Access to culture

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are to debate Access to Culture for the last time for this parliamentary term. Fundamental when we debate culture is that it is more than budget items and percentages. Culture is our shared stories and our memories, languages, songs and values. It is what makes Sweden Sweden, quite simply. It is also why the old parties' experiments with multiculturalism have been such a big problem for the culture we now see emerging in Sweden.

In a time marked by war, not least in our immediate vicinity, where disinformation is spread and where increased polarization is becoming more apparent, Swedish culture becomes a value that is worth more than ever. It becomes like a glue that holds our society together. It gives us common references. It creates resilience, not just military but also human and democratic resilience.

If one stops for a moment and thinks about those words—that our Swedish culture creates common references, resilience, and not just military but also human and democratic resilience—it becomes quite tangible what culture constitutes and what important role it has in our society.

That is why we Sverigedemokrater, together with the government, were forced to reprioritize the entire cultural policy and also change the current order for the proposals in the budget. It has been about ensuring that culture and cultural heritage are equipped for the new reality we face and live in.

That is why we have taken measures to ensure that culture and cultural heritage become a central part of Sweden's national security strategy. These are historical measures. When we build up the total defense, we are not only strengthening the defense, roads, and the robust energy system that previous governments so actively dismantled. We are also protecting archives, art collections, and historical environments.

That the Swedish National Heritage Board and the National Archives are now emergency preparedness authorities is a clear message. Culture is not an afterthought. It is a part of our resilience, and therefore a council for the protection of cultural heritage has been established. Funds are allocated to secure warehouses and transport.

But, to be completely honest: When we took office, we faced a significant readiness debt. The total defense had been dismantled for several decades, and the cultural heritage was severely neglected. Buildings had fallen into decay, and roofs were literally collapsing. Maintenance had been postponed for a long time. Readiness planning was lacking, and that work must now be caught up.

All this we have done during a period of high inflation and a low economic climate. We have made a concerted effort. The appropriations for state-protected buildings have almost doubled. The church antiquarian compensation has been increased. The dysfunctional cost rent has been abolished. The decision to renovate the Royal Opera is historic, and a new stage for children and young people is made possible through private donations. It is fantastic. These are investments in both our heritage and our future.

At the same time, we are building the economic strength of culture. The cultural and creative industries turn over 640 billion kronor annually. It is a new Swedish base industry that we are now recognizing. It might be "ugly culture" if you were to ask the subsidy-dependent cultural elite. But listen: A ten-year strategy for cultural and creative industries is in place.

We are strengthening export promotion. We have improved the conditions for cultural companies through VAT reductions on dance and nightclubs. Previously, the VAT was 25 percent for gallery sales. Now it is 12 percent for direct sales from the artist. Now, therefore, a 12 percent VAT applies to the sale of artworks, which means a reduction from 25 percent for galleries and auction houses. That is good. We are creating better conditions.

The Swedish film, which left-liberals have misappropriated for a long time, is being reformed to become more long-term and more audience-oriented. Finally! We want to see films that people actually want to see and not films for experts who create "valuable" films for each other and the old media's film critics. That time is over.

We are also reviewing the funding for cultural creators and institutions. Investigations into cultural sponsorship, deduction rights, and matching systems shall create more stable and legally secure conditions. Culture needs more legs to stand on.

Mr. Speaker! Why do I highlight all of this in the debate on the committee report? It is because it is connected. I want to be clear: We know that more resources would be needed. The needs are great within cultural heritage and the institutions but also in the free cultural life.

But we are acting in a time of war, economic uncertainty, and necessary investments in defense and security. We have been forced to prioritize hard, and just priorities are one of the basic foundations of politics. It is a foundation that several parties in this chamber obviously have not managed to achieve.

It does not mean that the value of culture decreases. No, on the contrary – it means that we must use every tax krona wisely and build structures that hold over time.

That is why Sverigedemokrater prioritize children and education. Skapande skola is strengthened. A digital culture school is being developed. A leisure card has made it easier for more children to participate.

We are carrying out historically large-scale investments in reading with staffed school libraries, new learning materials and extensive book purchases. A Swedish cultural canon is in place, and reading lists strengthen our common references and the language that carries democracy.

We cannot afford to prioritize cheating, waste, and adults' hobby activities through student unions, to take an example.

We secure the funding of public service in the long term. We strengthen local and regional journalism through media support. We invest in media and information literacy to counter disinformation. We live in a digital world where disinformation spreads like wildfire on the internet. Without free media and informed citizens, democracy is weakened.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats advocate for a cultural policy that unites realism with faith in the future. We acknowledge the shortcomings we inherited. We take responsibility in turbulent times, and step by step, we restore culture's place in the construction of society. Culture is not a niche interest. Nor is it a tool for environmental activists and Social Democrats. It is our common heritage and our common future. With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In this speech, Pia Trollehjelm (SD) agreed.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for your engaging contribution!

Our two parties probably have in common that we have a will to change cultural policy, but the difference is that we want to change it in quite different directions.

Alexander Christiansson used a fairly large part of the beginning of his speech to talk about what we talked about in the previous debate, namely cultural heritage and the protection of cultural heritage in times of war and crisis, perhaps primarily in war but also in crisis. I asked a question to the Moderate Peter Ollén in that debate, and I intended now to ask the same question to Alexander Christiansson.

I agree that the government has taken large steps to inventory, reflect upon, and strengthen the protection of cultural heritage in times of war and partly also in times of crisis. I am thinking of the climate crisis, which truly places high demands on the protection of cultural heritage. Alexander Christiansson is welcome to comment on precisely the climate crisis and other crises, but I intended primarily to ask the question about the living cultural life in the event of crisis and war and its importance.

I do not agree with the member that the government has made major investments in public service and so on, but rather it is an erosion of the appropriations that has occurred. There have also, in part, been cuts to the appropriations broadly for culture.

We must build a strong cultural life if we are to have a strong and living cultural life in the event of war and crisis, and in that regard, the government has gone in the opposite direction. I would therefore like to ask how Alexander Christiansson stands on this.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Mats Berglund! Both the Green Party and the Sweden Democrats want to use culture. For our part, it has largely been about washing away much of the political steering that we inherited from the Green Party. We have talked about this many times in this chamber.

Reports show that cultural creators, not least filmmakers, have felt compelled to adapt their demands, include different values and so on, in order to be able to get funding. It is a political steering of culture that I think has been troublesome, and we have devoted our time to washing it away. That is something I am very proud of.

We also have no ambitions to impose any own steering of the culture, but we want it to be free. That is also why we talk so much about broadened funding.

When it comes to the issue of preparedness and, for example, climate change, which the member raises, it is clear that we see that we live in a time that is restless not only when it comes to war. We have seen floods and all such things which naturally affect our society in different ways. It is an important issue.

I mean that the preparedness debt is tragic, and it has indeed become on everyone's lips. All cultural politicians have talked about this in recent years. It was as if one woke up from a cold shower and realized that one does not live in a safe and secure world.

It is therefore regrettable that the defense efforts have been dismantled when it comes to magazines, bunkers, digitalization and all such things. We have invested in that quite heavily during this mandate period, and Mats Berglund knows that. We will also need to continue doing so.

Then there are other parts of culture that we will need to invest more in, and the cultural cooperation model is one of them. But we have had to prioritize. I think one should be honest in their argumentation when it comes to this, because neither Miljöpartiet nor Socialdemokraterna invested in this during a high economic boom and low inflation. The matching does not quite add up.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Alexander Christiansson, for the answer!

Soft power is mentioned very much right now; it is a concept that has emerged. Culture is very important for creating soft power, but there are naturally also other elements, such as diplomacy, aid work and such things, which strengthen a nation's position in the international conversation.

I am thinking about the event we had yesterday, when the Speaker gave a short address to mark the four years that have passed since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Then we stood for several minutes and applauded Ukraine's ambassador together here in the chamber. I think it was very nice.

Why do we do it? Why do we stand behind Ukraine? It is largely about the fact that Ukraine has worked a lot with precisely that soft power, in contrast to a good number of other nations right now. The USA is in the process of destroying it on all levels, I would say. Sweden's position under the Tidö government is worrying because one is cutting back on, for example, aid work but also eroding the culture.

I will try to formulate a question that looks a bit forward. Alexander Christiansson mentioned film policy as well as sponsorship and broadened funding. These are areas where the Tidöregeringen has been very slow – alarmingly slow. The bill on film is coming very late, and we probably will not have time to implement any policy during the mandate period. The same applies to broadened funding, which has been a flagship together with the cultural canon.

Why has the government been so slow in these important matters?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is very fine that all parties in this chamber have united around our support for Ukraine and the situation the country finds itself in.

I was myself in Ukraine not so long ago and visited the cultural center and met its chairman. We had an incredibly interesting conversation. I will not devote my entire speech to this, but one is passionate about it.

What I found most interesting was when they described their major challenges, for example that streaming giants for music are used to manipulate young people in Ukraine with propaganda to trick them into some kind of Russian media. There, they then try to indoctrinate them by, for example, claiming that there is no Ukrainian culture. These are challenges that may be difficult for us to understand. It is difficult to grasp which powers Ukraine actually has to play against in the digitized world.

Now I might have forgotten the question a bit. But I think we often end up in discussions about funding in the debates. We have prioritized a bit differently, but overall we are putting in roughly the same amount of money as you did previously, Mats Berglund. We absolutely have a higher budget now than you had during the last years before the Green Party and the Social Democrats handed over power in 2022. We are therefore putting in a bit more money than you did then.

Then we put the money on some other things, and I don't actually think it is so incredibly strange because we have different ideological starting points. For us, it is these values, including digitalization, that are important. We have had to prioritize them, like the Opera, our museums where the roofs have collapsed in, and so on. That is what we have prioritized, and then we can put money on other things when there is space.

We have had to fight inflation and recession, and it has cost an enormous amount. I personally, as a cultural policy spokesperson, hope for another time after the election when we get the space to invest more in culture, because it is needed.

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! The needs are great, says Alexander Christiansson in his speech. At the same time, he calls cultural workers who point out the great needs a grant-dependent cultural elite. I believe that was how he said it, but I may have noted it sloppily. I am a bit surprised by that type of rhetoric when the member himself says that there is very much that needs to be done in the area.

Alexander Christiansson mentions that priorities are important. My question is: How is it then that the Sweden Democrats, who have nevertheless been a party with a fairly high tail-end when it comes to, for example, cultural heritage issues, allocate so few resources to the area and instead prioritize tax cuts?

Last year it was around 34 billion in tax cuts, and this year I believe it is an additional 52 billion. Fairly small resources could make a very big difference in the cultural area. We see how non-profit forces make great contributions, and if they were only given a little lubricant, we could get much more culture throughout the whole country.

I think the Sweden Democrats have taken a strange position here. I also heard it in the previous debate when the member's colleague Runar Filper raised the cultural heritage issues.

My question is why these large tax cuts, primarily for high-income earners, have been prioritized over investments in culture.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer to that question is growth. That is how it is. For example, the National Institute of Economic Research does indeed raise that question.

