves no major difference. Things are also happening that are actually harmful. We will return to that.

It was mentioned earlier that it stated in the Tidö Agreement that a common school choice should be introduced, which is the very basic prerequisite for achieving genuine choice, equal choice, for all Swedish children. But the government chose not to do it. It was a negotiation win for the Liberals, if we are now to talk about the difference between talking and delivering.

Something of the absolutely most fundamental here is to achieve a serious and proper common school choice. If we are to completely renovate, Mr. Speaker, we need a common school choice.

The funding system needs to be changed so that we stop rewarding schools that do not deliver and instead reward those that take the greatest responsibility in rural areas and for the most difficult students and who employ qualified teachers. That is what we need to do with the money.

We must also stop giving unserious actors opportunities. It is, even with this legislation, possible to subcontract and still receive good payment. So it should not be that way.

Mr. Speaker! What does the Centre Party want for the school? What is the most important thing for us? Yes, to stop the dropouts. Every year, 20,000 students leave the Swedish primary school without being able to proceed to upper secondary school. That is five times as many as in our neighboring countries. The proportion is three to four times as high. It is completely absurd. This concerns 20,000 students, 16 percent, every sixth student. There have never been more in Swedish history than right now, under the Tidö government. It is the Tidö government's great school policy legacy. In addition to the fact that they did not deliver what they promised, their legacy is that they delivered the largest dropout rate in Swedish school history. That is what they are leaving behind. It must end.

Mr. Speaker! We need to achieve real changes that ensure schools are good across the entire country. The first step is more qualified teachers. The government wants to train fewer. We want to train more. In ten years, every single teacher shall be qualified. We will finance it in our budgets, in contrast to certain other parties who make pledges during the election campaign.

We must demand that unqualified teachers are trained. We finance it, and it is included in our budgets. Of course, the one who employs a person who is to teach but who is not qualified must also participate in the payment. But we, from the state's side, shall ensure that there are training places, and we shall participate in financing it.

We also want there to be a special salary supplement of 5,000 kronor for those who take the most difficult positions around in Swedish schools. It is about rural areas and areas of exclusion. It is there that qualified teachers are lacking the most. But all the parties that call themselves rural parties say no to this. The only party that says yes is the real rural party, namely the Center Party.

All the others want concentration and centralization. They want the money to go to the big cities and the large schools. We want it to go to the small schools and to those who need the money most. It should go where the conditions are most difficult and where the most students do not manage in school. But those who pretend to be rural parties say no.

Mr. Speaker! We want to punish schools financially if they do not hire qualified teachers. That is the core of changing the funding system. The easiest way to make money in Swedish schools at the current time is to refrain from hiring qualified teachers. Large classes and few teachers who are not qualified is the way to make money in Swedish schools without delivering.

This government has done nothing about this, and the other parties in the opposition do not want to do anything about it either. They have no proposals to change the financing system in the area. That is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to stop the exclusions, we must ensure that the student who already today has a passing average can get into upper secondary school. It means a waste of human resources to throw them into unemployment or extra jobs instead of letting them enter the vocational programs. They should be allowed to get in through vocational tests. There are a lot of capable people who can do things for real with their hands. In the current situation, they are not allowed to go to upper secondary school because they have failed in theory. Why?

In all other European countries, they manage to take care of this resource, but we throw them away. It is worthless. No other country lets so many young people go to waste as Sweden.

We are the only party that wants to change the admission rules to upper secondary school so that these students can get in.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to get more through, students must also feel well during the time. It is very important. Sometimes we treat the students a bit as if they were small pieces that we can move around here in the debate. They are not. It is for the students that the schools exist. Then we must ensure that student health is accessible. We must ensure that support comes in early, something the Center Party wants to guarantee through the student act.

The government has previously been involved in sniffing around at the fact that one must receive the support in school. It is good to sniff around at it, but it is even better to implement it. That can be done together with us after the election.

Furthermore, one must open paths forward. If a student is constantly told that they are worthy of an F and are not allowed to move forward, they will, of course, feel bad. We would have all done that, both adults and children.

Mr. Speaker! These are absolutely crucial matters. I want to be very clear once again: The small schools must be given the conditions to survive and be able to exist throughout the country. This requires that higher compensation is given to the smaller schools.

