Response to interpellation 2024/25:365 on the announced review of the student support system

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Niklas Sigvardsson has asked me if I intend to appoint a broad and parliamentarily composed commission of inquiry for long-term and stable agreements. Niklas Sigvardsson has also asked me if I can further justify what problems the commission of inquiry will address.

The Swedish student support system is one of the world's most generous. Student support is fundamental for an equal education and gives everyone, regardless of background, the opportunity to study. Knowledge and education presuppose that the individual can study, and in many cases, it is the student grants that make it economically possible.

The foundations of today's student support system have, however, existed since 2001. Since then, no major review of the system has been carried out. Some changes have however been made, and new supports have been added. The Government therefore stated in the budget bill for 2025 that there is a need for a review of all components of the student support system except for transition student support, study grants, that is, grants to upper secondary school students, and some other smaller supports under the expenditure area.

In the budget bill, the government also states that the starting points for the review should be a student support system that is compliant with today's and future education systems and the labor market's needs. The efficiency of recruitment to studies shall increase, and the starting points for when new educations shall give entitlement to student support should be reviewed. The student support shall also contribute to an increased throughput in higher education while the security for the students is safeguarded and the students' indebtedness is taken into account.

Regarding the design and content of the announced investigation, I can only refer to the fact that the matter is handled within the framework of the Government Offices' usual preparatory process.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Education Pehrson, for the answer! Initially, we can state that we are fundamentally in great agreement that we shall have one of the world's most generous and best student support systems and that it is important that we continue to have this as a starting point when we are to conduct a review of the student support system. Much of our success as a nation – we are a strong knowledge nation and enable studies for the vast majority in our society – has, after all, its foundation in an equitable education system but also in an equitable financing system for higher education. It is perhaps for this reason that we Social Democrats are very keen that we continue to have this starting point as a basic principle in our entire student support system.

When we read the budget bill in the autumn and saw that a review of the student support system was announced, we arrived quite quickly at the conclusion that, if we do a review, a broad anchoring process should take place and thus also a joint parliamentary review, which is precisely about us wanting to create long-term conditions for the student support system to survive over time. Just as the Minister for Education says, much of the basis of the student support system has existed for a long time, even though I think the government misses that a very large amount of work was done 2007–2009 via the parliamentarily appointed Studiesociala kommittén, which was to shed light on many issues regarding the student support system and CSN. It was a parliamentary committee that the Folkpartistiske Minister for Education Lars Leijonborg addressed and which had broad anchoring in all the parties in the Riksdag.

That is why we think it is important to continue on that path when it comes to the student support system. It is also the reason why one of my questions concerns whether we should continue the strong tradition we have in Sweden that the person who is a student or the person who is young and entering studies should be able to be secure that we are politically in agreement on the largest and most fundamental parts of the student support system. Then one can take risks such as borrowing to a large extent in order to be able to continue studying.

That is also why I ask whether the Minister for Education will appoint a parliamentary review of this. The Minister for Education does not quite answer that question other than saying that it will, as usual, be prepared within the Government Offices. In that case, I must rephrase the question partly and say: Does the Minister for Education think it is important that we have a broad anchoring of the student support system, so that it remains stable over time? If the answer to that question is yes, how will the Minister for Education ensure that the new student support system has this broad parliamentary anchoring?

When it comes to the reason for the review, I intend to return to that in my next contribution.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! The short meaning of the long answer is that in this case, we are processing the issue. How it has looked under previous wise, liberal, bourgeois governments when work has been done to have a modern, efficient and strong student loan system for the individual's opportunities and for Sweden's future naturally depends on what resources are available at the Government Offices. Investigations are not free, but they also cost resources that must then be prioritized.

I hear what Niklas Sigvardsson says and I take it with me. I can assure you that what he and other Social Democrats put forward during interpellation debates, in motions, or in the Riksdag otherwise comes to my attention. I listen with great interest, I want to emphasize.

We must remember that an investigation will lead to results. There will be people brought into the investigation – the investigator or those who prepare the investigation do this – and experts and others who have much to contribute are listened to, not least students. Then the proposal will perhaps, if it holds quality, be sent out for consultation. Then consultation responses will come in, and then the whole thing will be prepared. Then it comes to the Riksdag for wisdom and improvements in the form of motions. It is therefore not the case that the parties in Sweden's Riksdag would not have the opportunity to influence what is one of the world's most generous student grant systems.

I look forward to appointing the inquiry. At that point, I can say more about what it will look like.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will do everything I can not to misinterpret what the Minister has just said. I will try to interpret it kindly.

We shall have to see whether it becomes a parliamentary inquiry or not. I hope for it, but I perhaps do not feel very secure with the answer. For those watching this and for those sitting in the stands, I can mention that the motions that we Members of Parliament submit after the inquiry is finished and the bill has been submitted very rarely lead to any change in the proposals. Even though we have the opportunity to comment, it is therefore not often that the views expressed yield results.

