Response to interpellation 2023/24:300 on Sweden's recovery plan
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I consider it an exaggeration that Sweden risks losing the entire allocation from RRF due to the lowered reduction obligation 1 and argue that the policy was changed to facilitate for car-dependent 2 3. M negotiates with the commission to replace the reduction obligation with other measures 1 and argues that S copied the government's proposal 4. S argues that the government does not know how much money Sweden risks losing. S considers it important to know where the country stands 5, that it is reasonable to ask about the amount and that one does not know which part of the money is at risk 6. S argues that there is a lack of answers on how to dispel the concerns 6, that there is a lack of clear policy 6 and that Sweden risks both losing money and receiving fines 6. S argues that the Finance Minister has the opportunity to dispel the anxiety but does not do so 6. SD argues that they have a different model for the reduction obligation 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! Björn Wiechel has asked me if I have any perception of what amount Sweden risks to lose from the EU's Recovery and Resilience Facility, RRF, as a result of the reduction obligation being lowered from January 1, 2024.
My response when the question has been asked in other contexts here in the Riksdag has been that it is an exaggeration that it could be about all of Sweden's allocation from RRF. In a message to the European Parliament and the Council on 21 February 2023, the Commission developed a methodology for the withholding of funds from RRF where it was clarified that the withheld amount cannot exceed the amount in the installment in which the relevant sub-target or target is included. How the Commission will apply the methodology for the reduction obligation we do not know yet. Therefore, my simple answer to Björn Wiechel's question is no.
We are now in discussions with the Commission about replacing the reduction obligation with other measures that contribute to the same goal in Sweden's recovery plan. My hope is that we will resolve this and revise the Swedish plan so that the outflow from the facility does not need to be affected at all.
Björn Wiechel (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The question of how much money Sweden risks losing due to the government's policy and that Sweden also risks fines, we have posed to the Minister for Finance for about half a year.
The answers have been evasive and vague. But there are actually only two alternatives for answers right now: Either the government has an idea of how much EU money Swedish citizens risk losing because of the government's policy but chooses not to say how much it is, or the government has no idea how much money the Swedes risk losing. Either you know, but do not say, or you do not know. And honestly: Neither of the answers is particularly flattering for the government.
So, the government's answer became the latter. One does not know how large the negative consequences for Sweden's economy due to the government's policy risk becoming. The Finance Minister, however, repeats in the answer, and as I also wrote in my interpellation, that the government emphasizes that it is not about the entire amount. Aha – then the government does have some kind of perception! One knows, then, that it is not the entire sum. So how much is it? It would, of course, be interesting to know. Is it 1 million? Is it 1 billion? Is it 10 billion?
Here we have a Finance Minister who does not know, and this in a situation where Sweden risks not getting its money back and when Sweden also risks having to pay fines due to the government's policy. It is remarkable.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! This debate is about, possibly, a total of 38 billion Swedish kronor. We do not know. The Minister for Finance says that she does not know, and just as Björn Wiechel said, it could be 1 million kronor or 38 billion.
Just to give a picture of how much money it could be about, I can say that it is almost four times as much as the government invested in welfare in general state grants in the budget. I do not think it is sufficient resources for municipalities and regions, but it is still a budget item totaling 10 billion. The money that we, perhaps, can talk about is thus 3.8 times as much as the government says is the major investment in municipalities and regions.
We Social Democrats are responsible politicians even in opposition. For us, it is incredibly important to know how the country stands. What is it that we risk? How is the government acting to ensure that at least the money that would have come to Sweden actually does so moving forward?
The question that Björn Wiechel poses here today is truly reasonable. We have tried to ask it on countless occasions in the Committee on Finance and have received no answer. So what does the Finance Minister intend to do? And even if she guarantees that it does not concern the entire amount—how much money are we talking about?
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! I would just like to point out that when we in our government announced that we wanted to lower the reduction obligation, it did not take many weeks before the Social Democrats came out and copied the proposal and said: We shall do that too!