We need to see growth in Sweden. We inherited one of the lowest growth rates in Europe. Now we have high growth, and it is growing. That is because we need to see innovation and drivers for companies to be able to hire and attract competence and high competence from other countries. We simply need better conditions for the companies and for people who have been educated for a long time, for example, to be able to maintain their income.

There is a clear ideological difference here between Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna and, I believe, most parties in the chamber. But so be it. Certainly, there are great needs, but perhaps not within the areas that Vänsterpartiet sees. We see huge needs.

I don't quite understand the question: Why haven't we invested more? We have invested a huge amount in areas within cultural heritage that have been enormously neglected for several decades. Is it enough? No, it is not. But we are investing very much, in contrast to what previous governments have done. It is thanks to the Sweden Democrats, as this is a prioritized issue for us.

Then we would like to do much more, but we are in a situation where things are being shot and blown up. I have used this metaphor earlier in the chamber: When we have a house where the roof has collapsed, it is raining in and there is flooding in the basement, it is not the kitchen cabinets that we will prioritize. We must sanitize the entire basement and repair the roof; then we can start talking about other things.

We have also done that during this mandate period. Last month was the first month without any shootings in Sweden in several years. We see that gang criminals are being held in for longer periods. These are priorities that this government is making to create safety on streets and squares so that young girls dare to move around there again. For me, that is more important. Then we must prioritize, for example, the cultural cooperation model in the long run.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Alexander Christiansson for the attempt at an answer. I still do not quite think it was so stringent, specifically when it comes to the tax cuts.

The members of the board bring up this with the recession and growth. The large tax cuts have gone straight into the pockets of people who already had very much money and who are now perhaps taking a third overseas holiday, what do I know. It is that group that can only put the money in the bank or consume luxury products. It is not the case that the large proportion of Sweden's population has received support so that they can consume more and get the wheels turning.

Just last week, the Fiscal Policy Council criticized the Tidö parties for investing in tax cuts that have been ineffective – for example, the reduction of employer contributions for youth, a very ineffective and expensive investment to create jobs – while we have the highest unemployment in a very long time during this mandate period.

When it comes to the cultural area, unemployment has increased by 30 percent during the mandate period. This is because there is a lack of resources within the cultural sector. If one wanted to create jobs, there would be an excellent opportunity here, but instead, one has gone in the wrong direction and cut back – for example, on the cultural cooperation model, where people are now being laid off.

The cultural cooperation model is the model we have to create culture throughout the country. Here, I truly think that the Sweden Democrats and the rest of the government base have completely lost their way.

The Chairman mentioned the strategy for cultural and creative industries. There is hardly any lubricant there, just 5 million or something of that sort for internationalization. If one wanted to invest in growth and in an industry that is growing, one has also missed the chance here.

I think the member needs to explain why so much is being invested in tax cuts for high-income earners.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I think my answer was quite clear.

I can say this: I believe we have very different views on these matters. When we talk about growth policy, it is perhaps not the Left Party's forte either. If we were to start from the Left Party's policy, there are plenty of examples on earth where that policy has actually been used. That is how it has gone for those countries.

What is perhaps most frightening is if Vänsterpartiet might eventually join a government, perhaps even get the position of Finance Minister in a Social Democratic government. That gives me goosebumps, I think, Mr. Speaker.

But let me still try to answer the question. Yes, we prioritize growth. We prioritize crime fighting. We prioritize a number of different things in our society. We took over power nearly four years ago. We rolled up our sleeves, went in with our toolboxes and cleaning carts and began to sanitize this house, which had been incredibly neglected for several years. It was catastrophic in many ways – growing insecurity, parallel social structures, rapists who are out in a few months, perpetrators who receive no punishment, crime victims who receive no redress at all, and an integration debt that has been totally devastating for the country. Catastrophe!

This is serious. This government has made enormous reallocations in these areas. At the same time, we have invested a lot in cultural heritage compared to previous governments, who did not do a jot regarding the other things I just rattled off. We have succeeded in doing several things simultaneously.

Is more needed? Yes, more is needed. But I am very satisfied with and proud of what we have actually achieved in the cultural area during these years, despite the conditions we were given by the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and to some extent the Left Party.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has the ambition to be the leading cultural party in Swedish politics. We have had a congress decision on this for a long time, and we have also worked for it for many years, in government and in opposition.

Sweden needs a new cultural policy. Changes need to be made. We need to strengthen culture within the institutions and structures we have built up over many years: the county institutions, the national stages, the cultural cooperation model, organizers, venues, and the free cultural life throughout the country. But we also need to find new forms to strengthen culture in all its expressions and in the entire country.

A strong cultural life with good conditions for cultural creators and a strong infrastructure for the various art areas is, together with what we are discussing today – everyone's access to culture – absolutely crucial for the possibility of building a strong, resilient, democratic and sustainable society with freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of assembly and so on – a society that is built on trust in people rather than mistrust. That is also where the great dividing line lies between the political parties today, both in politics in general as well as in cultural policy.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet commissioned the investigation Återstart för kulturen in a government position, which in its report Från kris till kraft presented a large number of proposals for a restart of the cultural sector after the pandemic. The proposals were temporary, but we believed that several of them should have been made permanent to clarify a greater ambition for culture and cultural life from the political side.

Despite the fact that this initiative had a very great and broad significance for the entire cultural life and for the whole country, the Tidöregeringen has chosen to withdraw virtually all parts of this support.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a completely different cultural policy. After the blows that have hit cultural life – the pandemic, the economic downturn, the high inflation and now, not least, the hard years with the Tidö government – we need a new restart for the entire cultural life.

We have a proposal in the report regarding this. It concerns the support for the arts. If we are to make changes to the cultural cooperation model, we need to provide additional funds. We should not be busy redistributing and tinkering with the scarce resources that exist in the model today.

It is about the conditions and compensation for cultural creators. It is not okay for it to become a class issue who should be allowed to work professionally with culture and art. It is also about the culture's infrastructure. Venues and organizers need to exist and receive compensation if we are to have culture across the entire country.

The non-profit sector with the national organizations is also crucial so that the cultural ecosystems do not collapse. Because if they do – which we see clear tendencies toward now, especially in small towns in the countryside – it can take a very long time for them to recover, just as it is with ecosystems in nature.

Mr. Speaker! We have a cultural debt to pay to our children. Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a cultural right of public access for children and young people. It is a kind of package with several proposals. Aesthetic subjects shall be mandatory throughout the school system. Every student in school shall regularly be exposed to professional culture. There shall be a cultural guarantee. The cultural school shall be strengthened. We want to establish a cultural school law.

Through these proposals, all children and young people will get opportunities to experience culture but also to create themselves. Skapande skola has for some time been the state's tool to offer cultural encounters in school, but it has not reached all students. Even though the government has chipped in a bit of money during the mandate period, the level of ambition is still too low.

I sat in this chamber myself a number of years ago and voted through the decision that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should apply as Swedish law. Children and young people have a right to art and culture. Miljöpartiet wants to fulfill the Convention on the Rights of the Child and transform Skapande skola into a guarantee.

Regarding the cultural school, I think the government's initiative on a pilot project with a digital cultural school is interesting. We are seeing fine results this far. It provides the opportunity to create courses with a specific focus and perhaps a bit more edge, even in smaller municipalities that do not have the possibility to find teachers and create courses in all areas. They can benefit greatly from the digital cultural school. It will be exciting to follow the development.

However, we will not get around the need for more state funds for the culture school. With a culture school law, we will get completely different opportunities to create an equal and strong culture school across the entire country. We can also create clearer conditions for the education of the culture school's teachers, strengthen the status, and in the long run get more to choose that education, which is completely necessary to strengthen children's and young people's access to the culture school.

Mr. Speaker! The cultural school is a central link in the educational chain for artists, musicians, and cultural workers. The Swedish music miracle and the Swedish gaming miracle are built on our almost world-unique cultural school. But if we are to have a vibrant cultural life with live performances in small towns in the countryside and in the cities, we need to make broader investments. The entire educational chain must be strengthened. This is where the study associations' rehearsal rooms and music houses come in, but the role of the folk high schools is also important, not least as preparation for admission to the higher artistic educations.

We need to strengthen the infrastructure for live culture and live music throughout the country. Miljöpartiet has proposals regarding, for example, cultural sound zones – which are present in Malmö and being worked on in Gothenburg – the resale of tickets, which is a major problem, and a good deal of other things that I will surely get to elaborate on in later debates here in the chamber.

There are also recommendations in the report regarding better conditions and compensation for musicians and other professional cultural creators. We want to strengthen the performing arts associations. We allocated funds in our shadow budget to secure more stable employment for cultural creators. The Government should review the possibility of bringing more artistic professional groups into the system.

At the beginning of the parliamentary term, the investigation "A security system for everyone" was released, where a new calculation of SGI, i.e., sickness benefit-determining income, is proposed. It would strengthen the security for quite many groups in society. This applies, for example, to elite athletes – all the Swedish Olympians we have followed over the last few weeks and the Paralympians who are on their way – and gig workers, i.e., those who take the "simple jobs" that the Alliance politicians nagged about for years. Now they are here, but why don't we let the security systems follow suit? It is also about the cultural creators.

The government has, when I have asked repeatedly, answered that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. Now, the final list of bills for the mandate period has arrived, but still, no bill has been announced. I think it is sad that the Tidö government chooses to miss the chance to make a big impact in the art world with a small change in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has additional motion proposals in the report, which concern the freedom of culture, arm's length distance, and other matters that need to be strengthened, not least in restless times.

The report also addresses issues concerning public service. In the autumn, the Tidö parties voted for a significant tightening of the funding for public service companies. The government has chosen not to resolve the issue of the increased costs for the terrestrial network and the strengthened preparedness mandate, and so on, in combination with higher inflation. Instead, it is the program activities that will take the hit, and this leads, for example, to reduced world monitoring and world analysis, but also to reduced protection against disinformation. It is regrettable that the Tidö parties were unable to hold together the public service investigation or invite the opposition to discussions on the design of the bill.

In worrying times, SVT, SR and UR are extremely important institutions with high trust. They are important channels for independent news reporting with a high level of journalism and fact-checking. Miljöpartiet would have wanted to see a policy that safeguards the democratic values upheld by a strong public service. Miljöpartiet also has motion proposals in the report on giving public service greater opportunities to safeguard both the Swedish language and the national minority languages.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying something about the sanctuary cities and the sanctuary artists. In a world that is being de-democratized at a high pace, with war in our vicinity, where the number of dictators and dictatorships is increasing globally and the persecution of journalists and cultural creators is becoming ever harsher, Icorn's work and sanctuaries for persecuted cultural creators become all the more important. It is positive that more Swedish cities and now also regions choose to join the system.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about the deportation of teenagers, the deportation of academics and researchers, and small children who must leave this country where they have their safety, we must mention that the inhumane, inconsistent, and ineffective Tidö policy with strict immigration and a total lack of consistency also has its edge pointed towards this threatened and persecuted group of authors and artists. The government must as soon as possible secure the conditions for asylum artists so that they can obtain extended residence permits. It is far too difficult for them now.

