Response to interpellation 2023/24:583 on the economic situation in regions and municipalities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the economic situation in regions and municipalities. KD argues that municipalities and regions have a far-reaching responsibility for their own financing through the right of taxation 1. KD emphasizes that the economic situation improves in 2025 and 2026 2, that the government has increased the appropriations by 34 billion kronor 2 3 and that municipalities can use equalization reserves 2. KD denies mass resignations of healthcare staff 4. S argues that the government's resources are insufficient, that the 6 billion are deeply insufficient 5 and that the government prioritizes tax cuts for the richest over welfare 6. S considers that the government has been passive in the fight against inflation 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.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Mathias Tegnér has asked the Minister for Finance if she will take any measures to avoid the regions needing to cut the number of employees in healthcare and to ensure that the municipalities do not have to cut back in schools and on crime prevention work. He also wonders if Sweden's municipalities and regions can expect increased funds in the autumn budget so that welfare can be prioritized.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
Municipalities and regions have, through the municipal right of taxation, an extensive responsibility for the financing of their operations. The economic situation in the municipal sector is strained in 2024, and many municipalities and regions need to take measures to achieve a balanced economy and sound financial management. The economic forecasts show, however, that the situation looks better already in 2025 and 2026. The municipal sector as a whole has, furthermore, since 2004 reported positive results, and since 2013 there has also been an opportunity to reserve surpluses to a result equalization reserve, which from next year will become a result reserve, which can be used to equalize revenues over a business cycle.
For 2024, the state grants to the municipal sector were reinforced by nearly 16 billion SEK, of which the majority, 10 billion SEK, are support in general state grants that can be used freely based on local and regional needs. It was approximately 40 percent of the total reform space.
The Government is closely monitoring the situation in the municipal sector and announced on March 4 an additional reinforcement to the regions of 6 billion kronor in the 2024 supplementary budget. These are funds that reinforce the existing sector grant of 3 billion kronor to health and medical care.
To achieve the best possible effect from tax money, as well as to ensure that funds are used with a focus on patient-facing services and so that more patients receive care in a timely manner, the money is followed with a number of measures. The Government therefore intends to appoint both an efficiency delegation for health and medical care and a regional audit function.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
At the turn of the year, the National Institute of Economic Research noted that we, Sweden, are in a recession. The labor market is weakening right now, and unemployment could reach as much as 8.5 percent during the year. In the inflationary economy that Sweden finds itself in, it is naturally necessary to push back inflation. But the question that I pose to the Minister and that we pose here today is: Did it have to be done in this way? Must inflation be pushed back at the expense of welfare?
Under the current government, Sweden has become both poorer and more dangerous. It is true that the government has allocated resources, just as the Minister says. But these resources to regions and municipalities are not at all in the extent and scope that is actually needed, which SKR has pointed out. They are also not at the extent as, for example, during the pandemic when Magdalena Andersson was Finance Minister.
We are seeing the effects of this policy now. The effects of this betrayal of healthcare are obvious. Right now, the number of healthcare beds in Sweden is decreasing. Healthcare staff are being laid off, and taxes are being raised in municipalities and regions. All of this is happening under the watch of the government and the minister.
The Prime Minister promised on television to stop the layoffs in healthcare. That promise did not even hold through a commercial break. Despite promises of new money in the healthcare budget, we now see that the layoffs continue in healthcare. My question to the Minister remains: Will there be new money, will there be new resources for welfare that last longer than a commercial break, or is the Minister's answer that it is the regions' responsibility when healthcare personnel are now being laid off?
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the opportunity to conduct a fundamentally important debate here this Friday afternoon at the end of March, in the year of the cost crisis.
There are many crises occurring simultaneously. There were discussions about the construction crisis. We have the cost crisis which hits welfare and ordinary people. We have the healthcare crisis which was touched upon here earlier by my colleague Mathias Tegnér.
The reason we ask questions of the government is that it is ordinary people and welfare activities that take the hit when the crisis hits so hard. We have, in debate after debate, asked a fairly simple question, and I thought I would conclude with it again: Will the government take measures?
Almost a year ago, I had a debate in here with Erik Slottner and the government regarding the government's ability to see the crisis and to act and allocate more resources. I would like to begin by quoting what the minister said to me then: "More money will not solve all the problems that the municipal sector faces." He said that "municipalities and regions need to continue to work innovatively."
