Student financial aid

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We now have to debate the Education Committee's report number 14 during this parliamentary session, and it concerns student financial aid. Nearly 50 motions have been submitted during the general motion period that our committee has taken up. I begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Sweden is and shall remain a knowledge nation that contributes innovations of world-class and secures our future prosperity through inventions in areas such as medicine, economy, industry and welfare.

A well-educated population is one of Sweden's strongest assets for our competitiveness and for our ability to maintain a general welfare state. But the level of education in Swedish society also shows some worrying trends. The latest Pisa results point to a veritable literacy crisis among Swedish upper secondary school students. One in four students in upper secondary school cannot read properly today. We risk fostering a generation of functional illiterates if this continues.

There are also some glimmers of light in the results from some other surveys. One sees certain improvements in, among other things, mathematics and also in adults' abilities. But quite large differences between groups remain, and parents' education level continues to have a major impact on our children's life chances.

Therefore, it is important to point out what is an important principle for us in the Liberals, namely that one's future should not be determined by how many shelf meters of books there are at home, but it should be determined above all by one's own ability and drive.

In this respect, Madam Speaker, student support is completely central to guaranteeing equal opportunities for everyone to educate themselves in Sweden. This is something that we in the Liberals wholeheartedly stand behind. It is an important freedom institution in the sense that all individuals in Sweden are given the opportunity to realize themselves. We make no distinction between rich or poor, but we shall have a system for higher education that can promote talented and ambitious individuals regardless of background, gender, location, or status.

Today's system works relatively well. It should be recruiting for both women and men regardless of background, both young and old, both unemployed and employed, and regardless of educational background, gender or origin. The student support shall furthermore be long-term sustainable, and the principle is that the loan shall be paid in full.

The government announced in the budget bill this autumn a review of the student support system. I believe it is good to do. The system we have now was introduced in 2001, and it has now been 25 years. That is a relatively long time, and the labor market is changing. It is a good idea to conduct a major review, and such an investigation will likely be appointed during the spring. We must ensure that the system is compliant with today's and the future's education system and the labor market's needs.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say something about the transition study support. It has existed for more than three years now to improve the conditions for adults to finance studies that can strengthen their future position on the labor market. It is about securing the skills that a rapidly changing economy also requires.

The transition study support is still a new reform. It has existed for three years, but it is still a new reform that needs to find its place in the educational policy landscape. It is being built up and expanded, and of course, not everything has functioned perfectly from the start. But we are now implementing quite large reforms, especially reforms that we have never implemented before. The transition study support is one such reform. In that case, one needs to supplement and reinforce various things along the way. During the years, some regulatory simplifications have been made, and CSN has received increased support to handle the fact that this form of education became significantly more popular than had been projected when it was introduced. It is, of course, fun and good that people get more opportunities, for matching and for the Swedish labor market.

We have taken several measures to shorten processing times. It will also be a task for the Central Student Aid Board, when the support is introduced, to make it work well, so that the processing does not affect everyone else studying at universities and colleges. The work is to function better, and we have seen it happen along the way.

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 reservation 7 in the report.

This is the eighth and final committee debate on student support during this parliamentary term. It is an important issue. Student support is one of the most central issues in education policy, but it is also consistent that the government has chosen not to provide the resources required in this area.

We can observe that as early as Friday, high school students across the country would have had 200 kronor more in their wallets in study grants if the Social Democratic budget had passed in December. Instead, the government and the Sverigedemokrater chose, just as in other budgets, to prioritize tax cuts for the wealthiest instead of 200 kronor for the high school students.

We Social Democrats have made other priorities in the student support policy throughout the entire mandate period, both in budgets and in these motion debates. For us, student support is not just an abstract construction or a technical regulatory framework. It is a concrete promise to every individual student and pupil that education shall be possible regardless of background, life situation, or previous experiences. Student support is one of our most important tools for increasing equality in society.

Madam Speaker! This debate is not just about the current situation, but it is about the future. Chairman Malm was mentioning that the government has announced a review of student support. They did that already two budgets ago. Despite that, we still have not seen the investigation. It could be positive if it arrives during the spring.

The need exists. The labor market has changed, and the education system has changed. The student support system must be developed in step with this. We Social Democrats are positive towards a review, but we are also clear that it should be carried out broadly and in a parliamentary spirit with a view towards long-term and stable regulations that hold over time and changes of government. Such a review must not be reduced to a technical review of levels and paragraphs, but it must take its starting point in students' actual living conditions.

The review should look at how we take care of students who become ill during their studies and are prevented from studying at the pace they desire. Today, students who fall between the cracks risk falling into financial insecurity, which ultimately leads to dropouts. A fair student support system must have the ability to handle life's unpredictability.

The review should also apply to students who have children, both those who become parents during their studies and those who have children before they begin studying. Parents who study are not only investing in their own and society's future but also in their children's future. But we know that their economic conditions are often strained and that the support is not adapted to their reality. A serious review of this is needed.

Madam Speaker! We also need to review the part concerning those who have a short educational background. For many, the step into studies is as large as it is, and for this specific group, the path to a degree is long. The need for support is therefore more extensive. It is against that background that we Social Democrats have been critical of the abolition of the study start support, even though it had its flaws.

When that support is now gone, the student support system must be developed so that people with a short educational background and a long way to graduation are actually given the opportunity to take the step into studies. That is how we build paths to work and self-sufficiency.

Madam Speaker! This government has also had problems with the administration of the agency CSN. We have seen administrative deficiencies, not least linked to the transition study support. In that regard, the government has failed to provide necessary resources in a timely manner and has been reactive rather than proactive.

Even the regular student support has been affected by longer waiting times. In both November and January, students had to wait several extra days for their payments as a result of IT problems. Most recently, just a few weeks ago, in January – the year's poorest month – it even went a whole weekend without money being able to be paid out to some students.

