Student financial aid

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We now have to debate expenditure area 15 – one of the two areas we have in the education field in the state budget. This is a central component in the largest school budget in modern times, both in current and in fixed prices.

Madam Speaker! We are providing a supplement of 4.3 billion kronor next year and a total of 14 billion kronor over the next three years. With the Liberals at the forefront, the government is now implementing the largest school reforms in three decades. We are strengthening Swedish school again and returning education policy to what it should always have been, with a focus on knowledge, education, and order and discipline.

Sweden is and must continue to be a knowledge nation. It is not just an identity, but it is a strategic foundation for our future prosperity. In a time of global competition, of technological leaps but also of authoritarian winds, it is through education that we stand strong.

But the development in schools in recent years, Madam Speaker, shows that we have a mountain to climb. The PISA results of 2022 revealed a serious literacy crisis among our students. Universities are alarming that students have difficulty absorbing longer texts. Furthermore, the differences between different groups persist. Parents' education level and home conditions continue to affect children's chances in life.

It is here a liberal principle becomes decisive, I mean. One's future shall not be determined by how many shelf meters of books one has in one's childhood home, but by one's own ability and one's own will.

The student grant plays a key role in this. It is a liberal institution in the true sense of the word. It is a system that opens doors for everyone to educate themselves, regardless of background, gender, location, or age. The student grant is a supporting part of our education system, and it is a fundamental prerequisite for Sweden to have a high participation in education.

Today's system works well, I would say. That is why my and the Liberals' view is that the main features of the student support system should remain fixed. It should be recruiting for women and men regardless of background. It should be long-term sustainable, transparent, and based on the principle that student loans shall be paid back. At the same time, it should be flexible enough to be able to meet changes in education and the labor market.

The government and the Riksdag have therefore clarified the goals for the expenditure area. The previous goals regarding recruitment and equalization have now been merged into a clearer and more accurate goal: that student support shall be recruiting for everyone and have good socio-economic effects. This also makes the reporting of results more transparent and sharper in its follow-up.

A well-functioning student support system, Madam Speaker, is also a matter of democracy. In a society that is increasingly exposed to disinformation and influence campaigns, a well-educated population is absolutely crucial for resilience. Education creates independent and critically thinking citizens. It is a hygiene factor for a liberal democracy. That is why the Liberals in the government are implementing reforms that return the school to the core of knowledge.

We regulate teachers' teaching time. We renovate the independent school system. We make schools mobile-free. We strengthen student health. We invest heavily in new curricula, in textbooks, and in much, much more.

These reforms are linked to student support. The quality of primary and secondary school determines how prepared a student is for future studies and how effectively the student support system also functions.

An important part of the student support system is the transition student support (omställningsstudiestödet). That, Madam Speaker, is an example of what I previously described in my speech – that we must also be flexible in terms of meeting the new challenges that will arise in the labor market and so on.

The transition study support continues to be expanded. It is appropriation 1:3 in expenditure area 15 in the state budget or in the budget bill. It amounts to 7.3 billion kronor for next year, which reflects the great interest that has existed for the reform since it was launched on 1 January 2023.

Last year, Madam Speaker, more than double as many were granted as the year before. The high volume of applications initially posed, to say the least, some administrative challenges for CSN, particularly regarding processing times. Through increased resources and through regulatory simplifications, the processing times have now been significantly shortened, which means that more can take part in the opportunity to transition and strengthen their position on the labor market.

It is also pleasing, Madam Speaker, that the government is now proposing that persons who have fled from Ukraine and who have stayed in Sweden on the basis of the mass exodus directive shall be entitled to receive student support after one year of stay in Sweden. It is a wise and humane reform that increases the possibilities for education, integration, and self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a knowledge nation, not just in name but also in its actual policy. With this historically large school budget – with a reform agenda that returns the school to its foundations and with a student support system that stands strong – we are building an educational chain that holds together from preschool to higher education.

Through these decisions, we lay the foundation for a stronger, freer and more educated Sweden and for a community of values where more people form, behave and care.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of the joint reservation in the report of S, V, C, and MP regarding the target for the expenditure area. I also want to refer to our specific statement on how we would have chosen to prioritize the budget if our proposal had passed here in the Chamber.

This is the fourth and final budget debate regarding expenditure area 15 Student Grants. I had hoped that in several respects I would not have to make the same type of contribution that we have had to make in the three previous debates. But the differences between the government's student grant policy and the Social Democrats' are unfortunately still large. They actually differ on some completely decisive points.

I had hoped that I would avoid standing here today and speaking about how high school students will not get more money in their wallets with the government's policy, that the government chooses to abolish the student grant for people who are far away from both education and the labor market when we know that education is one of the most decisive factors for one to get opportunities to get a job, that the government has chosen to remove the equalizing goal in the student grant system and that the administration of the transition student grant is still not resolved.

It is some of the questions that I had hoped we would not have to debate here today.

Madam Speaker! Above all, one of these things is that the leveling objective in the student grant has been removed, i.e., that the student grant should have as its goal to level differences between individuals and groups and to contribute to social justice.

