Education and university research

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

As can be seen from the speakers' list, there are many registered speakers for the debate. I would therefore like to flag that it is not certain that all speakers will have time to deliver their speeches before 23:00 today, when we will adjourn the debate. Speeches that remain at 23:00 will be moved so that they appear last on tomorrow's agenda.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to thank all the eminent staff at the Education Committee's office and wish them a Merry Christmas. I also want to wish all staff in Sweden's schools a very Merry Christmas. You lay the foundation for all children and young people to be able to attend a good and safe school.

I also want, Mr. Speaker, to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report. The budget that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has presented consists of a classic bourgeois school policy. It is very important for Sweden. It is not least about re-establishing the knowledge school and about strengthening safety in the school for all students. This is necessary so that more students can reach their full potential and be able to grow with knowledge and education.

It is also, Mr. Speaker, an important part for us to be able to get order in other areas where we have great challenges in Sweden. This applies in particular to the rule of law, the social inequality, and the high unemployment.

There is much that must be done. Today, 16,000 students leave primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. Approximately every fourth 25-year-old in Sweden lacks a final grade from upper secondary school. These figures are alarmingly high. It is not acceptable that measures are implemented late when they must be implemented early.

A school environment characterized by safety and study is a prerequisite for all students to be able to succeed in school. But according to the Swedish Schools Inspectorate's school survey 2022, a sixth of the students in grade 8 who responded to the survey experience that they do not at all or only to some extent feel safe in school. So we cannot have that. The teachers' view of safety also corresponds with the students' view.

Who is hit hardest if there is chaos in the corridors with bullying and very coarse language and if students come and go as they please and do not listen to the teachers and so on? We should reflect on that. Who is hit hardest if there is rowdiness and chaos in the school? Yes, such a school environment, Mr. Speaker, strikes mercilessly against those students who have it toughest in school—those who do not have Vilhelm Moberg and Selma Lagerlöf jostling for space on the bookshelf at home, those who do not have parents who engage in their schooling or parents who help them change schools if required. Those who are most vulnerable are always hit hardest if the school fails.

The students who do not succeed in school often also have problems outside of school. It can be about a difficult family situation or about the student having completely stopped attending school. An important measure is therefore increased cooperation between school and social services. Therefore, it is good that the government is now initiating a state investment in social teams to contribute to safety and study environment, increased school attendance, and improved cooperation between school and social services.

Today, there are often missing methods for handling students who need to be excluded, if it has gone that far, or moved temporarily outside their own school. So-called emergency and duty schools make it possible for students who, for example, disturb the order, or who contribute to a very unsafe environment for other students, to receive better support and not disturb other students.

Mr. Speaker! The Government also announces a very large investment in textbooks. It is a total of 685 million kronor for next year. The investment will then be permanent with over half a billion kronor per year. This is very welcome. It is something that my party Liberalerna has worked for for a long time. Both digital and physical learning materials are important in today's school, but the physical textbook has to an all too great extent been sidelined for computers and tablets.

Teachers in Sweden spend an average of 80 hours per year creating their own textbooks. It is completely absurd. The lack of textbooks also makes it difficult for parents to help their children with schoolwork at home.

Mr. Speaker! There is a need for an increased focus on the school's knowledge mission, on strengthening the teachers' professional role, on increasing safety and study environments, and on improving access to early support interventions. There should be less paperwork and more teaching.

Teachers shall also be given better opportunities and more tools to be able to act against disruptions in school. Measures will therefore be taken to increase the number of special education teachers and strengthen the holiday school.

We focus very much, which is fully understandable, on the students who have difficulty reaching the goals and who need a lot of extra support. But it should be said in the debate, Mr. Speaker, that we also have students in the Swedish school who are high-performing. Those who are very, very good in, for example, mathematics or languages should be able to go very far already in primary school and in upper secondary school. Those students often need greater challenges in their learning. Equality is not about all students being the same, but about everyone being able to reach their full potential. It is therefore very good that the ongoing pilot projects with specialized education within primary school and upper secondary school are now to become permanent and be developed. The proposal means that 25 million kronor are allocated for this for next year. Then it is 50 million per year starting from 2024.

