Response to interpellation 2023/24:362 on the funding of the defense

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked me whether I and the government will prioritize investments in the total defense over tax cuts for those with the highest incomes.

The security policy situation in the world around us requires that Sweden has a stronger defense. There is a broad political consensus that the preparations, the readiness, and the capability within the entire total defense, both the military and the civil defense, must be increased urgently. The armed attack is the dimensioning factor for all total defense planning. An important starting point is that in the event of a threat of war or war, the total defense's efforts will be concentrated on the military defense, while at the same time the most important societal functions need to be secured and the civilian population protected.

The appropriations for the military defense, that is to say the appropriations 1:1-1:13 in expenditure area 6 Defense and society's crisis preparedness, increase by more than 27 billion kronor between 2023 and 2024. Thus, the appropriations, calculated in current prices, have doubled since 2020. With NATO's definition of defense expenditures, which is broader and includes more items than only the appropriations 1:1-1:13 in expenditure area 6, Sweden will already in 2024 report defense expenditures at 2.2 percent of GDP.

The continued development of the military defense and the civil defense is currently the subject of deliberations in the Defense Preparation Board. The Defense Preparation Board will present its proposals on 26 April 2024. In support of the Defense Preparation Board's, and the government's, considerations, the Armed Forces and other authorities are providing background material. Among other things, a military advice from the Armed Forces was received on 6 November 2023. Against the background of, among other things, the Defense Preparation Board's proposals, the government intends to submit a defense decision bill to the Riksdag during the autumn of 2024.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer.

When it comes to these issues, fortunately, there is a great consensus in the Swedish Riksdag today. It is, of course, the terrible war in Ukraine that has provided an opportunity to unite around these issues. There has also traditionally been a consensus in Sweden that common security is important, and I believe that Pål Jonson's commitment to these issues, Mr. Speaker, is honest and genuine.

Mr. Speaker! My question is also honest and genuine, and I do not quite feel that I have received an answer to it. That I want to raise the question of whether the government will prioritize investments in the total defense over tax cuts for those with the highest incomes is in the hope of dispelling the doubt that may possibly exist regarding the government's intentions. The last time we had a Moderate-led government in this country, Mr. Speaker, the Moderate Prime Minister called the defense "a special interest." They proceeded with very harsh budget cuts in the defense area, even so harsh that the then Moderate Defense Minister chose to leave the government in protest against its handling of the defense.

They also abolished conscription in Sweden and used the funds they freed up by lowering the defense budget and abolishing conscription primarily for tax cuts. That is, so to speak, the experience we have in Sweden of Moderate-led governments, and that is what this question stems from.

Now we also have a situation where we not only have necessary investments in defense ahead of us but also large and necessary investments in other infrastructure in society that we must fund jointly. We have had debates here in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, about healthcare and its funding as well as about infrastructure and its funding. It is clear that in the context that we face very large challenges in Swedish society, the question of how one prioritizes arises.

Could the Minister for Defence possibly state today that the Moderate-led government will not work with cuts across the board and that it will not prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners, but will instead actually honestly prioritize the safety and security of Sweden and the Swedish people?

I would like to receive an answer to that question from the Minister for Defence today.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Björck, for the interpellation! I also interpret it as Patrik Björck having a sincere intention when it comes to safeguarding the defense economy and a commitment to a stronger defense. Just as Patrik Björck states, there is a broad consensus regarding this in this chamber, and I will do everything I can to continue to safeguard this. It is important, above all, in these serious times when the security policy situation is so grave.

I seek no conflict regarding the defense economy, and I have no need to use harsh words. But to have a good debate, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that one starts from the right premises.

If I may clarify what Patrik Björck says about the fact that conscription was abolished during the alliance years, that is not quite correct. What was done was to put the compulsory legislation on hold and open up for being able to have employed soldiers to have a higher availability. I know that the Socialdemokraterna did not appreciate this with employed soldiers, but it was important for us.

