Response to interpellation 2024/25:344 on good welfare throughout the country
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 government has a clear rural focus by combating inflation, strengthening the municipalities' finances with permanent state grants 1 2 and abolishing the aviation tax 1 2. KD emphasizes that the government promotes the business sector's drive, tax reliefs 2 3, regulatory simplifications 4 and that the agricultural policy creates confidence for the future 3. KD supports the goal that workers should retain half of their wages 3. S argues that the government underprioritizes welfare and that cuts in healthcare, school, and elderly care affect rural areas 5 6. S criticizes that the government prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy over welfare in smaller municipalities 6 and wants a powerful rural and countryside package.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked the Minister for Civil Affairs how he explains that special resources to rural and countryside municipalities are being removed and that service and presence are decreasing, and how he intends to act to ensure good welfare and service throughout the country.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
The government's goal is that all of Sweden shall function. The government has a clear rural focus, and we are working purposefully to improve the conditions for Sweden's rural areas. That changes are occurring in how the policy for the rural areas is designed does not mean that the government is letting go of its focus on improving the conditions so that one can live, reside, and operate in the entire country.
The special time-limited state grant that has been awarded for a period of seven years to 39 municipalities in the inland of Norrland and certain municipalities in Dalarna and Värmland, which have specific challenges regarding the business climate and industry, is now concluding as planned. With the help of the time-limited state grant, the municipalities have increased their long-term capacity to develop the business climate in cooperation with the industry. The municipalities have also improved their work with other municipalities and actors within the framework of regional development work. This was also the purpose of the state grant.
Regarding Statens servicecenter, the government, as part of the work on the budget bill for 2025, has made a collective assessment of what opportunities Statens servicecenter has to streamline its operations with service offices - this based on, among other things, what the Swedish National Audit Office pointed out in its review of the operations, what the development has been regarding the number of visits, and how the appropriation level has changed over time.
Good welfare, state presence, and access to both public and private services throughout the country is important for the whole of Sweden to function. In the Police Authority's regulatory letter for 2025, the Government has stated that the authority shall strengthen the work with a locally visible and safety-creating police and good service to the citizens. We have also during 2023 and 2024 invested 300 million kronor to strengthen healthcare in rural areas, an investment that continues during 2025. The Government has also granted the Norra sjukvårdsregionförbundet funds for the years 2019-2025 for the ongoing project "Coordinated development for good and close care in a rural perspective" - a joint project between 15 municipalities and 4 regions in northern Sweden.
Despite the fact that the state budgets for 2023 and 2024 needed to be restrained in order to combat inflation, the government during these years has proposed reinforcements of the general state grants to the municipal sector with a total of 16 billion kronor. The reinforcements have been permanent and thus continue to strengthen the municipal sector's finances in 2025 and onwards.
The aviation tax will be abolished on July 1 this year following the government's proposal in the budget bill for 2025, which improves the possibilities of maintaining smaller airports and the flight routes that are important for business and residents across the country. The state contribution for operating support to non-state airports around the country has also been doubled starting from 2024.
The government has proposed a new reduction obligation where the increased blending levels are combined with changed tax levels to counteract an increase in the price of fuels. Taken together, this is something that particularly benefits residents in our rural areas who often have longer distances to drive and poorer access to public transport.
We also propose in the budget bill that an electric car premium targeted at groups in need of support, for example in rural areas, be introduced, provided the commission's approval. The support is estimated to amount to 800 million kronor annually, where 75 percent is financed by the EU's Social Climate Fund.
Following the government's proposal in the budget bill for 2025, funds have been allocated for an incentive to municipalities with wind power installations. In its entirety, the compensation primarily corresponds to the property tax for wind power installations and will largely be paid out to rural municipalities. The detailed design of the incentive is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
I also want to mention that the parliamentary Equalization Committee, in its final report (SOU 2024:50), has submitted proposals that, among other things, take into account and protect sparsely populated and rural municipalities. The committee's proposals have been referred and are now being prepared within the Government Offices.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that the government has appointed an inquiry to review future regional development policy and rural policy (dir. 2024:69). Experiences from previous initiatives will be taken into account in the inquiry. A final report is to be submitted by June 1, 2026, at the latest.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by providing some background on why I have submitted this interpellation, because I believe the Minister may have wondered. We had a debate quite recently. The Government had, in its budget, decided to withdraw resources that were to go specifically to welfare in small municipalities in the countryside. At that time, my starting point was that I would ask questions about that.
I had also submitted that interpellation to the Minister for Civil Affairs, but I was referred to the Minister for Rural Affairs. Then he said that he had no answers. Then I wrote a new interpellation, because I wanted answers from the Minister for Civil Affairs. Then I was also referred to the Minister for Rural Affairs.
A friend of order may say that it could be I who have formulated myself very poorly because it turned out this way. But I intend to take the opportunity to discuss these very important issues, which I also burn for, which concern the conditions for living in the whole country.