For students living on small margins, this is not just an annoyance. It is a serious problem that affects the ability to manage everyday life. Here, the government needs to take clear responsibility and take the lead to ensure that CSN has the resources required in the long term to fulfill its mission.

Madam Speaker! We need to have a student support system that is sustainable and that delivers on time. Otherwise, it will never be able to be considered fair. For us Social Democrats, reliability is a part of fairness.

In conclusion: Student support is not just a budget appropriation or a technical system. It is an expression of what kind of society we want. For us Social Democrats, it is about seeing every student in every life situation and ensuring that education is a real opportunity for everyone, not just in theory but also in practice. Education and student support must never become a class issue. If it does, we as a society have failed.

In this speech, Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S) agreed.

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Madam Speaker! Education is one of the most decisive investments for a society. It is through education that people get the opportunity to grow, take responsibility for their lives, and contribute to the development of society. But for education to be able to function as this enabler, it is required that the systems surrounding it are stable, long-term, and sustainable. It is therefore that we today deal with a report concerning one of the most central parts of education policy: student support.

Madam Speaker! Sweden today has one of the world's most generous student support systems. It has been said before, and I repeat it again. It is a system that makes it possible for people to study regardless of background, regardless of whether one comes from an academic family or from a family where no one has previously set foot in the university world. It is a system that provides security, predictability, and opportunities.

That is why, however, we must be cautious. A system that is so extensive and important must not become subject to impulsiveness, short-term solutions, or political impulses during an election year. It must be developed with deliberation, a holistic perspective, and responsibility. That is precisely what the committee does in this report.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have announced a comprehensive review of the entire student aid system. That is correct. It is not about small adjustments in the margins. It is about a scrutiny of the system's fundamental construction: the free amount, the grant levels, the loan portion, the safety rules, the interaction with labor market policy, and how different forms of support should be able to harmonize with one another.

It is a large and important task that must be carried out without us running in different directions and making point interventions that risk counteracting the whole. It is therefore why the committee proposes that the motions be dismissed, not because there is a lack of commitment in the motions and not because the issues are unimportant, but because it would be somewhat irresponsible to preempt extensive reform work by making decisions prematurely.

Madam Speaker! Let us look a little at the areas that the motions concern. For the first point, we have the free allowance. In several motions, it is desired to increase it. In others, it is desired to decrease it, abolish it, or make it monthly-based. These are issues that many students care about – absolutely. And these are issues that deserve to be treated seriously. But the free allowance is not an isolated issue. It affects the labor market, the pace of study, the indebtedness, and the state's costs. Therefore, it is reasonable that the government includes the free allowance in the larger review. To begin changing it now, without the whole being ready, would be to risk both the system's stability and the students' security.

Secondly, the higher benefit level is relevant. In the motions, it is desired to either expand it, strengthen it, or direct it to specific groups. But even here, the committee's line is clear that it is part of a larger review. We cannot pick out individual parts and change them without considering how the whole is affected. That is not how you build a sustainable system.

Thirdly, we have the transition study support (omställningsstudiestödet). It is a new and important tool to strengthen people's opportunities to further their education in the middle of life. But it is also a system that has recently been simplified, with new rules that came into force at the turn of the year. It is therefore wise for the committee to say: Let these changes take effect before we make new adjustments. Let us see how the system works in practice over a longer period before we begin changing it again.

Madam Speaker! Another issue raised in the motions is the support for those with short-term education. It is an important issue, especially in a country where many stand far from the labor market. But even here, work is already underway within the government to harmonize the support with labor market policy programs. It would be directly counterproductive to make decisions that risk creating overlaps and inefficiency.

The core of the committee's reasoning is that we must look at the whole. We must let ongoing reforms take effect. We must let the government complete its review before we throw in changes that risk pulling in different directions.

Madam Speaker! There are also motions concerning more specific issues, such as additional cost loans for musical instruments, student support for taxi driver training, special housing support for students, and indexing of the student grant. All these issues are important for those they affect. But even here, the same principle applies: We cannot make a decision in isolation. We must look at the whole. And the whole is that the student support system is facing a major reform and review. Therefore, the committee rejects these motions.

Madam Speaker! We have a student support system that is long-term sustainable. It is a system that gives people opportunities but which is also economically responsible. It is a system that is clear, predictable and fair.

Madam Speaker! The opposition presents a series of proposals that on the surface sound like good and simple solutions to strengthen students' finances. But that is exactly the problem: They are simple. They are short-sighted and, in many cases, very expensive solutions that lack a holistic perspective. They are based on the same old reflex: Increase the grants and add some support, and we hope that the problems disappear!

We choose a different path. We choose a more responsible path, a path that actually strengthens students' finances – not just today but also in the long term.

When the Sweden Democrats and the government push down inflation, the costs for food, housing, and electricity fall. It is one of the most powerful improvements for students' finances that can be achieved at all. When taxes are lowered for low- and middle-income earners, students who work extra are able to keep more of their wages. When we re-establish the work principle, the labor market grows and more jobs become available, especially summer jobs. These are real improvements, not simple poster politics during an election year.

When the Sweden Democrats and the government simplify the construction processes and gradually increase the pace of housing construction, it will also affect the economy for students in the long run. Then it will not just be about a few hundred kronor here or there. The rent is, as mentioned, the largest expense for almost every student. Getting down that cost is a reform that will truly affect the wallet. This is what we will see during 2026 and especially 2027, I believe.

We strengthen students' finances by strengthening the entire Swedish economy. That is the difference between the opposition's policy and ours. We want to build stability, order, and long-term perspective. We make reforms that apply to everyone, including students, and we do so without jeopardizing the state finances or creating new dependencies. That is how you take responsibility. That is how you build a country and a system that works. That is why we stand behind the committee's line.