Sweden has become cold. The Green Party wants to see a different Sweden. The great dividing line in Swedish politics is whether we want a society built on trust in people or on mistrust.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report, which concerns the role and independence of culture, the importance of an arm's length distance, artistic freedom, and the protection of the cultural ecosystem across the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to have two different cultural debates today. These are important issues, and it feels like we are very engaged in culture. Then, perhaps we are not entirely in agreement on how it should be done.

Sweden needs to be strengthened from within, not by more subsidies or new taxes but by stories, values, and community that bind us together. That is why culture is an issue for everyone, not just for a few. It is the foundation for a more just Sweden.

Works such as Gösta Berlings saga and the books about Pippi Långstrump and Katitzi – I can mention many more – evoke something within most of us. They are not just literature or classic elements in the curricula, but they are part of a common mythology. They are fragments of a collective property that defines our world and what Swedish culture means to us, both historically and in the present.

Culture – the books, the performing arts and our cultural heritage – together form the story of us. It is an important story and also our future.

What in a specific time has characterized us, made us upset, or made us laugh or cry together? How does it relate to other parts of our common history, such as Magnus Eriksson's land laws, Saint Birgitta's revelations, the Freedom of the Press Act, and many other important events that occurred long ago? Law collections, traditions, and institutions have shaped our freedom, our equality, and our completely unique way of organizing our society. There are many important cornerstones.

All this and much more is contained in what now constitutes the Swedish cultural canon, which will form the basis for education, community, and inclusion. Our Swedish cultural canon is something to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker! In everyday life, culture for most of us is, for example, listening to the music streaming from our headphones, the book we read in the evening before we turn off the light, or the film we watch during the weekend together with our friends or children. Culture is also the 10,000 works, organizations, and events, for example SKF which was mentioned earlier, that are included in the People's Canon. It was the one we all got to participate in forming together when the culture canon was established. It also unexpectedly includes kebab pizza, IFK Göteborg, which I, as a resident of Gothenburg, of course cherish, and Carola as a musical contribution.

Culture is the fabric that holds people together. But it is also the Nobel Prize, which is highlighted here in Stockholm every December and which contains a strong symbolic security and strength and is known all over the world. It is also the portrait collection at Gripsholm Castle. It can also be meatballs with lingonberries or Swedish cinnamon buns.

As several have already mentioned, we perhaps get the most tangible example of the importance of culture and cultural heritage for cohesion from the negative experiences of the war in Ukraine, which is actually entering its fifth year. It is absolutely terrible, which we spoke a lot about yesterday. We had a fine moment together then and discussed how our support will always remain.

The attacker's goal is to destroy as much of the cultural identity as possible. They are trying to make Ukraine's identity collapse. They are not succeeding, but the people's will is to stand together, and the people still have a very strong resilience. Culture is therefore important for many reasons.

A cultural canon is also a way of putting an ultimate stamp on what is important and what is not. But actually, it is not that at all. It is instead an opening. It is a departure hall and not a final station. It should be broad. As my colleague Peter Ollén mentioned earlier, there are more gaps to fill when it comes to what should be included in our cultural canon.

There is no contradiction between safeguarding a strong national culture and building an inclusive society. Rather, it is precisely the opposite. When one feels secure in oneself, one does not need to be afraid of others' cultures. When we are rooted in our Swedish identity and our Swedish values, we invite others to something we are proud of so that they can share in it.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also pause at the paradigm shift that is currently occurring in Swedish cultural policy. We have been a country with a high proportion of publicly funded culture. In comparison with other countries, for example Norway and Denmark, we do, however, see large differences. There, it is completely normal with a world of scholarships, funds, and funding from the business sector, something that we are not at all close to.

An investigation has now been conducted regarding this, as we want to see that sponsorship of culture is facilitated. We also want to see how culture financing can be broadened. One can prepare for more to enter culture financing. It is also a way to create inclusion so that we all together feel a responsibility for our culture and can safeguard what emerges within culture and what shall be our future tomorrow.

I am not sure that either the cultural creators or the common culture benefit from being entirely in the hands of the public sector. I believe it is good if we have it more freely and that it is precisely the opposite: The broader the culture and the more initiatives we can have, the more enduring the culture becomes.

Mr. Speaker! A free culture needs multiple options. As I have mentioned earlier, we have the renovation of the Opera as a brilliant example. Over 300 million have come in from private donations. Among other things, this can be used to build a youth stage which shall constitute the starting point for children and young people to access culture. It is important that we can involve the business sector to benefit both the culture and our cultural creators.

We of course must not forget the households, that is to say those who are to enjoy the culture. It is all of us who are to do so. The households account for every third krona in culture. It is people who buy tickets, buy books or subscribe to different newspapers. We support the activities that we ourselves are passionate about. We have the opportunity to choose that culture.

That is why it is important that household finances are strengthened and that we have lowered the costs for a family with children by 5,000 kronor in the wallet since 2022. If one has more money, one also has the opportunity to enjoy culture in a different way.

As mentioned earlier, tax cuts are for everyone in Sweden, not at all just for the rich. They are for everyone. There is a great opportunity there. On April 1, we are lowering the food VAT, for example, to improve people's finances so that they can afford to eat food but also take part in culture.

With a broadened financing, we also reduce the risk of political influence.

Mr. Speaker! The future is bright. All around in our society, there are fantastically many children and young people who sing, play instruments, write codes for video games, read books, and perform theater. There is a great interest. The cultural school attracts many, but only 10 percent of all children are reached by it. Therefore, we have made an investment in Skapande skola. Our hope is to get more students in there. Now, approximately 70 percent are included. Someone said that it was a small proportion, but it is 900,000 students who participate in Skapande skola. We have given more money to it, because we want to develop this further.

It is also important that the culture school is made digital, so that more people can benefit from it regardless of where they live. It could involve municipalities cooperating or those who teach within the culture school being able to cooperate more.

We are on the right track, but we are not finished yet. We have a tradition of being world leaders in both music and video games. That is something I am very proud of. We as a country have great resources.

The Moderates believe in education. We believe in common knowledge that creates cohesion. We believe that it is possible to build a Sweden where more people, regardless of background, can feel proud of the cultural heritage that we collectively manage, use and develop. In a time when polarization unfortunately is growing and people are being divided, we want people to feel that a common cultural framework is a necessity. It can strengthen everyone in society.

This autumn's election will be a crossroads even for culture. Either we continue to build a Sweden where culture is free, funded by many and accessible to all, or we make a turn to the left back to a Sweden where politics decides what is valuable culture and who receives support. That is, of course, what we in the Moderaterna do not want to see. If we are granted continued confidence after the autumn election, which I intend, we will be able to continue on this path toward a culture that is open to all.

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report. I would also like to take this opportunity to say thank you, as this will be my last debate with the Cultural Committee. It has been very enjoyable. The interest has always been great, and it is fun to be able to discuss these issues. We are not always in agreement, but the important thing is that we all think that culture is something valuable that we should safeguard.

(Applause)

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the speech!

I have a question. It concerns what has happened with the Moderates. Previously, you were a party that one could make agreements with, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström. Our parties have together taken much common responsibility in issues that are large and important for the country, for example public service. It is an issue that we address in the report.

Previous generations of Moderates have stood up for that we, in broad parliamentary consensus, carve out a policy that takes responsibility for a whole so that it can endure over time. We could set aside the polarization and protect important areas. But you no longer do that. Now you have chosen to run over the parliamentary committee for public service. You have chosen to break the civil peace, the consensus, and the tradition.

I therefore have a rather straightforward and simple question. What is it that has happened? Why do you no longer stand up for agreements?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel, for the question!

What has happened with the Moderates? What has happened is that we are working clearly with cultural issues. We both want to take different paths at times, and therefore we want to safeguard the paths where cultural issues have the greatest future. That includes, for example, public service, where we are making an investment.

We still, of course, think it is good to discuss issues together, but we feel that here we want to go in different directions. Therefore, we are driving the policy of the Moderates and the Tidö parties.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

The truth is, in fact, that what has happened is the Sweden Democrats. It is they who now dictate the terms. The truth is also that this is a pattern since the Sweden Democrats became the dominant party on the right.

You broke the migration agreement, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström. You broke the energy agreement. You refused to enter into a new energy agreement, and now you have also broken the parliamentary public service committee's agreement instead of doing the things that would be good for Sweden.

I honestly regret this. I miss the previous Moderates, those who could enter into and uphold agreements.

Even if you are not entering into agreements now, I wonder if you can, in principle, see the value of having broad agreements that are good for the country. If you see such a value purely in principle, I wonder why you do not place value on them in practice.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel, for another question! It is good when the member himself has the answer to his question, that is, what he considers to be the correct answer.

First, I want to speak about that SD is not included in our government basis but is included in the Tidö cooperation. But the important thing is that we also cooperate with many other parties on many issues. In, for example, these issues, we have seen that we have found better solutions together.

We have already fulfilled 97 percent of our election promises, and in large part all will be fulfilled by the election. What we are going to the election on, we will also carry out, we believe. We have done it in very many areas – in all areas, not just the cultural area but also much regarding the justice system and social policy, for example. We saw that there was much that needed to be done. There was much that had been neglected, and therefore we needed to make major changes, also within the education area, for example. That is what I can answer.

The government is working on them, and we are working primarily on our election promises. We have largely fulfilled all of them already. In every case, we have initiated investigations, even if they are not completely finished.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In my role as committee chair, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for the time she has spent in the committee. It has been very valuable for the committee, and I hope it has also been valuable for the member to have been able to work a bit with the most enjoyable of all policy areas. We have, of course, met in another enjoyable context, namely higher education and research in the Education Committee.

My question actually touches on this a bit. It concerns broadened funding, which the member spoke about in their speech. I take the opportunity to debate this, as I am not sure there will be any more debate on this regarding broadened funding. The investigation comes surprisingly late in the mandate period, given not least the Minister for Culture's but also the entire Tidögänget's high ambitions and tone in the matter. They have wanted to market this as their flagship in cultural policy during the mandate period. One question is therefore: Why is this coming so late? Why did they delay so long in appointing the investigation that they can hardly manage to write a government bill during the mandate period?

But what I actually wanted to ask is: What are the government's ambitions in this area? As the member mentioned, we have an inquiry into sponsorship and tax issues. Another inquiry is underway which concerns matching, co-financing, and a few other things. Matching is about the state taking a large part of the costs. How much has it been intended that the state should budget for, if one wants such a system? How do we get the dollar billionaires, the super-rich, into the system? I don't think the government has answered those types of questions at all so far. I think there is reason to bring these questions up for discussion.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for the questions! I also want to say that it has been very enjoyable with cultural issues. Education and culture are among the most important issues, and it is great fun to get involved in them.