I have a news clip from last autumn where the Social Democrats presented a series of proposals. It concerned, among other things, lowering the reduction obligation. The goal for them was that it would become 4 kronor cheaper at the pump. They copied our proposal straight off.
I have not heard that the Social Democrats have at all concerned themselves with how this would affect the support from the EU in this issue.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe it may be good to explain to those who may be watching the web-TV, on SVT, or elsewhere, what this is about.
It is therefore about Sweden submitting a recovery plan to the EU with various measures in different parts in order to then be able to receive payments further ahead. What we are talking about right now is one of many, many parts, and it concerns the reduction obligation.
The reduction obligation is, as many know, a measure that drove up the price of fuels very strongly. This caused problems for many people all over the country who are dependent on their car. It can be about having to drive the children to school or to practice, or if one has a night job and must take the car to be able to get to work.
We have, as is known, changed this measure. It became very clear on January 1st this year. We have overhauled that policy, and we have lowered the reduction obligation. It made a difference of 4 kronor from one day to the next at the turn of the year. It was welcome and important. It is precisely this part of the plan that we in the government are now discussing with the commission so that we can find other measures to be able to take part of the whole cake regarding these funds.
I think it is strange that two members whom I see as wise Social Democrats can want to insinuate that it is about 38 billion because one wants to change one thing in a plan. And speaking of responsibility: I take responsibility when I say that I do not know exactly, because we are negotiating and discussing now. Our entire position is that we should be able to replace this with other measures so that Sweden can be able to receive all the money that it would have been about even with the reduction obligation.
I am honest. We are working very hard to find another measure, or several other good measures, so that we do not lose money. It is an open, honest and simple answer.
Björn Wiechel said that there are many Swedes who are now wondering. I believe that many Swedes are very happy about our decision on the reduction obligation. Whether one voted for Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna or any other party, many who are dependent on the car are very happy that we changed the policy. We are also changing the climate policy so that it goes more hand in hand with what we have now decided on at the EU level: electrification.
We are reshaping climate policy into a more effective policy that also makes it easier for ordinary people who are dependent on their cars to actually be able to live. That is what this issue is about.
No, one will not get an exact answer because a negotiation and discussion with the commission is still ongoing. I hope that no one will frighten the Swedish population by saying that it would mean we lose all this money. Of course, that is not the case.
Finally, Madam Speaker: I remember the time when I was in opposition and in the Committee on Finance asked the question to the then State Secretary from the Social Democrats: If another government is formed after the election, can the plan then be changed? Absolutely, was the answer.
Björn Wiechel (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the interesting contributions and a good discussion on a very important issue.
I note that the Minister for Finance is starting to talk about other things and for a different debate where she perhaps feels more comfortable, what do I know.
Just as the Minister for Finance states, and also as I did in my interpellation, it is not about 38 billion. But how much is it about? That is the question on the table and the one we are seeking answers to: What is the amount of money we risk? Does the Minister for Finance have any notion or not of this? I said in my opening statement that we have tried to get answers to this question for approximately half a year. The answers have been vague and unclear.
The Minister for Finance has also on several occasions expressed his "hopes" that this will be resolved. One can then wonder what the Minister for Finance has such good hope of finding in his own policy in the area and presenting to the EU that could compensate and thereby eliminate the risk of lost money and expensive fines. We have also asked that but have not received any answer.
Here, Jan Ericson can also get an answer to his question regarding the Social Democrats' policy. On one hand, we in the Social Democrats have a different model for the reduction obligation that lowers the price but does not discard the entire model, but instead continues to maintain a stimulus for domestic production; on the other hand, we had other items in our budget that we could have included to compensate.
But what does the Minister for Finance think he can conjure up that we haven't managed to find in half a year? It is still about the Minister for Finance's own budget. What is there to present to the EU that has not been known until now? We have asked the question several times. What are the things that the Minister for Finance is tinkering with here? The Minister for Finance should actually be able to give an answer.