Madam Speaker! To summarize, I want to say five things. For the first, the government and the Sweden Democrats are conducting a necessary and comprehensive review. For the second, ongoing reforms must be allowed to take effect before new decisions are made. For the third, Sweden still has the most generous student support system. For the fourth, changes must be made collectively and not piecemeal. For the fifth, the committee's line is responsible, long-term, and well-considered.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually hadn't intended to request the floor at this late hour, but there was quite a lot to bounce off of in Anders Alftberg's long speech.

Something that Alftberg returned to time and again was that it is necessary to see things as a whole and in that way take responsibility for the student support policy. One thing that borders on this, because CSN will probably administer the system, is the paid police training that the government is moving forward with and which will affect how we finance all types of studies and education. However, the Sweden Democrats and Alftberg choose not to address this as an important part. When we review the student support system, everything must happen as a whole, says Alftberg. We cannot have different parts; all financing of studies must be seen as a whole. But this part, the Sweden Democrats and Alftberg choose to avoid.

It can be very good that one does this to strengthen the police force. But we also need to consider what happens the next time a professional group needs to be strengthened. We need tens of thousands of teachers. We need nurses, doctors and dentists all around the country. One can reflect on what the long-term consequences of this will be.

I perceived from Anders Alftberg's post that it is important that we wait and see. We shall analyze and discuss to ensure that we do not do individual things that could have a major impact on the student support system. I perceive that it is with that justification that the Sverigedemokraterna demand a rejection of all the motions that we Social Democrats and other opposition parties have in this debate.

How does this add up, Anders Alftberg?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! We face a major and urgent societal issue. Crime permeates large parts of society, which creates a shockwave. In order to be able to maintain much of what sustains our society, many more police officers—the guardians of the law—are needed. We found this measure extremely essential to tackle crime and get Sweden on the right track. It is unfortunately necessary to do it in this way, because one has neglected not only the police force but also the root of the crime we see today. Yes, it is a drastic measure to ensure that our police officers have their training paid for. But the necessity demands this.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Necessity demands this, was the answer I received. I share the picture – we need to solve crime, which is one of our greatest societal problems. But we also do that through preventive work. Then we need tens of thousands of teachers who ensure that our children and students receive the education they deserve. More teachers and more police officers is a way to be both proactive and reactive when we need to be.

Sometimes we do not need to be long-term analytical. Sometimes we can do things. We Social Democrats want to strengthen the finances of upper secondary school students. It is possible to do that and think that it is actually needed, considering that we have had a cost crisis during this parliamentary term.

Social Democratic policy is a whole. Nine out of ten Swedes would have had more money in their pockets with the Social Democrats than what the SD-led government delivers during 2026. It clearly shows that it is possible to take powerful measures together with review policy.

We Social Democrats also believe that these systems need to be reviewed in the long term. That is why we were not against the review of the student grant system but wanted to add things. That was the entire point of my speech, Madam Speaker. We are in favor of a review, but it needs to take place in broad parliamentary consensus. We must have long-term rules of the game. On that, we agree.

I understand Alftberg's reasoning that it is thoughtless to take drastic small measures when we propose them, but that we can do so when it suits the Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not consider our measure regarding police training to be small, as the member claims. It is a fairly large measure.

The chairman expresses some annoyance that we are not backing the Social Democrats' proposal. He argues that they want to make major investments in the students and their finances.

It will potentially amount to 100–300 kronor per month. Our policy has led to us moving from 10 percent to 2 percent in inflation. It affects the economy not only for the students.

Now that we are implementing a reduction of the food VAT on April 1st this year from 12 to 6 percent, it will mean many more hundred-kronor for the students.

When we look at the tax cuts in general, it is over 60 percent of students who work alongside their studies. They will earn several hundred crowns on this tax cut.

We are actually strengthening the economy for students on many different levels and by significantly more than the member proposes.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Anders Alftberg repeatedly claims in his speech that the Sweden Democrats and the government are strengthening students' finances. That leaves me puzzled. It is not objectively true.

Several analyses of the Tidö parties' budget, including Swedbank's, state on the contrary that students are one of the groups who, together with guaranteed pensioners and people who receive sickness and activity compensation, are worse off due to their budget.

Students receive a worse economy this year than in previous years as a direct consequence of the Sweden Democrats' and the government's policy.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats and the government say no to the Green Party's proposal for higher student loans, no to an increased supplementary amount for student parents, and no to the abolition of the free limit during the summer.

Madam Speaker! Either the member is mistaken in fact or he is telling a falsehood. I would very much like to know which it is.

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the very leading question!

In the long run, it is a matter of strengthening both the students' finances and the economy as a whole. Some of the reforms target several years into the future.

It is, for example, about strengthening students' finances in the long run when it comes to housing costs. We have had the referral responses regarding the reform with simplified rules, where decisions were made in June last year.

The student housing companies, property owners and construction companies have responded in the referral comments that if that reform is implemented, it will in the long run lead to 300–700 kronor in reduced rental costs. Now we can build smaller and more efficiently. This is something that will happen gradually. We see a slow recovery when it comes to construction. It is expected that the regulatory simplifications will have their effect first now in 2026 and 2027.

If we want to count figures on the account in January, it may be as the member says. But we aim a bit further when it comes to improving the economy for students in a steady and long-term manner. It is the only way to go, instead of just raising a few individual hundred kronor and hoping that the problem is solved in the future. We pursue a long-term policy, and hopefully even beyond the mandate period.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the economy is as tough as it is right now, I do not think that the students in our beautiful country are particularly happy about potentially eventually getting a bit better in their wallets.

We have seen almost all the major student organizations come out and criticize the government for how little it does for students' finances. The very small changes that occur here and now will not be enough for anything, and hardly even for an extra packet of noodles.

I do not think that Sweden's students are so happy to hear the Sweden Democrats say: We will strengthen students' finances eventually. It is of course necessary to have a long-term perspective on the issues. But if one strengthens students' finances here and now with, for example, a higher student grant, it will have positive effects also in the coming years and not just here and now.

