Student financial aid
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that education gives the individual power and that student support is fundamental for an equal higher education 1. L argues that the government is right to increase the student grant and the free amount, as well as invest in the transition student support 1. L emphasizes that student support should be recruiting for everyone regardless of background 2 3 and that it is positive that the application pressure is high 4. L argues that the budget reinforcement is a balancing act 4 and that a complete abolition of the free amount could negatively affect the throughput 5. C argues that the authority has not received enough money 6. S believes that the goal of social justice is important 7. S argues that the government is dragging its feet in providing CSN with the funds they require 7. S is concerned about what happens to the different parts of the student support system 8. S argues that important student support issues are contained in the goal formulation 8 and wants the student support system to act as a leveling factor for increased social justice 8. M argues that the change of the goals is a modernization 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (14)
- Fredrik Malm (L)
- Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
- Fredrik Malm (L)
- Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
- Fredrik Malm (L)
- Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
- Fredrik Malm (L)
- Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
- Fredrik Malm (L)
- Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
- Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
- Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
- Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
- Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! We shall now debate expenditure area 15 in the state budget. It concerns student support, primarily for higher education.
For us in the Liberals and the government base, education is about every individual gaining power over their own life and Sweden becoming a leading knowledge nation. The labor market is in constant change, not only here in Sweden but also in the rest of the world. This means that more people will need to educate themselves throughout their lives. This naturally also requires that those who want or need to study have the opportunity to finance their studies. It is ambition, not money, that should determine whether one wants and can continue their studies.
Student aid is fundamental for an equal higher education that gives everyone, regardless of background, the opportunity to continue their studies. It is therefore why we are proud of the system we have in Sweden. It provides a basic security to the one who has talent, not just to the one who has money.
Madam Speaker! Student support is one of the things that enables social mobility in our country. Both the girl from Rinkeby and the boy from Djursholm can continue their studies at university. It should be your effort, your ambitions, and your goals that set the limits, not your background. This is what true freedom is.
For that reason, Madam Speaker, it is very good that the government is now increasing both the student grant and the income ceiling. After the turn of the year, we will see an increase of the student grant by around 1,100 kronor. And one will be able to earn 110,000 kronor per half-year before hitting the ceiling for the income ceiling.
The transition study support is also a very important reform. It is very good that the government is now scaling this up to 2.8 billion kronor this year, and it will then increase significantly next year. This will increase mobility in the labor market. It will mean that more people will be able to change tracks, change jobs, and change careers in the middle of life.
Of course, those who are entitled to transition study support should have the right to receive it promptly. Therefore, the government added extra funds to CSN both in this year's autumn revision budget and in next year's budget. In total, I believe it is 60 million kronor, Madam Speaker. It is for the administration of this support.
We can already see that it has had an effect. CSN's decision rate has increased significantly, which is very important. This, together with upcoming adjustments, which are made in consultation with the parties, will make the transition study support one of the most important freedom reforms on the Swedish labor market in modern times, I would say.
Sweden shall be a prominent knowledge nation where higher education, research, and innovation are conducted with high quality. It contributes to societal development. It contributes to competitiveness. Our prerequisites to compete on an international market, where education, schooling, knowledge, and human capital are crucial components, are also quite good in Sweden. We have a relatively well-educated population. We have a high-tech industry. We have a higher education system that is both expanded and easily accessible, and we are historically very good at innovation in Sweden.
Madam Speaker! This is the result of our long tradition of investing in both education and cultivation. But we face great challenges when it comes to the supply of skills, not least when it concerns the green transition, of course. It is good that with the government's policy it will become easier to educate oneself and that we in this way can also fill the gaps that exist today.
That more people can change paths in the middle of life is of course not only positive for the economy. It is also very important for all the people it affects. Increased mobility in the labor market also means increased freedom for the individual.
In order for us to be able to afford our welfare, a work line is required, where people work and pay tax. And for the work line to function, an education line is required. It is indeed those who have not completed school who often end up in exclusion.
That we invest in higher education is a foundation of the new education policy that the government has established. That the limit for the exemption amount is now being increased by the government is, as said, very good. It will make it so that more people get the opportunity to, if they wish, work while they study. It gives students an opportunity to supplement their finances. It is positive both for students' freedom of choice and for the economy.