We still have the system of employed soldiers, and it is important. I also want to say that the employed soldiers are now working very hard. Not least, it concerns various types of readiness adjustments that they are making in large parts of the country, actually since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine broke out. They are also performing many security operations.

What was done then was, in other words, to put the mandatory legislation on hold. After that, we reactivated the conscription system in 2017 in broad political consensus. That was good, because it did not work to only have voluntarily recruited soldiers. Now we have a good personnel supply system with both employed soldiers and conscripts. The more conscripts we have, the easier it will become to supply also employed soldiers, officers and specialist officers.

Regarding the second question, I believe that Patrik Björck and I are in complete agreement that too little was invested in defense during the Alliance years. It was, however, lucky that it was not the Social Democrats who were in power then. The Riksdag's investigation service points out that between 2006 and 2014, the Social Democrats spent 3 billion less on defense than the Alliance government did during those years. Directly after the first Georgia war in 2009, they wanted to cut back on defense.

Many parties have a responsibility for the fact that defense was cut too much. Not least, it concerns my party and Patrik Björck's party. Large parties must also take great responsibility.

There are reasons to look back and see that there is a shared responsibility for having invested too little in defense during the years of alliance. The defense decision of 2015 was also underfunded. We must learn that lesson, namely that we deceive ourselves by presenting underfunded defense decisions.

When it comes to the future direction of the defense economy, I have constantly said that I will safeguard a broad consensus linked to the war organization, that is to say, which military units we shall have, the basic organization and regiments, as well as the defense economy. I therefore do not want to anticipate the work of the Defense Committee linked to either the defense economy, the war organization, or the basic organization.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we reintroduced conscription in broad political consensus. On the other hand, we did not let it rest in broad political consensus. It is important to handle history correctly. I nevertheless want to state that it was the Moderate-led government and its alliance partners in the chamber who let conscription rest. When we reintroduced it, it was in broad political consensus. We must agree on that.

Mr. Speaker! I also agree with the Minister for Defence's view that there is a shared responsibility. Absolutely! One can, of course, go through history and find mistakes made by governments of all stripes. There, I also share the Minister for Defence's view that one can find decisions that have been made by Social Democratic-led governments which, in hindsight, were not so wise.

I still want to raise this issue. If there is anything that distinguishes social democrat-led governments from moderate-led governments, it is that we are prepared to finance a solution to the important societal problems. It could concern welfare in general or dealing with crime. In this case, it is about the security of the Swedish people and Sweden when it comes to defense against external threats.

We Social Democrats probably still have greater credibility regarding the financing. That is the question that is the basis of my interpellation. Today we have a situation where healthcare is on its knees, and healthcare is in itself also a part of the total defense. Road traffic does not work, and rail traffic does not work. Roads and trains are also a part of the total defense, a part of our ability to defend our country. We then see that there is reason to also make large reinforcements of the purely military defense.

Overall, the credibility of the financing becomes a large part of creating a foundation. If one, as the Moderate-led government has done historically and also now, largely builds its policy on tax cuts primarily for high-income earners, questions will be raised. How will the financing be handled?

When I took note of the Minister for Defence's response, I could see that we are in agreement. There is a broad consensus on the appropriations. We agree on the 27 billion. There is no political battle there. I hope and believe that the Defence Preparation Board will reach a consensus and present wise and well-considered proposals - but they must be financed.

We must have a strong and well-functioning defense, but we must also have a strong and well-functioning healthcare and infrastructure and a society in itself that is strong. It is in that context that the question is asked whether Pål Jonson is prepared to be a guarantor that the government does not proceed with large tax cuts aimed at high-income earners.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to emphasize that we have doubled the military defense budget between 2020 and 2024, from 60 billion to 119 billion. It is a doubling, and it is a high figure in international comparison. It is absolutely necessary in light of the serious security policy situation and the fact that we have donated a lot of defense materiel to Ukraine. Then the Armed Forces must be given the opportunity to replace the defense materiel that has been sent. We have also taken great responsibility for the support to Ukraine in international comparison. It is also an investment in our own security.