Improving the opportunities for students to pay their rent is very good. One of the issues I work with in the Social Insurance Committee is a review of the housing allowance. It would be very welcome, but there the government refuses to do anything at all.

There are so many things that the government and the Sweden Democrats could have done both here and now and moving forward, but which they choose not to do. I unfortunately do not believe that Sweden's students are particularly happy or grateful for the proposals and the reforms that the Sweden Democrats are putting forward.

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! The economy will not only be strengthened in the long run for the students over a number of years. On April 1, we are halving the food VAT. It is not about a packet or half a packet of noodles that one can afford.

A halving from 12 to 6 percent will, despite everything, have a substantial impact on the economy even for those who are studying. That is what I am completely convinced of. It will have a very clear effect in the short term.

Then I return to the 100–300 kronor that some parties propose. It is very short-sighted. We need to have the structural changes of the housing market for students. But that also requires gradual changes of both building permits and other practices. We are working intensively on that.

There should not be more subsidies but more in the paycheck. That is still the motto. The reduced tax also applies to students.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats raised several times in their speech the review that the government is to conduct regarding the student loan system. What the Sweden Democrats did not raise was that one intends to streamline the student loan system. He did not mention it in his speech.

We know what it means when a citizen says that something should be streamlined, whether it is an activity in the welfare sector or, in this case, a student grant system. Then we know that cuts will be presented. That is the prioritization that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are making. We see it in a number of different proposals.

It is something that students across the country are noticing. They see what their bank accounts look like. It is minus 210 kronor per month. That is what the forecast is for students who live in student housing. They will be at a deficit of minus 210 kronor per month.

It was something that was discovered after the turn of the year when TV4 announced who were the winners and losers of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas autumn budget for 2026.

Even single parents and persons who receive sickness and activity compensation are losers in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' priorities.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is: Why do the Sweden Democrats and the government think that students should be cut by 210 kronor per month? Is it an investment according to the government?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! The member says that when citizens speak of efficiency, it means cuts. That says something about the prejudices towards people who want efficient economic management.

With the left's policy, we would not have had an inflation of 2 percent. With the left's policy – which is about everything for everyone, about increased subsidies, about borrowing more and so on – we would not have had an inflation of 2 percent today. Then we would have had an inflation that was double, as some European countries have, and it would have been more than minus 200 kronor in the wallet for students and for people overall.

I believe I have accounted for this. The long-term reforms regarding the construction of particularly student housing will, in the long run, improve conditions for students in a significant and clear way.

The general VAT reduction will be to great benefit for students. The tax cut that is on the table and which is to be implemented will benefit those who work, and that is almost 60 percent of all students.

With responsibility, it will therefore also become better for the students at the same time.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet does not say: everything for everyone. We do not think that the billionaires and multi-millionaires should get enormous tax cuts – in the billions of kronor. We do not think that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government's ministers should get increased politicians' salaries. We do not think that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna should get tax cuts of 6,000 kronor every month or more than 70,000 kronor per year. No, we do not say: everything for everyone. We say that we shall invest in ordinary people and thus also students. This is therefore not correct.

The member says that in the long run, the students' finances will be improved. But it is the final year now. We have an election this year, on September 13. I assume the member is confident that a renewed mandate will be received in the election, but that may not be the case.

We have the closing of the fiscal year here and now, and then we need to see in black and white what the Sweden Democrats and the government intend to do. Now, the autumn budget revision is before us. Then we will see if there will be any new initiatives, perhaps new tax cuts for the very richest or an initiative for students who live in student housing and who will now be running at a loss of 210 kronor every month.

I have not received an answer to my question. The Member of Parliament is trying to make it seem that it is precisely the students who will receive these tax cuts. That is not true. I want to know again: Why do the Sweden Democrats and the government think that a student should be able to go backwards by 210 kronor every month? Is that reasonable?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that most students are wiser and that they actually understand that some things will take time.

It is not to conduct a responsible policy, which should hold over time, to say: We put an extra 250 kronor in the account, and then we hope that you vote for us. We do not intend to hand out any bribes to the students just because it is an election year, but we will be straight and clear.

It is long-term reforms and processes that will ensure that even the students will get it better. Raising the student grant by some single hundred kronor might be a bit mitigating during the first few months. But in the long run, our policy will benefit the students' finances, just as it will benefit the entire Swedish population. That is the case regardless of whether one tries to pit the rich against the poor and such with left-wing rhetoric.

One has not understood elementary economics when it comes to the taxation of the population. That we have a tax relief across the entire field does not mean that the people themselves, people themselves or the nation become poorer. It stimulates the economy, and that is what we really need. We do not need more taxes and levies, because that never makes the economy grow.

Now we had a macroeconomic debate, but that was how it sounded from the member, and then I had to jump in.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! That was a rather interesting exchange. A lot of falsehoods were brought forward from the Sweden Democrats' side regarding what this government and the Sweden Democrats are now prioritizing.

And because it is a closing year, one wants to demonstrate in some way that enormous investments have been made for students. But the fact is that we have students who, after the 2026 budget, will be down by 210 kronor every month. Those who live in student housing will be down by 210 kronor every month.

The Tidö parties want to make it look like they are making enormous investments in students. They bring up the halved food VAT as an example of how students will get a better economy. One can actually believe that. But there are many forecasts that say this risks becoming a subsidy for Ica worth billions of kronor, because one does not break up the oligopolistic market that we see now. There are few actors, large food giants, who can make record profits while everyone else has to pay for it. If you are a pensioner, you have to choose between food and medicine. If you are a student, you have to choose between dental care and food.