Madam Speaker! One must see the budget as a whole. In addition to the large-scale investments and the changes we are making in this expenditure area, we are investing very heavily in education in general. In particular, we are making a major engineering initiative, which will mean more training places, more places in basic year training. We are making a number of reforms for primary school and upper secondary school. This is necessary to reverse the very negative development that we have seen in Sweden with falling knowledge results, not least in the latest PISA study.
If primary school and upper secondary school do not function better, fewer young people will manage to complete studies at universities and colleges. In that way, the entire education system is connected - from pedagogical play in preschool to research at universities, in the business sector, or wherever one may be as a researcher.
It is about quality. It is about progression. It is about education, and not least, it is about every individual's opportunity to grow.
With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Fredrik Malm! It was quite scattered, so it is difficult to know which part to attack first. But this debate actually has two areas that need to be debated and for which the Liberals and the chairman of the committee need to be held accountable.
One thing is that the member, in their speech, spoke about how we should enable class trips and that it is ambition and not your background that should govern your future. Enabling class trips means to me that we should contribute to increased social justice and that we should level differences in society. That is exactly what you choose to remove in the objective for the student support system.
It is probably not many of you who will highlight this today, but it is de facto that you are removing a substantial part of the objective formulation regarding the student support system - this part about it being to level differences between different groups and that it should contribute to social justice.
It is a bit strange to stand in the speaker's chair and talk about how we are to enable school trips and that it is ambition that should guide. One is removing goal formulations that imply that authorities working with this should work from a basis of reducing such differences.
I think that Fredrik Malm needs to answer this in his reply: What is it that makes it dangerous to keep the objective formulation? Why is the will so great to remove the sentence about it being to level differences between groups?
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! We have a society today that is polarized in a way that is very concerning. It is also becoming increasingly divided. We have a large group of people who are outside the labor market or who have not completed school. The best way to level class differences is for people to receive a good education and for people to get a job.
The great class divide in Sweden today exists between those who have jobs and wages and those who do not have a job to go to. Therefore, one must actually strive in all policy areas to strengthen the opportunity for people to get jobs, strengthen the quality of education, and also manage other situations that create large divides in our country. It is not least about the fact that we have residential areas with very high crime and great social vulnerability – we have other residential areas that are very safe and where people have a very good life.
All these things are very important to handle. We had eight years of Social Democratic rule, and we saw how these differences just grew and grew. The crime, the criminality, spread out. The school results fell. More people do not have a job to go to today. The business climate has worsened and so on.
Then it concerns the question of the specific goal, Madam Speaker. The student support shall be recruiting for everyone regardless of background. It is very clear in the goal. It concerns young, older, unemployed, whether you are employed, whether you are not employed, and so on, and regardless of which gender you have. This is contained in the goal, so I do not quite see the problem. In addition, the students will receive 1,100 kronor more per month after the turn of the year. That is very good for those who have little money. I therefore do not quite see the problem that Niklas Sigvardsson expresses here.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Madam Speaker! It was nice that the member eventually got to the point after a rather long exposition that perhaps had nothing to do with the question.
The interesting thing is that it still doesn't matter all that much because the goal is still intended to be recruiting. It is strange then that we have been in agreement on the goal for 20 years and that it has been important to have the goal that it should be leveling and contribute to social justice.
It becomes almost even more interesting, because in both the committee report and the budget bill, the fantastic, new transition study support that the member speaks about in his speech in the results report under the balancing goal ends up. The new support that many of us here in the chamber speak of as a fantastic, new support that is unique in the world ends up in the results report as something that balances and contributes to social justice.
I think it is quite striking. It doesn't matter that much to remove a goal, the government says, and Fredrik Malm also says so in the rostrum. But it actually does. That is what it has done for the last 20 years, because words and goals matter.
Therefore, it will continue to be important that we give the authorities, those we want to execute the decisions taken here in this chamber, the guidance we want them to have. Therefore, we Social Democrats will continue to stand up for it to have an equalizing effect and contribute to social justice. This is what we want both the student grant system, the education system, and society as a whole to have as an overarching goal.
That the right and the Liberals do not seem to think so in fact and in essence, the government must answer for. But how do you view the fact that your fantastic new support, which you are so eager to fight for, ends up under the balancing target in the results report?
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! I do not know if the Swedish people are now gnashing their teeth in anxiety over which side and under which subheading a certain specification in a results report is found.
However, Madam Speaker, it can be stated that the goal fulfillment is good in this area. It has been so over time. It is constantly so, and that is because we have a very generous student support system in Sweden. We should be proud of it, and we shall continue to develop it. That is precisely what the government is also doing now when it increases the student support next year by 1,100 SEK, of which approximately one third is on the grant part and two-thirds on the loan part.
