Access to culture and the conditions for cultural creators

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, the incredibly long-awaited and missing statistics arrived regarding how large the culture industry, the cultural and creative industries, actually are and how many people work in the cultural industry. What a joyful reading! We already knew that Sweden is world-renowned for its culture and that, for example, only the USA has a larger music export than Sweden.

That the statistics should show such a large turnover and that so many jobs are in the cultural and creative industry probably surprised most. For example, 250,000 people work in the cultural and creative industry, which consists of 48,000 limited companies and 78,000 sole proprietorships. The turnover is a total of 650 billion kronor, which in turn generates 8 billion in corporate tax to the state.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is important that we remind ourselves that culture is much larger than that which we treat here and partially finance with tax funds. Already during the Moderate-led government 2006–2010, a process and a reorganization of cultural policy was initiated, and even the state goals for cultural policy were changed to those we have today.

We removed, among other things, the wording "to counteract the negative effects of commercialism," a goal that had existed for decades. Instead, we, the Moderate-led government, introduced a state goal that cultural policy should particularly pay attention to children's and young people's right to culture. It is a goal that no party questions today.

For the first time, we also introduced a goal that the state's cultural policy should particularly take heritage issues into account. Nor is that something that anyone questions today.

The Moderate-led government introduced Skapande skola, something we are talking about today, and has now, together with the Sweden Democrats, increased the allocation by 50 million. The Moderate-led government also introduced the cultural cooperation model, where the Arts Council has now been tasked, following a government inquiry led by Mats Svegfors, to review how more money can go to culture instead of administration.

Mr. Speaker! We have finally reached a decision on the renovation of the Opera, something that was actualized as early as when Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth was Minister for Culture.

With those words, I move for approval of the Culture Committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Since I became chairman of the Cultural Affairs Committee almost a year ago, I have devoted a fairly large part of my time to meeting and talking with the sector – the cultural life, the association life, and civil society. I have, of course, learned a great deal from it – about the organization of cultural life, what the conditions are for those who work with culture, and so on. I am very grateful for that.

What is striking is the consensus across the entire sector regarding the troublesome situation that Swedish cultural life finds itself in right now. I do not know if I should use the word crisis, even though it was precisely that word that was used in a call to action in film format that a large number of our biggest artists recently participated in. Together with young, yet unestablished musicians, large parts of Sweden's artist elite expressed their frustration over the rehearsal room crisis, as they call it.

It is a crisis for Swedish cultural life that has been created by the Tidö government, mainly through cuts to support for study associations, and which is naturally exacerbated by reductions and erosion of funding also in other cultural areas. According to the study associations themselves, 20,000 Swedes will lose their meeting room. According to the Folkbildningsrådet, it is primarily the cultural activities that have been affected by the cuts within the study associations. The damage is greatest in smaller towns and in rural areas. This appears in their report Consequences of the Cuts.

The pattern repeats throughout the entire cultural sector. When I speak with, for example, Dansalliansen, who can follow the economic conditions for the cultural life across the whole country more or less from day to day in a very clear way because dancers have very short contracts, they mean that the situation now is worse than during the early stages of the pandemic, i.e., before the pandemic support arrived.

Swedish cultural life and Sweden's cultural creators have for a long time been hit by several blows. The pandemic made it very difficult to create culture together and took the legs out from under the performing arts. With pandemic support and later restart support, we managed to keep cultural life afloat and secure access to culture across the entire country.

Then came the recession and inflation – another blow to culture with increased rents, higher prices and costs and reduced revenues. The audience perhaps stayed at home.

As a third blow came then the Tidö policy, with reduced appropriations and erosion of support, omitted price and wage adjustments, and withdrawn restart subsidies.

Now we see new clouds of worry in the sky. Perhaps we are facing a fourth blow against culture. We have a possible trade war with the USA. The stock market is extremely volatile right now. This morning, I thought it went up very much after having gone down for several days in a row. It is a bit of April weather on the stock market right now.

We have an uncertain world with war in our vicinity. The defense appropriations have roughly tripled in a few years and are to continue to increase at a rapid pace. The same applies to the appropriations for civil defense, but perhaps on a somewhat smaller scale.

Is culture included in the current government's total defense? I asked the Prime Minister that question just now and received a relatively good answer, I think anyway. The Prime Minister did not seem to be aware that culture plays a role in total defense, but he was still interested in that perspective. Perhaps we can hope that some piece of the puzzle has still fallen into place within the government.

Some of us from the committee met the Ukrainian artist Hamlet Zinkivskyi, whose commander urged him to continue with his art instead of participating with weapons. It is probably more than I who have had contact with the Ukrainian cultural life and understood how important the living cultural life is for Ukraine and the Ukrainian total defense – but obviously not yet those in power in the government.

There are very few reasons to cut so much from cultural life and the infrastructure and ecosystem of culture as the Tidöregeringen is doing. There are many reasons to invest in culture and invest in a strong Swedish cultural life, with strong cultural creators and good access to culture across the entire country.

It is not least about talent development, which we in the Culture Committee heard about this morning when the National Centre for Music Talents was visiting. Sveriges Radio was also in the committee and described the enormous cuts they face if the appropriations are not increased. We will, of course, have that debate a bit later.

Miljöpartiet has in this report a motion and a reservation, number 1, regarding permanent restart grants, which I also move for approval of. It is about a new restart after the ravages of the Tidö policy, one might say, so that we can get cultural life started again. We have proposals for how this can be done in the investigation that came after the pandemic, the restart investigation. New grants may be added, and it may be necessary to investigate this further.

We naturally want to make use of the existing infrastructure, with reinforcements to the regions through the cultural cooperation model, which has also been quite poorly handled by the government. We need to invest in the local organizations and the voluntary culture. We have proposals in the report regarding a reinforcement of the live culture and the conditions for the free cultural life. What is happening now is not reasonable – that cultural life is being pushed further and further away from the central parts of the cities and has no venues at all in the smaller towns and in rural areas.

We must also put a stop to the suspicion cast upon civil society and cultural life. Yesterday we read that the Sverigedemokraterna want to abolish the Allmänna arvsfondens funding to civil society and association life. We do not think that is so good.

Miljöpartiet wants the government to investigate and produce a long-term development strategy to strengthen and secure the country's infrastructures within the free and voluntarily organized cultural life, at a national but also at a regional and local level. Not least the municipalities may need support in how they can plan for the return of culture and a stronger cultural life ahead.

We also propose that the Agency for Cultural Analysis be tasked by the government to map out and produce statistics on the very large and actually completely indispensable voluntary sector so that it becomes clear what role that sector plays and what effects it has – so that we get a complete basis for better planning for cultural life.

We also need to get better at broadening the funding of cultural life. There are things to do that I do not think have come up in that specific debate. The one percent rule, for example, is a very good tool for involving the business sector when it comes to paying for public art. Here, the municipalities, regions, and the state can become even better at offering these opportunities to, for example, the construction industry or the real estate industry.

I had a seminar here in the Riksdag with Intercult, which is a very good resource for the internationalization of culture. They help with securing EU support for culture to Sweden. Creative Europe, for example, has a budget of almost 2.5 billion euros for a seven-year period. It might not be a huge amount of money in the overall EU budget, but for culture, it is a lot. We need to get better at capturing those resources; it broadens the funding. Then there are, of course, tax rules and other things that obviously also need to be put in place.