Great efforts have been made, and it is good that the Riksdag is in agreement regarding the direction of the defense economy. Then there is the question of credible financing, and it is reasonable to ask that.

I have been careful, Patrik Björck, not to point out things that I want in an upcoming defense decision. I want the Defense Committee to reach an agreement in broad political consensus on whether it should be about new units, organizational units, or various investments in personnel and defense.

I note that the Social Democrats have pointed out various things that they want to anticipate the preparation of. They are talking about an additional army brigade. I would also like to have that, but it must be balanced against other things. An investigation into the material supply presented in 2018 points out that an army brigade costs at least 32 billion, likely double right now due to skyrocketing prices in the defense industry sector. They have also pointed out that they want an extra submarine, and that also costs many billions. They also want two new regiments.

I try not to do so because it can create deadlocks in the Defence Preparation Board. I also know that the Social Democrats have proposed a funding for this, namely a readiness tax. But this readiness tax is to finance many billions - more submarines, more brigades and more regiments. If Patrik Björck has no objection to that, he is welcome to elaborate on how much income the readiness tax will generate.

I say in good faith, regarding the question of financing, that I do not want to anticipate the Defense Preparation's analysis linked to the defense economy, the basic organization, or the war organization. It would be unwise if I, as Defense Minister, were to lock myself into a specific type of financing form. Now, the Budget Act applies, and we must deliver balanced budgets. We have also shown that we prioritize defense as well as internal and external security in our budget by raising the defense appropriations by 27 billion, or 28 percent, in one year. It is a clear signal from our side that we take internal and external security very seriously and that we can simultaneously deliver a balanced budget.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out that I have great respect for Defense Minister Pål Jonson's knowledge and commitment in the defense area. I do not question him at all.

I want to ensure that we can also finance this. A balanced budget means that if one makes a major investment in defense and lowers taxes for high-income earners, infrastructure and healthcare will suffer, and then inequality in society will increase.

This may lie somewhat outside Pål Jonson's area of responsibility. But Pål Jonson is still part of a government where collective decisions are made, and I wonder how Pål Jonson acts to ensure that this does not become the case. For me as a Social Democrat, it is not only the welfare and infrastructure issues that are important when it comes to a country's defense capability. I am completely convinced that a policy that strives for increased equality also strengthens the defense capability, and I am completely convinced that a policy that drives towards increased inequality weakens the defense capability.

It is that slightly larger perspective on the important defense issue and how we create stronger security for Sweden and the Swedish people that I am looking for in this interpellation debate. It is about the whole, the financing, and the view of society. Welfare, infrastructure, and equality are a strong part of a strong defense capability - naturally alongside submarines, planes, brigades, and other things that Pål Jonson in fact masters much better than I do, Mr. Speaker. It is this holistic view that I would like Pål Jonson to embrace.

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Björck, for the interpellation debate! I have a lot of sympathy for what Patrik Björck says about creating a strong society. I believe in it. I believe that it is a better society.

I do not necessarily want a large state, but I want a strong state where this is really important. For me, it is very important to have a strong state when it comes to both internal and external security, because it is the prerequisite for us to be able to enjoy all these other things.

I usually say that we must make major investments in defense. We must do it now, in every sense of the word, so that we can continue our way of life and so that we can continue to live in peace. It is important.

That is why it is important that we have these discussions and debates, but also that we can continue to have a broad consensus linked to the security and defense policy, especially in these serious times. It is perhaps the most serious situation since the end of the Second World War. Therefore, I am grateful that I can have such debates in a good tone with political opponents whom I know also want the defense and Sweden's security well.

I will also strive for this in dialogues within the framework of the Defence Preparation Board and in the contacts I have with the Committee on Defence.

Thank you, Patrik Björck, for the debate!

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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