I just wanted to provide that background. Now I have submitted a new one to try to get an answer to that specific question.
The Minister for Rural Affairs said last time that he did not really have an answer and referred to the Minister for Civil Affairs. Therefore, I shall not push too much when it comes to this. I think that we can talk about rural issues as a whole.
I apologize for the long introduction regarding this.
All municipalities and regions receive insufficient resources for welfare. It is my firm opinion that the cuts that are now occurring in healthcare, elderly care, and schools would not have needed to happen if the government had made more investments in municipalities and regions for the welfare that most people consider very important.
This affects the rural and countryside municipalities in particular - in several ways. We know that they often have very tough challenges, with everything that entails. That was also why the previous, Social Democrat-led government decided to allocate special resources to the rural and countryside and those municipalities that are smaller - because it is known that they have these challenges.
Now the government is removing them in this budget. You are also removing some resources that the Minister for Rural Affairs has raised. This concerns me and many others very much. Therefore, I am grateful that the Minister for Rural Affairs has actually given a very exhaustive answer to what at least the Minister for Rural Affairs interpreted as my question, even though it also concerned other things.
This is important. I just want to say a few things in reaction to the answer that the Minister for Rural Affairs has given.
The budget that the government has presented will mean that every fourth service office will be closed. This is a concern for many municipalities. What also affects this is that the government has handed over the decision-making on which service offices should remain to officials. This means that one no longer steers according to need, i.e., where the service offices were most needed.
I want to ask why it was chosen to remove the special resources for welfare, because it has a great impact. I also want to ask about the Equalization Committee that the Minister for Rural Affairs mentioned. Why is a decision and a bill not being produced?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! As Eva Lindh mentions, we have had this discussion before, and I have absolutely no problem discussing these extremely important issues again.
I also think it is interesting to place rural policy in different political perspectives. In my initial response, I accounted for quite extensive investments that I am proud we have been able to prioritize, not least that we have generally strengthened the finances of the municipalities and regions with very large resources, considering the budget space.
This was absolutely necessary in light of the situation Sweden found itself in with an incredibly high inflationary pressure with a fairly extensive impact in both the municipal and the private economy, and perhaps extra much in municipalities and regions with large pension commitments, where large sums of money are simply being wound up without going to the direct operations of schools, preschools, hospitals, and so on. A very important task to strengthen the municipalities' economy has therefore been to do as much as we could to combat inflation. I believe we both see these causal links and are in complete agreement on the substance.
Then there is also a difference regarding what we choose to prioritize. Budgeting is always a question of prioritization. We have wanted to push forward reforms that strengthen entrepreneurship and that provide more viable companies, both on the tax side and through other reforms. I believe that the abolition of the aviation tax will be important for large parts of the country, and I also believe that the increased support for regional airports, which as mentioned has doubled, will be important.
When one talks about rural policy, one must also never forget the most important business in the countryside, namely agriculture, and in this budget we have managed to prioritize an additional 746 million for support of these so important agricultural enterprises.
A dairy farm in the countryside does not only employ those who work directly on the farm and provide us with essential food, but also many other people and companies around it. That we have a strong agriculture is extremely important for the development of our Swedish rural areas.
If it goes well for the companies and one can live off one's business in the countryside, it also creates space for that little shop that one so dearly wants to keep, and it creates space for one to have a basis to be able to keep the school.
I honestly believe that Social Democrats and Christian Democrats have different views on what should be the driving force. From a Social Democratic perspective, one more often ends up with grants and support, while I often try to find reliefs and regulatory simplifications so that people's own drive, without state lectures, can be what develops the areas.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! As a Social Democrat, I am passionate about the whole country living, and not just certain parts, and therefore I find it quite upsetting that a considerable amount of the government's policy is not directed towards people who live and live in the countryside. The large investment that the government thinks it can afford is to make enormously large tax cuts aimed at those who already have. It is about priorities, just as the Minister is touching upon. What are we prioritizing the money for?
I think it is somewhat regrettable that inflation recurs as an explanation every time we talk about the government's investments. We are in complete agreement that it was a very important effort. We must fight inflation. But most economists also agree that inflation is not at risk of being driven up because of investments in welfare. We Social Democrats have therefore continued to prioritize welfare all the way, and that is what we will continue to do.
The Minister says that some general government grants were appointed. But it is zero kronor more in general government grants for next year. Who does that affect? It affects welfare. When one underprioritizes welfare—and it is my absolute opinion that one underprioritizes and underfinances welfare—and furthermore removes money that is specifically targeted at smaller municipalities, the effect will be that a nursing assistant working in elderly care in a smaller municipality will have to run even faster than others. They will not be able to manage to perform the interventions they are there to perform. Those who work in elderly care want to do a good job and provide good care to the elderly.
It is so strange that one does not prioritize the nursing assistant working in a smaller municipality, but instead prioritizes the wealthy, especially in metropolitan areas. Then all the talk about the heartland echoes a bit hollowly.