The Sweden Democrats also talk about simplifying regulations. Yes, I want to remind that the Sweden Democrats and the government have abolished the accessibility requirement when it comes to student housing. This means that student housing will become increasingly inaccessible for persons with disabilities. They simply do not want to invest with investment support so that cheaper student housing can be built. This is the priority. The accessibility requirement is abolished so that it will be cheaper to build student housing. Instead, one could have ensured that they become cheaper for everyone and become accessible for persons with disabilities.

But it is a closing year, and that means it is an election year. On September 13, the Swedish people can actually vote for a different direction, and I hope that every single person out there takes that to heart. We can actually build a society that does not only benefit the very richest. Sverigedemokraterna mentioned in the exchange of remarks that we do not need more tax increases. But there have not been tax increases for very many years. Neither wealth tax nor inheritance tax has been introduced. Wealth is passed down. The billionaires have not become rich because they have worked hard, but they have inherited the wealth. At the same time, Sweden is described as the Cayman Islands, because we have the most dollar billionaires in the entire world or we are at the top of the top 5 list. What Sverigedemokraterna said is therefore true – for the Sverigedemokraterna but not for everyone else.

Enough of the exchange of remarks.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the folk high schools. They offer a wide range of courses within culture and media. For those who lack primary school eligibility, there is an opportunity to study general courses with an aesthetic orientation. Special courses are often included as an informal intermediate step before higher studies in the cultural field.

A mapping during the previous parliamentary term showed that as much as 70 percent of the participants in the special courses in art and media had not studied an aesthetic program in upper secondary school. This shows that the folk high school is a real second chance.

For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is extremely important that there is a path to higher artistic education that does not involve high tuition fees. There is still a large difference in background between the participants in general and special courses. There is a great challenge for the folk high schools to attract, for example, more newly arrived people who have started studying Swedish to then continue on the special courses.

We have also noted that CSN's rules for additional cost loans for instruments do not apply to students at folkhögskola but only to those studying at the university level. We in Vänsterpartiet therefore believe that the government should return with proposals for changed rules for additional cost loans for instrument purchases for participants in folkhögskolans courses.

I move for the approval of reservation 1.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish student grant system has several important tasks. One of them is that talent should not be limited by background – Sweden should be a country where one's opportunities to become one's best are not limited by how one's parents chose to handle studies, what opportunities one has to get help with homework at home, or whether one receives good study habits from home.

Sweden shall be a country where one can do exactly what one wants and where one can build one's future through one's own effort. For a country with such a high tax burden and such a large redistribution, it is obviously an unacceptable injustice that many children and young people are nevertheless limited and hindered by something other than their own effort. It is therefore not one's own effort, achievement, will, and drive that determines one's opportunities, but rather which area one is born into, which parents one happens to have, and other similar factors that should not determine one's chances in life.

Madam Speaker! The student grant system is one of several important tools to ensure that we get a society where everyone has good opportunities to build their own life, stand on their own feet and become their best. The student grant system is a central part of what makes Sweden a knowledge nation where the economy can grow and develop and where more people can reach their full potential.

Higher education faces a series of different challenges, and in some cases, student aid can be part of the solution. One of the major challenges for higher education is that far too many young people linger in higher education for far too long and do not emerge and move on to work. Sweden is one of the countries among comparable economies where those who obtain a higher education are oldest upon entering the labor market. Many undergo long educations for a much longer period than intended.

Madam Speaker! A good example of that is the engineering education. We know that we must have more engineers for the Swedish economy to be able to grow in the way it needs. In that case, it is clearly a problem that only half complete the engineering education in the allotted time plus three years. Far too many take too long, and far too many do not manage, above all, the complicated mathematics. Here, other parts of the policy for higher education need to step forward. We need to increase the compensation per study place, and the higher education institutions need to prioritize more teaching time. There are a number of such things.

The student grant system also has an important role in this work, Madam Speaker, and therefore the Moderates have developed a new student grant reform in several parts. Essential parts of this student grant reform were presented by us together with representatives from student organizations, Saco student council, and Sveriges förenade studentkårer.

In short, this reform is about ensuring that even those who study complicated and long programs can feel secure that they will be able to complete the education with student financial aid. A concrete example is the medical program which, in its normal course, is six years today. Six years is also the maximum time with student financial aid, but it is not uncommon to need a little longer. It is also not uncommon to decide to study to become a doctor after first testing out studying something else.

That is why we have proposed that the normal period for student grants should be extended from six to seven years, albeit with a small limitation. We mean that while one extends the maximum study period from six to seven years, one should simultaneously limit the time for which student grants can be received for studies at the basic level to four years. To unlock the final three years, one must therefore choose to study at a more advanced level, this is to avoid situations where, within the framework of the tax-funded student grant system, one for example takes two or three bachelor's degrees in succession instead of advancing and deepening their knowledge and in that way gaining the opportunity to contribute even more to the Swedish economy. It is one of the important parts of this reform work, Madam Speaker.

Another important part of the reform work is that we want to abolish the free limit during the summer months. It is fundamentally illogical that during the two months when one does not receive any student aid, one is not allowed to work if one wants to be able to receive full student aid. We believe that this limitation should be removed so that one can work exactly as much as one wants during the summer months. It is an important improvement so that one can enter the labor market and be able to support oneself so that one might perhaps need to take fewer student loans. It can also be about wanting a better economic situation during the terms.

We also propose that the housing allowance for young people should be abolished and replaced with a housing supplement in the student grant system. Today, 25,000 households receive the housing allowance for young people, and 75 percent of them are students. It is therefore reasonable to make such a redistribution. The National Audit Office has stated that the housing allowance for young people reduces the labor supply of young people and creates negative incentives for work. It is therefore more reasonable for taxpayers to support those households who need to move out of home to their own housing for studies than to support persons who are unemployed and therefore cannot afford to acquire their own housing.

