Response to interpellation 2023/24:99 on the investigation of the equalization system
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the investigation time and resources are adapted to the broad mandate 1 2 and that prioritizations are necessary 1 2. KD believes that two years should suffice for a final report 3 and that the government has not shortened the time but instead provided additional directives 4. KD wants to find methods for faster investigations 4. S argues that the investigation is very extensive 5 6 and that it will not be completed within the current timeframe 6. S wants more resources and more time so that the investigation will be of good quality 7 and argues that good foundations are required to make decisions 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.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me why I have not campaigned for more resources for the investigation into the equalization system and an extension of the investigation period.
The ongoing parliamentary Equalization Committee has been tasked with conducting a broad review of the municipal economic equalization system. The background for the committee's appointment was an announcement from the Riksdag to appoint an investigation to review the entire municipal economic equalization system, with a focus on development, growth, and equal service throughout the country. According to the announcement, the review should also include an analysis of how the system affects the incentives of municipalities and regions to stimulate growth. These parts are included in the original directives.
The additional directives mean that the question of the equalization system's impact on growth is further emphasized and that the committee shall submit proposals for measures to counteract high and increasing tax rates in municipalities and regions.
The Equalization Committee's investigation time and resources have been adjusted according to the committee's broad and important mandate. At the same time, several other pressing investigations are ongoing and being planned. Priorities, both regarding time and resources, are therefore necessary.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden needs investments in welfare that create a more cohesive and equal society. All municipalities and regions shall be able to have a good welfare for everyone regardless of who one is or where one lives - a Sweden where the whole country shall live.
Right now, the welfare is facing a cost crisis, and the situation is generally more difficult among the smallest municipalities by population and among the municipalities that have large so-called socioeconomic challenges. The conditions for meeting this challenge therefore differ between municipalities and regions. We must prioritize more equal conditions throughout the country.
Last year, an inquiry was commissioned for a new review of the entire so-called equalization system, that is, how we distribute resources for welfare to municipalities and regions. In short, the mandate given in April 2022 was to ensure that all municipalities and regions have equal economic conditions to provide their inhabitants with a welfare of high quality. It is a very important and decisive inquiry. The mandate is very extensive. This applies to the inquiry itself, but the mandate also encompasses and affects very many people.
On 20 April 2023, the government decided on supplementary directives for the investigation. In addition to the original directives, the investigation is now also tasked with proposing measures to counter high and increasing tax rates in municipalities and regions, including measures to reduce the risk of negative side effects of the income equalization on growth. A very extensive investigation has thus received two new quite extensive questions. But the investigation period remains fixed, and no additional resources for the investigation have been decided.
Already at the beginning of the work, we in the committee spoke about the fact that it was a short time for the investigation. The analyses that have been made so far in the investigation also show that relatively large changes are necessary to ensure that the system creates equal conditions.
Now the committee as a whole, regardless of party affiliation, has also requested more time and expanded resources. The previous equalization committee, which was appointed in 2008, had 32 months at its disposal compared to this investigation which has 24 months at its disposal. This investigation is furthermore much more extensive, and it includes more areas than the previous one.
We write together in the committee: It would be unfortunate if the committee has to prioritize which issues get sufficient space and which must be deprioritized.
This is the reason why I once again pose the question to Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner: Why can the Minister for Civil Affairs not advocate for more resources for the investigation and an extension of the investigation period, so that we get a well-executed investigation that can provide answers to the questions that we need answers to?
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Eva Lindh for a very important interpellation.
Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister, along with several ministers, is talking about paradigm shifts in Sweden. We do not see much of that here in the Riksdag yet, as not so many proposals are being delivered here and the voting times are being set. But one reason for this is that much in the Tidö agreements is to be investigated. The Prime Minister was not least very clear about this in the government statement where he said: "The Government will therefore strengthen the Government Offices' collective reform capacity. Among other things, a function with experienced and meritorious investigators who take on targeted investigation assignments will be established under the coordination office in the Council of State. The goal is to shorten the investigation time, even halve it, while maintaining requirements for high legal precision."
All is well so far. But when we look at this, it is actually also about strengthening the Sverigedemokraternas influence in the Government Offices. It is about the large party in the Tidö cooperation getting enough influence over the investigations. Unfortunately, this might hinder such investigations that are so important and that have been the basis of the Swedish model - the credibility of the equalization system. We have fundamentally agreed that it is very important. We think it should be prioritized. It deserves to be prioritized.