Mr. Speaker! We must improve the conditions for cultural workers. Here, Miljöpartiet has a special statement in the report because it concerns requests that we have submitted previously and which are now being treated simplified and therefore are not included. But since the government and the Minister for Culture are obviously sitting on their hands and nothing is happening in this matter, we submit the same requests again.

We have investigated questions regarding safer forms of employment, unemployment insurance, health insurance and so on in the report from the Arts Policy Inquiry, which came quite a few years ago. There are investigated and referral-processed proposals regarding new SGI rules in the report of the inquiry on a security system for all, ready to be converted into a government bill. What is the government waiting for, we wonder. This also applies, for example, to elite athletes and others with irregular incomes for whom we need to improve the conditions.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Culture stated at a press conference regarding the culture budget that culture had a focus on education, preparedness, and children. Public education is seeing a decrease in funding. And as regards preparedness, there is a complete lack of ambition for the living cultural life. There are some initiatives for children and young people, primarily in schools, but they are not sufficient.

An increase of 50 million shall ensure that Skapande skola moves from a 50 percent hit rate to two-thirds of Sweden's students receiving the funds. I believe there are other structural problems with Skapande skola than just a lack of funds. It requires a great deal from the teachers, the principals, and the school staff to apply for the funds and use them. No requirements are placed on the schools, and there are no guarantees that the children will receive the state funds.

Miljöpartiet wants to introduce a school culture guarantee, where all students get access to professional culture with regularity, preferably at least every term. We have the Norwegian model, called Den kulturelle skolesekken, as an example. We have the organization Assitej, which has good proposals. There are good opportunities to implement such a guarantee.

The government should investigate both access to personal creation and creative subjects and access to professional culture in schools. Miljöpartiet has a proposal for such an investigation in the report.

In addition to this, we mean that the culture school must be strengthened so that it is given the opportunity to develop and exist in all municipalities. A culture school act should be established as a counterpart to the library act.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude by saying something about the freedom of culture and the principle of arm's length distance. We have seen a number of examples in recent years where things have gone wrong – when politicians have stepped in and meddled with the content of culture. I will not point fingers in this speech. We are aware of the examples.

There have been and can be problems with authorities and administrations making mistakes. If it is ideologically conditioned, democracy is in a bad way, but many times it has probably more to do with ignorance, lack of trust or habitual ways of working.

In times when democracy is threatened and freedom of expression is restricted, cultural freedom is more important than ever to defend. The principle of arm's length distance must always be protected and strengthened. We believe that the Swedish Arts Council is the authority that should be tasked with ensuring that this is done and that the principle is upheld. It is primarily knowledge-enhancing initiatives and support for the country's cultural actors, municipalities, regions, and authorities that are needed rather than repressive measures, we believe. This mandate should the government give to the Swedish Arts Council.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like, as I previously mentioned, to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that Mats Berglund brings up the study associations and wants to assert that the government's and SD's reduction to study associations would be the reason why rehearsal rooms are closing. It is a campaign that is currently being led by Studieförbunden i samverkan, where it is claimed that a lot of rehearsal rooms will be closed due to the government's policy.

Then I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question to Mats Berglund. It is true that we have study associations. But after the National Audit Office's report, which showed a large amount of fraud among the study associations, even Ibn Rushd was deprived of the right to grants and chose to shut down, together with another study association. It is therefore two fewer study associations than there were previously.

Yes, we are cutting from 1.8 billion to 1.3 billion over a few years. But according to the statistics that SCB provided a few weeks ago, 40 percent of those who go to study associations are university-educated retirees. They are not young people who use rehearsal rooms. It is also the case that a majority of the activities that study associations have concern, for example, animal care, democracy, religion and history. The music activities are a much smaller part of the study associations' activities.

That the study associations then choose to make savings by closing rehearsal rooms is something we from the Moderaterna, the government, and the Sverigedemokraterna regret, because we have a prioritization that concerns children and young people specifically. But we do not want to interfere in the study associations' activities, and we shall not do so either because we have the principle of arm's length distance.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask Mats Berglund if he thinks that we in the state – in the Culture Committee or in the Riksdag – should decide which activities the study associations shall conduct.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kristina Axén Olin, for the question! I do not think we should decide what activities they should have. But I think we can decide that they should get a bit more money, so that they can carry out activities that are truly needed.

It is the study associations themselves that have made the analysis that approximately one-third of those who today use rehearsal rooms will be deprived of them. That is, approximately 60,000 who use rehearsal rooms, and 20,000 will be deprived of them.

Studieförbunden are not alone in that analysis. We can follow the development on the Cutback Map, which plots media news about premises and operations that are being shut down. There, one can see that it is largely just rehearsal spaces, music houses, and so on.

The Folkbildningsrådet has also, as I mentioned, produced its own report showing that it is the culture that is being cut back. It is not so strange. The regular courses continue. I do not know why the study associations are closing down just rehearsal rooms, but one naturally has high costs and rents for premises. That is probably one reason.

I have heard the member Kristina Axén Olin downplay this cut several times, but a reduction of a third of the state grant obviously implies an enormously large withdrawal that affects not only the study associations but the entire cultural life and the cultural ecosystem. The premises are used not only by the study associations themselves. They are used by the entire association life. Miljöpartiet, which is a small party and does not have its own premises everywhere, uses them. It is sports clubs, local heritage societies, and so on.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! If the state has a goal of prioritizing children and young people and the student unions do not follow it, that is something that I, in and of itself, may find noteworthy.

If 40 percent of the participants in the study associations' activities are university-educated retirees and the smallest group of all age categories is the 20–24 age group, I can think it is somewhat remarkable that one specifically chooses to threaten to close rehearsal rooms when given a savings mandate instead of considering closing some of the other activities.

Could it be that the Secretary General of Studieförbunden i samverkan has a past as both a political secretary and a political expert in the Social Democratic government and that this affects the prioritization? It is thus being made more into a party-political campaign effort.

Mr. Speaker! I still have not received an answer from Mats Berglund: Does Mats Berglund think we should take over and speak about what the student unions should use the money for or how they should make their savings? Should we not have an arm's length distance, as Mats Berglund previously spoke about here in the rostrum? That is to say that we are not allowed to interfere in it.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I began my response by saying that I do not think we should make those prioritizations. There, we must trust the operations and the study associations themselves.

I do not think it is strange that one chooses to close premises, because that is where the large costs are. But then there are operations, wages and such that are cost-driving. It is not that strange.

I note that Kristina Axén Olin is dissatisfied with how the study associations have prioritized. I also think that the suspicion – that there would be some kind of infiltration in cultural life and that the study associations would choose to make cuts that harm them themselves just to be able to point fingers at the government – is a very strange argument. In my speech, I also warned against the suspicion of cultural life.

Kristina Axén Olin raised the now six-year-old incident in Järva which resulted in criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office.

This is very old criticism. We know that it was the study associations themselves who discovered this mistake. They have taken powerful measures. The National Audit Office's report has been used incorrectly time and again. It has been interpreted incorrectly, and we have discussed that in this chamber as many times as ever. I do not understand why the political majority cannot let that go.