It is actually a dramatic change of the target goal. It means that the government no longer sees student support as an equality tool. It means that one does not see the need to counteract class differences within education, and it means that one accepts that background can have an ever greater significance for the future. This is not a technical adjustment; it is an ideological marking.

We mean that the student grant should have such a goal. Sweden has built its strength on the fact that people, regardless of their starting point in life, are given the opportunity to educate themselves. Removing this goal formulation shows that the government is not taking the fight against growing inequality. We Social Democrats want to re-establish the student grant's role as an active tool in equality policy.

Madam Speaker! During this parliamentary term, the Government has repeatedly chosen not to prioritize families with children. They have chosen to prioritize tax cuts for the very wealthiest instead of doing what we wanted in our budget proposal: increasing the student grant for upper secondary school students by 200 SEK per month. It is a prioritization that is sensible considering that we have 100,000 more in unemployment. We have 9 percent unemployment, and growth is at the bottom of the EU.

It would have been reasonable to use, among other things, child allowance and student grants as a growth-creating measure, and in that case, 200 kronor per month in increased student grant is a reasonable policy. It is a sharp and clear difference from the government's policy, and it is a necessary reform when price increases have set in and higher food costs, higher rental costs, and more expensive travel make it all harder for young people and families.

An increase of 200 kronor is not the solution to everything, but it is a large part and involves a concrete support to Sweden's youth and Sweden's families with children in a time when more and more families have difficulty making ends meet. It is a reasonable policy.

Madam Speaker! Another series we have had here concerns the transition study support. It is a support that we have agreed upon during the mandate period, except when it comes to how quickly we should work with the processing and how proactive and action-oriented the government should be. From the government's side, it has repeatedly been too little and too late.

It could sound like classic opposition politics, but it is actually tens of thousands of people who, during this parliamentary term, have waited far too long to receive a decision and to have their student support granted before the start of their studies.

When it has finally been possible to see a brightening – when the processing time during the last half-year has gone down and we could actually reach the main goal that one should be able to get a decision before the start of studies – the government chooses not to inject 30 million kronor to CSN. It is 30 million kronor which in an appropriation of over 7 billion is very little money, but which for CSN is crucial in order to be able to handle the processing in time.

These 30 million will now be missing at CSN, which will mean that the queues and the messages during 2026 and 2027 will take much longer. That is what the agency itself says in the documents it delivers to the government.

This support has deserved better treatment, because this initiative is historical and unique in that one can remain with a large share of one's income while studying in order to strengthen the worker's position on the labor market. It is an important reform, and the government has been all too passive.

Madam Speaker! The Government has also announced an investigation of the student support system in the budget bill. We want to say with determination that it is important that the student support also continues to be broad and that it is a broad agreement, because long-term perspective is needed to build student financing. We Social Democrats hope that this review receives parliamentary oversight so that the broad anchoring needed regarding the student support system can be created.

Improvements can also be built into the student support system regarding students with children and students who become ill. These could be good parts to review in such a review. We must hope that the government's directive to the commission becomes clear and that parliamentary oversight exists, because we need conditions that allow all groups to complete their education. This is crucial for creating a society where we include and do not exclude.

Madam Speaker! Our student support expresses faith in knowledge as the basis for both individual and societal development. When we strengthen the student grant and safeguard a fair and inclusive support, we defend one of the most important ideas in our social construction, namely that every human being should be able to grow through education.

(Applause)

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! It has almost been four years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. When we speak of Putin's brutal war against the Ukrainian people, we must remember that it is not just a war over land and borders. It is a war against people, their right to live in freedom and their right to shape their own future.

Since February 24, 2022, bombs have fallen over cities and villages and over schools and hospitals. Children have been forced to grow up in shelters, parents have been separated from their children, and entire families have been torn up by the roots.

This war has created the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Approximately 6.9 million Ukrainians are still fleeing outside their country – in our Europe, in our time. Of these, about 40,000 have come to Sweden to seek protection in these difficult times. They are now our neighbors, our classmates, and our new colleagues. Behind every figure is a human being – a mother forced to leave her husband at the front, a child who can no longer play in their yard, or a retiree who has lost their home and must start over from scratch.

Madam Speaker! We must not forget that Ukraine is not a country far away, but it is a neighboring people. We share community through history, through culture, through trade and through people who have lived here for a long time. Ukrainians contribute to our society as workers, students, researchers and cultural weavers. When they are forced to flee during the war now, it is natural that we stand by their side, as good neighbors do.

The Ukrainian people's struggle is our struggle. They are not only defending their country. They are defending the values that we ourselves build our society on: democracy, freedom and human rights. When Russia tries to crush these values in Ukraine, our security here in Sweden and in Europe is also threatened.

Madam Speaker! We must never let the figures become cold statistics. Every figure corresponds to a life, a story, and a future at stake. Therefore, Sweden must also continue to stand firm in its support for Ukraine – militarily, economically, and humanitarily – because Ukraine's struggle is, as said, our own.