The final piece to get through more students whom I prioritize lifting up here is mandatory intensive Swedish instruction for those who cannot speak the language when they start school. If one does not master the language immediately and has not internalized it, one will miss a huge amount of instruction. One misses a lot of knowledge, and it is very difficult to catch up when one reaches the later grades. That is why we see that in Sweden, time and again, we have difficulty educating the children sufficiently well.

To the teachers, I want to say that they can rely on the Center Party. We will deliver to the teachers what this government has promised them but has not financed, for example a regulation of the teaching time. We will see to it that it happens, and we will finance it.

The government has not financed it. Instead, they are now coming forward with new unfunded promises that are completely absurd. The Liberals promised today around 20 billion kronor without even financing their existing promises. It is not serious politics.

Mr. Speaker! We must have serious politics that hang together and are funded, otherwise it makes no difference on the ground. Then it just becomes as the Sweden Democrats say: One funds the teachers' planned teaching time within the framework. It won't be more money, but it shall be funded within the framework. Then it won't get better.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to give some credit to the government. A few eyebrows were raised now; they are not used to it.

Thank you for introducing the principle of public access! I wouldn't have thought so. First it was removed from the investigation, but then it was introduced anyway. I am very happy about the principle of public access for independent schools. It will make a big difference. Thank you for that!

When we now speak about the future, I also want to say that I am a bit disappointed in what may be the last debate where the Liberals still remain in the Riksdag. There was nothing here regarding the visions for the school of the future and how we get the students through. It is a bit sad.

Completely openly and honestly, I do not believe in the Liberals' school policy with centralization, unfunded promises, and popcorn moves. The teachers and principals do not, and apparently neither does the population. Not even KD seems to do so anymore.

As has been stated previously, not even the own Minister for Education is here. All other ministers have been here at the final debates this week, but the Minister for Education has not been, which is a pity. It would have been good to have an honest and open discussion with the minister about school policy during the mandate period and what we should do going forward.

Mr. Speaker! Many different claims have been made in the chamber today about why things are the way they are. Why have we not received a grade reform earlier? I was part of the previous grade investigation. SD, KD, M and L blocked the reforms that would have ensured that more people passed school in recent years. It may have cost 50,000 students the opportunity to proceed to upper secondary school. It is no one else's fault.

Why have previous governments not succeeded in doing anything about the friskole issues earlier? It is because all the parties sitting here in front of me voted against it and blocked it. The Moderates, the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, the Sweden Democrats and we blocked it. Even we blocked it! I think we should have honest discussions here in the chamber. Then it will get a bit better, and then the population can truly form an opinion on what policy they want and why they get it and why they do not get it. It will get better that way.

Mr. Speaker! I do not think this is enough if we want to clean up the system. I have mentioned certain things.

Just this week, we saw a private school in Malmö that did not deliver practical training to the electrical students who attend there. We sit here again and pretend that it is something that is resolved, but it is not. We cannot have a school system where students stake their future on an education but do not receive the education they have earned. These students come out as electricians without having even attempted to be electricians, which is the essence of their education.

We must be able to do better, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we can.

After this government, which has let future generations pay for the government's election promises without giving them any good policies in return – they have not given them a school policy that works for the future or given them a climate policy worth the name – we can only do better moving forward. It requires a new government, and I look forward to creating it after the election.

With that, I would like to thank the Speaker personally for a good job. Thanks to the office and the secretariat! Thanks to the committee – both all the wonderful staff and the lovely members! Thanks for good debates! I hope that most of us will see each other after the election.

I move for approval of reservation 5.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! This was an impressive speech of twelve minutes. It became a contribution on general school policy from Niels Paarup-Petersen.

I thought I would start with how Niels Paarup-Petersen nevertheless addressed today's matter, which concerns stricter conditions for the free school sector, which perhaps was not entirely obvious to the audience. He claimed that this government has done nothing about the lack of qualified teachers in some schools.

I would like to return to today's matter, where we are now proposing to the Riksdag to decide today on introducing the possibility of a value transfer ban in three situations: at a new start, at a change of ownership, and in cases of insufficient quality. We have exemplified insufficient quality in the bill. It is difficult to list all circumstances, but it concerns when insufficient quality can be linked to insufficient resource allocation. One of the examples that is explicitly listed is unqualified teachers or a lack of access to qualified teachers. This is a concrete example to counter Niels Paarup-Petersen's claim that the government has done nothing regarding this.

