Response to interpellation 2023/24:370 on cuts in the cultural schools
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government's policy with tax cuts and general state grants creates long-term positive effects for culture 1 2. M emphasizes that the state development grant is intended for specific initiatives, not ongoing operations 3 1 4, and prioritizes it to reach new target groups 5. M chooses to let people make decisions themselves regarding the use of the money 6, raises the general state grants to enable priorities within self-governance 6, lowers taxes for hard-working people 6 and makes investments for children's reading 6. M argues that the government's policy fights inflation 6 and that culture is a part of the social picture 5. S argues that the general state grants are not enough to stop cuts in cultural schools 7 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me how I intend to act to save the country's cultural schools, as well as what I and the state should do to strengthen the conditions for children and young people's cultural activities in the long term.
To support the municipal cultural school, the government proposed in the budget bill for 2024 an extension of the state development grant to the municipal cultural school with 100 million kronor per year 2024-2026. The Riksdag decided in accordance with the government's proposal shortly before the turn of the year. The development grant is intended to support specific initiatives to renew and develop the activities and reach new target groups, including children and young people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and rural areas. The support is thus intended for specific efforts and not to finance the ongoing activities.
In addition, the general state grants to regions and municipalities have been strengthened by 10 billion kronor during the current year, which creates improved economic conditions and reduces the need for cuts in operations in municipalities and regions. The municipal culture school is a municipal voluntary commitment and exists today in 286 of the country's 290 municipalities, according to the latest data from the Swedish Arts Council.
When it comes to long-term strengthening of the conditions for children's and young people's cultural practice, the Riksdag adopted national goals in the spring of 2018 for state interventions in support of the municipal cultural school. The cultural school's opportunities to offer children and young people high-quality instruction in cultural and artistic expressions shall be promoted, as well as the opportunities for both deepening and broadening in the instruction, based on each's specific conditions. In addition to the state development grant, a number of state interventions have been initiated to achieve the national goals. Among these, the Cultural School Centre at the Swedish Arts Council and the initiative on Kulturskoleklivet remain relevant.
From the national cultural policy goals, it appears that children's and young people's right to culture should be particularly highlighted. In addition to the already mentioned measures, the government, for example, continues to allocate funds to Skapande skola, where children and young people get to participate in art and culture in school and are given the opportunity for their own creation. The government is also working on a significant investment in leisure cards for children and young people, which shall, among other things, provide increased access to sports, culture, and outdoor life.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister says in his response: In addition, the general state grants to regions and municipalities have been strengthened by 10 billion kronor during the current year, which creates improved economic conditions and reduces the need for cuts in operations in municipalities and regions.
I will now show some examples of why this is not correct.
According to SCB, the average municipal tax rate increased by 10 öre at the turn of the year. We have not seen such large municipal tax increases since we last had a moderate-led government. One in three municipalities is expected to end the 2023 financial year with a deficit. And 48 municipalities are budgeting for a deficit in 2024.
Yesterday, there was a major news story in local and regional media in Norrbotten: Piteå municipality is acting to save its culture school. They are changing the administration so that it will not be set against statutory activities. They are simultaneously ensuring that it is free of charge.
The municipal councilor said in the media: We are very concerned about the developments from the state level, with reduced general funds for welfare and reduced funds for the cultural schools.
In my home municipality, Älvsbyn, the Social Democrats campaigned in 2018 to abolish the fee in the cultural school so that everyone, regardless of their parents' finances, would have equal access to it. No family should have to choose between a new winter jacket and piano lessons for the children.
This was carried out during the previous parliamentary term. And right now, as we have this debate, the culture school is still free of charge. But the right has taken over and is governing, and last week they submitted the proposal to reintroduce the fees in the culture school.
SVT reported a couple of weeks ago that only 9 percent of the municipalities manage to increase the culture budget so that it matches inflation. Parisa Liljestrand said then: I said in 2022 that we have some tough years to expect. It has been tough 2023, and I do not think that 2024 will look any different.
It is an incredibly passive stance we see from the Minister for Culture's side. At the same time, the Kulturskolerådet has conducted a survey with cultural school heads across the country. Of the country's cultural schools, 94 percent receive either nominal reductions or unchanged appropriations, which in practice means that 94 percent of the country's cultural schools must cut back. And the Minister for Culture responds that 2023 was tough and that 2024 also seems to be becoming tough, as if she has nothing to do with the matter. I think the Minister for Culture should act.
Emma Ahlström Köster (M)
Mr. Speaker! There is a big difference between an S-government and the current Moderate-led government. The most important difference is that this government sees the whole and has a comprehensive policy. We believe, in fact, that the economy is interconnected. Families burdened by high taxes, where mom and dad have to pay unreasonably high gasoline prices, find it harder to drive their children to leisure activities. It is also harder to prioritize paying for a leisure activity when taxes are high. Therefore, we lower the tax for low- and middle-income earners and also provide general state grants to the municipalities.
I think it is positive to be part of the debate today and listen to the Social Democrats, who share the government's commitment to culture and wish to contribute to a discussion regarding long-term sustainable policy within this area. But when it comes to the municipal culture school, I must nevertheless take the opportunity to clarify a few things.