In this context, I particularly want to highlight the government's proposal to give Ukrainians with temporary protection the right to student grants. The proposal means that those who have been here for at least twelve months shall be able to apply for student aid and student grants just like Swedish students. The simple purpose is to give people the opportunity to educate themselves, stand on their own feet, and contribute to society.

Madam Speaker! Even though we all hope for a swift peace, there is very little that suggests it will be so. Let us be clear: Many of these people have already been here for a very long time, and their lives cannot be put on pause while waiting for the war to end. Children grow up, young people want to get an education, and adults want to work and support their families here. To deny them the opportunity for student support is to hold them back and prevent them from building a future – regardless of whether that future is here or in a future free and independent Ukraine.

I am proud that we can make this decision. It may be a small detail in the brutal geopolitical game we see, but it is a gigantic step for an individual Ukrainian here in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! I will try to keep this speech quite short because my previous speech dragged on. I am tough in debates, but I try to be a kind colleague!

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces one of our time's greatest welfare challenges, namely the staffing and skills supply in healthcare, school, and elderly care. We can build as many healthcare beds as we want and promise as much security as we want, but without people who educate themselves and stay within the welfare professions, the entire system collapses.

With nearly 600,000 unemployed in Sweden, we in politics must begin to use the tools we have to make it possible for more people to educate themselves, take jobs, and want to stay within the welfare system. One of those tools is the student grant system. It is not just a financing model for higher education but one of the most powerful steering instruments we have to influence the supply of personnel and competence.

Vänsterpartiet takes this seriously. Therefore, we propose a number of concrete initiatives to make welfare education more attractive and more accessible.

Firstly, we want to increase the number of study places both in the medical program and in the nursing program. This will require resources in the form of study grants, and therefore we are allocating 76 million kronor so that more people can take the step and train for welfare professions. We know that Sweden desperately needs it.

Secondly, we want to use the student loan system more intelligently. Today, many smaller and sparsely populated regions face acute staff shortages in healthcare and elderly care. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce the possibility for healthcare-trained individuals who choose to live and work in these regions to write off their student debts. It is a concrete way to direct trained staff to where the needs are greatest, and we allocate 39 million kronor for this.

Thirdly, other welfare professions also face major competence challenges. Libraries are a democratic infrastructure, but there is a shortage of trained librarians in many parts of the country. Therefore, we want to expand the librarian education and are allocating 5 million kronor for that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: We reject the government's so-called streamlining of the higher grant in the student loan system. We do not consider it a streamlining but a cut – a cut that risks hitting hard against people who are already struggling financially and who often study for precisely those professions that the welfare system depends on people working in.

In summary, Vänsterpartiet invests 320 million kronor more than the government on student grants and study places. We see the student grant system as a strategic investment and not as a cost.

Mr. Speaker! If we want more nurses and doctors and more within other important welfare professions, politics must make it possible. It does not need fine words and symbolic measures, but real improvements in people's economic conditions to study and work where society needs them. That is what the Left Party does.

I vote in favor of the reservation.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! The student grant is intended to enable everyone to study. Regardless of background and family circumstances, regardless of how one has grown up and regardless of what conditions one has had for higher education or upper secondary studies, one should have the opportunity to study. The purpose of the student grant is financial security during the time one studies and to ensure that people have the opportunity to become their best self.

There are challenges with the student aid system, and everything is not perfect. We have, for example, a too low throughput within higher education. One example of this is that only half of those who take the engineering programs finish within the allotted time plus three years. At the same time, we have programs where the currently normal period of study borders on the upper limit for student aid.

It is obvious that we have a student grant system that in some cases can be perceived as too generous when it comes to lingering for a long time in education at a basic level. At the same time, the student grant system in some cases prevents people from studying advanced education and improving themselves. It is obvious that the investigation that is now to review the student grant system will be significant for us to obtain a more purposeful student grant system.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates have presented their ideas for such an orientation. We believe that the duration of student grants needs to be extended from six to seven years and that the time at the basic level at the same time needs to be limited to four years. To access the final three years, one therefore needs to deepen their education, for example, move from the candidate level to the master's level.

We also propose that the exemption limit should be abolished during the summers since one does not receive student grants then anyway, and that it should furthermore be calculated based on monthly figures to avoid the risk of people being left with debt because they have worked too much during the terms.

Furthermore, we propose that the housing allowance for young people be converted into a housing supplement within the student grant system.

Mr. Speaker! We hope that the direction we have decided upon can become part of the review that is now being conducted and which is necessary. It is therefore why we have developed several of these proposals together with Sveriges förenade studentkårer and Saco studentråd and presented them jointly.

Mr. Speaker! Lifelong learning is important for Sweden. Our economy is transitioning, and the labor market is changing. Transition must be possible and easy, and the transition study support is an important part of that infrastructure in the same way as the investments being made in, for example, the university colleges and the academic higher education.

Job changes must be possible throughout one's professional life; if we want people to be able to work longer, it is also necessary not to expect that a working life must be the same as a professional life. Naturally, a working life can instead contain several professional lives. It is important that people can further their education and develop their skills during and between their jobs.