The second thing I intended to mention concerns the claim that the regulation of the teaching obligation, the old so-called USK, or the teachers' teaching time, is not funded. That is not true. It does not have much to do with this matter, but there are funds set aside in the budget to carry out this, together with the schools' administrators. We believe that this is a shared responsibility. The one who for a long time has reduced teacher resources should not receive a one hundred percent compensation – we think that is reasonable.

The third thing I intended to address concerns the 20,000 students that Niels Paarup-Petersen would like to return to. We have now, among other things, decided on a new grading system so that fewer are dropped out and more are given the opportunity to study in upper secondary school.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is completely correct. Moving forward, perhaps it still, if the School Inspectorate thinks it is clear enough that the lack of access to qualified teachers can be linked to the result, will have the consequence that money is not allowed to be passed on to an owner. That is the consequence.

This does not mean that the teachers will go there. It actually does not help all of Sweden's schools, regardless of whether they are municipal or independent, as we were touching upon earlier, which lack qualified teachers. You want to train a thousand fewer teachers every year – that is the government's policy. It does not provide more qualified teachers, it provides fewer qualified teachers. So that is typical: When you train fewer, there are fewer.

This is the essence, whether it concerns an idea-driven private school, as is often the case in rural areas, or a municipal school that has difficulty recruiting qualified staff. It does not help that there is a school with 1,300 pupils in Stockholm or Malmö that may not be allowed to distribute profits if they do not hire a few more qualified teachers, even if it does not quite become everyone. It actually does not make a big difference. That is why it is so important that all teachers shall be qualified. That is what we say.

This means that we must demand that they must be that, and we must allocate resources. We must demand that everyone who is unqualified is trained and becomes qualified and allocate money as we do in our budgets. And then we must ensure that where there is a lack, the highest number of qualified teachers get help with the financing from the state. And it is in rural areas and in the schools in marginalized areas, where the most difficult conditions prevail. You have said no to all of this. That is the essence.

No, it is not funded. Not even Sveriges Lärare says that it is funded. No one who has ever known anything about school, which this government apparently does not, would say that this is funded. It is not funded; it will cost billions. If one is to take it within the budget, as among others the Sverigedemokraterna said when we debated with Sveriges Lärare, one takes the money from someone else, and then one has not funded it.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are drifting further and further away from the matter, but I will just quickly respond to some of these incorrect claims.

We are reforming the teacher education. We are raising the prerequisite requirements so that more people actually complete their teacher education; today, more than half drop out. This will ensure that more teachers get qualified.

We want to introduce a vocational school for those students who nevertheless do not have eligibility for upper secondary school so that more people will have the opportunity and a path to continue their studies – as a response to what was said about these 20,000 students. I am very curious to hear the Center Party's proposal in this area. I often hear about problems but rarely about solutions.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to the question I posed to the Center Party in my speech earlier. The Center Party claims to defend independent schools, not least small, idea-driven independent schools, but at the same time wants to cooperate on the left flank with parties that do not want to see any independent schools at all. My question to Niels Paarup-Petersen and the Center Party is therefore the obvious one: How do you intend for that equation to add up?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can start with the last question: How do I intend to make the equation work to cooperate with parties that want to remove the independent schools? I could ask the same question to the Moderates. Or have you given up on the idea of the Liberals staying? They want the same thing as the Social Democrats. They have the same ideas.

We will therefore face the same problem: We have to convince them that diversity in schools is good. It is good to have multiple actors, not least all those driven by ideas out in the Swedish countryside who ensure that there are schools where the municipalities withdraw. It is absolutely crucial.

In contrast to the government, we also put the money there. We finance small schools with an extra base plate. We ensure that the small schools get more money. We ensure that they get extra money for qualified teachers. That is the difference. It is, again, why we are the only rural party. Talk makes no difference.

We were told that this reform of the teacher education would result in more people completing the teacher education, and I truly hope that is the case. But that is not what your own investigation says. It says that a thousand fewer teachers complete it – but a larger proportion. It is an important mathematical difference: Proportion and number are actually two different things. According to the investigation, the outcome would be a thousand fewer teachers every year. That is a very big difference. Yes, it is a larger proportion of those who enter, but it is a thousand fewer who come out.

The Center Party will ensure that diversity in Swedish schools remains, regardless of what a future government looks like. the Left Party will not be involved, and neither will the Sweden Democrats. It will be a so-called center government. You would have been welcome, but you now seem to be too small for us to be able to get a majority. So we will have to find some others, unfortunately.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that Niels Paarup-Petersen continues on the line that his party has followed previously. One does not go for this with introducing profit bans, but one stands up for that we should have a diversity of actors. On that, we think the same thing.