What has a year of bourgeois innovation policy meant for welfare and ordinary people? Well, more and more people in our country report that their children cannot afford to participate in sports, outdoor, and leisure activities. We see how welfare in healthcare is poaching employees. We see how a number of municipalities around the country say that it is not possible to balance the budget and manage school, leisure activities, or care.
I strongly oppose this innovation policy. We need a government that sees the cost crisis and realizes that we must pull in the same direction. In Stockholm, where I live, we have chosen to raise the tax. We have chosen to protect the school, and we have chosen to ensure that resources come to children and young people and the residents of the Stockholm municipality. But we turn against the reality we live in: that we have a government that points the spear at the Stockholmers and lets the Stockholmers take the hit and the cost crisis all by themselves.
Before this budget year, SKR, as everyone knows, warned that welfare would decline by approximately 28 billion if nothing was done. In the same much-publicized statement, SKR asked for long-term thinking, clear decisions and long-term conditions, in order to be able to manage the cost crisis. On one hand, we see how the government is now urging the country's municipalities to take care of this themselves and is not helping, and on the other hand, how one could act to let money for welfare stay in welfare.
Another question that actually has relevance here is that in the welfare sectors, there are independent private school corporations, for example, which continue to extract billions from the systems even in the midst of the cost crisis. But not even on that point can we reach an agreement here in the chamber that we should choke off the possibility of extracting profits from our common welfare. Would it be important to point out at some point when it is more important than ever, right in the midst of a welfare crisis when the money is actually lacking? But not even on that point is the government willing to act.
This government does not want to give long-term commitments. Now, admittedly, there will be an additional supplement to the country's regions. These are funds that the Social Democrats already announced in the autumn together with an inflation hedge in welfare - a new principle for how we are to cover the costs for welfare moving forward.
The question to the minister remains. I would very much like to have clear answers. Will you deliver? Will the government deliver long-term perspective? Will you tackle the major challenges? Will there also be more money for the school in the autumn budget?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Mathias Tegnér for raising this question here today.
Given the joy, perhaps one could call it, that this news about the situation in the fight against inflation has generated among some representatives in the SD government, I feel extra motivated to remind that there is an obvious risk that we are missing the situation in Sweden's municipalities and regions right now. It is an extremely critical situation. I come from Gotland myself. There, we have both healthcare and schools that are on their knees. And the announced 6 billion helps only a little bit.
As Mattias Vepsä just noted, this government is feverishly trying to shift the responsibility onto regions and municipalities and say that they must do their homework. It is so ugly. It is so irresponsible.
I want to mean that the responsibility for holding Sweden together, for holding together our country and our municipalities and regions and securing access to equal welfare throughout the country, falls heavily on the government. When municipalities and regions are to save, there are obvious risks that citizens will be squeezed and that class divides will break through. We must also remember that equal access to welfare does not mean the same for everyone everywhere all the time, but that needs are at the center. That is the purpose of equal welfare.
I myself have a background in the municipal and regional sectors. I have sat there and struggled, trying to find the best and smartest savings. But no matter how we twisted and turned it, there always appeared an obvious risk of ending up in discussions that mean children pay with fewer teachers, reduced mother-tongue instruction and worse opening hours at the libraries, that the elderly do not have their assistance decisions executed, or that patients risk healthcare injuries and missed care.
Seriously speaking: Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner said 24 billion. The Government says 6 billion. It hardly needs to be said that it is deeply insufficient.
I noted that Mathias Tegnér asked questions about the crime prevention work, and that is very close to my heart. I believe it is very important to curb new recruitment, offer meaningful activities, and constantly prioritize completed schooling and full grades as a vaccine against ill health and other difficulties.
I believe that we must continue to invest in preventive work. But it is precisely these so-called soft values in our municipalities and regions that risk being hit when savings are to be made - and savings must be made, because the resources are insufficient. We will receive an incredibly expensive bill for it later, and we will all have to pay it.
We know that we have a catastrophic influx of gang-related crime because young people lack opportunities. Crime prevention work plays a role there. We know that school results are crucial for securing a better future. It is clear that it matters when Swedish schools will not have the resources they need.