All these things are important for Sweden's economy to be competitive and for people to both have the opportunity for personal development and, above all, be able to get their fair share in the economy. Here, the student grant system is, of course, completely crucial.

There are some examples of why the student grant system is particularly important, not least for lifelong learning. It could be about the nursing assistant who feels that in order to endure until retirement, she needs to change jobs – perhaps take on becoming an accounting assistant or start working with something else that does not involve the same physical strain but is still a very important job. It could also be about the hairdresser who feels that the dream as a child, despite everything, was to become a police officer and that it is probably time to apply for a transition study grant to become that.

Another good example of lifelong learning is that the Social Democrats in this proposal have budgeted their initiative on student grants under the correct budget item. This is an important development, not least for the work we do in this chamber. There are, therefore, many examples of people learning throughout their lives.

The study start support is part of this debate. IFAU has been invoked by the opposition in the argument that the study start support should be retained. I would like to remind you of two communications from the Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.

In the agency's referral response from 2016, when the Social Democratic government introduced the study start support, it was warned that the available knowledge did not unequivocally indicate that this would have positive effects. It was said that it could help individual individuals, but that the uncertainty was so great that it would become important to conduct a careful evaluation.

Then a careful evaluation was made. It could be stated that the accuracy and thus the appropriateness regarding this reform from the Social Democratic government, Mr. Speaker, had not been good enough for us to retain the study start support.

Then we presented this decommissioning, and once again the Institute for Labour Market and Education Policy Evaluation wrote a referral response. In it, it was stated that the proposal for decommissioning is well-balanced, as they formulated it, because the support has not been accurate.

Mr. Speaker! We mean, supported by the available knowledge, that it is a reasonable prioritization not to retain the study start support because the reform has not functioned. There is no judgment in this. There is statistics and research as well as referral responses from the evaluating authority, which state that it is well-considered to do it in this way because the reform has not functioned.

Function, Mr. Speaker, is something that we in our cooperation consider to have a high value. It would have been good to agree on this, regarding broad agreements.

We are making substantial investments in student grants. It is important so that people can transition throughout their professional lives, so that one has the opportunity to become one's best self, and so that one has financial security both as a young and as an older student. There are many reasons to review the student grant system so that it can become an even more important part of achieving a well-functioning society and an efficient education. People should have security but at the same time have incentives for throughput and for advancement in advanced education.

Against this background, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! After having listened to the speeches from Oliver Rosengren and the Education Committee's chairman Fredrik Malm, one can wonder what the directive for a review of the student grant system will look like. Chairman Fredrik Malm spoke about how we, in all respects, have a well-functioning student start support. Oliver Rosengren spoke instead about quite large changes to the same system, if I interpreted him correctly.

It is noticeable that the election year is beginning to approach. The Tidö parties increasingly have different messages when it comes to the entire educational policy area. It will be exciting to see which line will prevail moving forward.

There is quite a lot that can be reviewed, and we Social Democrats are not unfamiliar with this. We think it is important to have a well-balanced review of the student support system. We are, for example, prepared to look at both the form as such and how one can ensure that students with children, students who become ill and so on, get better conditions so that they can complete their studies during their lives.

Oliver Rosengren is welcome to speak about how much of this is the government's policy and how much of it is the Moderaternas policy. It is, after all, the government's policy that will apply, especially when it comes to the review of student grants. I am quite curious, because parts of what Oliver Rosengren said here are not what has been signaled regarding the review of the student grant system.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! The student loan system is essentially well-functioning. Tens of thousands of young people go to their education every day – to their upper secondary school, their school, or their higher education institution – to have the opportunity to develop themselves, educate themselves, come closer to their dreams, and take advantage of the opportunities that this country offers to educate themselves, get their dream job, and stand on their own feet. This, one must still say, is the fundamental basis of the student loan system, and it is essentially well-functioning.

Since then, it is obvious that there are certain problems with the functionality in the details. One such example is that we have far too low throughput in higher education. Another such example is that we encourage specialization and advancement in more advanced educations to an all too small extent. An example of this is that there are educations, for example the medical education, where the normal time approaches the maximum time for student grants. It can create individual problems where people end up caught in a squeeze.

Another such problem can be that there are those who linger for much longer with education at a basic level, so that one can almost get the impression that the educational institution is being used because the individuals do not want to enter the labor market. This is one of the reasons why Sweden today has one of the highest ages of all countries in the OECD when it comes to labor market establishment for persons who are studying a higher education.

Mr. Speaker! In light of this, there are reasons to review how the functionality of the student grant system can be improved. I previously preferred what the Moderates' starting point is in this. A positive thing in our cooperation is that our parties can come with different starting points, reach a good agreement, and stand behind what we then agree upon. It is therefore a united Tidösamarbete that now moves for approval of the committee's proposal. We agree on what is being debated here today, that is, expenditure area 15.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We simply have to see what the directives for a future student support investigation will be.

Another question that the member stayed on for quite a long time is the phasing out of the study start support. If one looks at how we Social Democrats have acted in this issue, one sees that we are in favor of reviewing the regulatory framework so that it becomes more functional, just as Oliver Rosengren spoke about. We also want the system to work. We see thousands of people who are far from education.

