Response to interpellation 2025/26:392 on a reformed equalization system to strengthen welfare in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a reformed equalization system to strengthen welfare. S argues that welfare in small municipalities and rural areas has poorer conditions and requires solidarity 1. S criticizes that the government has not presented any proposal despite the basis being available 1, and argues that resources for welfare have decreased as well as the support for rural areas has been withdrawn 2 3. S considers it unreasonable not to provide resources to socioeconomically vulnerable municipalities 3. KD argues that the system is important for equal conditions 4 and that the municipal sector is improved thanks to state grants and suppressed inflation 5. KD claims that the government has increased the conditions for the countryside 6 and that the municipal sector is expected to report a surplus of 40 billion kronor for 2025 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.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me if I intend to act and submit a proposal for a renewed equalization system to strengthen equality in welfare throughout the country, how I justify that the government has so far not presented any coherent proposal, and when municipalities and regions can expect a decision.
The municipal financial equalization system is important for creating equal economic conditions for the municipalities and for the regions despite differences in, for example, settlement structure and population development. It is important that the system is developed in step with societal development and that it does not create unhealthy incentives, for example, such as those that risk counteracting efficiency, development, and growth.
According to current rules, the outcome in the system is updated annually in large parts for each municipality and region, for example, based on developments in demographics, tax capacity, and socioeconomic factors.
The Equalization Committee's proposal is being prepared within the Government Offices. The Ministry of Finance has further referred a memorandum with proposals for changing the compensation for additional costs for administration in the cost equalization for municipalities. This proposal is also being prepared within the Government Offices. I cannot precede that process.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Regardless of who you are and where you live, you should be able to rely on the fact that society is there, that your child receives a good education, that you receive care when you need it, and that you receive secure care when you get older. That is the foundation of the Swedish welfare model, and it is also the foundation of the social democratic idea of equality. But that is not how it looks today.
Right now, the welfare is in a tough position, and it hits differently. Small municipalities, rural municipalities, and municipalities with large socioeconomic challenges have significantly worse conditions than others. At the same time, the needs are increasing – more elderly people, greater skills shortages, and increased costs. The result is that children's schooling, the elderly's care, and people's access to healthcare risk being determined by postcode. It is not worthy of a country like Sweden.
That is why the municipal equalization system is so crucial. It is one of the most important tools we have to hold our country together. It is about solidarity between municipalities and between people.
In April 2022, that is during the previous parliamentary term, the entire Riksdag agreed that a new review was needed. Even the parties that are now in the government were keen that the investigation should be carried out. It clearly showed that changes were needed to ensure equal conditions. We may not have been entirely in agreement on the basis for it, but we pushed forward so that equal conditions would be fundamental in this investigation.
In July 2024, the final report was submitted to the government. The proposals have been on consultation. All the underlying material exists. But nothing is happening. The bill that municipalities and regions have been waiting for is not included in the government's planning, and the deadline that the entire process worked towards – an implementation from January 1, 2026 – has already passed.
Madam Speaker! I was still hoping to get an answer. This is not the first time that I and the Minister for Civil Affairs have debated this question. I feel like a messenger for quite a few municipalities and regions, but actually not just for them. People who live out in the countryside wonder what is happening. I have not received much in response. I naturally thank you for the answer that has come today, but it is probably the most insignificant answer I have received. It only says that work is being done, but it does not say when, not how, not why.
It is exactly as the Minister says: A proposal has been submitted, which the Minister for Civil Affairs has argued for. He wants municipal mergers.
I want to highlight a municipality as an example. I am from Östergötland – that usually comes through. One of the municipalities in southern Östergötland is called Ydre kommun. It is one of Sweden's smallest municipalities. They have reacted; they have written a letter to all members of the Riksdag and to the Minister in which all civil society organizations and the business community say: Do not do this! We need more resources, not a municipal merger.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am actually going to one of these smaller municipalities in Östergötland tomorrow morning – to Ödeshög, which is another small municipality in Östergötland.
This is not a debate about municipal mergers. I would very gladly have that at another time. But we are not going to forcibly merge any municipalities. If Ydre wants to continue to be a separate municipality, it can be. One will thereby lose out on economies of scale, I believe, but that is another debate.
I understand that this answer may be perceived as a bit dull and non-committal, because it is a bit dull and non-committal in the sense that we have no new information to provide since the previous interpellations debates. The matter is still being prepared, and therefore there are no announcements as to when and how this proposal may eventually be presented. That it does not exist is because the matter is still being prepared and there is no finished proposal from the Government Offices.