I would actually like to ask a question back to Mats Berglund. Mats mentioned that he experienced a lack of trust from the government. I would like to get an explanation for that a bit later.

The most important thing about broadened financing is, as I mentioned in the speech, quite simply that it should become broader. One should not put all eggs in one basket. Why does it then take a long time? We had a lot to do when we took over in 2022. It takes time to clean up after previous governments. Then it has to take a little time, because there are to be good investigations.

As the member mentioned, there are several investigations in this. They are investigations concerning matching, sponsorship, tax reliefs and so on.

If we are to create a new system, it is important that it becomes a good one. We have seen that it works very well in Norway and Denmark, and we would like to get a good way that works here as well. In that case, it is important that it becomes a good investigation.

Sometimes it takes time. But when we do make decisions, they will be able to be implemented, of course, and when we continue during the next mandate period, it is possible that we may be able to refine this further. But we see it as important funding.

The chairman also asked how one gets the large financiers in. We did get in 300 million for the Royal Opera's renovation. That is quite a lot of money. I think it is fantastic. There are, therefore, many who want to donate. They can be both large and small, and it can be done for both small and large cultural arrangements. It shouldn't just be the Opera but all possible areas, where one can choose what one wants to prioritize. I believe there are many who want to sponsor.

This with matching is roughly the same as wanting to be able to give a service back if one receives a service. It is a statement from the state to say thank you for the sponsorship, quite simply.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to address this issue of mistrust. We have talked about this several times here. Since I received this assignment, I have met with the cultural life broadly, and from the cultural life, there has been a very broad pressure that one feels a suspicion and a mistrust from politics. This applies not least to folk education and study associations, but I would say it also concerns the entire civil society. This applies not least to the aid organizations, which are being opposed by politics.

I met an aid organization that, only during the last few years, has been subjected to more than 300 different forms of audits, where they have to show that they are not conducting criminal activities.

There is a mistrust towards foreign-born persons. People want to broadly deport people from the country instead of seeing how they can actually contribute to Swedish society. I believe the debate is starting to shift a bit since, for example, Jokkmokk municipality began to oppose this.

Let me continue with this regarding sponsorship and broadened funding – or complementary funding, which I believe is a better expression. Within research, there are strong foundations. Not least, the Wallenberg Foundations have been very important, as have other foundations. For many years, work has been done to create large foundations with oversight, transparency, and a form of arm's-length distance, if we are to use that cultural concept. There have been reference groups and so on so that one can distinguish between the donors' interests and the research's need for support, so that the research remains free.

When we talk about patrons, sponsorship and so on, there is always such a concern. How has the government intended for such a system to be built up?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for further questions and for the answer to the question!

This mistrust is, in that case, very regrettable. When we talk about the world of culture, we do not want there to be cheating, and we want to prioritize the culture that works, of course. We think it is important with all forms of culture and education, and we would like to broaden this further. The mistrust may have to do with the fact that we want it to be done correctly.

When it comes to aid, the members also know that a lot of money is now being invested in Ukraine, for example.

Regarding sponsorship, we are looking a bit at how it works in other countries, for example in Denmark. There, it works excellently in different ways. It is not about controlling culture, really, but it is about something that one wants to value. But of course, we have an arm's length distance, as we usually say. We are not to control culture. Politicians should not do it, and neither should those who provide the money. But one can be involved in ensuring that it becomes, for example, a youth stage, which we think is very important.

We are investing a lot in children and young people. My colleague Peter Ollén also mentioned that reading is a very prioritized area, and it is also a priority that children encounter culture early in school. Then it can be that we invest in children as one of our prioritized areas.

But it is not those who donate money who should govern culture, rather we want a free culture. We want an arm's length distance and to have a culture that develops all people in very many areas. I feel no concern about this, but on the contrary, we see many good examples where it works well.

We continue on that line and think it is important to feel that culture is not influenced by politics. As someone mentioned earlier: If a Trump were to come to Sweden who wants to control culture, it is not good to have only public funding. Then one wants more diversified funding. We see many great advantages with that.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats pursue a cultural policy that strengthens Sweden by culture creating cohesion, by culture being a part of our welfare, and by culture moving Sweden forward.

Through culture, we can safeguard our language. We can understand each other and reflect one another. We can participate in social life and the debate and create cohesion.

Our task as politicians is to practically realize that all citizens can actually exercise their freedom of speech, that people can be able to give their view and likewise be able to take part in others'. Then we can bring forward the different perspectives and opinions and also bridge, manage and resolve conflicts. We can be united and gathered.

Therefore, it is a public responsibility that there should be just access to culture, as this report is titled. It obligates. We shall ensure that culture is present near the citizens. Children shall get to encounter culture and discover that one can express oneself in several ways as a human being. Wherever one lives, one shall know where one comes from. One shall be able to understand one's context and be able to read the contemporary era.

We must have vibrant local communities with meeting places, sports facilities, and rehearsal rooms. It requires that the municipalities receive support to have music and cultural schools. It requires that cultural heritage – museums, theaters, music, and film – can reach out. It requires that the voluntary sector has places to reside.

Our task is very concrete and material. Someone is going to mow the grass on the football pitch. The ice rink needs a functioning floodlight. The teachers shall be trained. The instruments must be tuned. The premises must be open. This presupposes a policy that takes responsibility and that distributes resources fairly.

The problem is that under the SD government, Sweden has headed in the wrong direction regarding resources and distribution. The government has failed with jobs and growth. 100,000 more are unemployed. There are 30,000 bankruptcies. Medicines have become more expensive. Young people have received more expensive dental care. The government has worsened the welfare. The economy has been worsened for the families who have it toughest. The government is not abolishing the "karens" (care periods). Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has not increased the child allowance. In addition, the SD government has cut back on welfare – there are fewer resources in real terms.

This affects ordinary people in their everyday lives. It affects cultural life in our municipalities. It affects the welfare for the citizens.

But at the same time, the government has lowered the tax for those with the highest incomes. They have even indebted the Swedish people to do so, and now the money is gone, according to the Finance Minister himself.

Instead of access to culture for everyone, it became extra sirloin steak for the Djursholm residents.

It is also precisely this distribution policy that has caused Sweden to underperform economically compared to how it has been under previous governments. The policy is misguided and inefficient.

Mr. Speaker! The report discusses, among other things, the issue of broadened funding. I assume we all here appreciate it when more money comes to culture, that the business community also sees the value of attractive, vibrant communities, of aesthetics and art, and that sports clubs get a few extra coins for the treasury or that donations come to investigative journalism. What, however, grates in the government's speech about a leg for culture to stand on is that it is hardly the right way to start by hacking at the first leg that culture stands on.

Furthermore, the experience is that when wealthy people choose to donate, it usually goes to prestigious buildings in large cities. It is, of course, welcome in itself, but it is not in the way that we maintain a cultural school in small municipalities or a present cultural heritage. The task of maintaining the citizens' welfare based on our cultural policy goals and ambitions cannot be delegated. The public must take it – also so that there is a democratic accountability for the citizens' welfare.

What we see in practice is a government making draconian cuts to the culture that reaches out most closely. It is about the meeting places for the rural areas' association life, for the pensioners and for the book talks, about the professional culture's opportunities to reach out and about the rehearsal rooms. It is therefore about our cohesion and our readiness capacity.

Instead of culture for everyone, we get luxury culture for city dwellers with a lot of money with the SD government.

Mr. Speaker! A very important Swedish cultural institution for culture to be accessible to everyone is the Swedes' public service – Sveriges Television, Sveriges Radio and Utbildningsradion.

It is an institution that strengthens the position of the Swedish language and which gives us images and realities from the entire country and opportunities to reflect one another and hold together. It is here we can get the local news as well as knowledge of what is happening in the rest of the country and in the world. It is here that the breadth of the offering exists – sport, entertainment, critical scrutiny, in-depth programs, minority programs and current monitoring. It is precisely this breadth, this reach, and the ability to reach new groups that is what makes public service so important in our preparedness.

It is an institution that guarantees free and independent journalism for all citizens and which is subject to high ethical rules and scrutiny. But it is precisely this that the SD government has initiated a dismantling of. They are limiting public service's opportunities to reach new groups and to reach out. They are cutting the funding. Public service does not just receive less money in real terms, but it is also a cut in pure percentage terms. It will be less than before, despite increased costs. This is then in combination with increased requirements for readiness.

On top of that, public service has since the turn of the year alone had to bear large increased costs for the terrestrial network. That it was on its way was known for a long time. We Social Democrats have on several occasions, over several months, asked how the government intends to solve that issue. But the answer, or rather the solutions, have completely remained out. The government has chosen the path with eyes wide open. Consequently, we could this week learn that SVT is presenting a massive cut package with many layoffs.

Ultimately, it is the citizens and an accessible culture for all that are affected.

The SD government's policy here could not be more ill-timed. We live in a world where international tech giants are taking over more and more. They rule with algorithms based on what serves their political and economic purposes. We have disinformation, manipulation, and influence from hostile states. In that situation, the SD government chooses to dismantle one of the most important actors we have to stand up against this. In whose interest is that?

As a Social Democrat, I am of the opinion that it is important that we in Sweden also have Swedish culture, a culture that is created by us and for us based on our conditions and wills. Cultural policy is about that we should realize the citizens' opportunities to create and take part in this culture.

It is regrettable that the SD government does not value it but instead, in this global situation, cuts back on local culture and on welfare in the local communities as well as initiates the dismantling of Swedish cultural institutions, such as our public service companies are. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to move for approval of the Socialdemokraternas reservation number 16.

Mr. Speaker! Culture creates cohesion, and it is a part of the welfare. But it is also a way for us in Sweden to move the country forward – with people who think anew and who challenge, and with a free and critical debate, where there is a diversity of voices and where issues are raised, so that we can weigh arguments and make wise decisions. It gives birth to new ideas. It creates new inventions and new companies. Culture moves Sweden forward.

That is why it is important that politics gives people the opportunity to bring forward their stories and their images and that they can take part in others'. It is important that we realize this with a fair distribution. But it requires a policy that puts ordinary people's interests first. Sweden needs a new direction. It must become ordinary people's turn so that we can have a culture that is accessible to everyone.

(Applause)

In this speech, Kristoffer Lindberg and Magnus Manhammar (both S) agreed.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Björn Wiechel started well by stating that culture creates cohesion, unites, and brings people together. Then he moved on to the funding, and when one looks at the funding, the Moderaterna and Socialdemokraterna have largely the same funding. We have 0.61 percent of the budget, and you have 0.62 percent. So it is largely completely equal.

We make different prioritizations, however. We have made large investments when it comes to defense costs and support for Ukraine, for example. The member knows that, as he has been involved in all the decisions. These are completely joint investments and nothing that deviates from what the Social Democrats are doing.

When it comes to public service, the Moderates and the Tidö parties are making a fairly large investment of 3 percent every year, with an inflation of 2 percent. The Social Democrats invested 2 percent when we had an inflation of 10 percent, so one can wonder what provided the most money. We are therefore giving a lot of money to public service.

