Response to interpellation 2023/24:342 on the missing electricity support to Region Östergötland
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the missing electricity support for Region Östergötland and how municipalities and regions are classified in relation to electricity support. KD argues that it was not the intention for regions to be classified as agricultural producers, but that they have been forced to follow complicated EU rules 1. KD emphasizes that the regulation must comply with the commission's decision and that Skatteverket makes the final interpretation 2. KD claims that the government has fought for welfare, that inflation is an enemy and that the historical electricity support is significantly larger than the previous government's 3. S argues that it is incomprehensible that regions are classified as agricultural activities 4 and that the government must correct the situation 5. S considers it unreasonable that high-income earners have inflation protection while the municipal sector does not 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me if I intend to take any measures to ensure that Region Östergötland and the other affected municipalities and regions do not lose millions of kronor in electricity subsidies.
The interpellant's question has its starting point in the regulations in the ordinance on electricity support to companies. According to the ordinance, companies and other legal entities in southern and central Sweden can apply for electricity support as compensation for the skyrocketing electricity prices during the end of 2022.
In order to be able to introduce this electricity support, it was required that Sweden submitted an application to the Commission to obtain approval that the Swedish regulation for the electricity support complied with the EU framework for state aid.
For the assessment of the electricity support, temporary state aid rules as decided by the Commission were used. The provision in the EU regulatory framework that was used means that the electricity support to a business operator or legal entity engaged in primary production of agricultural products may not exceed 2.5 million kronor. The Commission approved Sweden's application, and it also appears from this decision that a condition for the approval is that electricity support to a business operator or legal entity engaged in primary production of agricultural products does not exceed 2.5 million kronor.
Since this is an area regulated under EU law and also has a condition in the decision directed at Sweden, the Swedish regulation must comply with the Commission's decision. It will therefore be the Swedish Tax Agency and, if the authority's decision is appealed, the courts that must make the final interpretation of the scope of the provision and who are affected by the provision.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! About a year ago, the government finally announced that municipalities and regions in electricity area 3 and 4 would be entitled to electricity support for high electricity prices. It has been a protracted process regarding the electricity support, with many broken promises, but when the announcement finally came, the municipal sector relied on this and budgeted with the resources that were promised.
The vast majority of municipalities and regions have a very difficult economic situation, not least the regions. 19 out of 20 regions are forced to make cuts in healthcare. The coming year will be an economic steel bath for healthcare. We have a healthcare crisis in the country.
Östgötsk sjukvård is among those most severely affected and must reduce its staff by 600 people - at least. Every krona therefore plays a major role.
During the autumn, a very surprising and unwanted announcement arrived for some of the municipalities and regions that had counted on the promised electricity support. Common to these is that they are classified as agricultural producers. In the case of Region Östergötland, the reason is the nature-based vocational high school that the region operates.
Region Östergötland now receives 2.3 million instead of the 20 million that the region had rightly counted on. The consequence of the decision is that Region Östergötland and the others classified as agricultural producers lose millions of kronor in electricity support that they were said to have been promised, a support that means a lot in this strained economic situation. Healthcare receives even fewer resources. Every krona matters when the situation in healthcare looks the way it does.
The eight municipalities and regions that have collectively lost 125 million in lost electricity support are protesting. They have sent a letter to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch where they write, among other things: "When the state promises money, we have high confidence in it. We budget with those funds." Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch has, however, so far not responded as to whether the government intends to take any measures.
In order for they and everyone who listens to and participates in the debate to receive answers, I have requested this debate today. I truly hope to receive answers.
My question to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch remains: Does the Minister intend to take any measures to ensure that Region Östergötland and the other affected municipalities and regions do not lose millions of kronor in support?
Denis Begic (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I had intended to write an interpellation myself, but when I saw that my colleague Eva Lindh had done so, I thought it would be good to take it at once.
I had, of course, hoped that the minister would come with a different answer. I also come from a municipality that has been affected by this, Örebro municipality. Let me tell you about what really feels strange, as if someone has lost their mind along the way.
Örebro municipality expected 20 million kronor in support. They get 2 million kronor. Why? Well, because someone has decided that Örebro municipality is an agricultural business, perhaps a farmer. The whole thing feels very strange. Örebro municipality, which actually takes care of schools and healthcare, is counted as a farmer because they happen to have some cows. These cows are not even for agriculture; they are used for larger projects to make the municipality greener and more lively as well as in the school. Precisely because of that, support has been lost: They have a nature-based gymnasium.
That decision-makers do not see the difference between municipal and agricultural activities is incomprehensible to me.
What feels even worse is that when we ask the government and the minister answers, they say that the problem is the EU and that it therefore lies with the Swedish Tax Agency and the courts, instead of actually trying to address what is the problem. That is exactly what the government needs to do.
The Minister mentions that the government is bound by EU regulations and national laws. That is true. I fully understand that. But it is also the government's responsibility to ensure that rules and laws are applied in a fair and reasonable way. When situations arise such as those that these municipalities and regions, including Örebro, have encountered, one cannot simply refer to rules. The government must also address the issues. An intervention is needed to correct what has gone wrong.