Given what we are now debating, 6 billion instead of 24 billion and municipalities and regions that are supposed to do their homework, my question is: How does the government intend to secure equal access to welfare throughout the country?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I shall begin this speech with a factual clarification and some political science information for Hanna Westerén. It is not an SD government that rules the country. In Sweden, the government consists of the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna. Sverigedemokraterna are not part of this government, if anyone were to think so.
Since then, the government has had a parliamentary cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna so that we can obtain a majority for our policies. We live in a democracy, and in this parliamentary democracy, the government needs a majority of the members of the Riksdag to get support for its policies because we now have a minority government. Therefore, we have a parliamentary cooperation with SD.
To call this an SD government is, of course, completely incorrect. It misleads voters and citizens. In the same way, I could call the previous government the V-government or the C-government, because the Social Democrats were dependent on support in parliament just like all other governments.
I will then move on to what the interpellation is about and what I would like to debate.
First and foremost, we must have an economic policy that does not fuel inflation, just as the interpellor began their speech with. It is primarily inflation that has created the serious situation in municipalities and regions with skyrocketing costs. Already next year, we will be able to see a significantly better economic situation in both municipalities and regions because inflation is now being pushed back. That is priority number one.
During the last two years, with the two budgets that this government has presented, a large part of the reform space has gone precisely to municipalities and regions. In our first budget, one-third of the reform space went to municipalities and regions. In this year's budget, it was 40 percent of the reform space. If we include the latest announcement regarding the additional 6 billion to healthcare, the government has increased the appropriations to municipalities and regions by 34 billion kronor. That is a lot of money.
Then Mathias Tegnér says, which is interesting, that what the government is now presenting is not at all at the same level as what we Social Democrats want. But if I remember correctly, it was exactly 6 billion that separated the Social Democrats' budget proposal from the government's. What we are now proposing is therefore exactly the same level as the Social Democrats proposed in their shadow budget. We put a little more into the regions than the Social Democrats want. The Social Democrats want to put a little more into the municipalities and a little less into the regions compared to what the government is doing now, but it is exactly the same level if we combine the municipality and region sectors. Still, one says that it is not at all at the same level.
Hanna Westerén further says that 6 billion kronor only helps a little bit. So it didn't sound like that in the autumn when we discussed the difference of 6 billion that existed between the Social Democrats and the government. Then these 6 billion would mean everything for municipalities and regions. That was the difference between preserving the welfare state and destroying it. Now it is said that 6 billion only helps a little bit. There must be some order in the argumentation in the autumn and in the spring, I actually think.
Then it is true: Money will not solve everything. For many years, not least the municipal sector has generated large surpluses that could be set aside in a result equalization reserve, which approximately 80 percent of the municipalities have chosen to do. They can now use these funds to smooth out a tough financial year 2024. I think it is very welcome if the municipalities do so. To my joy, I also see that many municipalities and regions are taking advantage of just that opportunity.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
It is good that we agree that it is important to fight inflation. However, it is obvious that it can be done in different ways. Prices in some areas in Sweden have increased almost twice as much as in our neighboring country Denmark. This has caused Swedish households to become poorer. Households have lost ten years of real wage increases. The same applies to inflation in Spain. Even there, social democrats have shown the way and shown that it is possible to push back inflation through an active policy, a policy where one talks with the market's parties. There are simply different ways to drive down inflation.
My perception is that the government was passive for far too long. In a crisis, time matters.
It does so as well when we talk about budgets. It is exactly as the Minister says that now, half a year later, the government has put an additional 6 billion on the table in what will be a spring revision budget. The Social Democratic spring revision budget has not been presented yet, but I am convinced that it will contain additional resources for welfare. The same applied to the previous budget, where we prioritized welfare to a different extent than the government. This matters.
The policy that ensured that welfare was prioritized was also what, during the pandemic, ensured that the surpluses that the Minister refers to right now exist in municipalities and regions. It was because we had a government that wanted to ensure that resources would not disappear from welfare and that welfare staff would not be laid off. Therefore, it was chosen to clearly prioritize resources for welfare during the pandemic.
It was a good policy. It proved to be successful. It would have been a better idea if the government had partially copied that policy.
During the winters of 2023 and 2024, we have seen how hard the economic crisis hits ordinary people, with rising food prices and high energy and fuel costs. Fundamentally, it is ordinary people in Sweden who have had to pay the price for the inflation crisis.