I would like to return to what Josefin Malmqvist said in the previous exchange. She asked the question of how the Centerpartiet can cooperate with parties that want to remove independent schools. That is what they want. Then the answer was given that there is no difference.

But there is a difference. There is a difference in the size of the parties one is to negotiate with. The Social Democrats are a 30-percent party, and they will run over the Center like a train off the tracks in those negotiations. We have not really had those conditions with us, so there is a difference.

I think one should be honest in the debate – that is good. We have, for example, said regarding this matter of the teaching time, which was raised here, that we thought it should be financed within the framework, and we stand by that. But the negotiations landed on that it should be financed in the budget. That is what applies, so it is in the budget. But our view was different: that it should be taken within the framework. So it can be so, but just how it should be financed was not a prioritized issue for our part.

But something that is not honest is to say that the Center Party is the only party that wants to change the admission system for those students who do not qualify. We have submitted proposals for vocational school. But what the Center does not consider is that even the vocational programs have been theorized. Consequently, there are requirements for prior knowledge in certain subjects. I can return to this in my next reply.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I hope that I am answering the questions. I am not in the least doubtful that SD has overridden the Liberals in this government. It seems very clear considering what the government has implemented.

The debate we had where the Sweden Democrats said that this would be financed within the framework was with Sveriges Lärare. It was probably during the spring, after the budget was presented. Precisely because there was so much that was unfunded, the question was about everything that remained to be financed, and then the Sweden Democrats said that those funds would be taken within the framework. To then say that it has been handled in the budget is actually not true. There is a huge amount of funding left to handle – that is the whole problem.

Now I don't remember the figure, but a figure of around 10 billion was given for what remains, depending slightly on who you believe. I don't think perhaps that one should take the municipalities' figures at face value; it is clear that they may be interested in that figure not being too low. But I still think that all parties who have calculated this can agree that there are very many billions left to finance. The only thing we have heard from the government, via the Sverigedemokraterna, is that it shall be financed within the framework.

It is clear that the Social Democrats are too large. We can agree on that any day of the week. I believe that approximately 70 percent of this chamber thinks so.

But in contrast to the Liberals, we have shown that we can actually negotiate. That is the difference. If you read the January Agreement, you can see how much the Social Democrats had to yield and do things they did not want to. It was Social Democratic heart's blood that was spilled here in the Riksdag just so we can negotiate and push through our policies. But that the Liberals have not succeeded in doing the same with you is not my responsibility.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a fantastic cooperation with the Liberals. We have agreed on the large and important issues. It will continue that way as well.

Let me return to the question of the admission system. We must be honest and say that there are too many students who do not become eligible. But what is it that is required to become eligible for a vocational program? Well, it requires a passing grade E in Swedish or Swedish as a second language, in English and in mathematics, as well as five elective subjects – a total of eight subjects. In primary school, one studies 16 or possibly 17 subjects for which one receives grades. That means that there are eight subjects for which it is not required that one has grades in.

Somewhere we must also speak about personal responsibility. Somewhere we must also set demands on the students. It is surprising if the Center Party has become so social democratic that one is now also loosening the requirements. That would be something new. The requirements must follow.

Since then, it is important to ensure that there are other entry points, because we cannot just let people go at will. I agree with Niels Paarup-Petersen that we must review this. That is why we have also been strong advocates for a vocational school where there should be almost no requirements at all to get in.

But if one is to enter a national vocational program today, when we do not have any vocational school – I have not seen the Center Party jump high for that proposal either – one has a problem. They must also manage their theoretical studies in upper secondary school. If one does not have the prerequisites to manage that in primary school, one will not have them in upper secondary school either. Then we fail these students. Then we are only pushing the problems ahead of us.

We mean that one must first set requirements, and then one must find other points of entry, instead of just believing that one can solve the problem by abolishing grade E.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by clarifying one thing: This government has lowered the requirements to be approved in Swedish school. That is what the new grading system means. We must still be very clear about that. That is why more people will receive a pass. Do not come here and talk about others wanting to lower the requirements.

It is sensible to lower the requirements, because the grading criteria that exist in the current situation are worthless. But that is what the government has done. It is reckless to claim otherwise.