Despite the fact that the investigation period was longer last time, it resulted in a welfare billion, a growth billion, to the most well-off municipalities. It is clear that we would need to change that. It should be possible to produce proposals to strengthen and give this investigation reasonable conditions.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, Member Eva Lindh should know that I cannot go around publicly and advocate for something or express an opinion on whether any investigation should be commissioned or if any investigation should be granted an extended investigation period. Eva Lindh actually does not know what I have advocated for in internal rooms. I therefore think that the question itself is a bit strange, as to why I have not advocated for this. The Member does not know whether I have advocated for this or not. It is not I alone who decide which investigations should be commissioned or what investigation period each investigation should have, but this is a matter of prioritization.
Not all the inquiries that this government and individual ministers want to appoint will be appointed because it is a matter of prioritization. There are not that many resources financially, but also not purely personally and in terms of competence, to appoint all the inquiries that we would like to appoint. There are very many inquiries that this government wants to appoint after eight years with various Social Democratic and Green Party-led governments. There are many areas within which we in this government feel we have lost momentum and where we now want to appoint new inquiries. So it is clear that it is a matter of prioritization. And an extension of an existing inquiry pushes out other inquiries, and it is a balanced assessment that we make. And it is far from always the case that demands or requests for extensions of inquiries are met. Assessments are made in each individual case.
As has been pointed out, this is a long investigation. The parliamentary committee that is to review the municipal economic equalization system has more time than most investigations. It is possible that it has somewhat less time than other previous investigations on the same subject, but it still has two years. The Government makes the assessment that the timeframe should be sufficient for the investigation to be able to return with a report based on the basic mandate and the two additional directives we have given.
I also mean that we must be able to work faster. We cannot have investigations that just continue year after year over several parliamentary terms, but we must be able to work and reach results faster.
Then I cannot help but bring up another interpellation debate with Eva Lindh that touched upon this subject. The debate was about the supplementary directive meaning nothing; it was so small, and that which we gave a supplementary directive for was already included in the original directives. It would therefore not add anything new to the investigation but only cause confusion and add something that one was already working on. According to that reasoning, the supplementary directives would therefore absolutely not affect the investigation - but now suddenly they mean so much that we must extend the deadline by several months. I think perhaps that is somewhat contradictory.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I must say that it is a bit petty of the Minister for Civil Affairs to make remarks in that manner.
It is clear that I could have asked a question in the interpellation as to whether he had made a decision, but I know that the government has not done so. I tried to be a bit kind and ask why one has not worked for this – for the reason that I seriously request the Minister for Civil Affairs to work so that we get more time. And if it is now so problematic to give us more time, why not increase the resources? We know that we will not have time to investigate everything we would need to investigate to get a good basis before decisions are to be made.
I think it is a bit petty, but I think I can rephrase the question. Will the government make a decision to increase the resources or extend the time for the investigation? I want a yes or no as an answer.
Then either I must have been very unclear or the Minister for Civil Affairs has seriously misinterpreted a previous interpellation debate we had. I asked then what the meaning was of the additional directives that the government had decided on. I did not claim that they already existed in the investigation directives, but the question was precisely about how, for example, this matter of reducing the possibilities to raise taxes was actually not included. I argued that I believe we must take responsibility for the fact that Sweden has a municipal and regional self-government and make decisions based on that.
The Secretariat and we in the committee have made the assessment that an introduction in 2026 would be possible even if the investigation period were extended just a little bit, that is, by a few months. It would give the investigation much greater opportunities to truly examine and provide a good basis before new decisions are to be made. I do not know what it is about the thought of an extension that causes so much concern - or if it is simply a matter of that one is actually not interested in obtaining a proper investigation regarding the equalization system.
We are in agreement in the committee that we will not manage within the deadline we have. My question to the Minister for Civil Affairs is therefore: If the Minister for Civil Affairs does not trust Social Democratic MPs, does he still not trust his own party representatives in the investigation – or the coalition parties that sit in the investigation? They have also stood behind the memorandum with a wish for extended time and more resources.
I ask again: Will we get a decision on an extended deadline, that is to say more time, or expanded resources? The need exists. I would like to have a yes or no as an answer.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! As follows from the Minister's answer, this is about priorities. It is very clear that in the Government Offices, investigations that are clearly linked to the Tidö Agreement are prioritized.