The study start support is about people who are far from education and who will likely need to study for quite a long time at a basic level before they enter education at the upper secondary level. This means that these people will not be served by being included in the regular study support system or similar to complete their education. Historically, that is why we have had the support.

We Social Democrats are also very open to the fact that systems need to be found for the group that moves forward. We are absolutely in favor of reviewing how a new system, which is not called studiestartsstöd, can be found to ensure that people who are far from education end up in education. This is a very important aspect to keep in mind in this.

One does not need to scrap everything and remove all of this support. We see that Sweden has 100,000 more unemployed than when Ulf Kristersson and the Moderaterna took over government power. We see that Sweden has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. Then we Social Democrats see that one needs to invest in support and adjust the systems that exist instead of completely removing a system without replacing it with anything.

Right now, there is no other way to enable this group of people to get closer to education and then enter the labor market and into work. It is a fairly important difference. When unemployment becomes entrenched and Sweden has 100,000 more unemployed, the government should use all the tools it has to push back unemployment and not just throw out a system without replacing it with something else.

(Applause)

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Niklas Sigvardsson for the question.

Politics is ultimately a matter of prioritization. According to the assessment we have made, the student start support is not functioning sufficiently well for there to be reason to spend taxpayers' money on it.

There are all the opportunities to submit proposals for better-functioning regulations and reforms that are accurate and that solve societal problems. The Tidö cooperation will, of course, consider them very carefully, as with all good ideas. But to let another year run with a system that is not well-functioning, and which consumes tax money every year, we believe is not a good way to demonstrate the prudence and economy that we believe should form the basis for how one handles the taxpayers' money. That is the reason why our proposal in the budget is that no funds should be allocated and that the support should be phased out.

Mr. Speaker! Let me take the last minute to point out that the argumentation is somewhat flawed. Here, the Social Democrats are trying once again to turn an issue into part of their narrative about unemployment.

Unemployment is far too high. A study start support aimed at ensuring that people who need a long education will study will have a very limited effect on how many people enter the workforce because, when they are finished with the long education they need study start support for, we hopefully have a better economic situation, a better functioning world around us, and a situation where the Swedish economy is back in job creation. We already see now that Sweden has turned from being in the bottom scrap of the EU for growth to reaching the top tier in the EU Commission's forecasts for next year because our policy works.

Mr. Speaker! This is the important takeaway from this discussion. We choose tools and reforms that work. That is why we have turned Sweden's growth from very low levels to being in the top tier of the EU. That is why we are abolishing the study start support. These things are connected because functionality is important to us.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first express my appreciation for the member's speech and debate with the Social Democrats. There is much in the Moderates' policy that the Centre Party can sign off on. It is an interesting phase the Moderates are in.

The chairman was inside the free allowance and mentioned that one is prepared to remove the free allowance for the summer months. The Center Party has for some years argued that we think the free allowance should be removed entirely because it puts a lid on creativity and on the possibility for students to work.

I note that the member's colleague in the Riksdag, Helena Storckenfeldt, submitted a motion on this last year. She wrote: Hard work should always pay off, but today many students who work too much alongside their studies are being punished. How a student chooses to structure their study time should only be up to the student themselves. Reasonably, everyone should have the same conditions to study, but if one has the opportunity and the conditions to work alongside, one should not be punished by having their student support withdrawn. Therefore, the Moderate-led government should review the possibility of completely abolishing the free amount.

This could have come from the Center Party.

I therefore ask Member Rosengren: How is it that the Moderaterna stop at only removing the exemption for the summer months?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Anders Ådahl for the question.

It must be an exposé of the Moderaternas inner life in response to this question. It is, in itself, not a question that is addressed in expenditure area 15, but since the question has been asked, it must be answered.

There is a great variation of views within my party regarding the free amount, and therefore we also examined this issue in our economic policy at the meeting we held a short while ago. The economic-policy working group, which I had the pleasure of being a part of, had then presented a student grant reform which, among other things, contains a reconsideration of the view on the free amount. We have previously had decisions that have pointed towards the free amount being abolished. But different studies and a report from the Swedish National Audit Office that arrived about a year ago show that a large part of the low throughput and of the dropouts that occur is due to people working a lot alongside their studies. Therefore, we believe that there is a risk that we delay entry into the labor market and a full establishment in the labor market if we have a situation where too many prolong their study time by combining a lot of work with studies.

Furthermore, it is the case that the development of the tax-free allowance means that today one can be working full-time at wage levels that correspond to what young people often receive in entry-level jobs, that is, 20,000 kronor a month, because the tax-free allowance is now so high. If one also removes two of the calculation-basis months, that is, the summer months, the income one can earn during the remaining ten months will become even higher. That would in that case mean that there is a possibility to work with a salary of up to 25,000 kronor a month. One must still say that is a lot of work.

Mr. Speaker! That is why our proposal is that it is most balanced to only abolish the exemption for the summer months.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the clarifying answer. It was also interesting to get a small exposé on the Moderaternas internal economic life. We can observe that the Centerpartiet lands more like member Storckenfeldt than the Moderaterna as a whole, but that is obviously fine.