It is quite true that we have a completed committee proposal on compensating for sparseness rather than smallness in the municipal structure. It has been out for consultation, and since then we have sent out an additional memorandum based on it. It was fully referred in February, that is, last month, and since then the government has not presented any concrete proposal. There is still a theoretical possibility of presenting a proposition, but as it is not yet on the list of propositions, one should not have too great expectations for it. I also do not think that a municipality should count on a new system being introduced from the next turn of the year.
I still want to say that the results in the municipal sector are now improving. It is a significant improvement in 2025 compared to 2024 – the municipal sector is estimated to have gone 40 billion kronor plus in 2025. This also applies to the smaller municipalities, I want to say. It is not just a metropolitan phenomenon that the economy is doing better, but it is also doing so in smaller municipalities. Then there are individual examples where it is not going as well; that is absolutely the case. But in total, the municipal sector is now 40 billion plus. This is due to supplements of both targeted and general government grants from the government. But not least, it is due to the suppressed inflation, which has had an incredibly large effect on the municipal sector.
We also see increased activity in the economy. We now see, for the seventh month in a row – I believe it is – fewer people registered at Arbetsförmedlingen. This also means a great deal for the municipal sector. I think it is a pleasing announcement and a pleasing sign that the economy is now looking better and better.
Regarding the equalization system itself, it is updated with the parameters that exist even if we do not change it here and now. The figures in this are updated, which means that those who have the greatest needs for cost equalization receive updates every year even with the system that exists today. Then we will have to see whether the government, based on the committee proposal that now exists, will proceed with a new system or not. So far, however, there are no such announcements, and I have no more information to give on this issue.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! It is actually quite upsetting that we have three lost years for Sweden where unemployment has increased dramatically and resources for the welfare have decreased. It is actually the case that the municipalities and regions have received much fewer resources to provide the welfare that was so much needed throughout the country. It is deficient and insufficient support for the entire welfare, and furthermore, they have removed the special support for precisely those municipalities we are talking about in rural and countryside areas. They just took it away.
There are no announcements regarding an improved and more equitable cost equalization so that all of Sweden gets access to a good welfare. And then comes – as a mockery of many of the municipalities that are struggling the hardest – a small excerpt from the investigation, which implies a worsening for many of the small municipalities that are struggling the most. I can see nothing other than that one is actually failing municipalities, and naturally also people, in sparsely populated areas and rural areas. I am upset by that. I think people out in the countryside deserve better welfare.
I have not heard a single argument regarding why more has not been done to improve welfare throughout Sweden. I do not understand it. What is said sometimes is that one needs to streamline, but we see rather the opposite, that many of the small municipalities in sparsely populated and rural areas are extremely efficient. They provide a much better welfare than one would think with the lacking resources they have because they find many ways to try to streamline.
Despite this, people in rural and sparsely populated areas are ignored – I truly believe that is the case. Welfare is not only important for people in larger municipalities and in larger regions, but also in small regions and in small municipalities.
At its core, it is actually about which direction one wants for Sweden. If one wants all of Sweden to be able to live and develop, one must ensure to produce reforms and proposals to make it better for all of Sweden. It is about both a better equalization system and more resources for municipalities and regions.
Overall, with other issues, which we are not going to discuss here but which concern the fact that, for example, service offices and other initiatives have been withdrawn so that the business community can flourish and live in other parts of the country, I believe that this risks destroying trust. I do not believe that the Minister actually wants that. I hope and believe that we really want a country that holds together and where everyone has good conditions to also live in rural and countryside areas.
I think the Minister should be able to provide more information. Now we have heard that nothing is coming this year – so it seems – but why?
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the last point, we are in complete agreement. One should be able to live, work, and reside in the entire country. I can truly say that this government, unlike the previous one, has increased the conditions for just this.
Just take fuel prices as an example. Before the war flared up in the Middle East again, we could see fuel prices that had almost halved compared to when the Tidö parties took over government power. Yesterday, a new emergency hospital could be presented, and this may be able to save one of all the hospitals threatened with closure around the country – often they are managed by regional councils. It is just one example, and I can mention many more. My colleague Peter Kullgren, who is the Minister for Rural Affairs and who will take over after me in the debate, will be able to give very many other examples of this and of the policy we are conducting for emergency issues and other things to create equal conditions around the country.
This is the Social Democrats' broken record about three lost years that is playing on repeat; it is not three lost years. The government has taken responsibility during the mandate period to resolve the mess that existed after eight years of S rule.
The government was tired of the social development in the autumn of 2022, and one wanted a new direction for Sweden. We have given Sweden a new direction, and we now see results in area after area. There are incredibly many deliveries from this government. We also see that this, purely in terms of opinion, is starting to pay off in increased confidence and increased public support for the governing parties.