There are also parts of a more technical nature. We want, for example, to change the rules for repayment and, for instance, abolish the age depreciation in the repayment of student grants. In conclusion, we believe there are several reasons to try to address the problem of students becoming liable for repayment. Today's system is based on self-assessment of one's income, where one has to guess what one will earn. Many then earn more than that and end up in a situation where they become liable for repayment.

There is a system here via the employer declaration, Madam Speaker, where there is an opportunity to follow income data month by month. In that way, one can avoid a major blow later when it has been checked against actual incomes. So we can, therefore, avoid debt and other problems that can arise for students.

We mean that the student grant system needs this type of reform program so that we can reach our important goals: a student grant system that enables more people to become their best, so that we get a higher throughput through higher education, and so that we secure the students' finances.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong this evening all too much, but I was very pleased when I heard Oliver Rosengren mention that the Moderaterna want to abolish the tax-free allowance in the summer. It is a fantastic proposal, a proposal that Miljöpartiet has tabled a motion on which we are debating here today and which we will vote on in the next vote.

I therefore only want to say that you are warmly welcome to support our reservation. It is reservation 6; I look forward to the Moderaterna supporting it.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! We will of course not do that, because it is not possible in that way. We will implement this type of reform within the framework of a comprehensive student aid reform. That is our proposal.

We do not believe that one should break out and approve individual motions from individual parties. That is not how it is done in Sweden when legislating and making these types of changes. Instead, we will investigate this carefully to ensure that the system as a whole holds together. Then we will present such a bill to the Riksdag and vote it through – most likely after we have won the election in the autumn and have a strong mandate to implement reforms.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not see any electoral victory for the Moderaterna in the future. I shall simply have to say that if the Moderaterna are not willing to support our proposal this time, they must support our proposal when it arrives as a government bill from a red-green government in the next mandate period. I look forward to that very much and am pleased every time the Moderaterna advance positive and good policy for Sweden's students.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! It is given that this reform, just like other reforms, is based on what Moderate politics always bases itself on – that is, common sense and a wise direction toward how we can ensure that Sweden becomes a better country.

What will need to be worried about if it becomes as Member Tängmark Roos indicates, that is, a red-green government, is of course that Swedish higher education and not least the Swedish students are faced with a series of difficult problems and challenges. A very serious time would await. Here we are talking about an economic policy that completely lacks coherence. It digs deep budget holes in the Swedish economy, which will threaten the financing of higher education. It threatens the possibility of strengthening the student loan system. It drives forward a bad situation for the Swedish economy.

There will probably be a worsened economy with rising prices due to the type of completely free promises without limitations that the red-greens give the Swedish people before the election. It is completely obvious. Taken together, the budget proposals that have been presented can do nothing other than fundamentally destroy the chances of maintaining order and tidiness in the Swedish economy. It will affect everyone – not least students and the households that have scarce resources.

It would, of course, be worrying in many ways if it happened in the way Tängmark Roos hopes. We will do our best to protect Sweden from that type of political direction. It would be very harmful for Sweden, the households, and not least the students.

Madam Speaker! A very good opportunity will be offered for Malte Tängmark Roos and his colleagues to vote yes after the election to a proposition that can be submitted by an elected moderate-led government and which will present precisely this type of wise policy for Sweden's students. It shall strengthen the flow through higher education and ensure that students have a secure economy so that all young people can become their best self without being limited by their background.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Madam Speaker! During the years 2017–2019, I was a spokesperson for the Green Party's student union, Gröna Studenter. Through that assignment, I had the privilege of traveling around Sweden and meeting students and student organizations at various educational institutions across the country. It was a fantastic opportunity, and I was able to hear many stories about the challenges that Swedish students face in their everyday lives. Some of those stories corresponded to my own experiences as a student, and some were new to me. I point this out because it has been seven or eight years since my time as a spokesperson for Gröna Studenter. Despite that, as a Member of Parliament, I still encounter the same stories from students and student organizations when we meet to talk about the students' conditions.

Housing costs still eat up a huge portion of the student grant every month, and far too few students receive the housing allowance. Students still receive too few teacher-led hours. Sick students still cannot take sick leave on a part-time basis.

Higher education is both an investment in personal development for the individual and an investment in a competent workforce for society as a whole. But for more people to have the opportunity to make that investment and for us as a society to benefit from the investment that is made, the conditions for those who choose to study must become much better than they are today. We must invest in providing students with a good economic standard throughout the entire period of education.

Today's debate is about student support, a neglected issue in this context. The economic situation for students has been difficult for a long time. The grant component of the student aid has long lagged behind price developments. Single-person student households belong to a group that has been particularly hard hit by the high inflation. The Green Party therefore proposed in the budget motion for 2026 that the grant component of the student aid should be increased by an extra 300 kronor per month in addition to the automatic increase. This stands in sharp contrast to the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

Analysis of the Tidö parties' budget bill for 2026 shows that the student group is expected to lose money on their reforms and receive less money in their pockets this year compared to 2025. It is a shameful prioritization by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! There are groups of students who have been particularly hard hit by the difficult cost situation of recent years. Not least Saco student council has noted during the autumn that one such group is students with children. Their expenses are high, and for understandable reasons, they often have limited opportunities to work alongside their studies. According to figures from CSN, approximately 60 percent of student parents would not be able to manage an unexpected expense of 12,000 kronor without borrowing money.

Full-time studying parents with one child are entitled to a supplementary grant to the student grant. The supplementary grant was 776 kronor per month for one child in 2025. It is lower per child if you are a parent of multiple children, and it is limited to only one parent if both are studying. I believe everyone can understand that such a low supplement does not significantly increase the financial security for studying parents.

All parties in this Riksdag usually say that student parents should have good conditions to manage financially. All parliamentary parties also usually say that better incentives need to be created for people later in life to further their education or change careers. That is completely correct. But if we all mean those words seriously, if we mean that student parents should be given good conditions to manage financially and if we want to create better incentives for parents to further their education or change careers, the supplementary grant simply needs to be strengthened.