This is six years old. There are obviously no longer any problems to point out, but these very old examples are used time and again.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! 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, as it is called, has not been achieved.

Within the Christian Democrats, we have developed a new cultural policy program. I might say that it is not solely about the leisure card, even though this is a Christian Democrat baby that we are very proud of. Culture is so much more. The Christian Democrats believe that it is important for cultural creators to have good working conditions and good social security, and that there is a need to make visible the cultural creators' conditions and circumstances. This applies to their insecure economic circumstances and the specific labor market, which is characterized by short employment and projects and which varies over time.

The State shall strive to ensure that cultural workers have access to a functioning system for social security based on their individual circumstances. An inquiry has been tasked with reviewing the rules for sickness benefit-earning income, SGI, i.e., the income basis that serves as the foundation for the calculation of, among other things, sickness benefit and parental benefit. In brief, the inquiry proposes that SGI shall be able to be decided based on both historical incomes and, if it is more favorable, current incomes for both employees and self-employed individuals. The inquiry further proposes that SGI shall also be able to be decided based on income in the form of, for example, scholarships and cultural prizes. The proposals will be prepared within the Government Offices. We shall see what comes out of this.

Mr. Speaker! It is extremely crucial that people throughout the country can participate in cultural expressions and cultural activities. We are all part of a larger context. To realize that, the previous Alliance government introduced the so-called cultural cooperation model. It may not be a game-changer, but it is important for the whole country to have access to culture. The committee assesses that the cultural cooperation model makes it possible to adapt different interventions to local conditions and different groups in the population.

Mr. Speaker! The concept Skapande skola is a state project. This too was introduced by the Alliance government. It is intended to stimulate school principals to work with activities for cultural creators and schools and to stimulate cooperation to long-term integrate cultural expressions into the school's work. Research shows that children who regularly have contact with cultural activities gain a greater ability to recognize and express their feelings, which is crucial for understanding others' feelings and feeling empathy. Since its start, Skapande skola has been expanded, largely thanks to proposals from the Kristdemokraterna, so that it now covers the entire primary school and preschool. We safeguard this form of integration of culture in the school.

When I worked as a teacher in the 70s and at the beginning of the 80s, we had quite a few visits from professional cultural workers in the school. I remember, among others, Eva Rydberg and Lasse Kühler. I also remember Galenskaparna, who performed at the very beginning of their career.

Mr. Speaker! What is a political debate about culture for children and young people if the leisure card is not given space? The leisure card has even been given its own website, fritidskortet.se, where one can go in and read what is needed to know what it is about.

I am reading from the website: ”Do you have children between the ages of 8 and 16? In that case, there is a proposal from the government that you should be able to use a new Fritidskort to pay for the children's leisure activities from the autumn of 2025. The basic amount is 500 kronor per child per year. For households that received housing allowance last year, the amount is 2,000 kronor per child. The Fritidskort is a support to give more children and young people the opportunity for a meaningful leisure time.”

Who in this assembly wishes to go against this positive initiative for children and young people across the whole country?

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will not be so long-winded. I only noted that Member Roland Utbult mentioned Calle Nathanson's investigation A safety system for everyone and the SGI issue. I thought it was positive to hear – it sounded like that, at least – that the Kristdemokraterna would like to push this through. I know that it is being prepared in the Government Offices; I have asked the Minister for Social Insurance a couple of times and have received the same answer all the time.

I wanted to ask the member how the Christian Democrats view implementing the main reform being proposed, namely to calculate SGI historically instead of calculating future income. I also want to ask a question that I have previously asked Anna Tenje: Will it be implemented during the mandate period? What is Roland Utbult's assessment of the possibility that it will actually be implemented? It is very important, not only for cultural workers but also for, for example, elite athletes, as I mentioned in my speech. It is actually important for everyone who has an uneven income, for example, for gig workers.

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for the question!

I am left hanging in the answer. Work is ongoing on the other side of the water, as we say, and we do not know everything about that work when we sit here in the Riksdag.

For the Christian Democrats, it is very important that cultural workers receive security. I have myself worked as a cultural worker and been a combinator, as it is called. I have almost always had a job, primarily as a teacher and then as a social worker, and have used culture during my free time and weekends. I know that the existence as a cultural worker is insecure, and I naturally want to be involved in contributing to changing this.

What is happening on the other side of the water, that is, on the government's side, I do not know right now; I do not have that information. I just have to wait for it, just like all of us others.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally understand that answer. One fine thing about this investigation is that it proposes that one should not abolish the old system just because a new one is being introduced. Instead, they are to be placed on top of each other, and then one should be able to calculate what is best for oneself, which many times can be the future income. For the vast majority who have a steady income, this will be completely equal and therefore cost nothing for the state, except that more people get what they are entitled to, quite simply.

I have been in contact with members from the majority side in the Social Insurance Committee who have nevertheless expressed some kind of hope that this will be implemented. We had a meeting with the Swedish Sports Confederation, the Parasport Federation, and the Swedish Olympic Committee at Bosön some weeks ago where we discussed this, and it is very important specifically for the sports movement.

Can it be hoped that the Christian Democrats will still, in some way, work to implement this extremely important reform?

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Mats Berglund and I share the view that cultural workers must be given greater security. It is very important, and I am personally passionate about this and will do everything I can.

We all know that not all of these investigations always lead to anything, but I hope in any case that this regarding scholarships, cultural prizes and other things being able to be pension-qualifying can become a reality. Parts of it will hopefully be implemented in any case.

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

Lars Mejern Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats stand by our reservations and special statements. I move for approval of reservation 9.

Mr. Speaker! Selma Lagerlöf let in Gösta Berling's saga golden bees swarm freely over Värmland – headstrong, free but indispensable. They spread life, movement and beauty.

Exactly that is how we can view culture. Culture is not an annex to the building of society. It is its heart. It pollinates our thoughts, nourishes democracy and shapes our common narrative, and without cultural creators, artists, authors, musicians and actors, this common narrative falls silent.

Right now, many of these bees are threatened. The conditions for working as a free cultural creator in Sweden are often insecure and characterized by temporary assignments, low incomes, and a lack of social security. It is a paradox. Those who give us meaning, comfort, and faith in the future must themselves fight for their survival. If we want a real cultural life, we must also protect those who carry it. Just as the bees need their hives, the cultural creators need reasonable working conditions and long-term security.

To invest in culture is to invest in our democracy, our identity, and our hope. Let us not forget Lagerlöf's wisdom: The golden bees may be unruly, but without them life becomes silent and poor.

Mr. Speaker! Culture is not only a source of joy and reflection. It is also a labor market, a lifeline for thousands of people in our country who earn their living through their artistic work. Most artists, musicians, designers, and authors are self-employed. They do not appear in the Swedish Public Employment Service's statistics, and they do not receive the support that many other workers can rely on in tough times.

Instead, they turn to the center organizations, which are unique and vital actors in Swedish cultural life. It is these organizations that help cultural creators find assignments, negotiate agreements, and obtain legal help and networks. It functions as an employment agency within the cultural sector and has become an increasingly important actor in a pressured labor market.