I do not quite see the concerns that the Social Democrats are expressing, but the goal we have and will have moving forward means that the student support system shall act as recruiting for everyone, regardless of background.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Madam Speaker! It was wonderful to hear Fredrik Malm talk about innovation, transition, etcetera linked to student grants. I am a bit unsure of the precise words, but it was in that direction anyway. That is good! The Center Party has been extremely proactive in getting a transition student grant that gives people the opportunity to transition, develop, educate themselves, and get new job opportunities and contribute to Swedish growth. That is good!
The problem is only that the government has provided too little money for it, and CSN has been very clear about that. I would therefore like to hear a bit about how Fredrik Malm views the fact that the government is not really following up on the fine words.
I am also interested in another good thing that Fredrik Malm said – which the members can take with them – and that is that there will be better conditions regarding the exemption limit. During the pandemic, the exemption limit was abolished completely. The Center Party thought that was a good idea, Madam Speaker, and the Center Party would like it to continue that way. It was not as if the world ended when the exemption limit was scrapped during the pandemic. It actually went quite well. Why should we prevent students from working while they study when they can in that way gain work experience, income, and better conditions to actually enter the labor market?
I would very much like to hear a bit more about these two questions: Is Fredrik Malm interested in increasing the funds for the transition study support? Would Fredrik Malm also be interested in abolishing the income test?
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! It is very true that the Center Party, the Liberals and also other parties have worked for such a model to be realized. But above all, it is the unions and employers who have negotiated this. Both Niels Paarup-Petersen and I meet many workers' organizations and representatives also on the employers' side who testify that this is very important.
This transition study support entered into force on January 1st this year. It has therefore existed for nearly a year. It is clear that when one launches such a reform, not everything will function optimally from the start. There are always teething problems, and there are things that need to be corrected along the way. Already in the autumn, before the start of this, it was seen that the application pressure was very large. It is fantastic; it is very good. The more people who want to and can retrain or change paths, further educate themselves and so on, the better – it is indeed part of lifelong learning.
CSN received a mandate in April, or possibly in May, to review how the processing of cases could be accelerated. We have now increased the administrative appropriation to CSN, first by 10 million in the autumn budget amendment and then by 50 million for the coming year. It is clear that the whole thing must constantly be balanced against all other costs, expenditures, and savings in the budget, so that is where we have landed.
When it comes to the exemption limit, Madam Speaker, one can say very briefly that if it is abolished completely, there is a risk that the throughput will be negatively affected, that is to say that people work more than they study and stay longer at universities and colleges than they actually need to. That is not good either.
Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)
Madam Speaker! As the member says, we all speak with unions and employers. We also speak with authorities. It is correct that it did not work optimally at the beginning, and well, it feels like nothing ever works optimally in this world. But I still wonder: The system does not work optimally, and then the member thinks it will get better by not giving the authority the money that they say they need to make it better. I find that a bit difficult to understand.
CSN asked for 250 million, and you have given them 60 million, I believe. That is still a gap. If one does not think it works optimally but wants it to become better, one can listen to the authority and give them what they consider they need. It is an opportunity; that is what the Centerpartiet did, at least.
The second part concerned the exemption limit. It is no secret that I originally come from a small neighboring country. There, we have something called student workers, that is to say students who work while they study, and those who work while they study have the best throughput of all.
I have investigated it. An investigation that I have conducted myself and been paid for has shown this. If you work with something that is relevant, it increases the understanding for your future profession, for your courses etcetera and thus the throughput. If one only works at Ica, there is a risk, absolutely. Then it can be that it may be extended. But it also provides a contribution to the economy.
I do not believe, once again, that Sweden fell apart during the pandemic when we opened up to abolish the income test, so I would once again like to urge that we do so in the future as well.
Fredrik Malm (L)
Madam Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen raises very pressing issues. I also appreciate that he does so in a factual and not so overly hard-rhetorical manner.
We face a stark reality. If we were to sum up all the demands from Sweden's hundreds of agencies and fully deliver what all agencies request, one would probably need a quite substantial tax increase, which I have also not really seen in the Center Party's economic policy.
We must, as a government and also as a responsible opposition, constantly balance between different wills and different appropriations. Now, one has finally landed on the budget reinforcement for CSN.