We make different priorities as said. The Moderates and the Tidö parties are making a major investment in school libraries and in school books; more than a billion is being spent on this. More than every fifth child cannot read when they leave primary school, and we are therefore investing 460 million kronor on staffed school libraries and 850 million kronor on getting more school books. It is a major priority.

In our major initiative for children and young people, Skapande skola is included, which has been mentioned earlier. We are allocating more money than S so that more children can have access to Skapande skola, and we are now reaching 70 percent – 900,000 children. We are therefore making major investments in Skapande skola so that children can encounter culture. Skapande skola also provides jobs for actors and cultural figures.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! It was a very engaged enumeration of all the fantastic initiatives that the government is making.

It would be nice if it were true that we are giving the same amount of money, but that is not the case. During the period, we have given 3.5 billion more directly to culture. We would have had a different situation in Kultursverige if our budgets had applied during these years. Furthermore, we have a policy where nine out of ten get more in their pockets than they would with the SD government's policy. It has a completely different effect on the country's growth when one directs interventions toward what gives bang for the buck and helps the economy.

We have also provided extensive support, especially general such support, to municipalities and regions – 13 billion more. That means we do not place the municipalities and regions in a situation where they have to choose between culture and healthcare beds. They can afford both. You are cutting in real terms on the regional, and it is clear that it has effects out there in Kultursverige.

Your initiatives on reading are good. The problem is that you zero out the money for the school, so they don't even get any adjustments. You give a little and take away a lot, while at the same time you do not have the supports for the municipalities, while at the same time you defend with your teeth and claws that we have profit-driven friskolor which, over the last three years, have extracted 19 billion in profit from our common school, into private pockets. Think what 19 billion could have done in our school!

We have completely different economic policies, regarding both distribution and results.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel, for the answer – I believe that was it!

When you say that nine out of ten get more money in their wallets, I am very skeptical, because you from S usually want to raise taxes while we from the government and the Tidö parties want to lower taxes. We have also done that in very many areas, for example the food VAT which was mentioned earlier. We are lowering taxes in incredibly many areas and also have cheaper preschool fees, which means that one gets more in the wallet. I do not understand how one gets more in the wallet by raising taxes as S does; it seems completely illogical, I think.

When it comes to schools, as we happened to touch upon here, the most important thing for us is that the schools are good and have functioning principals. Of course, there should always be oversight, but it is the quality that is most important for us. Unfortunately, there has been a bit of a deficiency, as I mentioned earlier, when every fifth student cannot read. There is also a great deal of insecurity in schools, and we must do a lot to increase safety for both teachers and students in schools. I cannot really see the connection there.

The question is how S actually wants to solve this. We have largely the same budget. I do not feel that S spends more money than we do, but we simply make different priorities. We invest in municipalities and regions and give them a lot of autonomy, which they also desire. We do not decide everything, but we choose, for example, general rather than targeted grants.

We are still making major investments in culture, as we started with, but also in school and research and even defense and aid, which was mentioned earlier. The government is making an incredible number of investments in many important areas. Sometimes one must prioritize, but the budget for culture is still largely the same as the Social Democrats' culture budget.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for further questions!

How the member "feels" about the different budgets they are presented with. I go to the figures. You do not put in as much as we do. We put in 3.5 billion more during the period. We have a larger culture budget. We give more to municipalities and regions to secure local welfare and culture for the citizens. We have a policy that gives nine out of ten more in the wallet than what they get with the government's policy. You only have to check.

Which ones you give to play a role and give a completely different economic exchange. We see that people with very small resources have had their housing allowance reduced and become even poorer, while at the same time you give money to people who have a lot of money.

This is not wise economic policy for our cohesion or for the children's opportunity to participate in culture. It gives more sirloin in Djursholm but fewer children who can be involved in leisure activities. It gives families fewer opportunities to buy what is necessary.

It is precisely that which is the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council, namely the misguided cyclical policy. Sweden is underperforming because incorrect economic investments are being made. It is detrimental to the country's growth, our unemployment, and for our reform space. Now the money is gone. You have borrowed for these items, which are misguided. It affects ordinary people – it is always they who will have to clean up when there is no order and tidiness.

We have a different direction. We will put ordinary people's wallets first, and that is a very big difference. We have more money for public service. You have less on average, 1.75 percent. We had more and want more. This is a dismantling.

But the important thing is the direction. It is the common people's turn. That is what is needed.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Björn Wiechel – it is always fun to listen to Björn Wiechel's creative speeches! I have some rhetorically quite simple questions that will be very difficult for Björn Wiechel to answer.

If we ignore cause and effect, did we have some of Europe's highest fuel prices when the Social Democrats handed over power in 2022? Did we have almost the most shootings in the world per capita? Did we have almost Europe's highest unemployment and lowest employment? Did we have enormously high electricity prices? Did we have skyrocketing inflation?

Mr. Speaker! We can skip all the reasons, from the global situation to oil prices. I just wonder: Was that how it was in 2022 or not? Yes or no?

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

TALMANNEN

I remind that the debate concerns the Committee on Culture's report Access to Culture.

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! When Russia invaded Ukraine, fuel prices were the first inflationary impulse in the economy. It hit fuel prices directly. That is why we, in the spring of 2022, submitted the proposal for what we call Sverigepriser. We wanted to direct support to those households that need to be able to drive cars. We wanted to give extra support to those who have long distances, to help their wallets. That proposal was voted down by the right-wing majority, so unfortunately, it did not happen.

It is clear that inflation should be fought, but the question is how one does it. One could have supported welfare; it would have been good to keep it up, because it is not particularly inflation-driving. It would have been good for keeping the economy going. And when growth is then to start up again, it is about which important investments one makes. Who is it that has taken the hit from the inflation? The highest incomes have been inflation-proofed, but not the lowest. It is not particularly gifted if one wants economic growth and cohesion.

There we have done differently. We have simply chosen things that create more jobs, in the form of labor market policy. We have kept investments going, and we have supported ordinary households.

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

TALMANNEN

With this, perhaps we can return to cultural policy in the concluding remarks.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was actually not my fault; I must somewhere address the attacks on the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget that the member is making. But to please Mr. Speaker: It is clear that it affects cultural policy how much money one has in the tax chest when one is to prioritize.

If I am to interpret the member's answer – even though I probably didn't get any answer at all to the question – I would still like to say: Yes, that was the case. There are, after all, figures, statistics, and facts that it was this that one left behind for us in 2022.

This government has actually done quite a lot of good things, and I think the member might still be able to admit that. The fight against inflation has been reasonable. It is quite good things that we have done connected to these issues. Energy prices are still high, but since we are not going to enter an energy debate, I will drop that question.

What I still find interesting is that the member is bringing up this issue of disinformation. It can, in fact, be a bit frustrating to be a political opponent to a party that itself uses disinformation so frequently and in so many different ways.

Before the 2022 election, two ministers chose to go out and warn the Swedish population against voting for the opposition. Such things are done in countries that are not normally associated with strong democracy. One also makes use of the misconception that we would deport an eight-month-old baby to Iran alone. The party leader for the Socialdemokraterna sits and repeats in TV, over and over again like a kind of mantra – even though one knows that it is actually not true. It is lies that they spread. It is disinformation.

The same applies to the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism of the government. Are you changing your mind now regarding the support for Ukraine and the upgrading of the defense, Björn Wiechel? Are you on board with these investments or not? Are you on board with them, perhaps you should not use them as an argument against the government's policy. It is therefore about investments and priorities that we have made and that the Social Democrats are on board with.

(Applause)

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

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! I remember a party leader for the Sverigedemokraterna who stared straight into the camera and claimed that a journalistic investigation was a massive influence operation, regarding how one views this issue with disinformation and truth.

There are things that the government has done well. I think the investment in reading is good, but I do not think it is good that one simultaneously cuts back on the school and on culture. When it comes to the sentencing increases that the government is making, seven out of ten of them are our products, which the government has moved forward with. That is good. It shows that there is a common direction in the work to solve a societal problem.

However, I do not think the priorities that are made are good. None of us have much money at all; that is true. But the money one has, whether it is a hundred kronor or a thousand kronor, can be used in different ways.

Is it wise to cut back on the local culture if one wants to safeguard people's local culture? No, it is not. Instead, one must, of course, strengthen the local culture, people's participation, and welfare. If one wants to safeguard our cohesion, our language, and our opportunity to create culture that is made by us and for us – our Swedish culture – in a global environment where international tech giants take over with disinformation, is it then wise to start tightening the belt and cutting back on public service? No, it is not. It is very poorly timed.

So do the things that allow us to create a culture of and for us! Protect the welfare and the culture that is close to the citizens! It requires practical distribution policy, and it requires that in the economy there is a focus on ordinary people's wallets instead of just lowering the tax for the wealthiest – and that with borrowed money.

A new direction is needed.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Those who are passionate about cultural issues will find much of that – and a little else too – during the debates here today. The active listener can also discern some differences in the politics.

This motion report covers a great deal – broadened funding, the culture school, civil society, public service, children's right to culture – but I have thought to focus on two areas. One is the leisure card, and the other is the economic conditions for culture workers.

I personally think it is very sad that so many children and young people lack contact with culture in various forms. This can be due to language difficulties, social exclusion or poverty. The cultural policy goal that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in cultural life has not been achieved.

What conditions exist for becoming, for example, a musician? There are many hurdles: homes where it is not played, parents who do not understand, and other things that are more attractive. Therefore, there are initiatives where one says: "Come during the break and try this!" Such elements can be significant and create interest.

Cultural activities keep children and young people away from crime, and sports have the same function. Not everyone can play an instrument – many have athletic talent. In Kortedala in Gothenburg, a tennis club is now being started to activate young people. It is a private initiative and just one example that shows the importance of civil society.

The cultural school is a municipal responsibility, but we have from the state's side contributed, among other things, a development grant so that municipal cultural schools should broaden their activities and reach more children. That is something we all agree on.

Mr. Speaker! When the leisure card was introduced, the ambition was clear. It was about lowering the thresholds so that more children and young people get access to a meaningful, leader-led leisure time. The leisure card was launched in September 2025, i.e., last year, and in December it could be stated that the reform had become a success. Over 300,000 had downloaded the leisure card.

Over 40,000 of the downloaded cards were at the higher amount, and the figures for the autumn show that the impact was particularly large among households with weak finances. For those families, the support has meant a concrete difference, not in theory but in everyday life. By directing the support directly to the child instead of via general grants, the leisure card has reached exactly that target group that would otherwise risk being left out.

There have been critics here in the chamber. They have, however, largely changed their minds, which pleases me immensely. The critics have argued that the resources should instead have gone to the associations, but the government has continued to support sports, outdoor life, and other association life while simultaneously introducing the leisure card. The leisure card is a specific initiative in addition to the general support. More children in the activities means more membership fees, greater breadth, and long-term stability for associations and cultural schools.