Despite this, their state support has been reduced. During 2024, the support decreased by 5 percent. This year it remains at the same level, while inflation erodes the value even further. The result speaks for itself: layoffs, cuts, and a reduced opportunity to support cultural creators.

This is deeply worrying, because when the central formations are weakened, the entire infrastructure of culture is also weakened. It becomes harder for artists to find assignments, harder to get the right compensation, and harder to get support in an industry that is already uncertain.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's cultural county Värmland usually leads the way, but even here, support was needed. In my Värmland, we know what power culture has. We see it in the work with Alma Löv Museum in Östra Ämtervik, which puts contemporary art on the map, right in the middle of the rural area. We see it in Arvika Konsthall, where young artists get to grow. Västanå Musik & Teater is something entirely its own. Their way of mixing stories, folk music, and dance is magical. They grab the heart and leave no one untouched. It is such things that build both soul and pride in the region.

Behind this stand all the everyday heroes who work with culture every day. Music teachers, librarians, performing arts educators and freelancers make culture live, not because it is easy but because they cannot imagine doing anything else. But their commitment is not enough alone. We politicians must also take responsibility. We must support, invest in and stand up for culture, because without support the fire fades, and we cannot afford that.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to speak about the cultural school, the foundation for the future's cultural life. Just as important as the opportunity to work as a cultural creator is the opportunity to grow into culture as a child and young person. The cultural school is one of the very finest investments we can make, both for the individual and for society. It gives children and young people from all backgrounds the chance to play, sing, create, and express themselves.

In Karlstad, the culture school has opened doors for generations of children, and I have myself seen what it means for self-confidence, creativity, and the sense of belonging to hold an instrument in one's hand, stand on a stage, and express one's feelings in color and form.

Henrik Dorsin, one of our most beloved actors, expressed last week doubts about whether he would have the same opportunities to make his way within his profession if he were young today. He pointed to the reduced support for the cultural school and the abolition of the "fun hour" – those small but crucial seeds of cultural education and creative development.

Mr. Speaker! I quote what Henrik Dorsin said in Dagens Nyheter: ”Had someone like me a penchant for acting, there were other opportunities at that time. Even if one did not have the economic means.”

He points out how serious the consequences can be when access to cultural activities is restricted, especially for children who do not have the financial means at home.

Even here, there are worrying trends. Fees are being raised, the supply is decreasing, and access is becoming unequal between municipalities. We risk that culture will once again become something for the few instead of for the many.

Mr. Speaker! It does not stop with Henrik Dorsin. "I am sure that every 'problem child' who picks up a brush or guitar and is given access to a studio or rehearsal room is a great win for society." That is what Lars Winnerbäck says in a film clip that premiered during the Grammis gala on March 27.

Jill Johnson expresses her horror regarding the crisis that now threatens Sweden's rehearsal spaces and music life, and she is far from alone. In a joint outcry, several of Sweden's biggest artists – such as Håkan Hellström, Shellback, Karin Dreijer, The Hives and many more – have protested against the government's cuts in public education.

The outcry has been made in the form of a film where a large part of Sweden's artist elite and a number of young musicians express their concern over the reduced availability of specifically rehearsal rooms. Several well-known names testify to what rehearsal rooms have meant for them during their upbringing. The background to the outcry is that the government has reduced the state subsidy to study associations by 250 million kronor during 2024 and by an additional 100 million kronor in 2025. Ahead of 2026, a further reduction of 150 million kronor is planned.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only I who am asking the question: What is happening with the conditions for culture in our country?

Mr. Speaker! Culture is not just a matter of identity, freedom of expression or quality of life; it is also a matter of equality, justice and faith in the future. That is why we must have a cultural policy that secures reasonable conditions for cultural creators, restores and strengthens the support for the community centers, invests long-term in the cultural school and makes it accessible to everyone, and recognizes culture's role in the labor market policy and in democracy.

This is not a cost – it is an investment. With every krona we spend on culture, we build a stronger, wiser, and more cohesive society. And we do it together with the cultural creators, with civil society, with the municipalities, and with all those who carry culture on their shoulders.

Mr. Speaker! I shall conclude with a quote. ”Actually, culture is in many ways the answer to the question of what is worth defending.” So said Finland's President Alexander Stubb at the Nordic Council's theme session in Helsinki on April 1.

(Applause)

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday I felt hope and faith in the future. It can truly be difficult to feel hope and faith in the future in these times, so it was indeed very much needed.

Together with my colleagues in the committee, we had a seminar on culture in the north. In addition to a long list of interesting culture in northern Sweden to experience in the future, my takeaway from the seminar was the burning commitment to create meeting places and culture. It is a commitment that gave hope for the future and was contagious. Let me tell you about some of the sources of inspiration!

In Vitsaniemi, a small village just south of the Arctic Circle, Konsthall Tornedalen is emerging. The building does not exist yet, but the operations have started. The goal is that exhibitions with artworks from the large museums should be able to be displayed there – especially those artworks that have been created in the north but collected in archives in the south. The commitment is great to see Tornedalen art in Tornedalen, and many want to be involved and contribute to getting the building in place.

In Jokkmokk municipality lies Jillat, a Sámi dance center where passionate individuals have built a production house for freelance artists that particularly welcomes dancers from Sápmi and other indigenous peoples. "Jillat" moreover means "tindra" (to sparkle) – a wonderful expression. When we listened to the representatives from Jillat, I think we all imagined children's sparkling eyes when they experience the magic of a fantastic dance performance for the first time.

In Sundsvall, there is Sweden's oldest rock club, Pipeline. There, the music unites the old-timers' band, who have played together since the 70s, with 14-year-olds taking their first stumbling steps out on stage. Enthusiasts across generations keep the activities going, through ups and downs.

Mr. Speaker! These and all the other examples we encountered yesterday – and which we encounter every week when we visit cultural creators, institutions, and passionate individuals – remind us of how important access to culture is. Engagement breeds engagement, community is built, and unexpected encounters arise. Culture is truly society's intellectual infrastructure. It gives people the tools to understand, question, influence, and 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 also increase people's curiosity about things that they were not really interested in before or did not even know existed. In the encounter with culture, one grows as a human being. Culture policy is therefore about creating conditions for people to learn more about themselves, their personality, their ability and their prejudices, as well as their context, their society, their contemporary time and their future – in short, about life, quite simply.

Mr. Speaker! How do we then create these conditions? What is our role here in the Riksdag? Yes, for one thing, even enthusiasts cannot live on air and water. State funding is an important and necessary foundation to secure access to culture for everyone. But we also need to open up for more ways of financing. The goal must be that the culture cake becomes larger by both the state and others contributing.

Konsthall Tornedalen is, by the way, a very good example of this. There, they have found different creative solutions for financing. There, one who wants to contribute can do so by buying some planks, screws, or a bag of sand. Of course, you don't get it sent back home, but it goes towards the construction itself. In that way, one can be involved in creating more culture.

Secondly, we need to tear down the obstacles that are encountered in the creative industries and in the non-profit sector. Nothing can kill a burning commitment like unnecessary bureaucracy and complicated rules.