Miljöpartiet wants the government to commission an inquiry into increasing the supplementary grant for studying parents by 50 percent from today's level and that the limitation of the grant to only one studying parent be removed. The government and Sverigedemokraterna say no to this.

Madam Speaker! Just over four out of ten students tackle the problem of a too low student grant by working alongside their studies. It is particularly common that students work during the summer, when they do not receive any student grant and therefore need an extra income to pay for food and rent.

There is a maximum limit for how much a student may earn during a half-year and retain their student aid; it is the so-called free allowance. For a full-time student with full student aid, the limit was approximately 113,000 kronor per half-year during 2025, or barely 19,000 kronor per month, according to CSN.

That there is a maximum limit is not in itself problematic because we do not want to encourage students to work more than they can handle alongside their studies. It is, however, problematic that the income earned during the summer is counted towards the income ceiling and thus affects the right to student aid, because it is earned during the period when students do not have an income from student aid and need the extra income.

If a student works a lot during the summer, it can lead to them receiving lower student aid during the autumn or becoming liable to repay CSN retroactively. Last year, 2025, a total of 17,142 people became liable to repay an average of 27,082 kronor for having earned over the free limit in 2023. These are astronomical sums to pay back for people who are in the middle of or have just finished their studies.

Miljöpartiet believes that students should have the opportunity to work during the summers without risking receiving lower student grants during the terms or becoming liable to repay large sums long afterwards. Exempting income during the study-free months from the free limit would make it possible for students to work to the extent they wish, get through the summer and build up a financial buffer for the upcoming terms and work experience for the future, without it creating a risk of reduced student grants or liability for repayment. It is a completely reasonable measure, which should garner greater support in this assembly than it does today.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to advocate for our proposal for a transition study grant for the cultural sector. Many people want to seek a career in culture later in life, and the need for further education and the opportunity for transition to work in that sector is great. There, the transition study grant could play an important role, just as it is intended to do when people want to change careers during their working lives. We want to see that the grant is also actively targeted towards the cultural sector, precisely in order to be able to meet the great need that actually exists there.

But for this to be possible, it is also required that the support can be processed efficiently. The transition study support has been treated very sternly by the Tidöregeringen. Many are denied the opportunity for education today, despite the will and the need being there, because the processing times are unacceptably long due to this government's chronic underfunding of both the support specifically and the agency generally. This means a missed opportunity both for the individual who wants to seek a profession where they are needed and for society, which is crying out for trained labor.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet stand behind all our proposals in this report, but I move for approval specifically of reservations 2 and 6.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! From the government side, but also from the opposition side, it has been raised that it may be time to reform the student financial aid system. The government side has also come quite far in that direction.

We in the Center Party believe that there is good reason to consider whether it is time to seriously review what the system looks like, and I want to establish two perspectives as a basis for this: a business policy perspective and a liberty perspective.

If we start with the business policy perspective, we have a significantly different time for Sweden and Europe now and moving forward compared to how it looked just a few years ago. Europe's growth has shrunk in relation to how it looks in Asia and in the USA. At the same time, China, the USA, and Russia are all talking about their spheres of interest and their internal markets – USA first, China first, and so on.

Parallel to a development where Europe's competitiveness has declined, we also see an explosive development regarding artificial intelligence, which will fundamentally change the labor market.

Both the commercial and trade policy situation in relation to the USA and Asia and the influx of more and more AI will cause the labor market to change faster and in a more dynamic way than we can predict. Probably those who are students in Sweden today will need to change careers a number of times in their lives. We see it already now. Probably we do not really know what types of knowledge will be the most useful in just a couple of years.

We talk very much about that we need to have more civil engineers in Sweden to meet the great tech race in the world. Yes, we in Centerpartiet see that we absolutely need to get this done. We had a debate about the matter yesterday with Minister for Education, Research and Innovation Lotta Edholm, where we talked about the ceiling amounts and about giving opportunities for Chalmers, KTH and also other technical educational institutions to admit more students to civil engineering programs.

But honestly, we also see this need when it comes to other types of competencies. We see it in the humanities and in the social sciences and economics. If AI floods in, we also need to understand how we can implement this in new ways, both in industry and in the public sector. What does it mean to be human in the future? Those types of questions we need to ask ourselves in an essentially new society.

I also want to say something about the liberal perspective. I do not think it will come as a surprise to the members of other parties that the Center Party's vibrant soul is about a bottom-up perspective, a belief in the human being and a decentralized image of decision-making, where we give the individual power over both themselves and their immediate surroundings.

At the same time, we see tendencies toward something completely different from many of the parties in Sweden's Riksdag: to strengthen the central power. The Liberals want us to have a school that is state-run. An enormous agency in Stockholm shall govern what the Swedish school shall look like out in the country. In the same way, the Christian Democrats proceed with that they want the healthcare to become state-run and be governed from enormous agencies in Stockholm. We also see that both the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats continue to want state universities, where one can, with a political iron fist, govern what happens instead of leaving freedom to the educational institutions and the researchers. At the same time, we also see when it comes to environmental issues such as the mining of uranium that the Sweden Democrats advocate that the local population should not be able to have their say, but it shall be governed from Stockholm.

We want to instead establish a liberal perspective. The forest owner, for example, should be able to have their say and have the most power over their forest. The researcher should be able to have their say and have the most power over the research. And we want the student to be able to have their say and have the most power over their life and their choices.

With these two perspectives as a background, I want to highlight two proposals from the Center Party. One is that we want a more flexible student support. This includes, among other things, what the Moderate MP mentioned regarding, for example, medical studies, which normally take six years but where we currently have a limitation. We need to create a flexibility that makes it possible for those who may take an extra year but are pursuing an education that is essential for society.