Mr. Speaker! Primary school and upper secondary school are closely linked to how higher education and research function. If students do not have sufficient prior knowledge from upper secondary school, it has an inhibiting effect on what level the teaching at universities and colleges can be conducted at. Higher education should be exactly that—higher—and not have to equip students who lack basic knowledge and skills. This is what primary and upper secondary school should do.

If Sweden is to be a knowledge nation, there must be good access to higher education throughout the country. Today's labor market places increased demands on transition and competence, and this is facilitated by access to higher education and vocational training of high quality throughout the country.

Research is the foundation for Swedish competitiveness, for Swedish growth and for Swedish welfare. Its importance can never be overestimated.

Let me highlight two particularly important research initiatives in this budget bill. First, I want to highlight a larger one of 1.5 billion for the completion of the particle accelerator ESS. It is such research that builds Sweden strong and strengthens us as a research nation. Then, I want to highlight a smaller but no less pressing initiative on our defense capability. The Defense University's budget for research is increased by over 60 percent from just over 24 million this year to just under 40 million next year. Through that initiative, the Defense University can hire more researchers and doctoral students, which can also positively affect the entire total defense.

Our country - yes, all of Europe - is currently in a darker time than in many years. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing genocide - or the attempt at genocide - is the clearest example of this. We also see global threats to democracy, and we see increasingly aggressive dictatorships.

Investments in education and knowledge are necessary to give the individual more freedom to navigate a modern society that demands more of us all than before. But it is also necessary so that we can protect, develop, and improve the democracy and tradition of enlightenment that is subjected to increased threats in the world today.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals often say that they put schools first, but the budget that the Liberals stand behind means that schools all over Sweden will need to cut back because the government does not compensate either schools or municipalities for the cost increases occurring today. This happens at the same time as Fredrik Malm, I, and others who earn well get a significant tax reduction.

When we Social Democrats negotiated the budget with the Liberals during the previous term, the Liberals also did not prioritize resources for the school. Instead, they prioritized removing the wealth tax for those who earn the most. The Liberals do not prioritize the school, but what they prioritize most is reduced tax for high-income earners.

I want to ask Fredrik Malm if it wouldn't be more honest towards the voters to say it as it is, not to say that the Liberals put schools first, but simply to say that the Liberals are the party that puts lower taxes for high-income earners first.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is very interesting. The Social Democrats have been responsible for Swedish schools for eight years, and now one sees the results. There are 16,000 students who do not get into upper secondary school. There are very, very large disciplinary problems in Swedish schools. Many municipalities, even Social Democrat-led municipalities in Sweden, do not perform the necessary compensatory redistribution required for schools in more disadvantaged areas to have the capacity to help children who, for example, do not have Swedish as their mother tongue.

Almost all areas are neglected in Swedish schools as a result of the Social Democrats' laxity. It was admittedly not a Social Democrat but an Environment Party member named Gustav who promised that he would save Swedish schools in 100 days, but then you sat there for eight years, and it only got worse and worse.

We are now making a historic investment in schools. It is about new money - up to 5 billion over the next three years, of which 1.6 billion during next year. This means very large investments.

Furthermore, we specify initiatives in areas that are extra important and particularly neglected. This concerns, for example, as I mentioned in my speech, initiatives on textbooks and a large initiative covering 2.5 billion over the coming years for more special education teachers in schools, initiatives on social teams, special teaching groups, holiday school, and much more.