When the leisure card opened for 2026, the government could also present a leisure card that also covers all seven-year-olds. Now it is children between 7 and 16 years old who receive this card. The general grant was increased from 500 to 550 kronor, and the reinforced grant was increased from 2,000 to 2,500 kronor.

Now I have probably soon convinced everyone of the leisure card's fantastic ability.

Over 6,400 associations and cultural schools have joined. The leisure card is a Christian Democratic reform that has been made possible through the government's joint work and which is based on the fact that children need community, role models, and context to develop their interests and to grow. To invest in children's leisure time is to counteract loneliness, strengthen the individual, and build a sustainable society in the long run. The leisure card shows that accurate reform policy can make a big difference for children here and now and for society in the future.

Mr. Speaker! For me as a Christian Democrat, creators within the cultural life and their social and economic security is an immensely important area. For professional artists and other cultural workers, there are clear deficiencies in this area.

The cultural sector contributes great value to Sweden's economy and generates 650 billion every year. Cultural workers contribute to the health insurance system in the form of social security contributions, but they rarely receive a share of SGI, i.e., sickness benefit-earning income. SGI is a security reform, but today's SGI system relates to working with permanent employment with a single employer. Most cultural workers have multiple clients, short-term employments, and their own companies in parallel.

A joint report from the Agency for Cultural Analysis and the Swedish Arts Council shows that approximately two-thirds of cultural creators are entrepreneurs or so-called "combiners," that is, persons who combine employment and self-employment. Even if a cultural worker works full-time, there is therefore a lack of proper protection in the sickness and parental insurance. This means that the creator risks losing income qualifying for sickness benefit in the case of, for example, parental leave or illness.

In Calle Nathansons' investigation *A security system for everyone – new rules for income qualifying for sickness benefit from 2023*, he proposes solutions that give cultural creators access to the security system on the same terms as other citizens. He also proposes, among other things, that the state grants, which are not counted as income from employment, should become more numerous, more long-term and furthermore pension-qualifying, so that the cultural workers' pension does not become too low.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that today's SGI system does not function fully for cultural workers. This is an issue that I, as a Christian Democrat, am passionate about and an issue that needs to be resolved moving forward.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Roland Utbult, for your speech!

Not everyone here in the chamber was quite convinced about how fantastic the leisure card is. I am one of those who is not particularly convinced.

I and the member are in agreement that the proposals from Calle Nathanson's SGI investigation A security system for everyone should be implemented. I believe it is incredibly important. I would, however, like to hear from the member, if he has time to answer it, why the government has not addressed this during the mandate period.

We do not agree regarding the leisure card. To traverse the Speaker, I can ask why the member is bringing this up in a cultural debate. Hardly any culture can be included. This is primarily a sports policy reform. The arts school can be included, but hardly any cultural associations have been able to be included. In principle, no outdoor recreation associations have been able to be included either, because the support is constructed in a way that does not suit cultural life, outdoor life, and a large part of the association life at all.

It is 6,413 associations that have joined. At least 10,000 – perhaps even 15,000 – sports clubs should have been part of this system, according to the Swedish Sports Confederation. It is a bit difficult to know exactly.

More money has gone to the authorities than has been paid out to the families. I think it is a rather clear direction. Only about 18 percent of the children that you have targeted have received a payment. One would have expected 65 or even 70 percent.

I do not think at all that this has been a success.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I question the facts that Berglund provides regarding the claim that this would not have reached the cultural schools and, if so, neither the children.

I think it is regrettable that one does not see that as many as 300,000 people have downloaded the leisure card and that for 40,000 of them it concerns the higher amount of 2,500 kronor. I must say that I think it is a bit strange that the success of the leisure card is being questioned. I do not say that just because this is a Christian Democratic reform. The facts are on the table here; I have accounted for them.

Berglund questions me. I question Berglund regarding the facts that the member presents.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This has reached the cultural schools; I may have been unclear earlier. However, it has naturally not reached the cultural schools that have free courses – it is not possible to use it there. It has not reached cultural life in general, which was part of my criticism.

According to the bill and the preparatory works, the utilization rate was expected to be around 65 percent in the first year. Different scenarios with 70 percent and 80 percent had been developed. The catastrophe scenario, if I may put it that way, was 20 percent. The utilization rate across the entire kingdom has turned out to be 18 percent. I have had the Riksdag's investigation service investigate this, so there is not much to question.

The utilization rate is therefore below the catastrophe scenario. It is not a success. This is largely due to the fact that the associations think it is too complicated and expensive. I feel sorry for all the poor association economists, treasurers and so on who are going to have to handle this, I would say, bureaucratic failure.

Above all, I want to highlight that an incredible amount of this money is spent on Försäkringskassan and on E-hälsomyndigheten. More money has gone to them than what has been able to be paid out to the families.

There is talk of 300,000 children, but one should have reached at least 800,000 children to reach the goals expressed in the proposition and other preparatory documents. The system is incredibly inefficient, and there is a lot of criticism against it, which I have received when I have spoken with municipal representatives. It would have been much better, also according to the sports community, if the money had been spent on the Swedish Sports Confederation, the cultural schools, the outdoor associations, among others, to create more leaders, for that is where the bottlenecks are.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Now Berglund is twisting the facts a bit, which does not make the exchange of remarks any better. It was not all, but certain cultural schools that did not receive this.

The talk of failure is bordering on the absurd. What is a success? For my part, it is when 300,000 children receive a grant, of which 40,000 receive 2,000 kronor, to be able to attend the culture school or be part of a sports club. Berglund wants to give the money to the clubs, but we give the money to the children, which is a big difference.

The utilization rate is at 18 percent because we are at the beginning. We also hope that the administration costs will decrease when everything is in place.

Berglund says that it is a failure and that there should have been 800,000 children. But it is still 300,000 children. My and the member's picture do not quite sync. But I thank you for the exchange of remarks.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would talk a bit about music with Member Utbult. I know that Roland Utbult is passionate about music issues and is himself a skilled musician, and I believe that his campaign song contributed to KD getting over the four percent threshold in the last election.

I am, however, a bit disappointed with the outcome regarding the study associations and their music activities. Many musicians have in recent years gone out into the media and told how important the study associations have been for their careers. The study associations have given them the opportunity to practice for many hours before they first stood on stage in their hometown and met the audience, and then grew and stepped up and became big international stars. The basis for this has been the study associations' rehearsal rooms. One now expresses great concern for the cuts that have occurred, and the statistics from recent years show that the study associations have had to close 15 percent of their rehearsal rooms. This is because the government and Sverigedemokraterna have removed approximately one third of the support to the study associations.

There are not many other organizations that can offer this type of space, especially to young people who are starting their musical careers. The young people receive financial support, a place to be, and coaching, and they get the chance to perform for the first time, perhaps at a festival organized by a study association.

Can the members see that the large cuts in state grants to student unions during this mandate period are harmful to the music life in Sweden?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Vasiliki Tsouplaki for the question.

How inspiring to get to talk about music! It doesn't happen every day. I won't involve my family too much, but I have two sons, one of whom played so much and so hard in a rehearsal room that he got tinnitus. My other son does something that thousands of others also do today, namely creates music on his computer at home. I am not saying that it replaces rehearsal rooms, but it is a new way of working. The music is then streamed, and it is a large market, actually an export market. Each song is streamed perhaps 50 million times, and many make a living from this. It is, therefore, a new situation. Enough about my family.

When it comes to the student unions, there is a history behind why we have cut their funding. It is about cheating and other problems. It is true that it has affected the student unions, but I hope that it does not affect the young people who want to create music. But that is where the reason lies.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! The fraud within the study associations has been debated by the Culture Committee many times. Some people have wanted to exploit the study associations' systems, premises, and generosity when it comes to study circles and have cheated to obtain grants. Unfortunately, it turned out that just the music activities accounted for a large part of the fraud, but here the study associations have cleaned up. Previously, it was possible to register one's music study circle with several different study associations and thereby cheat to obtain support from several actors. Even if one only met once, one received payment from three different associations.

This is what the study associations have now sorted out on their own. Despite reduced state support, they have initiated major efforts and are running their registers in parallel, and those who lead the study circles must log in. Now it is probably the activity that is most controlled, and we have received very good feedback from the study associations on how this has been approached. But they were subjected to cheating, and therefore it is unfortunate that the Tidö parties use it as a pretext to cut back. An agency that is subjected to cheating should receive increased resources to be able to carry out controls. But the study associations have received fewer funds at the same time as they have tried to create a secure system.

My question remains regarding the music scene specifically: Can the member see that the Swedish music miracle is actually under threat when at least 20,000 young people no longer have access to a rehearsal room where they can rehearse with their band and thus have nowhere to be? This is a specific activity that does not fit into the culture school, because it is about being able to rehearse with one's band on one's own merits.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will take myself as an example, perhaps for the first and last time here. When I started my music career, I lived on Öckerö outside Gothenburg, and my friends and I found ways to play our music. We didn't have a study circle through a study association, we just went for it. Then we rented the home guard house to have somewhere to play and perform. So there are ways, and musicians are very creative. Therefore, I am not worried. But given what the member says, I hope that this does not harm the youth's music lives.

Since then, it is correct as the member says that Studieförbunden i samverkan, as they are called, have made major contributions. They have completed a number of points, about twenty, if I remember correctly. That is correct. What has remained is the history that I spoke about. We transferred money from the studieförbund to the folkhögskolor.

I will conclude by saying that it is the Christian Democrats' ambition that student unions shall regain their status by us providing them with funding so that such problems as the member brought forward here are not created. It is a Christian Democratic ambition – I can promise that.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! This is a somewhat diverse debate, because the committee report contains a collection of motions that all touch upon access to culture in different ways. It is therefore why we are raising somewhat different issues here.

The central question for the Left Party's cultural policy is how we can create a free and strong cultural life for everyone. The vast majority of people in our country actually participate in culture daily. To what extent and in what way, of course, varies.

When it comes to personal creation, the differences are not so large between different groups, but when it comes to participating in professional culture as an audience – from stages, museums and art galleries – the differences become even greater. In that case, factors such as class and place of residence come into play. Women are overrepresented culture consumers, and persons with disabilities are heavily underrepresented.

We mean that this, in the long run, also has an impact on who can imagine working in an artistic profession. Without a diversity among cultural workers, culture ultimately risks touching fewer people. Perspectives become one-dimensional. Fewer parts of the country are depicted if it is only city dwellers who are both audience and cultural workers. Many stories will never emerge, and interest in culture becomes smaller. Then it also becomes harder to reach new groups, and the situation is cemented.

Those who never see anyone resembling themselves on the white canvas, the screen, or the stage find it harder to imagine themselves there. It becomes a vicious spiral. Our goal of a society with culture for everyone therefore requires active work to increase diversity within the artistic professions. It is about equality, democracy, and the right to the public sphere. Those who create music, literature, and performing arts are also helping to shape the present, creating our future cultural heritage, and are given a platform to advance opinions.