It does not only concern Örebro. As my colleague mentioned, several municipalities and regions have been affected. I have received the letter that the minister has received from the affected municipalities. I have also received the response. Therefore, it feels even worse that the government is not addressing the problem. As my colleague mentioned, it is about money that was supposed to go to municipal activities and which was needed in schools, healthcare for our elderly, etcetera.
I will not repeat the question, but I would like to ask the minister what is intended to be done to correct the problem that the municipalities have encountered. It needs to be done, and it is the government's responsibility.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to start by saying thank you for these questions being asked. I also want to tell those sitting here in the chamber and for those who are hopefully listening via the Riksdag's website that we discussed this as recently as just before Christmas. Eva Lindh and I also discussed the issue then, because other members had asked exactly the same question. But I do not think it is strange that the question is asked specifically for one's region. But it is still relevant for the listeners to know.
It is also relevant to know that in December we received a letter from several affected municipalities and regions. They also received an answer in December. If there are any question marks there and if we have missed anyone, I would like Eva Lindh to elaborate on that, Madam Speaker. If so, it needs to be rectified immediately. The information I have is that we responded within just a few days to the letter that arrived.
I intend to point out some parts of the ordinance on electricity support to companies that we have made a decision on. There is a provision that entrepreneurs or legal entities active in the primary production of agricultural products can only receive electricity support of at most 2.5 million. Is a region, in my opinion, a primary agricultural producer? No! I can say that straight out. It is clear that this was not the intention with the ordinance. This was not the intention with the electricity support. I think it is good if politicians can sometimes speak plainly. It is clear that this was not the intended outcome.
We have issued the ordinance in order to at all be allowed to use these funds, which have been held by the authority Svenska kraftnät. Normally, one is not allowed to touch them and send them back to either households or municipalities in the form of electricity support. But a special crisis regulation within the EU makes it possible for us to use these funds, which we otherwise absolutely are not allowed to use in this way.
The crisis ordinance is quite complex and complicated, Madam Speaker. We have had to comply with it and also with the EU's state aid rules, i.e., how a state may send money back to people, companies, and municipalities. One cannot do that just however one likes, in order not to distort competition between the different countries in the EU. Those are also quite complicated regulations.
We have had to take that into account and issue a regulation, make a decision, on how we should pay out electricity support in Sweden. It needed to be general, and it needed to be directed at all entrepreneurs or legal entities, i.e., all associations and companies, that carry out primary production of agricultural products, that is to say, not only to municipalities and regions.
It is obvious that one has ended up in a bind here. I want to be clear that we see that. It is a misery that it has become so. But this is the reason. I also do not see that anyone during the drafting of the ordinance noticed this. Then there might have been a possibility to make adjustments, but I find it difficult to see that it would still work with all these regulations. But that is the reason why it is as it is.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I know that there are actually quite a few people listening to this debate to get answers. It is not just me or those of us here participating in the debate who think this is strange. It also has tough consequences, because there will be such a large difference in the support.
I do not think it was the intention of Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch. I truly hope that it was not. But let me dwell a bit on the decisions and how it could have become like this. It is truly incomprehensible.
The government has itself drafted the electricity support ordinance. One absolutely must take EU rules into account. But according to what I have read, SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, warned against this in its referral response. The knowledge therefore existed already before the decision was made. It was sent out for consultation, and then this was raised, according to what I have understood.
If one has received such a referral response, it means that one could have acted, could have tried to specify and change it. If one receives a referral response, one usually reads it. That is how it works in Sweden. That is how a good democracy functions. Also, that is why this is incomprehensible.
As I understand it, the question is also whether the region should be classified as a company, according to the state aid rules that apply. The rules seem to be really focused on companies.
Furthermore, it is not only healthcare that Region Östergötland engages in. It is the largest [area], but they also conduct education. Naturbruksgymnasiet is not intended to be an agricultural producer. It is an education. Therefore, it is in many ways incomprehensible that it has been able to become like this.
I would still like to get some clear answers. A referral response was submitted where this was warned against. How can the state aid rules be interpreted in this way? And how is it possible that a region that primarily engages in healthcare but, in this case, also in having a very good education, can be classified as an agricultural producer?
I also want to come to the consequences. I want to clarify that we have a situation where the regions have received so little. I know that the government has said on countless occasions that they have made interventions and that they are strengthening the state grants to municipalities and regions. But what we see in reality is that it is not enough.
That Region Östergötland needs to reduce the staff by 600 people will, of course, affect the care for all of us who live in Östergötland and the working conditions for the staff. Regardless of how this has come about, it therefore affects the care very much. It upsets me and us that it is in that way. Even if it is not about billions of kronor, every krona matters. It naturally makes a difference whether one gets 2 million or 20 million.