My second question is somewhat more searching. On your side of politics, or how one should put it, there are two prime ministerial candidates. There is a large party led by Åkesson and a smaller party led by Kristersson. From the speaker's chair, Member Rosengren accounted for a great deal of the Moderates' policy, and he also mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks that the policy will be subject to negotiation. A voter who is standing and weighing between the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats and between Kristersson and Åkesson as Prime Minister is probably curious about what distinguishes the Moderates' policy in the area of student grants from the Sweden Democrats'. Where do the Moderates stand out? How do you differ?

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö cooperation has taken its starting point in solving a series of societal problems. My perception of the Tidö cooperation is that it is primarily not based on great enthusiasm but on necessity. We enter into this cooperation because it is necessary for Sweden, as the alternative would be very damaging for Sweden. Therefore, we now have a cooperation that provides stability in politics, and our budget will pass for the fourth time because we have a majority for our political direction and for the measures we assess are required to get order in Sweden across a number of different areas.

What has shown during these four years is that it is a well-functioning cooperation – a cooperation where we have also managed to reach agreements on issues where we stood far apart. There are examples of this. I am responsible for, for example, social security issues in another committee, and there we have agreed on a large and thorough reform, which I did not believe before that we would do, precisely because in a cooperation, one talks about things and reaches agreements on things.

Mr. Speaker! The student grant area is not one of the areas where I perceive the differences to be very large. I cannot recall any occasion in the discussions I have had with my colleagues in the Education Committee where we have clashed over a student grant issue. But it can, of course, happen, and then it will proceed in roughly the way it usually does with us, that is to say, we discuss, listen to experts, reflect on what seems to be the best solution to the problem that is to be the starting point for the cooperation, and then land on what has the greatest chance of solving this problem. That is how it usually goes, and it would surprise me if it proceeded in any other way in the student grant area specifically.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now it will be a bit different, because now it will be a short story.

Mr. Speaker! I am sitting sunken in an old leather sofa, a three-seater, suspended in a stainless steel frame and set on wheels, the room is dark and I have slowly and in solitary majesty drunk an Erdinger Hefe Weisse, not a bad companion for an early-consumed programmer in his early 40s, and I always only drink one, let it take a couple of hours, and the day has Studiestödbörjat started moving towards its end and I should get up, take my coat, my hat and my gloves and meet the rain and the weather and the world outside, for it is a day tomorrow too, which I am usually reminded that I should have thought about yesterday every day when I wake up, but now I actually think it already today, and not without me smiling inwardly at having anticipated tomorrow's first thought, a silly but still unexpectedly bright smile, perhaps it is the beginning of something new, I manage to think, when the mobile phone gives off tremors and I see on the screen that it is ringing, unknown number it says and for a short moment I think that I do not answer, but the silly smile wins, and I answer and hear in the other end a woman, age indeterminate, she says that she knows who I am, where I am somewhere and what I struggle with during the days, and she calls me with good intentions, and we arrange to meet in just one hour, she asks me to wait there where I am, and now I know neither out nor in, sink deep into the sofa, "struggle with during the days," she said, and yes, it is true, during the days I struggle with an unpleasant insight that I should change paths, should change jobs, should put programming on the shelf, for if the truth shall come out I am not a particularly good programmer anymore, but to change paths in the middle of life when competence falters and self-esteem aches in the marrow, it is not easy, it is thresholds that take me to the leather sofa and a Hefe Weisse, and in through the door comes she, the indeterminate age remains, sits down opposite me, does not say hello but starts talking, and she says; transition study support, you shall go to vocational college, you shall no longer be a programmer, you are all that you need and you are what Sweden needs, I propose constructor of battery-electric systems, she falls silent for a second, and my silence is longer, it has in fact been going on for a few years – perhaps there is a way for me and she speaks again and she says; I am a Center Party member, I became one when I saw how society stiffened, I am driven by giving all people equal chances, to give people several chances, to give Sweden a chance again, where we do not buy a one-way ticket for hundreds of thousands of kronor – surely you are from Afghanistan, originally? – but where we invest in people and in Sweden on one and the same board, and I know that my party wants to expand the vocational college most of all, because it is such a precise form of education, and she says that higher education available in the whole country, the whole life, is one of the Center Party's three cornerstones in higher education policy, where everyone should be able to familiarize themselves, educate themselves further, where you live should not prevent you from reading further and age or social circumstances should not prevent you from reading further, the darkness outside is compact, the sofa is low, I begin to believe anyway in hope and the future, that behind the night's darkness awaits tomorrow's light, not just for me but for more, for many, for when unemployment digs holes in people and digs holes in the state's cash box something must happen, and she explains that the transition study support means that employees get significantly improved opportunities to study and transition during the whole working life. It concerns you as a programmer with other dreams, but it concerns everyone actually, and the Center Party wants to initiate a gradual increase of the vocational educations with focus on particularly successful parts of the further education where the vocational college despite a necessary expansion during later years is still heavily underdimensioned, she leans forward and I must admit that her energy to change society for the better infects me with a desire to move forward – transition study support – what a long word anyway, and she lowers her voice a little and says that CSN struggles with processing times, that it is not okay but that it looks better now, and I look up at the ceiling where an honestly quite ugly glass mosaic lamp hangs crookedly and proclaims the need for change, and she continues and says that the Center Party wants the jobs to become more and the emissions to go down, therefore knowledge is also completely central, for without education and a generally accessible study support that is flexible are not Sweden's or every individual's opportunities equally good, she takes a pause, she is reminded of the situation and she says to me where I sit sunken somewhat straighter in the back, without my Hefe Weisse but with this woman unknown to me opposite, that now she must turn to the Speaker to announce that in the Riksdag's debate on study support the Center Party expresses support for the joint reservation, but she also says, and now she pulls a bit at the corner of her mouth, looks stintly at me with twinkling eyes and wonders if I who sit there understand or if perhaps someone of the listeners understands why this whole speech about study grants is just one long sentence, and while she takes a couple of quiet breaths I hear someone think that it must be like a tribute to science and art this Nobel evening, a tribute where one has chosen as form to try to imitate this year's Nobel laureate in literature, László Krasznahorkai, and without other similarities the ambition to with the form of a single sentence try to multiply its message, she stood up, threw her coat over herself and went out through the door, and left sat I, stunned, but with hope.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the proposal in the report and by rejecting all motions.