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to submit another question – we shall see if it becomes an additional entry, but I am submitting it now anyway: How long is it allowed to continue that we do not know if we will receive any money, when we would receive it in that case, and how much it would involve in that case? That question remains hanging. It is still a practical issue that concerns political craftsmanship above all, the management of economic policy and the management of the country, which is not good. It is gnawing.
We know that households are struggling. We know that growth in Sweden is the worst in the EU. To then risk not getting back the money we would need and should receive, and in addition have to pay fines, is not sustainable.
So far, the message is that the Minister for Finance knows nothing, even though it concerns the budget that the Minister for Finance himself is responsible for. When will the government be able to provide an answer on this issue?
So there are two questions: firstly, what one thinks they can find as compensation that they have not managed to find in half a year - one has, in any case, not answered the question of what it could be about during a half-year period - and secondly, when people can receive notice as to whether we get our money, when we get it and how much it is about.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer and for the judgment. It is appreciated.
We mention 38 billion in this debate because we do not know. We, especially Björn Wiechel, have been very clear here: Can it be zero? Can it be 1 million, 1 billion, or up to something else? I really want to emphasize it: It is precisely because we do not know – it is such an enormous range of money – that we are asking the question.
I also remember when the Minister for Finance asked the question she mentions at a committee meeting. It was a completely justified question and a reasonable answer. It must naturally be possible to change in a recovery plan when one changes government. But then one must come up with something else, and that is the problem here. I am not standing here in the debate to talk about the existence or non-existence of the reduction obligation, but to talk about the consequences of decisions that the government has made and which can also come to affect Sweden a little, quite a bit, or a lot.
It is perhaps there somewhere that our question remains: What can we count on, and what will it look like in the future?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall be very brief.
At the latest 2026, one must apply to receive the money. It is not that we are waiting for the money, but now we are having a discussion about the plan. I do as I usually do and say it as it is: We do not know exactly what levels it concerns. But above all, the whole point is that there should not be a drop when we are now discussing different measures with the commission. That is the honest and straight answer.
I believe it is quite obvious to everyone in this chamber that it is not about the full amount but about a part that is being discussed. My hope is, of course, that we will resolve that issue with the commission. That is the simple answer.
An equally simple statement is that I believe very many are happy that we changed just this policy, which drove up the prices of fuels so enormously. That we remove this from the plan, which we naturally must do, is a consequence of us making things easier for people who live and work in Sweden.
I do not intend to prolong this debate. We will return when we know. I think one should say things when one knows things. What I know is that we are now discussing this with the commission. We will return, and my hope is, as I said, that we will resolve this issue as quickly as possible – but above all, as well as possible.
Björn Wiechel (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for a good debate that at least partially contained clarifications! When it comes to the two response options that were actually the only ones that existed - do we know or do we not know - we know that one does not know.
What we are looking for more specifically is the sum. The Minister for Finance returns to the point that it is not the whole but only a small part, but how large a part? It is the citizens' money it is about. How large is this part? One has, therefore, no idea about that.
Furthermore, there is good hope that, in dialogue with the Commission, the issue can be resolved by finding other things. Which things? What is there in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy that can be put in instead?
It is quite basic questions: Approximately how much money is it about? What is it that risks being lost and that Swedish citizens will not get to share in? We get no answer. One does not know. One does not know how large this part is.
What measures are taken instead to remove this concern? That cannot be said. Is there even a policy?
The concern we feel, and which I would say I receive from many sides, is that one does not have answers to this. The Finance Minister has the opportunity to dispel that concern by providing an announcement, but she does not do so.
It should also be said that it is not only about Sweden not receiving its money from the recovery fund, but also that Sweden risks fines. We want to know how much is at stake. And we have received an answer: It is not known.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.