Thirdly, our role is to maintain an arm's length distance to culture. This is particularly important for the conditions of the cultural creators. It is never the role of politics to interfere with the content. Culture must be allowed to provoke; it is part of our freedom of expression. Nor should we have systems that steer culture through economic incentives that encroach on cultural freedom.

Mr. Speaker! In these restless times of trade wars, real wars, and other madness, we naturally also landed in the theme of preparedness yesterday when we spoke about culture in the north. Culture is important in itself, because we are human beings, and culture is about us. But culture also helps us build a will to defend and lets us think about something else for a little while.

Not least in Ukraine, we see the importance of culture in the midst of a burning war. The Ukrainians are fighting against the Russian invasion, not only to retain their country's borders but also to retain their culture and be who they are. It is about both their physical cultural heritage and their way of living and being.

Mr. Speaker! To conclude where I began: I hope that even the brave people of Ukraine in their difficult situation get to experience glimpses of hope and faith in the future through culture.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 in the report.

This is a report that is quite diverse in many ways and which deals with many different subjects. I will, however, focus on cultural freedom and the conditions for cultural creators.

I have sat in the Culture Committee for two years, but I have a history of sitting in many other committees in Sweden's Riksdag. During these two years, there has been quite a lot of debate surrounding these issues, which is good. I think it is very good to have a lively debate. It is good for democracy, if nothing else. But it has also made me think a lot about where we in Sweden find ourselves when it comes to these issues and why we are where we are. What lies behind the fact that we have the structures and systems that we work according to in different ways?

As I have also mentioned many times before in this chamber, I grew up in a family that has made a living from the performing arts and as cultural creators. All of us people are, of course, shaped in different ways by our history, where we come from, and our upbringing, and it is clear that this has influenced me very much.

I have a father who has been a musician since long before I was born and made his living from it. He grew up in Gothenburg during the progg era. When he applied for grants for his activities, he never received support. It is clear: He did not have left-wing views, he was not a communist, and he did not sing about punk in that way. He had other views, and it is clear that it affected how support was given. Obviously, it was not about the quality of the music, because he subsequently achieved success and hit all over the world. But the other bands, which received millions in support, did not become much in the end.

I believe the reason why there was such a march of the '68 left through the institutions was that there was a clear political agenda. I have many times highlighted the effects of the Social Democrats putting forward a proposition in 1974 where they wanted to counteract the negative impact of commercialism on culture. The free cultural creators become dependent on the hand that feeds them.

There are many examples. I recently read about ABBA's history. The Social Democrats and the left-wing movement were against ABBA and their glitter and glamour; the commercial aspect was terrible in various ways. One was to counteract commercialism and its negative impact on culture, which, moreover, is still written in the Social Democrats' policy program for culture.

Now people talk about the miracle of music as if it were something one welcomed during the last part of the 20th century, but that was not the case. It is tragic that one has made cultural creators so dependent on public funds. That must be broken. It will take time, but our ambition is that it should become much easier to stand on one's own feet as a cultural creator. It is very important.

Working in the entertainment industry is something fantastically beautiful. I know very many people who work in that industry. It is something that one should be very proud of. Something that was tangible during the pandemic – I sat in the Finance Committee during that time and handled the conditions for small businesses – was that as a non-publicly dependent cultural creator, one did not even see oneself as a cultural creator. One saw it as working in the entertainment industry.

It was very tangible, and this is quite unique. When I travel around to other countries and raise this question with cultural politicians, I notice that Sweden stands out. They do not have that view of culture as one has in Sweden.

Two weeks ago, we were in the Folketing in Copenhagen to meet cultural creators and politicians. We discussed the Danish model for financing culture. They work there with funds and have a completely different view within the private sector. They are involved in financing culture in a completely different way. It is a completely different attitude. There is a big difference between our two neighboring countries in those issues.

It is clear that there are amounts of culture that need to be financed with public funds. This applies in particular to children and young people, cultural heritage and so on. But as a Sverigedemokrat, I can defend the view that one should sometimes not be involved in financing that adult people, for example, engage in some certain form of hobby. I think that it becomes wrong. I think that as an adult human being, one must have in one's basic thought that one should find own conditions to finance one's activities.

The reactions to the film summit were quite striking; it is about one's own view on one's own role in the era we live in. Entrepreneurship was needed even within culture. We cannot live on grant dependency. It is not reasonable in the long run.

What is cultural freedom then? That is a question I have asked myself quite often lately. It naturally becomes almost a philosophical discussion when one is to talk about what freedom actually is. But is one free if one is shaped by one's surroundings, by the education system and by opinion corridors, which we have discussed a lot? What is stigmatization? What does it mean to have a deviating opinion at one's workplace, to not think like everyone else? What does deplatforming mean? Which hand is it that feeds one? Does one actually dare to say what one thinks and feels? I mean that it is not so.

After we have had debates in cultural contexts, people come up to me and ask – sometimes they whisper: Could I speak with you privately for a bit? I just want to say that I agree with you. I think what you said was good. But I cannot say it publicly. I cannot say it so that others hear. I also get emails from people who write: You Alexander! I just want to say that I think you are doing a great job for culture. But because of my situation at work, I cannot stand up for it, because I am afraid of being fired.

Are we free then? I do not think so. I do not think it is freedom. Is it the case that we might be deceiving ourselves when we say that we have a free culture in Sweden, if left-wing ideology dominates education, institutions, and authorities, and people with deviating opinions are pressured not to dare to say what they think? I believe it. If one risks being stigmatized, then the word freedom does not apply in that sense.

The Sweden Democrats have, together with the government, worked actively to find ways to create conditions for cultural creators to find other financing opportunities, so that they can stand on their own feet. Today my father says: I am glad that I didn't receive any support but learned to stand on my own feet from the beginning. That made me successful, he says. I believe that it applies to many others as well.

The proposals that are on the table are good, but I believe in the name of honesty that we would need to see a significantly larger reform of the cultural sector. I mean that this also sits within the walls of the institutions. Like chicks in the bird's nest, one has learned to scream louder to get the mother bird to bring more food. It is not good. Instead, one needs to learn to create one's own conditions.

But this is slowly changing. We have heard examples of this today, and I want to give another example. When I am out and talking with organizations within the cultural sector, I ask: What does your board look like? How is it structured? Almost always, it consists of people from different parts of the cultural sector. They are usually people who do not have the ability to think in new ways regarding funding.

Some have, however, actually brought in the business sector into the boards. It is quite exciting. When I ask what the response has been when they have asked the business sector to join the boards, I am told that very positive messages have come. There are many from the business sector who have a heart for culture and want to be involved in development. Those organizations have actually succeeded better. They have managed to find different other ways to find financiers.

Entrepreneurship is required. If you do not have it yourself, it is good to seek help from others who do. I believe that we need to see that change. We Sverigedemokrater will moving forward work actively to develop the culture in that direction in various ways.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson (SD) agreed.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Alexander Christiansson for the speech, which clarifies the differences of opinion within the Culture Committee. I believe we all think it is good that we have a debate where the differences come to light. I have thought for a long time about the fact that it is often said that we agree on culture, that we are driven by the same cultural policy goals and so on. It is rather the case that the debate has unfortunately gone a bit under the radar for the major media and so on. Therefore, these ideological differences have not been seen, and that is perhaps also a reason why they have succeeded in growing, which they do.