It is simply not true when people say that the government has not provided resources for the welfare system. The first two budgets we submitted were BP 23 and BP 24. One-third of the reform space in the first budget went to municipalities and regions, and 40 percent of the reform space in the second budget went to ensuring that the welfare system specifically would not be affected unreasonably much in the time we were living in, with both a recession and high inflation.
We now see how our very strategically targeted efforts towards the healthcare sector are making the healthcare queues decrease and today they are 28 percent lower than when the voters gave us their confidence in the autumn of 2022.
When it comes to growth policy, which is the absolute most important factor for the municipalities' economy – that we have growth in the economy and more hours worked – we have gone from the bottom of the growth league when we took over government power to now being at the top. We have also been named the world's second most innovative country. It is said that it is three lost years, but I think that is a rhetoric that truly echoes hollowly.
Speaking of the municipalities being able to work more efficiently, we support the municipalities in the form of both a digitalization strategy and an AI strategy. We are currently working on developing an AI workshop so that municipalities, regions, and the entire public sector can have breadth and be able to scale up innovations and AI solutions that can streamline work processes and lower costs.
We support the municipalities with a roadmap for public procurement, because if we can streamline the procurement by just a few percent, it means billions of kronor for the municipal sector. In addition, we have provided funds to an efficiency delegation for the regions, where support can be obtained for investments that, in the long run, lower the ongoing costs.
We have a regional review function to increase support to the regions so that they can have more effective economic management. We strengthen the capacity of the smaller municipalities through a special support for precisely capacity analyses so that they can manage the long-term financing. We have also tasked Statskontoret to come up with proposals for regulatory simplifications, as we know that this burdens many municipalities and regions.
I think it echoes very hollowly in the rhetoric that Eva Lindh advocates for – and which is a bit off-topic for the interpellation, I can add.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless respond to this. It is three lost years because growth has been at the bottom of the EU and because unemployment is at a record high. If Sweden had performed at least as in the comparable countries in the EU, we would not have had this increasing unemployment. We would have had more resources to, for example, strengthen the welfare in the whole country – also in large urban municipalities.
The Minister for Civil Affairs gives examples and says that there are now contingency funds for hospitals threatened with closure. Yes, there is a reason why they are threatened with closure, namely that sufficient resources have not been provided. Inflation did not only affect individuals but also municipalities, and there are also other reasons. Municipalities and regions have not been given sufficient resources to manage the welfare in the way that at least we in the Social Democrats have the ambition to do, that is, to ensure that the welfare is good throughout the country.
Fuel prices go up every time; it feels like that is the only supporting argument. Yes, they were high – because of the world market. But I will not go into that, instead this is about me thinking it is completely unreasonable not to give small municipalities in sparse and rural areas and socioeconomically disadvantaged municipalities the resources required for us to manage to deliver a good welfare across the whole country. Decision after decision, they have instead made it more difficult for these municipalities. They have not only received less money in total but also less money because the government has decided to remove the extra resources they had at the beginning of the mandate period.
I do not think this is worthy. We Social Democrats will continue to work to strengthen the welfare in the whole country.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think Eva Lindh misspoke slightly when she chose her words. She said, namely, that Sweden has been at the bottom of the EU when it comes to growth. Yes, that is true, but we have pulled ourselves out of that bottom struggle and are now, instead, in the top struggle. That is what has happened during these three and a half years: We have moved from the bottom to the top. It is fantastic, and it shows that the government's policy has yielded results. It will play a very large role for the municipal sector specifically.
Despite Eva Lindh's contribution, there is every reason to remind that the municipal sector is doing much better now. The municipal sector has had tough years behind it but is now expected to report a surplus of a total of 40 billion kronor for 2025. I think it is a fantastic success. We have shown that during the toughest years we truly prioritized the municipal sector when we made our budget investments – to then, in the two latest budgets, switch over to prioritizing households. It was indeed their turn, and it will also get the economy and growth moving as well as increase the number of hours worked, which in turn will play a major role for the municipal sector's economy.
Eva Lindh makes it appear as if there is an incredible difference between the opposition's and the government's budget, but it is at a per mille level. The Social Democrats' proposed increase to the municipal sector of 6 billion kronor constitutes a couple of per mille of the municipalities' total economy, and that is not where the difference between a ruined and a maintained welfare lies. The difference lies instead in conducting a growth-friendly policy that ensures more people pay municipal tax. That is the important question, because that is what will ensure the municipalities' economy and thus the welfare moving forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.