I also believe that Erik Slottner is honest when he says that we do not know what he has advocated for. I even believe that Erik Slottner has good intentions and would gladly like to give the investigation fair conditions - but that he does not get to, because it is other parties in the government basis that decide what the money is actually to be used for.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am well aware that the Social Democrats often try to give the impression that certain parties decide over other parties. This is a three-party coalition, and we are in agreement. We have a collective decision-making process. We are not always in agreement on all issues initially, but after negotiations, we are in agreement.
One could also say that the government, during its first year, has performed very much and had a high pace of reform with the proposals and the work we have done. I am, therefore, very satisfied with our first year. We have held together in a very good way and also delivered on what we went to the election on. Furthermore, there are three years left of the mandate period, so much more will come.
To Eva Lindh's concrete question, it is not possible to answer yes or no today, because I have no such concrete information to give. An answer to the question about the exact times will come when I can give an answer. We are now working on investigations that are to come, and an announcement will also come regarding the time for just that investigation we are talking about today.
It is, however, clear that this, just like practically every other issue, is a matter of prioritization. We in the government – we ministers – want to investigate a lot. We want to achieve a lot, and we are an impatient government. We have the Tidö Agreement which, of course, sets the framework for our government work, and the reforms we want to push through and prioritize are, of course, those that are in the Tidö Agreement. That was, after all, what was at the top of our agendas when we met the voters in the election.
This is not strange at all, rather, I am open about the fact that what is in the Tidö Agreement represents important priorities for the government. The agreement is also crucial for the government to be able to govern the country with the help of a parliamentary cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna. There is nothing strange about that at all. That is also why we have such a heavy emphasis on investigations within, for example, justice policy, healthcare policy, and much else that is in the Tidö Agreement. There is nothing strange about that.
Time is very rarely sufficient; it is common that one wants more time and more resources. If, already in the initial stage of the investigation's work, one says that one will probably need more time, I can however think that the aim will also be set on that. One positions oneself in some way on the fact that one might get more time. We cannot give more time to all investigations that request more time, because that would push out other important investigations that the government wants to conduct.
The committee has also been given a two-year mandate, which is longer than most investigations receive. This was granted because it is a comprehensive assignment. The Government makes the assessment that these two years should be sufficient for the committee to submit a final report that meets the directives that have been given.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to direct two appeals to the Minister for Civil Affairs, and I hope that the Minister for Civil Affairs listens.
First and foremost: It is not actually the case that we invested any effort from the beginning or expected to get more time. I do not want the Minister for Civil Affairs to misinterpret this.
We initially saw, at the beginning of the investigation, that it would be tough. It was a high pace and much was to be investigated. We have also seen that there is much that needs to be changed, and when changes are to be made, good foundations are required so that decisions can be made on real and good grounds. One also really needs to have time to look at the issue. We have an investigation culture in Sweden precisely so that one should have good conditions and good foundations to make decisions. The entire committee for the investigation says that one may now have to start prioritizing. It would be unfortunate if one did not have time to look at all the decisive issues.
I also plead that we should receive more resources and more time, so that it truly becomes a good investigation. I want to remind again what this is about. It is about being able to distribute resources to municipalities and regions in a fair way, so that all municipalities and regions from north to south receive equal conditions for a good welfare. Therefore, this investigation is immensely important in order to be able to make a good decision. Once again, I plead to the Minister for Civil Affairs and the government to make decisions that ensure we get fair conditions for this investigation.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I agree with Eva Lindh's view that it is an important investigation. It is not an investigation that this government has abandoned or shortened the investigation time for. We have even given a couple of additional directives just to strengthen the significance of the investigation. There is no disagreement there.
The request for more time is hereby received. I have also seen the communication where this request is expressed. I am fully aware of it.
I do not think we will get much further in this debate, as it is the same argument. It is a question of prioritization. We cannot grant all requests for more time for investigations.
The Prime Minister has signaled a different way of working with investigations, with a new special office to get faster investigations started, so that the government's direction can become a reality more quickly. Long investigation processes are often a reason why the implementation of policy takes longer than we as a government wish, but also longer than the voters and citizens expect. This in turn risks fueling contempt for politicians, which I think is serious for democracy, not least. Therefore, I believe we need to find methods to be able to work faster with our investigations. This is this government's direction and desire.
I thus thank you for this debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.