It is important to emphasize that the municipal culture school is precisely municipal. The state support does exist, but primarily to support specific initiatives and not to finance the ongoing operations.
The municipalities spend around 2.8 billion kronor on cultural school activities. One can discuss whether that is enough. But if one thinks it is not, the municipalities have the opportunity to change and strengthen it. They can, for example, utilize part of the increased general government grant of approximately 10 billion kronor provided by this government.
The government also proposes in the budget bill for 2024 an extension of the state development grant to the municipal cultural school. It will thus be able to retain its 100 million during the period 2024-2026. This means the same level as before the pandemic.
In a comparison of how the municipalities want to prioritize and invest, one sees that it is somewhat different. One sees that it remained at approximately the same level between 2018 and 2022. Some have increased, and some have decreased.
The Moderate-led government thus has a comprehensive policy. We make significant investments where we believe it makes the greatest difference. We acknowledge, for example, that there is a group that stands further away, and therefore we want to strengthen the investment in reaching that group. We want more people to be able to come.
I share the interpellant's commitment to culture and can state that the change in policy being made right now regarding safety, lower taxes, and freedom for the municipalities contributes to a long-term positive effect on all parts of society, including culture - just as Culture Minister Parisa Liljestrand has explained here in previous posts.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Municipal taxes were raised by an average of 10 öre. In that situation, the Social Democrats and the member argue that we should raise taxes further for 1 million people in Sweden. This can be read in the Social Democrats' budget proposal. This is what they want to do in a situation where inflation and the recession have hit ordinary people's wallets extremely hard. People have suffered from high inflation and recession and are forced to save on everything.
Naturally, the municipalities are autonomous in their decisions regarding the tax rate. But in this situation, I would find it difficult to justify raising the tax for 1 million Swedes. That is perhaps the difference between our two parties.
It also seems that the member has completely overlooked that we, ever since this government took over, have pursued an economic policy to recreate stability in an economy that has not looked that way for a very long time.
The state development grant to the culture school is, as I have previously expressed, intended to support specific initiatives to renew and develop the operations. The grant has never been intended to finance ongoing operations. It was not when it was introduced in 2016, and it is not today either. I am pleased that, despite the tough economic times we are going through, we can still prioritize allocating 100 million kronor for the development grant – it is important.
But what the Social Democrats want to do is, in their budget, according to their own figures, add an additional 100 million kronor. That is what was in S's budget: 200 million kronor for the state development grant. This is to be set in proportion to 286 municipalities that have a culture school today and a total municipal budget for the municipal culture school of 2.9 billion. We are therefore discussing 100 million kronor, which the member thinks should be enough to lower fees and ensure that the 286 culture schools in Sweden get greater opportunities.
The state development grant is enormously important. But we must remember that in a budget of 2.9 billion, 100 million is not enough for what the member wants the municipal cultural schools to do. I wonder where the rest of the money is.
I also wonder about the move that S made last week regarding the leisure card. It was presented that one would want to take this year's money for the leisure card and put it solely on investments in sports. If the Social Democrats and the member protect the culture school as is said to be done, I think it is strange that it was not suggested that the 100 million could be taken from the leisure card.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister can devote her speeches here to talking about Social Democratic policy, or she can shoulder the responsibility she has taken upon herself and talk about what she herself intends to do to save the cultural schools in the incredibly vulnerable situation in which they find themselves.
In the report from the Kulturskolerådet, the cultural school managers have also been asked what consequences the cuts will have. It turns out that fewer students will be reached. There will be a reduced staff strength. There will be a poorer range of offerings, seen both in terms of geographical distribution and in terms of which subjects are offered. And there will be a stalled development work.
If these are consequences that the Minister for Culture is satisfied with, I think she is right to stand here and attack our proposals, which nevertheless have a higher level of ambition, instead of presenting her own measures to save the cultural schools. If she is dissatisfied with these consequences, she should actually do something about this very precarious situation.
But both the Minister for Culture and Emma Ahlström Köster join a long line of Moderate politicians who, when the Moderates were in power, called the fifth job tax credit an important cultural policy reform. The economy is connected, says Emma Ahlström Köster. The point is, therefore, that the job tax credit that the Minister for Culture's and Emma Ahlström Köster's party has proposed would be the cultural policy reform that is to save the arts school. That is the only way I can understand the member's contribution from the rostrum.
If one looks at what the job tax credit would lead to, one sees that on average, for a family that has two children in the culture school, it does not even cover the fee. How many times can one draft in a tax cut and claim that it is supposed to give people more money in their pockets?
The result of the pursued policy is large deficits in municipalities and regions, income tax increases at the municipal and regional level, and fee increases in, among other things, the culture school.
Worst of all for a Minister for Culture should be cuts in 94 percent of the municipal cultural schools. I believe that the cultural schools and those participating in this debate deserve a better answer than an attack on the fact that we want to increase the development grant by 100 million.
Emma Ahlström Köster (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to once again emphasize that I share the interpellator's commitment and see the passion in him. It is wonderful to discuss these issues, but it becomes very clear what the difference is between our different governments and what we consider makes the most difference.