All that the Social Democrats want to cram into the regular municipal state grant, which means that one has no guarantees whatsoever that the money reaches what it is most important that it reaches. Instead, they can be used by greedy Social Democratic municipal politicians for completely different things than what it is important that they go to, namely school, learning materials, and support for students living in vulnerable situations or who need more support. We invest significantly more in the school than the Social Democrats do.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe Fredrik Malm can read the report that we are debating right now. It clearly shows that the Social Democrats are allocating 1.4 billion more than the Liberals in this expenditure area and, furthermore, more to children's and young people's schooling. Please read it!

Mr. Speaker! I actually heard no answer from Fredrik Malm on the question of why the lowered taxes for high-income earners would benefit the children in school. There were very many harsh words against Social Democrats all around the country, but nothing about how it can be that "school first" for the Liberals always means tax cuts for high-income earners.

Could it be that the Liberals have made a mistake and believe that the school is the school corporations? In that case, I can understand it. The school corporations primarily appear in the Liberals' policy. That is how you have acted. It matches what you voted against here in the chamber when we, for example, submitted a proposal to stop overcompensating free schools for the responsibility they do not have, but only municipalities.

If you think that schools and school corporations are the same thing, I can make it work, but Fredrik Malm is welcome to explain again. Wouldn't it still be a bit better to be honest about this? In the Liberals' budget negotiations, tax cuts for high-income earners come first. Otherwise, you are very poor negotiators if it constantly results in just that instead of money for the school.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit confounded. We are now debating the Education Committee's Report 1 on education and university research, and it doesn't matter if I read it forwards or backwards or translate it into Tigrinya or Hindi - I find nothing about lowered taxes in the report. I find nothing about the defense tax in the report. What I find are investments in teaching materials, social teams, special teachers, and many other important and laudable investments.

The Social Democrats were given the opportunity to make a reply to the government and then they brought up the "värnskatt" – but we removed that together several years ago. It puzzles me a bit. Should we instead be talking about how we can get more students to reach eligibility for upper secondary school and how we can strengthen higher education so that we get world-class research, or about how we can increase access to learning materials, give teachers a working environment that makes more people want to stay in the profession, and get more people who have left the teaching profession to come back?

We have huge challenges for Swedish schools that we need to address. In the Finance Committee's debate, one can discuss lowered taxes as much as one wants. I would rather discuss how we can get Swedish schools back on their feet again after eight years of Social Democratic rule.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is possible that the Speaker needs to speak with Speaker Andreas Norlén later about changing the rules in the chamber because the Liberals will probably need to receive approvals in the future when they are to answer questions in the rostrum.

This case - the question I am going to speak about - concerns what they need permission from the Sweden Democrats to talk about. When the Liberals went to the election, they were a party that partly spoke about more resources for the school, and partly said they stood up for all students in the Swedish school. The Liberals said that they stood behind school research and proven experience.

Then came the castle agreement, and in it it states, among other things, that an investigation shall be appointed with the task of reviewing mother tongue instruction in order that it shall not negatively affect integration or the students' knowledge development in the Swedish language. It then becomes very strange when one presents a budget that ensures that the teachers get fewer resources and time with the students and that the schools need to make large cuts.

Furthermore, the Liberals want to appoint a review to change something that, according to research, science, and proven experience, leads to more inclusion in Sweden and the Swedish language, namely that one is allowed to learn their mother tongue.

In this case, it is possible that the Liberals need to ask the Sweden Democrats or consult with them before one can answer the question. I just wonder: What happened to the liberal values when it came to this budget and the palace agreement? Why should the Liberals be involved in pushing hardest against those who need the most help in the Swedish school system?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I do not need to ask anyone for advice. The answer is very simple. I do not see that there would be any problems with evaluating mother tongue instruction just as one can evaluate other things within the Swedish school system. We know, for example, that there can be major quality deficiencies.

We do not want the mother tongue instruction to take place during regular lesson time for other subjects, which, in my opinion, it does not seem to do. If that were to happen, it is clear that it is not good. Fundamentally, my and the Liberals' view is that it is better the more languages people learn. We always preach the importance of learning the language.