Many of us have read how families, especially here in Stockholm, are forced to turn over every krona and are forced to seek help from aid organizations. Schools have alerted us about how the children eat themselves into a state of exhaustion before the weekend and how the school lunch on Mondays is the salvation because during the weekend there has not been nutritious food on the families' dinner tables.
In this situation, the government, through the two budgets that the Minister refers to, has lowered the tax for the richest, rejected our proposals on bank tax, on inflation protection in welfare and on an extra child allowance, and delayed and postponed an extra tax on the electricity companies' excess profits. In area after area, the government has chosen a different policy. The government has chosen to prioritize tax cuts primarily for the richest over reforms to protect ordinary people and welfare in the crisis. That is the truth.
Many Swedes and Stockholmers are now turning the tables. In that case, it is not possible to have a government that is passive. Therefore, the question to the Minister remains: Will any new money come to the welfare system?
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! I cannot help it; I always find it interesting to discuss political science in the chamber. I checked a bit on Google before this debate to get some inspiration. Then I found the quote from the leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, about buying cheaper food during the cost-of-living crisis. It was a small tip for saving money for ordinary people.
The SD-government is happy to give tips to ordinary people on how we should manage our finances and how it becomes easier to turn and twist every krona. At the same time, one sees with the other hand to double RUT and ROT and make it easier to make cleaning deductions for those who have the means to purchase cleaning services.
It is clear that we can discuss budget and principles and when we woke up. We are glad that the government finally woke up. The cost crisis in welfare is, in fact, nothing new. We pointed it out already before the budget last year, and we have, with a fool's persistence, continued to nag and point out that the cost crisis hits our welfare sectors and ordinary people. Therefore, in our budget alternatives, we have chosen to prioritize that welfare receives more resources and that ordinary people receive help through the cost crisis.
Good advice from Sverigedemokrater or government representatives is not bad. But it would have been better with decisiveness. Several ministers come here to the chamber and say that they are following the developments. We have learned that it means that ordinary people who work in our welfare sectors are being laid off. The risk is that one does not have a job to go to the next day.
This is unacceptable. Sweden will be driven ever deeper into the welfare crisis instead of more people receiving help at the country's health centers, in home care, or in school.
The question remains, then: Are the 6 billion a sign of an awakening? Will we receive long-term assurances of more money for welfare in the future?
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to begin with a fact-check for those listening. Despite the Minister's outburst just now, one should remember that nothing happens in the departments without the Sweden Democrats' consent. The Sweden Democrats do not formally sit in the government, but the Sweden Democrats are obviously steering the government from the backseat.
The Sweden Democrats cannot formally be held accountable. They cannot be reported to the KU. I also cannot call a Sweden Democrat minister to the chamber to answer questions. In that case, the government representatives who have taken them into the boat must answer the questions instead. I would gladly debate the conditions of the welfare system with a Sweden Democrat.
The Minister wants order in the argumentation and refers to 6 billion from half a year ago. To be honest, a lot has happened since half a year ago. The cost crisis has escalated.
I also note that the Minister does not at all carefully address the risk that I myself raised regarding the crime prevention work. For me, it is just another sign that the SD government is not clear on how it all hangs together and what the welfare actually delivers for us all with reasonable conditions.
I am still wondering, then, whether the Minister's view is that 6 billion is sufficient. So far, that is actually what it sounds like.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! There will be some scattered showers. Unfortunately, we must begin with the political science, but Mattias Vepsä seems to find it exciting. Then we can stay there for a while.
I think it is a problem that Vepsä first says the SD government and then starts talking about some quote where Jimmie Åkesson is supposed to give saving tips to families with children. It is quite common for some journalists to go around and ask politicians if they have any saving tips. I have never received the question, but I know that some of my colleagues have received it. Should one then remain silent? Then one receives a lot of criticism for it. Look, the minister could not answer and give saving tips! What a mockery of Swedish households! But if one answers, the answer will be mocked. One ends up in a hopeless situation.
Jimmie Åkesson has obviously said that people should buy cheaper food. Then you smear it on the so-called SD government and thereby give the impression that Jimmie Åkesson is part of Sweden's government. He is not. The government consists of three parties: the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals. The Prime Minister belongs, as is known, to the Moderates.
We also have a cooperation agreement, the Tidö Agreement, which covers seven areas of cooperation.