The student grant is a fundamental pillar in Swedish education policy. It has made it possible for generations of Swedes to take the next step in life, to educate themselves, grow, and take responsibility, and thereby contribute to our country's cohesion, competitiveness, and faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrat-led government stands firm that Sweden shall continue to have one of the world's most generous and legally secure student support systems.

For us Christian Democrats, this is not just a technical issue regarding subsidy levels and regulatory frameworks. It is about the view of humanity. We believe in the inherent value of the human being and the ability to develop, to take responsibility, and to contribute to society. This requires a student support system that both encourages and enables this growth potential.

Generosity must always be combined with responsibility. It is a fundamental Christian Democratic principle. But a system can only be long-term generous if it is also clear, sustainable, and well-functioning. This is particularly important as Sweden is in a situation where the skills shortage must be resolved. Swedish industry, Swedish welfare operations, yes, our entire economy needs people who dare to take the step to further their education, change careers, and get the opportunity to get jobs in the professions where the needs are greatest.

Mr. Speaker! Since 2024, a new and more coherent recruitment goal has applied for expenditure area 15. This means that student support shall act as recruiting for women and men regardless of background and contribute to a high participation in education. It is also a goal that harmonizes well with Christian Democratic policy: to safeguard equal opportunities and to do so with clarity and responsibility, not through unclear power structures and obscure goal conflicts.

A goal, Mr. Speaker, must be clear if it is to be governing. Having parallel goals that overlap each other creates unclear incentives and impairs the follow-up. The current goal is more purposeful. It strengthens the governance, clarifies the indicators, and improves the Riksdag's opportunities to follow up on the goal fulfillment.

So, how does it look? Well, the reporting of the results for the student grant shows that it continues to have a high recruiting effect. Participation in education is high, the purchasing power of the student grant has increased in relation to CPI, and many are applying for the transition student grant, which shows that the reform is fulfilling its function. It is an expression of something that we Christian Democrats often highlight: Security creates agency. When people choose new paths in life and know that the finances hold, they also dare to take the next step.

The indicators in the goals primarily give a positive picture: A majority of the students begin their studies with student financial aid, and more are using the transition study support. Long-term time series also provide a better and more robust analysis.

Mr. Speaker! The transition study support is a historic reform and an important labor market reform. This is reflected in both high demand and a large labor market effect. This year, approximately 12,400 people are taking the chance to change paths, further their education, and strengthen their position on the labor market.

The initiated work on a major review of the student loan system is welcome precisely so that the system can be flexible, compliant, and long-term sustainable in a rapidly changing labor market.

Mr. Speaker! Another important reform that we are now presenting is the right to student support for persons who have been forced to flee from Ukraine. After at least twelve months of residence in Sweden, they shall be able to receive both study assistance and student grants.

For us Christian Democrats, it is obvious. It is a human and reasonable step that improves the opportunities for self-sufficiency, integration, and long-term establishment for our Ukrainian friends. Furthermore, many of those who have come here from Ukraine have both high education and strong drive.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The expenditures for expenditure area 15 are estimated to amount to 35.8 billion kronor in 2026. The target for the appropriation proposal for the year is well-balanced and is based on responsibility and a holistic view.

The initiative for more educational places within, among other things, the university colleges, vocational adult education, and the pilot project for national vocational training naturally leads to an increased need for student aid, and this is reflected in the budget. This contributes directly to more people being able to educate themselves and enter important industries where competence is crucial for Sweden's prosperity. But behind the figures lies a greater purpose: a Sweden where every human being is given the opportunity to grow, take responsibility, and contribute – not get stuck in either exclusion, in the wrong profession, or in a situation where their competence is not recognized.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move again for the approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that we in Miljöpartiet are not participating in the budget decision because we are investing more money than the government is in the expenditure area of student support. I will soon tell you what we are investing in.