It is not the case that those who cannot proceed today have only passed five subjects and missed all the others. The majority of those who do not get to proceed today still have an average grade that is passing. Every year, there are therefore 10,000 students who have not been allowed to proceed despite having a passing average. It is nonsensical!

All other countries in Europe are letting this group proceed. It is only we in Sweden who have not let them proceed, and this has been extended because you, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals said no to doing anything about it in the old grade investigation. I was there. You said no to having a different view on grade E, as Tholin proposed.

Yes, the responsibility for this lies with you. I would very gladly take a vocational school. A simpler two- or three-year upper secondary education could have been handled in the Tidö Agreement, but you didn't manage it. You haven't done it. You complained about each other internally instead of delivering. It is exactly the same with common school choice – nothing came of it! That is the reality.

Yes, we have many proposals regarding admission. We also want that people should be able to enter via vocational tests. I mentioned it from the rostrum. Had people listened, they would have known it. We also say that even today, one should be able to proceed with an average that is passing. Then these students, who often are absolutely capable of completing school, get a chance, just as in all other European countries. It is good for Sweden, but unfortunately, the Sverigedemokraterna say no.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! School is a key to a better society.

It is often said that with every child, the world begins anew. It is a hopeful way to look at the future, but it also reminds us of our responsibility. Every child needs to take away knowledge. Every child needs to learn skills, values, ethics, and culture. That is how we pass on that which builds a society.

A good school opens doors. It gives children the opportunity to grow, move forward in life, and reach their full potential. Every year, tens of thousands of children take important steps towards a better life thanks to the Swedish school – because someone believes in them and because we believe in Sweden's teachers.

The Christian Democrats are a party that believes in the teachers. We believe in the school. We believe in the students. But when the political debate is mostly about who runs a school, instead of how the students are doing and what they are learning – then the debate has lost its way. The general school debate needs to focus more on early interventions for the students, on the working conditions for teachers and special education teachers, on how we can remove the disruption and restore safety in the Swedish school, and on how the screens and the rush for digitalization can be replaced with tools that actually improve teaching.

Mr. Speaker! This election campaign needs to be about how Swedish school shall become school again. We Christian Democrats will do everything we can to ensure that the election campaign is about this.

But with that said, today's parliamentary debate is still about independent schools. In that regard, the Christian Democrats have some fundamental starting points.

The most important thing is that Sweden has schools that are as good as possible. It matters less who is the owner or who makes a profit as long as the quality is high, the students learn, the teachers are given good conditions and the parents can feel security.

But it also means that we cannot accept poor principals in the school system. We cannot accept that operations fail to fulfill their mission. We shall not accept actors who lack long-term perspective or who do not put the students' best interests first.

Mr. Speaker! When private actors are given the opportunity to start operations and there is an opportunity to make money, there is always a risk that some will try to maximize their interests at the expense of quality. We must, of course, acknowledge that risk. It is that which we as legislators must always stop. That is why this bill was needed. That is why we need new rules, because the systems must be built to also handle those actors who do not do the right thing.

It is here that the government's proposition comes in. It is based on the fairly simple principle that when society gives a principal the trust to run a school and receive tax money for children's education, then the students must be guaranteed a good schooling. Therefore, we are moving forward with stricter requirements for those who wish to start and run schools.

Those who wish to gain society's trust to provide education need to be long-term and serious. They naturally must not be there to make quick money. Therefore, we also introduce profit limits, so that a newly started school, a school that has changed owners, or above all a school with quality deficiencies cannot extract value from the operation.

This bill is also about separating the serious actors from the unserious ones. Because there are incredibly many independent schools that do an excellent job. There, the children receive the help and support they need, and the students enjoy being at school and show very good results.

The Christian Democrats are not against a principal who has invested in such a school having the opportunity to actually also withdraw money. If a superior political goal were that no private actor should be able to make any profit whatsoever on tax money, it is naturally easiest to ban all independent schools outright. But the Christian Democrats argue that there is never an intrinsic value in an independent school being closed, rather it is always about what is best for the children. On the contrary, we argue that the independent school system opens up for a freedom of choice and a variety of schools that contribute positively to the students and the families.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the good thing about this bill is that it allows serious and long-term principals to continue their operations while the regulatory framework will make it more difficult for actors who do not take their responsibility.