We see that there is a risk in this. If the money does not come, it risks affecting the processing of all "ordinary" applications to CSN for student aid, which is obviously significantly more than for the transition study support, which constitutes a considerably smaller part. We know that the telephone queues are already long for those who want to receive service, information, and so on.
The money will do great good, but it is clear that in the best of worlds we could have provided for everything and everyone significantly more than we can. We have the situation we have.
It is positive that the exemption limit is being raised. It means that on an annual basis, one can earn a bit over 200,000, which is better than before. To remove it completely would, however, not be good. The evaluations that were made during the pandemic showed the problems regarding achieving increased throughput. It is better that the students finish and enter the working life and earn more money than they did when they were studying.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin my speech by moving for approval of the reservation from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet regarding the new goal for the student support system. In other respects, I refer to the special statement regarding our budget proposal.
The student support system is a crucial part of the Swedish welfare model. The system, which makes it possible to study and educate oneself throughout life under good conditions, is a sign of freedom. The system makes it possible for dreams to come true. It gives young people the chance to move out of home and perhaps take steps toward the profession they have dreamed of since they were small.
The system can give a mother or a father the opportunity to choose a different profession after 20 years in their profession, if they feel that they want to do something new during the coming 20 years. There, the Swedish student grant system plays a decisive role in people's longing for freedom.
For a long time, there has been a consensus in this chamber regarding what should constitute the goal of the Swedish student support policy. It reads:
The goals for the expenditure area are that the student grant shall act as a recruiting tool for both women and men and thereby contribute to a high participation in education. It shall furthermore level differences between individuals and groups in the population and in doing so contribute to increased social justice. The student grant shall also have a good effect on the economy of society over time. The student grant in the form of grants and loans is a part of the education policy.
Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, I can state that the time for consensus is over and that it does not even seem worth striving to be in agreement on such an important issue. In the budget bill that dropped down, it was proposed that the goal should now be changed. This was done in passing, between tables of figures - no press conference and no press release, as one usually has when one is to carry out major changes.
The SD government tries to describe it as if it is not that big, that it does not matter and that it does not affect the system. But removing the sentence "It shall further level differences between individuals and groups in the population and thereby contribute to increased social justice" matters. That the support shall no longer contribute to social justice matters. Goals have significance. Words have significance.
The student grant has been significant in recent years, as we have built up a system that I believe many of the other speakers will say is one of the world's best student grant systems. It has been significant for those who, during the last decades, have been given the opportunity to study through this grant. But in the right-wing Sweden, it is perhaps something bad if the inequalities in society decrease and social justice increases.
Madam Speaker! What the goal has actually entailed is that today we have fantastic support through study aid for upper secondary school students, study grants in the form of loans and grants for students at colleges, universities, and other levels, study start support for people who are far from the labor market, primarily newcomers, and extra support for students who may be in need of extra support in their form of study or who are parents during their period of study.
The latest addition to the Swedish student aid system is the transition study support (omställningsstudiestöd) – a support that will soon celebrate its very first birthday since it came into force, a support that has had a fantastic first year in terms of application pressure but has had a tough start in terms of the number of people who have been able to receive it.
To date, over 46,000 unique individuals have applied for the support - far exceeding the forecasts we had from the beginning when it was established - through over 70,000 applications to take the step forward and educate themselves. It concerns 46,000 people in our country who have dared to take the step and tell both themselves and their surroundings that they want to educate themselves and strengthen their future position on the Swedish labor market, via the education system and the transition study support.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the support has not been painless. People who applied in the first application round just over a year ago, in October last year, have still not even received a notification as to whether support has been granted or not. These are, therefore, people who were supposed to have started their education in January this year.
We Social Democrats have, throughout the year, in debate after debate, pushed and tried to act constructively so that CSN would receive the funds they have needed and shouted for, both in the spring and in the autumn. We have stood ready with proposals here in the chamber to ensure that they would receive money already in the spring amendment budget, but the SD government repeatedly delayed.
In the supplementary budget, they did not want to provide any funds. Instead, the authority was supposed to prioritize – solve it, work a bit more overtime! In the autumn, however, they changed their minds and gave the authority a small sum so that they could manage parts of the autumn.
But imagine if the processors who start in these days or directly after the turn of the year could have started in June, July, or August. Imagine if this had meant that some others had been able to receive the support they sought in October last year. And imagine if someone had checked with Försäkringskassan what they need to manage the support.
Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the government is dragging its feet even next year and is not providing the funds that CSN requires to make the support even better and to handle both current and future applications.