It is comprehensive policy against short-term measures. We back up and see the whole picture, how families are doing and what society looks like today. We are grounded in reality when it comes to the problems that exist. The opposite is shorter-term investments that do not take comprehensive policy into account.
I want to once again highlight the general contributions and the extension of the state development grant to reach those groups who are furthest away. I also want to highlight the leisure card, which our Minister for Culture has accounted for. It is a fantastic and unique initiative for culture and for leisure activities for all our children and young people. Perhaps we have the opportunity to make a complete turnaround and reach those who have never before been able to find their way here.
The interpellator spoke about the worst thing a minister can do. I want to turn that around and say that the most important thing our Minister for Culture can do now is to look at the whole and look at what makes a difference.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! It is not every day that I am approached because I attack a member or a member's policy. I think that is somewhat the point of us standing here and debating – we must be able to disagree, and we must be able to mark what the differences are.
For me, it is very much less about attacking Social Democratic policy than about explaining to people how S has intended to finance its budget, namely through increased taxes. There is a big difference here between, on one hand, the Social Democrats and, on the other hand, the government and us Moderates.
We choose to let people have the opportunity to themselves place their money where they believe it is needed best. The Social Democrats think that the tax should be raised for ordinary people because the state can make these prioritizations better.
We are increasing the general government grants to municipalities and regions to enable the municipalities and regions, within the framework of their autonomy, to make the priorities that are required. In addition to this, we are lowering the tax for hard-working people, for example teachers, nursing assistants, and first responders. It is all those who meet people in everyday life and ensure that society functions who get a tax cut. It is they who get a greater opportunity to decide where they need or want to spend their money.
Furthermore, the government is making a number of initiatives to strengthen culture and make it possible for more children and young people to participate in it. The state development grant of 100 million kronor is one example. Other initiatives, for example the leisure card, I addressed in my opening speech. Further examples are the initiatives that the government is now making - and which the government included in the budget - to strengthen children's and young people's reading. This is a clear prioritization.
There is, therefore, a possibility to do both, but we must also dare to believe that people have their own drive and their own ability to make the decisions that are best for themselves. The state can never do it better than the individual. We can level out inequalities and improve conditions, but in this case, it is about enabling people to make their own decisions.
Mr. Speaker! I would also like to say that the report that the member referred to is naturally worrying; I do not mince words about that. It will be interesting to follow the results of it. However, we must be careful not to draw all too drastic conclusions from this report. It is based on estimates of coming years, so we do not know yet. We can assume, but we do not know. We also need to gather information continuously during the year before we can see where this is headed.
The government's policy has been about pressing down inflation. Our worst enemy, the cultural schools' worst enemy, the municipalities' worst enemy, the regions' worst enemy and ordinary citizens' worst enemy is inflation. It is that which erodes the wallets. It is that which the government fights with its economic policy. It is also this economic policy that will lead to us having better opportunities to make priorities moving forward.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! According to Emma Ahlström Köster, it is about how the families are doing. The Minister for Culture says that people themselves should be allowed to choose.
How is it going for the households? It is a record in debt at the Enforcement Authority, both in terms of amounts and in terms of the number of debtors. It is a record in evictions of families with children. Ten years of real wage increases have been eaten up by inflation. We in Sweden have larger price increases on food than what is seen in our nearest neighboring countries. This government's fight against inflation is going terribly, and it is going terribly for the households. This argument simply does not hold as a reason to make cuts in 94 percent of the country's cultural schools.
What the government has done in the area of the culture school is to halve the culture school grant and underfinance welfare, that is, the general state grants to regions and municipalities, so that we get a rising municipal tax rate. That does not mean that we get tax cuts, as the minister said, but it means that we get a municipal tax rate that, on average, rises more than in the last ten years.
The Moderate group leader in the committee said in an interview for the Kulturskolerådet website that it is important that more people find their way to the culture school. But the consequence of the pursued policy will, according to Kulturskolerådet, be that fewer people get a part of the culture school. The consequence of a halved development grant will be that a smaller proportion of the groups that are far from participating in the culture school's activities will be reached. The consequences of the pursued policy will be the exact opposite of what the minister and Emma Ahlström Köster claim they want to achieve.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I cannot be clear enough: I too would wish that we lived in a world where culture was an exception to the social economy, but that is not the case now. Culture is not an exception, but it is a part – an important part – of the social picture. This means that culture is carried forward by the social picture that exists right now.
We have an economic situation that is extremely tough and that we have not faced in decades. The policy that the government has pursued is finally starting to yield results. This was a situation that we inherited from the previous government. The economy was already heading downwards then, and inflation was already heading upwards then. For one and a half years, we have pursued a tight but forward-looking economic policy to get the economy in this country back in order and to ensure that what is the biggest and worst enemy for everyone in society, that is, the high inflation, finally turns downwards. We are beginning to see improvements.
Now it is about holding on and persevering. That is why I am proud that, despite tough times, we manage to prioritize and continue to prioritize, among other things, the state development grant. As I said, this is intended to support initiatives to renew and develop operations and also to reach new target groups.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.