One can have different views on the market, freedom of choice, and forms of ownership. But I believe we can agree on one thing, and that is that every child has the right to a school that functions. Every student has the right to high-quality education. Every teacher has the right to reasonable conditions to carry out their mission, and every parent should be able to feel security that the school's first priority is always the children's education. Ultimately, it is not the system that goes to school every morning, but it is the children. It is their opportunity to succeed, grow, and shape their future that must be the starting point in all the decisions we take in this chamber.

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

Since it is the final debate for the mandate period, I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the Speaker's Office, the Committee Secretariat, the Chamber Secretariat, and the committee members for all the work and cooperation during the mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In these days, Sweden's teachers, students, and principals are starting activities in Swedish schools. The Education Committee here in the Riksdag seems to have received a stay of execution from the government.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we should have gathered here in the Swedish Riksdag to once and for all stop the profits in the school. But we do not. It is strange because approximately 70 percent of Sweden's voters want to remove the profits from the school. Nine out of ten teachers want to remove the profits from the school. Still, we have no such proposal to discuss. One might wonder why.

When the Tidö government took office, an investigation was working to find out how this majority of the Swedish people could have their wishes and their hopes fulfilled – to stop the profit distributions and stop the market school.

The new government changed the directives and replaced the investigators. This, with the ban on profit distribution, was cut out of the investigation directives with surgical precision. Therefore, we stand here without a basis that makes it possible to carry out what a large part of the Swedish people want.

Thanks for nothing, the Tidö government!

Why are we standing here then? Well, for some unclear reason, this government wants to push through a late decision on stricter conditions for the independent school sector. It contains several parts that will nevertheless have to suffice while we wait for a new government that truly addresses the problem with the profits.

In waiting for a profit ban, there will now be a profit ban during the first five years after new establishment, after changes in ownership, and after orders regarding quality deficiencies from the School Inspectorate. It is admittedly completely reasonable, but it is completely insufficient.

After five years with the same owner, it is perfectly fine to continue distributing profits to the owners, buying waffle huts, archipelago plots, luxury cars and everything else, and to instruct the preschool teachers and say: At this preschool, the children are not allowed to learn to spread their own sandwiches, because the butter is too expensive. We need to take out profit.

It is good to set stricter requirements for economic long-term sustainability both during the application and in supervision. Of course, the school fee must be paid back if one violates the rules and still distributes profits or transfers the money to another activity. And it is of course right that a free school planning to shut down its operations needs to inform the municipality in which the free school is located. It is the municipality that has the ultimate responsibility for the children's education.

These measures are important, but some become unnecessarily complicated because the government does not address the large overarching problem regarding the financing and organization of Swedish schools: that profit is the driving force instead of being driven by providing students with an education.

For Miljöpartiet, it is important to safeguard ideology-based independent schools. It is independent schools that fulfill an important function in the local community where they are located. They contribute to a pedagogical diversity and to an important freedom of choice for parents and students. They are often located in rural areas, where there is a commitment in the community when it comes to having a school right there.

In Miljöpartiet, we are concerned that the government's half-hearted attempt to phase out profits risks undermining exactly these schools, but protects the large corporations, which can continue to take out profits and which have greater muscles when it comes to organizing and handling an expanded and more complicated supervision. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we want this reform – and the consequences of it – to be evaluated, especially with a view to what it does for idea-driven schools and smaller schools.

Mr. Speaker! As we know, we are facing an election in a few weeks. In light of that, it is interesting to know what the different parties think regarding profits in schools. Now we know. The Tidö parties stand far away from the voters and the citizens.

For Miljöpartiet, it is simple and clear. For the last 10–15 years, we have clearly opposed that the money that taxpayers invest in education should be able to be used for anything. If the operation is financed with tax money and makes a profit, the money should go back to the operation. It should go to teachers and to students. It should not be distributed to anyone else, except when it goes as it does when the public sector distributes profit to the owners. When we have an operation that reaches all its goals, we lower the tax. That is how the return goes in public administration and with taxpayers' money.

With a new government, we want to immediately produce the investigation reports required for us to be able to ban profits in schools. With that, we leave the market school behind and lay the foundation for a new era for Swedish schools, where taxpayers get education for their money and we can build up an equal school of absolute world-class quality.

The Green Party wants to focus on the students, the principals, the teachers, and the development of knowledge. We want to focus on increasing teacher eligibility, reducing class sizes, strengthening schools across the entire country, and increasing the state's responsibility for school funding. We want to stop the market school once and for all and start focusing on what Swedish schools need after the market school.