It is time for the government to start listening to the Social Democrats and give CSN the money they need, appoint a coordinator, give more assignments to authorities and act proactively now while the chance exists, instead of constantly – reactively and too late – dragging out old solutions. The will and the possibility to make the support as good as possible exist, but it is time for the government to make priorities accordingly and start acting.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Swedish student support is a fantastic support that seems recruiting, which ensures that we have a high participation in education and which is good for the economy of society. Let it also in the future contribute to increased social justice and level differences so that more in our society get the chance to undertake their educational journey and their journey of freedom.
Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
Madam Speaker! I have a question for Member Sigvardsson.
Sometimes we hear that the Moderaterna are conservative, but now it seems more like that the Socialdemokraterna are conservative. This recruiting system has existed for 20 years. Moderaterna, the government, and SD saw that it could be time to revise goals and review which criteria exist. Therefore, we chose to merge two goals. Still, it states that recruiting goals shall apply equally to everyone, and it is of course quite a lot that is included in this.
There is an evaluation with indicators to follow up on this. Six are for the recruiting effect of the student support, which the member has mentioned several times. Four are for the leveling effect, which the member has also mentioned. Five are for measuring the effect on the economy of society.
I do not actually see the concern that the Social Democrat member sees. We are keeping the same content but changing the text a little bit. We are modernizing and reviewing this. I absolutely do not share the concern that the member feels.
Therefore, I want to ask why the member has returned to this in several debates and interpellations, despite many good answers. The member feels an anxiety that we do not feel.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström for the question.
It is actually about what I said both in a previous exchange of remarks and in my speech: Goals matter. Words matter.
Just as the member pointed out, the goal fulfillment is good. That is well and good, but if the goal fulfillment is good, one should perhaps, instead of merging and baking in goals, clarify the goals, sharpen them further and work to make them even better. If we remove a goal or bake it into another goal, where we perhaps will not be able to follow it in the future, there is a risk that the goal fulfillment will deteriorate.
In this case, we cannot even talk about any goal fulfillment, because we don't have any goal. We will not have a goal that this should contribute to increased social justice, because it says nowhere in the new goal formulation that it should do so. It says that it should be recruiting and apply equally to everyone. That sounds great, but for the last 20 years we have worked together towards a goal. We have good goal fulfillment. For the Social Democrats, the formulation that the student support must be equalizing and contribute to increased social justice is very important.
It is about giving people the opportunity for an educational journey. It is about making education possible via the Swedish student grant system for individuals who may be very far away from education. The student grant system has made this possible, but how it will be in the future we do not know. The government has not started by pointing out how the goal formulation changes our indicators and the agency's role. I have wondered how CSN views the new goal formulation. They do not really know, because they have not received any directives. It is very difficult to know what effect this will have moving forward.
Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, which however did not make me any wiser.
I do not see this concern. We say "equal for all." That includes gender, origin, social justice, and whatever it may be. From the Moderaterna and the government's side, we want to modernize the goals to facilitate. We also want to facilitate the interpretation for the Central Student Aid Board.
We do not see the concern that the member sees. On the contrary, this implies a modernization. Of course, we still have the indicators, and we will follow these very closely. I do not share the member's concern. This is a modernization.
Sometimes it is you who are conservative and do not want to change anything. We may sometimes want to do something even better, and we think that this change makes this better.
Niklas Sigvardsson (S)
Madam Speaker! It is about which supports exist in the entire student aid system. Many of the supports that exist in the system also fall under the equalization goal.
What happens, for example, with the study start support moving forward? There is money in the budget right now, but one removes what we have constantly had as a goal. We do not know how well we succeed with the study start support.
What is the situation with the transition study support? That goal that has just been launched may not be the first to be cut, but where does it end up? It also falls under the balancing.
The higher grant levels so that more people who are far from education and far from the labor market can study also fall within this goal. De facto, important student aid issues are included in the goal formulation. This includes important support that enables the education of thousands of Swedes.
We Social Democrats feel a concern about what happens with the different parts of the student support system that are under this goal. What happens with the study start support? It has not been entirely painless within the government parties when it comes to the opinions on this. It might be a step towards abolishing it entirely - what do I know? We don't know, so we allow ourselves to speculate.
We Social Democrats will continue to stand up for that a Swedish student support system should act as an equalizer and work for increased social justice. It is fundamentally about classic Social Democratic policy, which is about enabling people's educational journey and journey of freedom.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.