Regarding other initiatives, the Minister mentions that there are 300 million to strengthen healthcare in rural areas. Perhaps that is the case, but if you remove much of the basic staffing and put healthcare into a crisis, as we have in many parts of the country, it becomes like putting on a bandage. If you put healthcare into a major shortage of money and add a little in another way, healthcare is not improved by that.
I still do not agree that we would not prioritize business and entrepreneurship. It is also incredibly important for us Social Democrats. We know that increased growth and people in jobs are the foundation for us to receive the funds to be able to strengthen the welfare and do what we really want.
This was also one of the reasons why we allocated the resources that have yielded good effects and which the Minister also mentions in his answer. Therefore, it is surprising that one removes the measures that one nevertheless refers to have had an effect in the form of better business operations in cooperation with the business sector.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I do not doubt that we both are passionate about all of Sweden functioning better. What I tried to describe was that, depending on ideology, there are different paths to that goal. I believe that most can see, generally speaking, that it differs whether it is a social democratic or a bourgeois government. I believe more in the business sector's drive and in facilitating in the form of tax cuts and so on.
It may also be worth reminding that even the Social Democrats once had the principle that people should be allowed to keep half of their wages. That was something that one stood up for quite firmly. It has not been that way for quite a long time, and it is not that way now either. As the Prime Minister often says, it is a goal that people who work should be allowed to keep half of their wages, and it is a goal that I also stand behind.
Regarding the service centers, I have understood it as that Statens servicecenter has contacted the relevant municipalities and county administrative boards regarding the six identified locations that are relevant for decommissioning. The authority has analyzed the consequences from its perspective and now wishes to consult with the relevant actors regarding the continued process.
The service center has been expanded, but the number of visits has not increased to the same extent. Much of this is due to more and more people using the authorities' digital services. Against that background, the operations need to be adapted and streamlined. But I cannot, do not want to, and should not anticipate the authority's work in these matters and instead refer to Statens servicecenter while the work is ongoing.
Eva Lindh says that the Social Democrats absolutely stand behind the business community. I certainly believe that, but in practice, when it comes to rural entrepreneurship, for example agriculture, they have not seized the political opportunities when so-called currency changes and amendments to the Currency Ordinance were made. Regarding the EU funds we receive, since agricultural policy is common across the EU, the Social Democrats have not ensured that they went to the agricultural entrepreneurs. They went to other things in the state budget. The government has changed that. We now see – by not reducing the Swedish co-financing – that the money coming from outside due to the currency change ends up where it actually belongs. Just over three-quarters of a billion will make a difference for farmers. People will dare to make more investments.
I believe that, among other things, the changed political attitude towards agriculture and agricultural entrepreneurs has also meant that, for the first time in a very long time, there is a sense of faith in the future and optimism within the farming circles. There is a faith in the future within all branches of production. It has been a long time since it looked like that, and I am convinced that when investments come and we get more dairy cows around in our beautiful country, it will also be noticed in terms of employment and, in the long run, service in the countryside.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I also think that dairy cows, agriculture and other things are very important industries, and I truly think that we need to invest in entrepreneurship in the countryside. It is a very important part of making the countryside continue to live - and not just live, but develop.
I also care about the other, that is, what is important for all of us. There must be a functioning elderly care, school, and welfare even for those people who live in smaller municipalities in the sparsely populated areas and in the countryside. Therefore, we have proposed a powerful rural and countryside package in our budget motion. We want to look at the whole and that it should be possible and go well to live in the countryside.
This is about priorities. I therefore think it is very upsetting to see that the conditions for providing welfare and running businesses are poor in the countryside while at the same time the government is implementing enormous tax cuts for people who are already well-off and who primarily live in metropolitan areas. It is signal politics when the government prioritizes that, isn't it? We who are standing here debating today get quite large tax cuts every month. Those who have low wages, on the other hand, get a very small tax cut. I mean that is unfair.
I think we need to reach an agreement where we can agree in order to improve the conditions, but I will continue to fight for good conditions so that people can live and develop in all of Sweden.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! The conditions and opportunities in the countryside vary in different parts of the country, and therefore many different measures are required across several policy areas.
Eva Lindh and I seem to share the goal that all of Sweden should function. We also share the view that one needs to strengthen the conditions for those who live and work in the countryside. That is very good. On the other hand, we are not entirely in agreement on the way there, and there are certainly also ideological reasons for that.
The government focuses on simplifying everyday life for both companies and people in the countryside by making regulatory simplifications and providing more room in household finances. The Social Democrats, however, mostly say no to lowered taxes on fuels, no to lowered income tax, and no to lowered taxes on savings. Instead, they want to introduce more subsidies, more bureaucracy, and less self-determination. I do not believe that is the solution for a more vibrant countryside.
I would be happy to return and continue discussing these important issues, because the countryside is extremely central for the whole of Sweden to function.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.