School is a broad and long-term activity that requires political unity and broad agreements. It is about being able to jointly lay the foundation for long-term decisions, to sit in the same room, to listen to researchers and experts, to discuss different political values, and to make analyses and trade-offs regarding the school's future together.

It is about the fact that Swedish school needs a political accountability at a national level, where we ensure that there are conditions for those who do the work for real – the students, the teachers, the principals. It is there that the school actually comes to life for real. It is not here. It is in the classroom. It is there that the conditions should exist.

The school's most important mission is to provide education and cultivation to children and young people, to give them the knowledge and the skills they need to be active and responsible citizens in a society that is currently undergoing an incredibly great change.

We need to take a long-term responsibility together from a national level. That is what I often hear from teachers, principals, and parents. There is an expectation among the Swedish people of those who drive the national school policy.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish school needs skilled teachers who have time for their students. Our task is to give them the best conditions. Then all resources must go to the classroom. We need schools that employ qualified and licensed teachers and that have craft rooms and chemistry labs. Animals are needed at the animal education sites and machines at the machine education sites.

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is almost election day. I want to mention once again the strong majority that exists in the population who are in favor of removing profits from schools. Approximately 70 percent do not want profit-distributing schools. It is a clear majority. Those voters exist to the right and to the left on the political scale. They exist in the countryside and in the cities. They exist among the politically interested citizens and among those who are not so interested in politics.

Among teachers, it is nine out of ten who do not want profit distribution in Swedish school. Even among teachers in independent schools, a majority want to remove the profits. This will be the election where these voices can make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1, which concerns stopping the market school, and reservation 6, which concerns evaluating the consequences of this legislation with a focus on small and idea-based schools.

(Applause)

In this speech, Katarina Luhr, Nils Seye Larsen and Malte Tängmark Roos (all MP) concurred.

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

Daniel Riazat (-)

Mr. Speaker! I have already thanked the Speaker, so I will skip that today.

This is my last debate. I have sat on the Education Committee for about eleven years, and there is probably no one in this chamber who has mentioned the word market school and the opposition to it as many times as I have.

I am here because I started with this issue, and I also want to end with it. The reason why school policy has been important to me from the beginning and the reason why the opposition to the market school is important is that it is not just about the school. The school system we choose to build will define what kind of society we will be now and in the future.

Thus, we also see that the politicians and parties who represent school capital and have done so throughout all these years also drive other issues that serve to divide our society. These are issues that create inequality and that cause children to no longer meet children from other backgrounds. These are issues that cause people to be separated and divided, which also affects social life, community life, and working life.

I must now stop in the Riksdag after these twelve years, but the fight against the marketized school system will not end. Even though we today stand and discuss a bill that has been squeezed out by this government after four years of promises, the fight will continue during the next mandate period.

A great responsibility now rests on the incoming government, which will probably be some type of red or green government. It will be held accountable for the promises that have been given from the rostrum both today and during this mandate period.

We will also be many out in the municipalities driving this issue. The party I belong to, Framtidens Vänster, has made this a campaign issue. The party coalition I belong to, which is called Stockholms Vänsterallians, will make this a campaign issue.

But again: The question is about more than just school. It is about this: Shall we have a society for everyone, or shall we have a society only for the richest? The policy of privatizations and dismantling of welfare has merged with the idea that the rich should become richer at the expense of poor people.

Which children are it that need the most help in school? Well, it is the children of those who have been affected by this policy. This policy is about certain children needing to walk around with a stomach ache because they do not know whether they will get residence permits or not. People have talked about that all problems in our society are about immigration, which we all know they are not.

In the end, I want to offer a reminder to all of you who are standing for election again. When it is said that all power shall emanate from the people, it is something more than just voting every four years. It is also about you representing the people during those four years and that you shall listen to the people during these four years. And that is what you have not done when it comes to the market school.

Just as was said earlier in the speaker's chair, a large majority of the Swedish people are against the market school system. But congratulations to those of you who have ensured that it continues and that your friends have made more money from this! Big congratulations to the Moderaterna and big congratulations to the Sverigedemokraterna, who have represented school capital here!

I regret this for all teachers and students, who have had to bear the consequences of what you have done. They have had to bear the consequences because you have further segregated the Swedish school and allow it to continue.

I say again: All power to the people! A policy was needed that dares to stand up against this. A great responsibility will now rest on the incoming government, which we will also hold accountable if they do not abolish the free school system.

Down with the market school, once and for all! Thanks for these twelve years!

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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