The Minister mentions in the response the questions that the investigation shall address. If one goes back and looks at the committee directives for the studiesocial investigation, which arrived in 2007, one can see that many of those lines of thought were already there. It is about streamlining the throughput, i.e., how one creates an efficient student aid system for throughput. We address the importance of the student aid system truly being a secure system that holds up over time and that we define how we shall help groups that are far away from education to come closer to education. There are very many questions there that I hope we can continue to discuss.

The social studies investigation presented its proposals quite a long time ago, but there is still much work to do so that we can get a student support system that becomes even better than the one we have.

What does it mean then that there should be more efficient recruitment to studies, and how are we to work with throughput? Here I want to raise some concerns. It concerns the attacks that the previous Education Minister Mats Persson made against independent courses at higher education institutions. I thought I would take the opportunity to ask what the current Education Minister considers: Is this something that the investigation should review – will it be possible to receive student aid for independent courses, or is it only for independent courses where there is a shortage in the labor market? Who decides, in that case, which shortage exists?

When speaking with representatives from various interest organizations – student organizations or student activists – this is a concern that is raised. This government has previously spoken about independent courses in perhaps not all too positive terms. Therefore, I wonder a bit about what problems the government sees when it now comes to designing the review. There is a concern from us Social Democrats that one has intended to rebuild the general and clear student support system for the individual. That is, that the individual can decide for themselves which courses he or she wants to study and receive student support for, and thereby either strengthen their position on the labor market or just use them to take a step into higher education.

I think that the second part of this debate is about what other problems one sees. Are independent courses one of the red flags waving for the government? Will that possibility be limited through the upcoming investigation?

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not usually wave red flags, but I see others here in the chamber who often do. I am thinking of the red party banners in the Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet.

There are several parts of the student grant intended to ensure that students can maintain a good pace of study. This includes, among other things, requirements for study results and a limitation regarding the number of weeks and twelve semesters of full-time studies. It concerns the free amount, which makes it possible for students to earn an extra crown and supplement their student grant.

The throughput contributes to efficiency and to the fact that students' entry into the labor market happens a bit faster. It also reduces the economic burden that it entails to study for a longer period.

It is correct that I and the government have a very large focus on quality rather than quantity. There, I perceive that the Social Democrats and the government differ slightly. We mean that the higher education institutions can utilize their resources better if this is reviewed in a reasonable way. We have no other purpose than that the regulations should be purposeful and, for example, increase the throughput.

I also want to be clear that it is only the student aid system that is to be reviewed, i.e., the support given to adults who study at, for example, universities, colleges, universities of applied sciences, and within komvux. It is therefore not about the transition study support, study grants, or grants to upper secondary school students, certain grants for parental education when it concerns sign language, certain grants to students with disabilities, or various forms of grants for transcription of course literature and so on. So, that is not what it is about.

What it is about is getting the most possible out of the student grant system which, for the current year, means that all students receive a grant for their own future – we know that it is good for the individual and that it contributes to Sweden's future – of 4,433 kronor. One also receives a very subsidized loan of up to 10,192 kronor.

It is the normal amount. Then there are possibilities for additions for various reasons, in the form of additional grants and additional loans. But I will stop there. This is unique, and it is an opportunity for everyone in Sweden to study for their own future, for knowledge, for education and for new opportunities. This is something I am very proud of, just as Niklas Sigvardsson is.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In conclusion in this debate, I want to say: We are largely in agreement that we shall have a student support system that is general and generous, precisely because it benefits both the individual and us as a country. It is important that this principle still remains firm and that it is a very clear part of the government's [policy]. That is pleasing so far.

The idea of precisely a parliamentary review is also that it contributes to knowledge being present in all parties in this chamber. One then gets to meet experts together. One gets to reflect and consider together the proposals that can be the best possible to achieve a study support system as good as possible. That is why we advocate for precisely this broad, clear anchoring. The study support system must, of course, be able to hold over time. It must be able to withstand that we change governments. It must be able to withstand that things happen in our society. It is about us jointly having clear and established broad guidelines.

That is why we have the approach we have in the Social Democrats. When one conducts a review of a system as important as the student support system, one needs to look at these parts.

In such a parliamentary review, one does not need to be completely in agreement with the investigator's proposals. That is why we have reservations. We have specific statements in such investigations so that one can express a dissenting opinion. But one has, in any case, received a good knowledge base regarding how to shape the best student support policy for the future, where the individual is given the opportunity to choose which educations lead that individual forward most and best.

With that, I thank you for this debate.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! These are important reflections, but I stand by what I said initially. When it comes to the design and content of the announced investigation, I can, in accordance with good Swedish administrative tradition, do nothing other than refer to the fact that the matter is prepared in the usual manner in the Government Offices. These are joint preparations. Every department shall have views. It takes an enormous amount of time, if I may say so myself. But there is also a value in that. When we are finished with this, I will return with an announcement on the matter. At that point, an investigation will also be appointed.

I thank you for a good debate.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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