I will not go into too much detail regarding the opinions that we do not agree with, for example this matter regarding that it would not be worth supporting the non-profit culture as a hobby, and what I consider to be a suspicion that aims at the idea that one should support left-wing culture and no other, something that I do not believe is true at all.

I thought instead to ask how the Sweden Democrats view this matter of broadening the funding and bringing in the business sector. Alexander Christiansson mentioned the Danish system. I also think it is good. Carlsberg, Mærsk and other large financiers provide money to culture. In Sweden, for historical reasons, we have a different structure. Wallenberg, those with Tetra Pak and so on, started putting money into research rather than culture a hundred years ago. It is very important for research. It is incredibly important money, but it did not come to culture.

I think we are in fair agreement that it is now time for this. We must try to get the business sector in as a financier without the state backing off on that part. What do the Sweden Democrats want to do to encourage the business sector to fund money for culture?

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Mats Berglund for a relevant question that is discussed a lot. Not least, Parisa Liljestrand has spoken a lot about the creative industries, and a number of investigations have been conducted on how culture in Sweden is financed.

I see it as a rather significant reorganization, and it is often about attitude. I believe that within the cultural sector, there are some prejudices against the business community. As I mentioned in my speech, I have had some exciting discussions with cultural workers who do not know at all how they are to solve this. But when the question has been asked to the business community about whether there is an interest in sitting on the board of a museum or a theater, the business community's response has been overwhelming. They are happy to sit on boards and bring new, creative ideas and ways of thinking when it comes to financing, and in these cases, it has actually also gone very well.

I believe it is largely about cultural change and self-image. In my speech, I tried to highlight that I perceive that cultural creators often have a certain mindset and a certain view of themselves because they are shaped by their upbringing and education. It is unfortunate, because I do not experience the same in Denmark. There, the cultural creators have a different attitude and a different view of the private sphere. I mean that it is in many ways ideology that lies behind, for the 1974 culture bill is very clear regarding precisely the question of the private sphere.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! That was an interesting answer.

It was not to counteract commercialism the member said from the rostrum, but to counteract the negative impact of commercialism. I think that one should counteract negative impact, so then it is good that state funds are used for that.

It is not my opinion that the cultural life has a negative view of private money. We may have met different parts of the cultural life, but I think there is rather a hope that the business sector will be involved in financing the cultural life. What is important for our part is that the state does not withdraw. Now, one might get the impression that if the state withdraws, a vacuum is created where someone else comes in, but I do not believe in that mechanism. Cultural creators are to a large extent self-employed and work on a commercial basis; they must, of course, bring in money for their own livelihood.

It is rather the case that in parts of the business sector, culture has a negative connotation and low status, and it is here that we need to make the big change.

The gaps in society are increasing, and it is one of the most worrying trends in today's society. In Sweden, it is happening fast, and here there are now many dollar billionaires. We would need to get this group into the grant-giving in the way that happened just over a hundred years ago with the Wallenberg family and so on.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Even if I said something else, it says "the negative impact of commercialism on culture" in my script, and that was obviously what I meant. And again: I believe that this has created this discrepancy.

When I have visited other countries with the cultural delegation and on my own, I have asked questions about this. Sometimes they do not understand what I mean because they have a different way of looking at culture funding, cultural freedom, and so on.

Mats Berglund is right. It is not just about culture's view of the business sector. The business sector's view of culture is an at least equally large problem. Take, for example, the business community's well-known statement "What the hell do I get for the money?". One thinks that one pays a hell of a lot of money in taxes when one works and toils and wonders what one gets back. Long healthcare queues? And now I am supposed to help finance culture too! Something the politicians can do right!

I come from the business sector myself and would like to assert that there are such sentiments there.

What I am trying to convey is that we must think bigger if we are to get this right. An attitude change from both sides takes more than four years, and we need to work much more with incentives, for example gift tax deductions, so that the business community wants to be involved and contribute to culture. These are, however, small adjustments, and they do not solve everything. But I believe that starting to talk about it in a different way can contribute. There is something fine about being involved and contributing to culture as an entrepreneur, and I believe most within the business community feel that way. Let us therefore find incentives to make it easier.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Access to culture and the conditions for cultural creators is the name of the report we are now debating. It is an important debate when unemployment among cultural workers has increased by around 30 percent since this government took over with the help of the Sweden Democrats.

Of course, not everything is the government's fault, but it is likely a combination of several different things. But there are targeted cuts from the government in some areas and too low or no increases in support in other areas. Inflation and the dysfunctional electricity market have caused major problems with increased interest rates, higher rents, higher heating and electricity costs, and so on. For regions and municipalities, pension costs have also been a major concern in light of the high inflation.

In this situation, the government has prioritized tax cuts for the very wealthiest instead of providing the funds that have been requested to avoid layoffs within the non-profit, private, and public cultural sectors.

Mr. Speaker! It bothers me that the Tidö parties' representatives in the Culture Committee, debate after debate, say that one has only prioritized differently. It is about education, children, and support for Ukraine, but almost always one forgets to mention that one has also prioritized lowering taxes by 34 billion. The Minister has, at least, spoken about that prioritization and said that when people get more money in their wallets, they will be able to consume more culture. But for the vast majority, the tax cut provides hardly any supplement. A hundred or two kronor is not even enough to cover the increased cost of food. And those who receive sickness and activity benefits receive nothing at all but are affected, for example, by higher prices on medicines.

Yesterday, the organization Sveriges Makalösa Föräldrar demonstrated outside the Riksdag to speak out about how, as a single parent, it is difficult to provide food for one's children for the rest of the month. Furthermore, one abstains from leisure activities and cannot replace the children's clothes at the rate they grow. It is a mockery to claim that they will be able to go to the cinema or a concert more often.

When cultural creators are given worse conditions, there is a great risk that accessibility will deteriorate. All parliamentary parties usually claim that they want good accessibility to culture throughout the country, but then they must also acknowledge this connection. Without good conditions for the cultural creators, we get no cultural offerings.

To a certain extent, one can adapt the production and play pieces with smaller ensembles, let the actors play multiple roles each, perform musical pieces with fewer instruments, and tour with smaller musical groups that the organizers can afford to hire. But eventually, the quality risks becoming so low that it cannot be sustained. Or one needs to raise the ticket prices so much that the audience shrinks, and then the revenues do not become higher anyway. In the end, many are forced to shut down.

Mr. Speaker! Now that we are talking about the conditions for cultural workers, I want to raise the issue of the large cuts to student unions, which have been debated here previously. A large number of music houses and rehearsal rooms have disappeared due to the government's and the Sweden Democrats' cuts, and more are to be expected.

In an appeal from Studieförbunden i samverkan, a long line of artists who have achieved public success get to tell about their musical journey, and the consensus is great: Without a place to rehearse, at low or no cost, they might never have developed into the artists they are today. Skilled musicians and composers are not something one conjures out of thin air. Now, the Tidö parties are eroding the foundation for the Swedish musical miracle, which one is so proud of and which is supposed to strengthen the image of Sweden and provide export revenues.