Madam Speaker! In order to break old patterns and so that new generations do not merely follow in their parents' footsteps, we in Sweden have decided on a compensatory school. It is there that we can give all children the opportunity to develop their creative abilities and come into contact with a wide range of cultural forms. In school, the parents' education and incomes play no role, instead, all children can take part in school cinema, museum visits, children's theater, and concerts. In this way, we can strengthen the next generation to be active participants in cultural life and find their own way and their own path.

Vänsterpartiet argues that a large number of measures are needed to get there, and in today's report, there are some pieces of the puzzle. We motion, for example, for a national performing arts guarantee so that the place of residence does not be decisive for whether you get culture in school or not but also, which is no less important, so that the cultural life does not have to handle 21 different regions' offer days, 290 different municipalities' application systems and perhaps 1,100 different school principals' contact routes. I therefore move for approval of reservation number 8 regarding a national performing arts guarantee for students.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet believe that non-profit cultural actors need to receive a boost and more attention. Swedes are incredibly active cultural participants: we sing in choirs, act, play in bands and paint – sometimes in the form of associations and sometimes through study associations.

Even in small towns, association life is vibrant, and it is there that the goal of culture throughout the country is realized. A large number of cultural associations are organizers of theater performances, concerts, and art exhibitions that provide employment opportunities for professionals.

I saw a figure that I was actually astonished by: The value of voluntary work within the cultural sector amounts to 8.4 billion kronor per year. It is important that all levels – municipal as well as regional and national – support the important efforts made by those who are voluntarily active, through good economic conditions, adapted and clear regulations, and a good reception to facilitate association work for those who are not used to being organizers.

Parallel to the positive picture of a vital association life that I have now highlighted, we see worrying trends. Many small associations that are dependent on support from their national organization to handle, for example, administration, IT platforms, agreements, and training are having a very tough time. This is because the large national organizations are having a tough time.

The Swedish Arts Council's contributions to both central amateur associations and music organizers have had a negative development in recent years, after having remained stagnant for over a decade. With shrinking resources, it becomes difficult to provide support and encouragement to, for example, new national federations that arise around new cultural forms and musical expressions. We consider this to be very unfortunate as there is a risk of excluding the preferences of young people, who may be those who advance new cultural forms. It also makes it harder to reach the national goal of a dynamic cultural life, which all parties agree on.

It is also a major concern that existing organizations are forced into cuts and layoffs. In a letter to the Minister for Culture, two large umbrella organizations in the field describe their staff reductions over the recent years: they have had to cut by 37 percent during this parliamentary term.

As an example, we can take the Amateur Theatre Federation, ATR, which is based in my county, Västmanland, and which organizes around 10,000 members in 230 local associations across the country. This organization is raised in a motion from an S member today, and I think the entire S group should stand behind it, just as the Left Party has done.

ATR supports amateur theater associations throughout the country through training, advice, and arrangements. They also have a national script library with 6,000 titles and a copyright agency that ensures playwrights are paid when their plays are used in, for example, cultural schools, folk high schools, school theater, and various theater companies around the country.

This is unique in its kind. If ATR cannot afford a venue and staff to manage the whole thing, a large part of amateur theater in our country will collapse. They have laid off staff, tried to rent out part of their premises, and shut down Sweden's only newspaper about amateur theater.

Does this sound like a proper cultural landscape? That we cannot afford this activity is something I think the government and the Sweden Democrats need to take to heart and be a little ashamed of. We were alerted to this several years ago, but time and again, tax cuts have been prioritized over support for the cultural sector.

We have, of course, allocated funds in our budget to support both these and other parts of the voluntary cultural life. We see that it is there that one creates that sense of community, which some parties have said here in the rostrum that they want to see in Sweden. I have heard time and again that it is important that we have cohesion and create community, but the community that exists in these associations is not about everyone having to think alike or have the same values and that it is that which builds community. People with different backgrounds, people who vote for different parties and people of different ages meet around a common interest, for example, theater.

It is those kinds of meeting places that we need so much. It is civil society that creates them, and they help to reduce the polarization that many parties are concerned about. It is when people get to know each other and gain an understanding of those who are different that we get a strong society. It happens when one meets the person that one would not have met if it had not been for that association meeting. It is that which we need to hold onto.

The Tidö parties sneer at adults' leisure interests, but I mean that it is through a strong civil society that we build a strong democracy.

I will also say a few words about the study associations, even though we have had time to talk about them in exchanges of remarks, because when it comes to culture in the whole country, they are a very important actor. They provide rehearsal rooms, study circles in different languages and cultures. They have been diligent organizers of festivals and cultural programs on their own initiative and in cooperation with, for example, the public libraries.

At the library in my home municipality, they say this: Now, study associations no longer have the possibility to send staff to our planning meetings when we are going to schedule the program for author visits. There is no staff left at the study associations.

The municipalities have also had their appropriations reduced, so a handshake across party lines was needed here, and also at the municipal, regional, and national levels, to strengthen the operations again. In our budget, there are the 500 million that have disappeared.

We have talked about this many times during this parliamentary term. I particularly remember a debate we had last year, when we talked about the cuts.

Studieförbunden have laid off 800 people – that figure might be a bit old now, but approximately 800 people have been laid off within studieförbunden. But that is not enough to cover the cuts, and savings have also had to be made on the property side. That is why these rehearsal rooms and music houses have had to close.

When we debated this last time, the representatives of the Tidö parties claimed that the study associations had deliberately made cuts that would attract attention. They should actually have prioritized in a different way, a better way, it was claimed. But how they are going to be able to trim their expenses by a third without laying off staff and without closing premises is a mystery to me. Perhaps it was hoped that they could pull a rabbit out of a hat, as the saying goes.

I really hope that we get a new government with a different policy that the Left Party is part of, and that we together in that government can stand up for a free and strong cultural life. We from the Left Party will not expect that anyone, whether they are a cultural worker or a culture minister, will have to work extra shifts as a wizard to balance their budget.

(Applause)

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Culture is a fundamental part of a free society. For generations, liberals have defended the human right to think freely and to express oneself freely. From the emergence of study associations to the spread of public libraries across the entire country, the conviction has been clear: Education and culture are paths to freedom.

But it is not enough for culture to simply exist. It must also be accessible – accessible for the child in the rural municipality, for the newcomer seeking a way into the Swedish language, for the elderly person who can no longer travel, and for the young person who does not have the financial resources at home. A society that is serious about giving everyone life chances must also make culture accessible.

That is why we have publicly funded libraries, theaters, museums and so on. That is why we invest in the culture school so that children's opportunities for creativity are not determined by the parents' wallet. That is why in the recent budgets we have invested extra funds for, for example, Skapande skola, real books in schools and school libraries with librarians who can awaken the desire to read in our children.

Access to culture is also about language. Reading, writing, and understanding are keys to the democratic conversation. When literacy declines, it is not only the individual's opportunities that are threatened, but our entire common public sphere. Strengthening the position of literature and protecting libraries is therefore a democratic investment.

Madam Speaker! An important matter being undertaken within cultural policy right now is to create new opportunities for complementary funding. It is a task that should have been started a long time ago. Finding more sources of funding for culture is urgent, not least to reduce culture's vulnerability over time. We naturally need to have public funding as a foundation to stand on, but for the funding to suffice and be able to increase at the rate that is needed, we need to enable more sources of funding.

The Authority for Cultural Analysis writes in its 2025 report that Sweden stands out among the Nordic countries as a country where the level of funding from private funds and foundations is low. Sweden is also one of the few countries in Europe that does not have a functioning deduction right for sponsorship of culture.

Right now, an investigation is being prepared within the Government Offices regarding deductions and other tax reliefs for sponsorship expenses. In our turn, an additional government investigation will be presented which looks at incentives for increased supplementary funding.

This is not a quick fix for those who are struggling with their finances here and now. But it is a prerequisite for us to be able to lay the foundation in the future for a more stable funding for culture, so that it will not solely depend on how much cash the state has moving forward.

Madam Speaker! Culture is society's intellectual infrastructure. It gives people tools to understand, question, and influence, and to see themselves and society from new perspectives. That is why a vibrant cultural life is so important for us liberals. When people practice or participate in culture, inspiration, creativity, and new ideas are born. Culture can increase people's curiosity, also regarding things that one did not know one was interested in or even knew existed. In the encounter with culture, one also grows as a human being. Therefore, we have a special responsibility to give children and young people the opportunity to both practice and participate in culture.

I have already mentioned the initiative on Skapande skola. In 2024, approximately 172 million kronor were allocated to 437 applications. In total, 862,000 students were reached. That is 70 percent of the target group. The goal must naturally be 100 percent of all children and young people. The Liberals are open to reviewing this model in the future so that more can be reached by Skapande skola and the funds that are available.

Another way to reach children and young people is the cultural school. The state development grant has ensured that new children and young people have found their way to the cultural school.

In this year's budget, there is a welcome piece of news in the form of project funds to test making the cultural schools' digital initiatives available to more people. I believe this is important, not least in rural areas, where the supply may be somewhat more limited and the access to professional cultural actors who can work with certain musical instruments may not be as great as in larger cities.

A question that is close to my liberal heart, Madam Speaker, is education. More people must be given the opportunity to experience the magic of books. But when the school puts an iPad in one's hand, the school library lacks a librarian who can help one find the right book, and with an endless scrolling, the magic is lost for many. To break this trend, more must be done. Access to culture is therefore also about access to literature.

Therefore, I am pleased that the public libraries' work with reading promotion is doubled and extended and that the Berättarministeriet is granted funds to reach children and young people in vulnerable areas – this is in addition to all the initiatives being made regarding books in schools, school libraries and school librarians.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a few words on public service, which is also addressed in this report.

The reasons for having a large, strong and broad public service are many, but let me highlight three that are extra relevant in the time we live in now.

Firstly, public service is a free and independent news source with high credibility that is available to everyone. Public service is in the service of the public, not the state. Public service shall stand on the side of the citizens, not the side of power. When disinformation spreads at lightning speed, newsrooms are needed that can stand up for facts, objectivity, and scrutiny of power, regardless of who sits in the government and regardless of where the power lies.

Secondly, public service holds Sweden together. Regardless of where you live, what background you have, and what language you speak, public service is available through radio and TV. Mello, Allsång på Skansen, Bolibompa, Christmas calendars, and Sommar i P1 are some of the campfires that gather many every year and that characterize both children's upbringing and the topics of conversation during the coffee break. It helps us build a common "we".

Thirdly, public service is part of Sweden's preparedness. When a crisis occurs, when the network is down or when disinformation flows, people must be able to rely on a voice that provides correct, calm, and easily accessible information. It is a matter of security and safety, not just journalism.

We have already taken a decision in this chamber regarding a new eight-year broadcasting license with economic conditions that, in plain terms – despite everything else said from this rostrum – provide a higher increase than previous broadcasting licenses and a continued broad public service. It lays a good foundation for a large, strong and broad public service even in the future.