We also need to have a flexibility given that people need to be able to get a second chance. We have the folk high schools as excellent examples of how people can get a second chance. We want to see other chances also in higher education. But it can also be about people being in different life situations or living in different places in the country. We do not want the rules that we decide on in the Swedish Riksdag to act restrictively on our students' ability to study and receive a student grant support.

The second proposal, alongside a flexible student grant, is that we want to completely abolish the free amount for the loan part. We have heard both the Moderaterna and Miljöpartiet propose a limited freedom by ensuring that what one earns during the summer should not form the basis for the free amount calculation. We in the Centerpartiet believe that we need to go all the way, not least because we have a changing future around the corner. Some students may in the future choose to only study during the summer and take their degree, perhaps from an international university, via digital studies. How will we in that case be able to set limits that are reasonable?

We mean that it is completely unnecessary to complicate things by introducing a summer limitation. An analogy could be the food VAT. We have lowered the VAT on food from 12 to 6 percent, and that applies whether you shop in a grocery store or if you shop at a restaurant and take the food home. But if you sit in the restaurant, you must pay 12 percent. If you are at McDonalds and ask for takeaway, it is 6 percent VAT, but if you sit in the restaurant, it is 12 percent.

We think that that type of bureaucratic red tape is completely unnecessary. Let us therefore go all the way and remove the exemption limit on the entire loan part. It creates a freedom for our students to themselves choose how much they want to work, how much they want to save, and how much contact they want to have with a future working life.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a concluding question at this late hour, but first and foremost, thank you for a good judgment regarding our reform proposals. It feels positive to hear that such exists.

If the truth is to come out, which it gladly does here in the chamber, the debate on the exemption has been relatively heated within the Moderaterna. There have been positions taken in several different directions, which have been debated and weighed against each other before landing on the proposal that has now been presented. To ensure that no ambiguity arises, it is, of course, somewhat of a simplification to say that there shall be exceptions only for just the summer months.

The point of the proposal is that the exemption limit shall not be calculated for the months when one does not have CSN. But if one studies during the summer and receives student aid for that, the exemption limit restriction should apply during those months. That is the intention. But in many cases, one does not study during the summer, and in those cases, it can be handled in that way.

The National Audit Office has found that one of the most common reasons for dropouts and prolonged study periods is that people work a lot in parallel with their studies. It was one of the important factors that led us to conclude that we did not want to abolish the entire exemption.

Therefore, my question to Member Ådahl is: What is the Center Party's view on this? You propose to completely abolish the free limit on the loan portion. Does the Center Party not assess that there is a risk of ending up in a situation where even more people interrupt their studies or prolong their studies? We already have a major problem with this in Sweden today.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank the Moderate member for a clearer declaration of goods regarding the Moderates' free allowance policy. That information had not emerged previously. I understand that there may be some convulsions within the party when it comes to restrictions on freedom and what such restrictions should look like in that case.

For several reasons, we argue that it is completely unnecessary to have limitations regarding the exemption limit. One main reason is precisely what I touched upon, namely that it is very difficult for us to know exactly what tomorrow's study environments will look like. Universities may very well become accreditation institutes in the future – that is, one studies and educates oneself in other ways while the universities' role is to arrange exams and verify knowledge.

Then I come to Oliver Rosengren's question regarding the National Audit Office's report and whether there is an increased risk of dropouts. We believe that individual freedom trumps those types of risks. We must believe that young adults who choose to pursue higher education have the ability to decide for themselves about their lives and make their own choices. For many, I would say, it is an immense experience to be able to both study and work and create one's own income. Through work, one might also better understand what kind of labor market future one has ahead. Some may certainly get lost along the way, but we still believe that the gains are significantly greater.

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

Oliver Rosengren (M)

Madam Speaker! It can, of course, result in such very large changes as Member Ådahl describes. One positive thing, however, is that we are not limited to reforming the student grant system once per century. One can, therefore, make reforms based on roughly how things look now or on what we expect will happen in the near future.

That the Swedish educational institutions would transition to becoming accreditation centers within a couple of years is perhaps not the most likely, if one looks at the development of higher education over the foreseeable future. Therefore, I believe that one can be a bit more concrete and a bit more close in their reform work. I might have that as a message to Centerpartiet.

System design affects decision-making in all areas. We have lowered taxes on labor because we want people to work more, and one might want to raise the tax on something one considers bad so that there will be less of it. That is the whole point. That is why, for example, Miljöpartiet thinks it is good to have higher taxes on labor, because they think people should work less.

The Center Party argues that the system design would not matter when it comes to student grants, because that decision can be made completely independently and on its own. But in the situation we have – it is by no means a completely free system – where the student has a state-subsidized and guaranteed loan, the risks naturally increase if one can work as much as one wants in parallel with this. Then one can take the large loan and perhaps do other things with the money – invest them or similar – and then work a lot and in that way extend the period of study, reduce the throughput and postpone the entry into the labor market. It is that type of consequence that I am interested in hearing about. Has the Center Party not included them in its analysis of the proposal?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we have taken into account all these perspectives when we have considered how a student grant system should best be designed. It is about the balance between the grant and loan portion and the balance against how much one could work.

We would like to point out the dynamic effects that can arise when a young adult of 20 or 25 years old chooses to enter the workforce in parallel with their studies. As I touched upon in my previous remark, it can be a matter of learning early on to understand what type of labor market awaits and what type of workplaces might suit them best.

Another aspect is that we in Sweden know that studies, unfortunately, do not always pay off from a life perspective. We mean that it is a rather good thing if one, as a young adult, while studying, could have an opportunity to build an income early to be able to enter the housing market quite soon and also quite soon create economic freedom to make other choices of one's own.

The problems that Oliver Rosengren highlights regarding reduced throughput and extended study time are perhaps partly a price we have to pay for the large dynamic gains we make instead. The Center Party's analysis is that the individual's freedom and the possibility of obtaining an income early outweigh the risks that Rosengren highlights.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 February.)

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