The cultural education programs are already today the most skewed ones we have at our colleges and universities. The working class youth do not dare to invest and take out student loans to work in such an uncertain industry. If, in addition, the informal education path through student unions is closed, we will get an even more homogeneous cultural sector.

I was a bit alarmed earlier when Kristina Axén Olin from Moderaterna made an extensive contribution here. It actually left me both surprised and alarmed, so I must take a minute to respond to it. I think she made a series of suspicions against student unions. She even mentioned individual employees' party affiliations in a way that we do not usually do. I do not think that is respectful, nor is it a debate climate that we should have here.

I also think that one should be more careful with the truth about what is what in this. For example, there were complaints regarding the age distribution among the participants. In that case, I think it is important that the audience finds out that it is not permitted to register participants under 13 years of age for state grants. There is a 13-year limit, so it is not strange that there are no younger children registered in the activities.

The young group is primarily found in music activities. If the government is serious about reaching out to young people, it is important to look at music activities. If the Moderaterna do not know why music houses and rehearsal rooms are being closed down, I think they should contact the organizations and study associations and ask them instead of making various claims here in the chamber, because I think that is unprofessional.

Our chairman in the committee tried to provide an explanation. It may be that there are very high costs for premises, something that is linked to what I mentioned earlier: inflation, heating costs, rents, interest rates, and so on. It costs money to have houses. At the same time, much of the other study activity is conducted by voluntary actors. The large costs – the fixed costs – are in the properties. I do not think it is so difficult to understand.

I also think the audience needs to be told that all parties here in the chamber, except for the Sweden Democrats, are linked to a study association. That is why there has been a broad understanding over the years of the importance of the study associations' activities, because we all have a connection. We conduct studies ourselves as parties through the study associations. The Moderates, for example, are linked to Medborgarskolan. Go home and ask your own organization how the cuts actually work! It is not difficult.

But enough about this, even though there was a bit more about Ibn Rushd and the cultural shutdowns. We will have to save that for another time, because now I want to, finally, Mr. Speaker, highlight the proposals that Vänsterpartiet has to strengthen the conditions for cultural creators.

We see that the government needs to reach a decision on the issue of strengthened social security linked to the investigation on SGI and promptly handle the issue of AI and copyright.

In our budget for 2025, there are investments in the stage art alliances, which is a form of employment specifically adapted to the uncertain conditions that many cultural workers have. More musicians, dancers, and actors could obtain a secured livelihood with our proposal.

We also propose investments – 30 million – for the MU agreement for visual artists. They have very low compensations today and would need to be guaranteed reasonable levels. We also want to increase the individual exhibition compensation.

Then, of course, a restoration of the support for student unions is needed. We also want to see broad initiatives for the entire cultural sector and also reinforcements for municipalities and regions so that they can ensure that we have functioning public libraries, cultural schools, and so on. That would secure a cultural offering throughout the country.

The proposal from Vänsterpartiet included among the motions being addressed in today's report concerns the possibility for persons with disabilities to participate in culture and have an active leisure time. Today, there are a number of obstacles to this. This week, for example, we have been able to read in the media about how reduced escort services, among other things, have led to the fact that the Paralympian Nicolina Pernheim Goodrich may need to end her sports career.

Questions regarding transport services and accompaniment are not decided in our committee, but we in Vänsterpartiet want the activities that receive public support to be as accessible as possible. Therefore, I want to move for approval of reservation 14, which concerns that issue.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Vasiliki chose to ask questions and did not seem to want to understand what I said earlier regarding the reduction in student unions. I therefore request to repeat it, a bit more calmly this time.

First and foremost, I must ask to tell Vasiliki that I do not have a study association. Medborgarskolan is not my study association. Medborgarskolan exists, absolutely. Medborgarskolan is one of the few study associations that is now expanding when it comes to children's and young people's culture. They are just about to start a cultural center in Malmö, and yesterday it was finalized that they are taking over Calle Flygare Teaterskola. It is very fun that Medborgarskolan follows the state cultural goals and prioritizes children and young people.

What I meant earlier was that it is correct that we are reducing from 1.8 to 1.3 billion kronor over three years when it comes to student unions. On the other hand, it is two fewer student unions that are to share the state grants, because Ibn Rushd and one more have chosen to close down. Ibn Rushd closed down because they had their grants withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is strange and sad that study associations – not all, but most – choose to shut down rehearsal rooms when they receive less money. 40 percent of the participants in study associations are university-educated retirees. The vast majority of the activities are not about music at all but, as mentioned, about animal care, trade union activities, history, religion, genealogy and all possible other activities. That is not to say that they are not good, but I think it is remarkable that the study associations choose to shut down just activities for children and young people and music activities.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, I want to ask Vasiliki again: Does she think it is we who should tell the student unions what activities they should conduct, or shall we continue to try to maintain an arm's-length distance? Is it only the government parties and SD who think we should maintain an arm's-length distance? Don't the Left Party, the Social Democrats, and the Green Party think so?

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Both I, the member, and several others have lamented that the music activities in particular are being discontinued. I do not think that is to direct, but rather it is to lament. It is an important activity, and it sounds like we agree on that and that the member thinks it is a pity that it is being discontinued. In that case, I think one can have a conversation. It is not to try to direct, but rather to find out why it is that way. I do not think that is problematic. We have a dialogue with different organizations, and they want to convey in different ways that it is very regrettable.

What I do not understand is whether the member believed it would not be noticed that one plans to cut by 500 million kronor. Or is it that the member is now arguing that one should cut on the activities concerning the 40 percent with higher education that the member mentioned twice? In that case, I think one is interfering and directing.

One can also create a different regulatory framework. As I said, it is the 13-year limit. Do you think it should be changed so that one works more with children and young people, or do you want to set an upper limit so that retirees are not allowed to participate? I see that the Tidö parties have other initiatives for lonely retirees precisely because many elderly people sit alone. In that case, it is excellent that they can be part of a study circle.

There is something else that is important. As someone who has a class perspective in my politics, I see that many with low education are primarily found in rural areas, in the countryside, and in smaller towns. Much activity is disappearing now because it becomes more expensive when there are fewer participants. Several of the premises stand empty in smaller towns. If one wants to ensure that there is activity throughout the country – in smaller towns and in the countryside – one should not cut back. I think this is important to say.

Another point is that many of the courses that older higher education graduates take, as the member mentioned, are courses that they pay for themselves. Much is fee-financed by the participants and is not paid for with tax money.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Mr. Speaker! All education is good, and all knowledge is good – absolutely, I am the first to agree. But if one wants a book club, perhaps one does not always have to register it as a study circle and receive money for it. One might be able to read books and have coffee together without, for that reason, registering it as a study circle.

I still think it is remarkable that study associations, or rather most of the study associations, choose to make a cut on precisely rehearsal rooms for children and young people when we now have as a goal to prioritize children and young people and think it is important that children and young people get to participate in culture. One could have chosen to make a saving in other ways.

It remains that it is not we who are to govern the study associations. The study associations themselves are responsible for choosing which activities they prioritize and spend the money on. It is not the case that I am to contact my study association and tell them how they should use the tax money. It is, in any case, not a policy that I and the Moderaterna and the government parties, including Sverigedemokraterna, stand behind.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! The point I wanted to make when I mentioned that all parties are linked to study associations was about what the member did – to single out an individual employee and cast suspicion on that person.