It is further said that nothing happens at the ministries without SD's consent. Those are fables. It is completely untrue. In my ministry, at least, plenty happens without me asking the Sweden Democrats for permission. Plenty of policy development is happening, especially for me as Civil Minister. A very large part of my portfolio has nothing to do with the Tidö Agreement.
But of course, we are dependent on support in parliament. The government can present proposals, but nothing more. We present proposals that we are sure will pass in parliament. In that case, it is safest to have anchored the support before we present the proposals. We do that primarily with the Sverigedemokraterna, but sometimes also with the Socialdemokraterna.
During the pandemic – since we are now going all the way back there when it comes to state grants – there was a broad support in this chamber for significantly increased state grants. Even the Christian Democrats were driving to get through a few more billion, for example, to elderly care during the pandemic. There was a great support for that, and it has continued.
The latest addition, as mentioned, represents a reinforcement to the municipal and regional sector with 34 billion kronor. It is a historically large addition, which has been granted over the course of only one and a half years. We continue to truly increase the appropriations to municipalities and regions. Then people, and the municipalities and regions, will think that it is too little. That is understandable.
But the municipalities and regions also need to do their homework. The state cannot cover the entire economic deficit that has arisen. It is impossible. State grants constitute 20 percent of municipalities' and regions' total revenues. Tax revenues are the absolute largest source of revenue. But we contribute a very large part. I do not think one can accuse this government of not increasing resources for welfare. We truly do that.
We have municipal self-government. I therefore cannot decide whether municipalities should spend more or less money on crime prevention, on schools, or on social services. That is decided by democratically elected politicians in the municipalities. But we can provide them with the conditions. This government has increased those conditions through the 34 billion that we have increased the appropriations to municipalities and regions by. But it is the municipalities themselves that decide, and it is the politicians whom the voters have elected in the municipalities who will make the decisions.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the comments and the debate! However, I believe the Minister and I can agree to disagree. One of the last things the Minister Slottner said was that the government cannot be blamed for not prioritizing welfare. But that is precisely what we are doing!
The Minister is correct that fighting inflation is important, but my and our point is that it can be done in different ways. I highlighted how social democracy in Denmark and Spain has done. They have shown that it is possible to push back inflation in an effective way.
My view is that the government, at least to begin with, was dragging its feet. I clearly remember something that I believe was a party leader debate here in the chamber where an opposition politician asked the party leader of the government why the government had not called in the food companies. I want to remember that the Deputy Prime Minister answered that it was because the government is not communists. I know that you are not, but the point is that in the countries where active governments have ensured that the market's parties have taken their share of the responsibility, the fight against inflation has gone better.
The problem right now is that while we chatter here in the Swedish Riksdag, healthcare staff are being laid off all over the country. The Minister is right that inflation must be combated, but it cannot be solely those in need of care, healthcare workers, and ordinary people who are to bear the cost of the inflation crisis.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I can say that the government called in the food giants and had a good dialogue with them. That yielded some results. We could see that afterwards.
I forgot to answer the question asked in a previous post about whether more money will be included in the spring budget. Today is March 15, and the spring budget arrives on April 15, so in exactly one month. That is when the messages will come. They might be published on some debate page somewhere some time before. We shall see. But I obviously cannot stand here now and tell if more money is coming for something. Some other ministers would probably be very upset if I did that.
We have a budget process. It is possibly a boring answer, but we have budget processes where announcements regarding the state grants are made. Everyone always wants to have such early announcements as possible; I understand that. It is understandable that one wants to have early announcements, but we have the budget processes we have. One must have patience and wait until the budgets are presented.
Mathias Tegnér said that healthcare staff are being laid off. It sounds like there are mass layoffs of healthcare staff taking place. But according to the figures we have now – I am happy to be over-convinced – no healthcare staff have been laid off so far. Some notices have been given, but some of them have actually been withdrawn after new funds were presented. Many times, one gives notice to be on the safe side if one should need to lay someone off, but so far, there are no layoffs that have been made.
I think we should also be a bit honest and not fuel any perception of reality that makes people more afraid and anxious than they need to be in this insecure time that we are living in anyway. I just want to urge that and say that we do not see any dismissals of great magnitude. Some warnings have, however, been issued in some regions. Our hope is, of course, that these warnings shall not turn into dismissals.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.