For us Liberals, it has been important during this mandate period to counter the risk of reading, to secure the conditions for public services' broad mandates even in the future, and to ensure that by broadening the financing, conditions are created for long-term financing for culture.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by reciting a rather long passage from a report that arrived some time ago from Scen & Film. It is titled A Sweden without culture is a silent Sweden.

Thursday 11:57. There is a stage in here. You might perform on it yourselves one day. You can sing or play instruments or dance. But today we are going to look at actors. He says it with a capital S, the teacher with a capital L, who has come with his students in preschool class to see Regionteater Väst's production Hopp och hinder when it is on tour in one of the smaller municipalities in Västra Götalandsregionen. When the doors open and the hockey organ is heard in the foyer, everyone's eyes sparkle.

Thursday 12:43. He is crying loudly, like a child younger than he is. In some way, I would like to say that he is crying heartily. For about 40 minutes, he has watched three adult actors riding on hockey sticks – but they are horses! We all see that in the room.

We have seen the horses and their riders perform a quadrille and a dressage program. We have patted the horses' muzzles. We have laughed when Velvet ate the tulips flanking the hurdles. We have seen them jump over 30 centimeters, over 50 centimeters, and over 70 centimeters, and we have cheered for them, applauded, and marveled. And then one of the horses dies – that is, a hockey stick. The child cries so much that he shakes, so he must sit in the teacher's lap.

Thursday 12.51. Same children and same teachers. Together with the other classmates, they gallop on their own hobby horses in the foyer after the performance. Just as sad as he was a moment ago, just as happy is he now, and it is straight from the heart. To experience art that awakens something within one and touches the heart is a childish and human right.

An unnamed producer told this in this report, namely: A Sweden without culture is a silent Sweden. I think that is such a good example. It shows the importance of children being given the opportunity to experience professional culture at an early age. I am convinced that something happened to that little boy on that day that he will carry with him, regardless of whether he will remember that it was specifically hockey sticks that represented horses.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that for the Center Party, it is central that culture is available throughout the country. It is about the freedom of culture and art and that there is an arm's length distance between cultural actors and politics. We shall create the conditions. This debate is scattered, and one cannot be on all areas even if one would like to, because everything is important.

I also believe that culture becomes freer if it stands on several legs. Therefore, in Centerpartiet, we view what is now often called complementary funding positively. I would, however, like to point out that we see it as a gear shift of public funding. The public part can never withdraw; instead, we should increase the common cake for culture. It is worrying that one first cuts back on culture, and then someone else is expected to help finance it. I am thinking, not least, of folk education.

Some proposals from Centerpartiet concern, among other things, issues regarding facilitating culture sponsorship, lowering the dance band VAT, and introducing a deduction right for companies on primary purchases of art and other forms of measures that can promote private financing.

However, a model for public, idea-driven, and private collaboration, as well as more private financing, needs to be developed in order to scale up the public grants. For it to be successful, there must be a clear construction. It will take time. This is no quick fix. It is about creating trust and ensuring that people become comfortable both with contributing to culture and with receiving grants as culture creators.

As has been said, there are many parts in this report. I want to touch upon one art form as well. It is easily accessible for the vast majority of us, and that is going to the cinema. It is everywhere and is spread across our entire country. It is operated by large chains and by individual cinema owners, and there are a number of association-run cinemas that make this accessible.

I see that we have film and drama production in Sweden as very important, because we are a small language. It is our culture. It is our stories that are to be told. There must be such [stories] from different parts of our elongated country.

I am truly concerned. It is regrettable that the Film Inquiry, which has now been completed for a year, has not reached the Riksdag's table. An entire industry is waiting for us to make a decision. I know that the inquiry received an additional directive, but even that was submitted to the government in the autumn. Now we have to wait for that until after the summer and thus after the election. I think it is deeply regrettable. It must be seen as a failure.

Finally, I would like to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation 9, which concerns children's access to culture.

Madam Speaker! Regardless of the government, we must remember that it is a stroke of luck that there are many women in this country, for it is we who largely collectively uphold the culture, and it is the girls who come home with the Olympic medals.

(Applause)

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by expressing my thanks to Catarina for the long presentation at the beginning and for describing the culture. We are sitting here all day debating something, but you also reminded us of what it is we are discussing. It was very nice.

Madam Speaker! In the summer of 2024, we took a decision here in the chamber regarding a Swedish strategy for the cultural and creative industries. Now, it should be made visible how valuable they are for Sweden.

Last year, under Johanna Nylander's leadership, the first statistics for the industries were compiled: 230,000 employees and 650 billion in turnover. It is therefore a question of a very large export in an industry that has not received the same legal care as much else.

In Swedish legislation, it still applies that counterfeiting only applies to physical products. Too little can be done when search engines sell sponsored links to copies of furniture, lamps, and clocks. It is a type of counterfeiting – the mediation of stolen intellectual property and theft from creative, creating people. Customs has a practice of not addressing copies if the purchase value is below 5,000 kronor. In that case, I am not talking about what the original costs but about what has been paid for the copy. Swedish intellectual property law must be tightened.

An area where the government has become involved concerns the IP-TV investigation. It was submitted in the autumn, and the consultation period expired at the end of January. I had a meeting with representatives from Mastercard last week, and they said they were completely satisfied with the investigation and assessed that if its proposals are implemented, Mastercard will be able to act against the payment flows going to those who sell stolen films and sports segments. Hopefully, almost one and a half billion will be added to the sports and film industry when the legislation is in place and the police and prosecutors have begun to apply it.

In the area of performing arts, I would like to highlight the circus. Our circuses tour around the entire country and reach further out than any other performing art form. They perform every evening from the end of April and into September. They only take a break on Midsummer Eve. Since they do not seek grants, despite low profitability, they are often forgotten in the municipalities' visitor statistics. It is a pity. Instead, I think the municipalities should welcome the circus with open arms and gladly provide both venue rental, electricity, and water.

Vasiliki Tsouplaki raised the issue of people with functional variations. We have long talked about making theaters and other facilities accessible to visitors with different functional variations. Now they are starting with the Paralympics, and there we see athletes. In the same way, we in Skåne, where I and Ewa Pihl Krabbe from Socialdemokraterna come from, have seen how work is being done to get people with functional variations to work on stage. On March 17, we are organizing a seminar in the Riksdag where we specifically want to highlight people with functional variations who perform on stage.

Here in the Swedish Riksdag, we have produced the situation report on the video game industry – this industry which generates almost twice as much as the film and music industries combined. The video game industry also easily becomes invisible in cultural contexts because it does not apply for grants. The industry does not need grants either, but it is dependent on well-educated personnel at a high technical level. It needs support for its successful exports. The majority of the small developers need clusters to sit in where they are also guided on how to run companies and move work forward. When the state nurtures the video game industry, we nurture an industry that has all the prerequisites to be able to double within not too distant future.

Madam Speaker! For the cultural and creative industries, AI already plays an important role, and it will become even more important. For the gaming industry, it is about getting new games out faster. For music, AI is a help, and filmmakers save a lot when they can add things that are missing during editing instead of reassembling actors and film teams for supplementary shots.

On Friday, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson presented a strategy for how everything from school to innovation needs to be characterized by AI. The ambition is that Sweden shall become one of the world's ten leading AI nations. By 2030 at the latest, a finished AI workshop shall exist for the Swedish public sector, and the school shall give students in the higher grades knowledge and understanding of both risks and opportunities with AI. Furthermore, the vocational colleges and the universities shall offer shorter educations that meet the labor market's needs.

Let us work together to make the entire growing cultural and creative industry visible, both because it makes Sweden spiritually richer and because it is a good business!

(Applause)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to speak with the members about the conditions for the non-profit cultural life. Even though practically all organizers, leaders, coffee makers, and caretakers work for free to give residents across the country access to culture, some financial support may be needed, for example, to rent premises, open bank accounts, pay electricity, pay copyright royalties, fees, and so on.

Sometimes it is of course possible to cover part of the expenses through ticket revenues, but this is rarely the case in smaller localities. It is a concern if we want to have culture throughout the country and encourage the voluntary cultural life and the democratically organized cultural life. I know that Peter Ollén is passionate about this and that he is well-informed about the current conditions, for example the situation for the music scene and amateur theater.

Will member Peter Ollén be able to secure an extra supplement in the final spring amendment budget so that we can get it in order, or is a change of power needed so that we can get a better economy for the non-profit cultural life?

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for these important questions, Vasiliki Tsouplaki!

The dilemma was that more than every fifth child left ninth grade without being able to read, write, and count. We saw that the greatest threat to democracy and to the children was to continue letting children leave school without the basic skills. That has caused all focus and all money to be channeled there. 850 million have gone to school books, 460 annual million have gone to staffed school libraries and so on.

This has been tough for much of the voluntary work. And I do not think we have been clear enough in showing gratitude towards the voluntary cultural life. They have carried a large part of the load by not being compensated for inflation and, in some cases, even having received reduced grants.

Another thing that I would have liked to have succeeded in delivering is precisely accounts for non-profit organizations. It is not reasonable that it should be so difficult for a non-profit organization to open a bank account. I had hoped that we could have had more dialogue with the finance department about this being rectified. But it has not been done.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Peter Ollén!

I appreciate that we agree on the concern regarding bank accounts. We see that it is almost impossible to get things in order, especially for children's and youth organizations. There we could certainly find common ground. We have submitted motions several times that the banks need to take responsibility so that civil society can also be able to open bank accounts.

When it comes to the government's priorities, I still perceive that quite small amounts of money in context could have done a lot of good for the non-profit cultural life. It is perhaps rather a matter of some kind of ideological deadlocks between the Tidö parties that have prevented it from happening. I pointed out earlier that last year was about 34,000 million in tax cuts. At the same time, for example, ATR, which is struggling to be able to keep its member newspaper and its employees, received a reduction last year of 130,000 – if I remember correctly. These are, therefore, very small amounts of money in context.

One has primarily prioritized these tax cuts, not literacy. In order for children to be able to acquire literacy skills, we could invest much more in schools and in educators who are actually supposed to support the children in their reading development. But very much money has gone to books.

It pains me to say that perhaps a bit too much has gone towards books, but that is perhaps what the parties have managed to agree on. But what has been done with the several hundred million has actually not been based on any investigation of how great the need is. If you have bought class sets of course literature one year, you do not need to buy the same books the next year, for example.

I believe that some of this could have been brought back to invest where it actually makes more difference: in the educators, in more library places at the university, in getting the staffed school libraries established, and more for the voluntary cultural life.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Madam Speaker! Even though I am a publisher in my civil life and therefore love books, I must admit that I have also encountered several librarians who have said: Now we have received money, and it is very good. It feels as if it has been fully funded and that one can now focus on other areas.

I agree when it comes to small amounts of money for the organizations. We have not given other directives, but other priorities have been chosen for those parts when the funds were distributed at Kulturrådet.

When it comes to the tax cut, we will never agree. Our view is that tax cuts are something that jump-starts the economy. If one then gets a growth of 3 percent per year, one will in the long run have completely different sums to distribute.

(Applause)

(cont. § 20)

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