It is the case that all study associations are populated with people who have party affiliations. There have been parties that have been involved in starting the study associations. There are masses of employees who have a party membership or have a voluntary role in their spare time, and that is nothing strange. I think it is completely natural. Education is important, as the member says, and the parties also carry out educational activities through the study associations. That was the point I wanted to make with that.

Another point I made in my contribution concerns the fact that the member stands here and complains about the priorities that the student unions have made. It is the government and the Sverigedemokraterna who have made the major prioritization here – to remove 500 million for education, which the member says is important.

You have prioritized lowering taxes by 34 billion, and those funds have primarily gone to those who were already very well off – those who have 65,000 and above in monthly income. That is the prioritization you have made. If you wanted those with low education in the countryside to receive education, you would have chosen differently.

(Applause)

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 7 under point 3.

Access to culture and the conditions for cultural creators are two parts that are prerequisites for each other. What can we politicians do to facilitate and ensure that the infrastructure functions, and how should we give cultural creators the best conditions while simultaneously maintaining an arm's length distance?

It is clear that our task will be to ensure that the infrastructure is there and functions. Then we shall not demolish that which is today fundamental for us to have access to culture, regardless of where in the country we live.

Then civil society becomes fundamental. The libraries become forums for more than only books and reading. They become rooms for conversation and places to meet to take part in an art exhibition or encounter culture from different genres.

Association Sweden, Mr. Speaker, is truly a resource that we cannot appreciate enough. There is an association in every small village in our country, and it is often that association that holds the region together. It is everything from sports clubs to local heritage societies or theater associations. This is a prerequisite for culture to be able to reach out into the country. It depends, in fact, on someone being there and unlocking the door when the theater company or the author comes to meet their audience.

Mr. Speaker! There has been a debate here about funding. We in Centerpartiet believe that public funding is important and in many cases difficult to replace. In some cases, it may also not be desirable, but it is desirable that we look at additional funding sources for culture. Let us do it from the ground up, and let us take the time to discuss! It is still unknown territory for the vast majority. We need to reason in such a way that we get a system that guarantees that the public money does not disappear without us swapping out the public funding with the complementary or alternative funding – provided that we can continue to guarantee artistic freedom.

I also think it is interesting to look at what is done in other countries where they have a different perspective or already have a system for different types of funding for culture.

We in the Center Party have several proposals so that cultural creators can have more legs to stand on.

We consider the government's initiative on Skapande skola to be good. There, cultural workers can obtain an employment or part of an employment.

We want it to be possible to make deductions for first-time purchases of art to provide further opportunities for new art to enter the market and, not least, for new artists to establish themselves.

Mr. Speaker! Investing in free and voluntary folk education is also a way to make culture reach more people, not least people with various types of disabilities, but also to get culture out across the entire country.

Last year, according to the Folkbildningsrådet's activity report, just over 120,000 cultural events were organized across our country – an impressive figure, I must say. Despite that, it was a decrease compared to previous years, namely the years 2022 and 2023.

The study circle is a way for young, new bands to get a structure for their activities – if the rehearsal space is there, of course. This is significant for the Swedish music miracle, but here I can unfortunately state that the government has gone completely wrong. That one does not see the connection between the small study circle or the course at the folk high school and the Swedish music miracle is truly regrettable. We have, after all, heard the Prime Minister talk about culture and music as a new base industry. If one is serious about that, one cannot cut the roots of the tree that is supposed to grow strong.

If you are serious about what you said in the government statement, I expect that you will also come forward with reforms so that cultural creators get increased opportunities to live off their art.

Mr. Speaker! Just as Malin Danielsson did, I felt a great sense of hope yesterday at our seminar titled The Power of the North – Culture Paves the Way. I truly hope that my screws will fit in the new art gallery that is to be built.

Art and culture have a very special position in our society, and in the restless times we live in right now, they are of utmost importance for strengthening our mental and spiritual resilience. Art and culture shall be allowed to develop and be strengthened for their own sake, and we politicians shall keep an arm's length distance from its content and devote ourselves to providing the conditions so that it can flourish and develop and thereby develop and strengthen us as human beings.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Catarina Deremar, for the presentation! I agree with much of what was presented. For the most part, I agree with what concerned the financing.

I have thought quite a lot about the Centerpartiets ideological compass as a liberal party that is going to try to create some kind of government basis with three parties. When these were in government, it was nowhere near the fantasy sums that are being presented today.

How does Catarina Deremar view the possibility of, as a liberal party, being able to build a culture budget, given the rather large differences that exist? If we set aside the student unions, the Center Party's culture budget is actually very similar to the government's. There are hardly any changes at all.

How does one think they are going to make this work? I am curious to hear the answer to that question. Criticism was directed at the previous red-green government linked to political governance from the report we have quoted many times. Can Catarina Deremar imagine supporting a – God forbid – Miljöpartist-style culture minister if that were to happen after the next election?

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that various members in several debates have been very interested in hearing how the Center Party views the next government. I can state that the government currently in power does not intend to continue.

I have reflected a bit when I have heard these shifts in the debate on how one should take a stand on this. What I have presented today, Mr. Speaker, is the Center Party's policy. That is also what I want to say to Member Christiansson.

When we have had the election in 2026, we will enter the negotiations with our policy. I cannot say what the election result will be, so I have no better answer or any closer explanation to Alexander Christiansson on this matter.

The Center Party's cultural policy means that culture shall exist throughout the entire country. We shall provide the best conditions, not least for folk education. It is an immensely important cornerstone for the Center Party's policy.

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Catarina Deremar, for the answer – or the attempt at an answer!

This is a difficult question. I understand that. It is of course hypothetical when one discusses this. I believe the reason why not just I, but many other politicians, ask this question is that there is a certain paradox. One is curious to try to understand how one, as a member of the Centre Party, thinks regarding these issues. It is not an unreasonable question either. It is a quite reasonable question to ask.

Access to culture and the conditions for cultural creators

We ourselves sit as a government basis, so I truly understand what it means to sit down and compromise and try to merge different inputs into a common budget and a common proposal. In this specific case, however, it differs so enormously and on so many points. I can think that we with the government that is in power now have had fairly the same starting values in most respects. The Center Party is a party that calls itself liberal and which is going to try to put together a basis together with left-wing parties that have a completely different view on tax policy and the financing of state and public funds.

Centerpartiet has also historically had certain such tendencies when it comes to public funds that are to support various things, so I understand that there may be a social liberalism.

Thank you for the attempt at an answer! If you wish to elaborate further, I would be grateful, and it would have been very interesting to also hear the answer as to whether one could imagine supporting an environmentalist culture minister.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have no opinion on any future Minister for Culture. I hope that the person who becomes Minister for Culture after the next election will have a much larger culture budget than today's Minister for Culture has. It is not such large parts of the reform space that have gone to the culture budget, so that is my wish. Whether it will be a Green Party member or someone else remains to be seen.

I will continue to work on the conditions for culture. Culture shall reach all people, and it shall exist throughout the entire country. It is also very important that children and young people in the future get to meet professional cultural creators. I request to return to the issue of the government after the election.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 23 April.)

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