Denis Begic (S)
Madam Speaker! It was I who mentioned that I have received letters from the municipality. My thought was that it was incredibly good that the minister quickly responded to the municipalities. But I have nevertheless clearly and distinctly understood that we are in agreement that municipalities cannot be considered agricultural activities. That is also what I understood from the minister here in the rostrum.
Let me be clear in saying that even if one does not address the core problem, the facts do not change. I would like to see the minister rectify this or that the government ensures it is rectified in one way or another. The minister and the government do have the power to review this. The courts in the EU get to decide whether a municipality or region is an agricultural activity. I do not believe that.
To me, it sounds completely incredible that this can affect a nature-based high school - something that is truly needed in this country given everything that is happening around the world. We need people who can manage our agriculture. We need people in the future who run agriculture. We need these schools. That they are classified as agricultural activities is, for me, incomprehensible.
Why should the municipalities go to court? The EU can handle the matter if they judge that it is necessary! Sweden would then have to take responsibility for the other part.
I perceive it as the minister being aware of the problems, and I truly hope that the minister also addresses them. It is exactly as my colleague says: there is a difference between 2 million and 20 million if a municipality is to continue with a school or close it down.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin by emphasizing that it is the party that I myself am responsible for that in many ways is the welfare party among the coalition parties. Therefore, it naturally hits extra hard to follow the tough situation that exists in healthcare and elderly care in many places around the country. That is the reason why we have fought for the government's overall budget to also allocate 40 percent of the reform space to precisely welfare.
New state grants to municipalities and regions amount to an additional 16 billion, of which 10 billion is an increase in the general state grants to municipalities and regions. Additional specific funds do not go to other parts of the municipalities and regions but specifically to healthcare. A so-called sector grant of 3 billion is introduced for health and medical care. A reinforcement of the knowledge grant to the school area is made and an extension of the Äldreomsorgslyftet is implemented.
This is a steel bath. Inflation is our worst enemy, Madam Speaker, in area after area right now in the Swedish economy. It is taking a very heavy toll on both municipalities and regions. I just want to confirm to the members that we see that it is a tough situation.
Now I move on to the question of the electricity support and the regulations that I raised in my previous speech. The regulation is a prerequisite for the government to be able to pay out electricity support to companies and other legal entities. The government therefore has, unfortunately, very limited possibilities to introduce a provision in the Swedish ordinance that deviates from the regulation. So far, no one has been able to point to such a solution, and therefore we are in a situation where it is the Swedish Tax Agency that decides.
If the Swedish Tax Agency's decision is appealed, it is the courts that will have to decide on the application of the regulation. That is where we stand now. Some judgments have not yet come from the Administrative Court, and we therefore do not know whether the Swedish Tax Agency's interpretation will hold up in court. That is where we stand today.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I forgot to answer a question from the Minister. It was about the response to this letter. A response came - from the State Secretary. It was perhaps not a response that clarified, but I also believe that a response was expected from the Minister since it was to her that the letter was written. That is why I said that a response had not been received from the Minister. I am just clarifying that.
Inflation has been incredibly tough for municipalities and regions and has eroded the possibilities to invest in welfare. My opinion is that it is unreasonable that high-income earners are inflation-protected but not the municipal sector. Furthermore, we know that investments in welfare are not bad for inflation. They do not worsen inflation, so one could well have done it – just as we would have done.
This worsens the situation for healthcare. It is also a bit unfair, because municipalities and regions that do not receive the electricity support that was promised are left with poorer conditions to manage. Money does matter, after all. Every krona matters now. Even now, we are in that situation.
Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch refers to the fact that it is an ongoing process, but I do not think it is more than reasonable that action is taken for the municipalities and regions that have been affected. It is difficult to understand this. There will also be real consequences for the municipalities and regions that have not received the support they rightfully expected.
I urge the Minister to act so that these municipalities and regions can at least get slightly better conditions to meet their challenges and for a better welfare.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that when a response comes from the State Secretary, it is of course something I stand behind. We cannot disagree. Insofar as anyone wonders how to weigh the response in the letter, it is clear that I stand behind it.
Madam Speaker! This is going to be a very technical discussion for those sitting at home wondering how it could have turned out this way. I have tried to explain the technicalities behind it and also to emphasize that we do not have ministerial rule in Sweden. I will not tell the authorities how they are to apply the regulations that we have set. They have to apply the regulations that we have made decisions on and where we, according to all the rules of art, have tried to ensure that there would be no delays in the electricity support, that it was in accordance with the directives we have from the EU and that it would be issued as soon as possible.
It became a historical electricity support instead of what was seen under the previous government, which gave a small support to every household. It looked the same for everyone. Now there has been a space of almost 50 billion. It is historical. It corresponds to half the cost of a new nuclear power plant, according to some calculations.
The harsh lesson in all of this is surely that it is not possible to compensate for a dismantled electricity system in hindsight. We must build it strong and robust again. That being said, I can say in plain terms that this is absurd. So far, no one has been able to present a solution for how this could have been done differently and with the certainty of knowing that it would work. I regret that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.