I move for approval of the joint reservation from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet and Miljöpartiet regarding the goal for the student grant.

This goal was established in the student support reform of 2001 and clarified in the budget bill for 2016. The year before last, the government chose to remove – or, as they themselves call it, modernize – the goal for student support which states that it shall level differences between individuals and groups in the population and contribute to increased social justice.

For Miljöpartiet, this is an important part of the goal for student support. We want, as part of the united opposition, that the formulation of the goal be reintroduced. Everyone should be able to study at a college or university regardless of where one comes from, in society or in the country.

Miljöpartiet wants to make it easier to take the step to further studies by improving things for students regarding housing and finances. Those who choose to study further should be able to manage financially. Receiving financial support from parents is not an opportunity that exists for everyone. It should also not be a prerequisite for taking the step to further studies.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has one of the world's most generous student grant systems. It is something that we must safeguard, because it has led to us having one of the world's most educated populations. It is important for managing the societal challenges we face from global megatrends such as climate change, migration, digitalization, and changing demographics.

Students invest time and money in their own and in Sweden's future. A strong student support system is an important way for Sweden to invest in the students here and now. This is not just about the future and what the students will do with their knowledge when they leave their education, but it is about life as a student here and now. It is also about daring to become a student in the middle of life or at any time.

I will give some examples of where we are allocating more money than the government.

It is, for example, about raising the student grant for students by 300 kronor and for upper secondary school students by 350 kronor.

We are financing student grants for Ukrainian refugees who are in Sweden. According to the Riksdag's investigation service, the cost could be up to 200 million per year. Now the government proposes that this group should have the right to student grants. This is something that we have proposed for a longer time. Now it is important that the reform can be made possible through sufficient funding.

We are also financing an expansion of the sign language training for hearing parents of deaf children. The Government has begun to notice the need for TUFF, as it is called, but we are making a larger investment because we see that the needs are great.

We also continue, as in previous years, to fund CSN's work with the administration of the transition study support. This is an important reform for those who need to transition in their working lives, for Sweden, and for our skills supply. Therefore, it is important that it functions administratively. This is something that we all want to function well.

Students are a group with small economic margins, and economic stress is something that affects students negatively. Miljöpartiet wants to raise the student grant to create better conditions for people to further their education and feel economic security during their studies.

During that time, Miljöpartiet pushed through a 300 kronor increase in the student grant in government. If one compares the budget table, one can see that it costs quite a lot. Despite that, one can criticize Miljöpartiet for 300 kronor being a too stingily chosen sum. Then one must keep in mind that this is a support that is indexed annually in relation to the cost development. What we want to achieve with these 300 kronor per month is an increase beyond that indexing.

The grant component of the student grant has long lagged behind in relation to price developments. Students in single-person households are a group that has been hit particularly hard by the cost increases of recent years regarding rents, food, course literature, and other living costs that we all see in our everyday lives.

Miljöpartiet also considers that the level of the study grant, or study aid as it is called, for students in upper secondary school should be increased by 350 kronor and that this support should also be indexed so that it follows the cost development. In the same way, we propose that the child allowance also be indexed. It is something that strengthens the finances of many families with children.

As I mentioned earlier, for several years we have campaigned for Ukrainian refugees to have the right to student grants from CSN. People who have residence permits with temporary protection according to the mass flight directive have therefore not had the right to this, regardless of whether one is registered in the population register here or is covered by LMA. Generally, permanent residence permits are required to be able to receive student support from CSN. Now the government proposes that the Ukrainian refugees should be able to participate in CSN, and it is good that these rules are being changed. Miljöpartiet contributes with funding.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, approximately 200 children are born every year who have a hearing impairment or are deaf. Approximately the same number suffer a hearing injury during their upbringing. The vast majority of them, between 95 and 98 percent, have parents who are hearing.

A parent in that situation is entitled to basic training in sign language. One is also entitled to 240 hours of training in sign language during the child's upbringing. This is not much time to learn a language. You might remember that we debated SFI a few weeks ago; there we are talking about several years of studies. Miljöpartiet is investing in this group precisely so that the language can be developed throughout the children's entire upbringing. There is a difference between how one speaks with a small child and how one speaks with a teenager or someone who is almost an adult. This training therefore needs to be extended in time for everyone.

For comparison, I can mention that in Norway, the corresponding education covers 1,600 hours per year. In Sweden, it is therefore 240 hours, so there is great potential to expand this education.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the reservation that the student grant shall again aim to level differences between individuals and groups in the population and contribute to increased social justice.

Miljöpartiet is not participating in the budget decision but instead refers to our special statement.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can now perhaps go home and watch the Nobel festivities. I have a reason to long for home, because even though I cannot manage the Nobel laureate's literature in the same skillful way as my colleague Anders Ådahl, I want to say that I am in the middle of a sentence in László Krasznahorkai's book Herscht 07769: Florian Herscht's novel about Bach. I believe I will reach the end of the sentence sometime next week.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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