The Swedish language naturally has a special status in Sweden, because we live here, and it is very important that we have large efforts so that everyone learns Swedish. But if we have children and young people who meet the requirements that exist today to be given mother tongue instruction, which means that one must have a certain knowledge of the language from the start, it is of course that they should be able to have it.

I believe that evaluating quality and other aspects is simply good. I have also received signals from native language teachers and others who argue that the textbooks one has are not particularly purposeful. They may be from a country where the school system is not particularly democratic, and the textbooks may be old. I do not quite see the problem that Daniel Riazat sees in this.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must have said it wrong from the beginning. The Liberals received an approval from the Sweden Democrats already when they presented this agreement, so this is perhaps nothing that needs to be consulted on right now.

When it comes to the question of reviewing and developing mother tongue instruction, I believe that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag, possibly except for the party that leads Fredrik Malm's government, i.e., the Sverigedemokraterna, agree that this is needed. But when it comes to why this stands the way it does in the Tidö agreement, it is incredibly clear that this is an issue that comes from precisely those who have decided on what should stand in the Tidö agreement.

We know that a large part of the cuts that you have in the budget and a large part of the tax cuts mentioned here earlier are hidden with smokescreens to create a completely different debate in Sweden. It is about people who have a different background. In all parts of the Tidö Agreement, or the Palace Agreement, they try to include different parts in order to somehow question or insinuate that there is something that is not right.

Many parties in the Swedish Riksdag have over the years submitted development proposals for mother tongue instruction. The Liberals have not been one of the parties that have done so. And then you come with a proposal where you talk about reviewing and appointing an inquiry into mother tongue instruction for the purpose that it should not negatively affect integration. Has Fredrik Malm seen any signs at all from authorities or similar that such a thing should have occurred? If not, why should very many resources be spent on doing something to satisfy a single party in this Riksdag?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Daniel Riazat has misunderstood this with parliamentary democracy a bit. We are, therefore, eight parties in this chamber that are elected to the Swedish Riksdag, and four of these parties have chosen to enter into an agreement after negotiations. It is not anything that is particularly strange.

The only agreement that I can remember in Swedish history that has had some kind of clause about not being allowed to speak with someone was the January Agreement, and then one was not allowed to speak with just Daniel Riazat's party. Other agreements in Sweden are concluded between different parties for the purpose that they can move forward with what they agree on. This also applies to the Tidö Agreement.

There is talk about putting up some kind of smoke screen in order to specifically target people from other countries. In the school area, a very large part of the investments is about the school becoming more compensatory. We will, among other things, move forward with reforming the school fee system and obtaining a better admission system that will provide greater opportunities to choose a school for people who perhaps do not have as many contacts in Swedish society.

We are making major investments in Läslyftet to strengthen language, reading, and writing skills early on. Major investments are also being made to increase participation in preschool among people who have not been in Sweden for very long, which was also done during the previous parliamentary term. A huge amount of efforts are being made.

Even the previous government did a lot of very good things, and we will continue with this. We will intensify this work. It is about integration working better, more people entering Swedish society, and more people getting opportunities to develop in Sweden.

I do not read the Tidö Agreement like the hell one reads the Bible, so to speak, but I try to evaluate what is written in the agreement, unlike Daniel Riazat.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! How pleasant, Fredrik Malm, to be seen here on such a late evening!

I have a few questions for Fredrik Malm. I will start by bringing up something that the member mentioned during his speech on the digitalization of schools. There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding learning materials—concerning books and digital learning materials. My simple question is how the Liberals, and perhaps the government, view Sweden's national digitalization strategy nowadays. It has been debated a bit in the media lately. Some think it needs to be rolled back, while others perhaps want something else. I wonder what the Liberals want.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Camilla Hansén!

At the core, it is the case that digitalization has come to stay, at least until it is replaced by something else in the next great leap in development that humanity takes. Digitalization is here, and it is an important part of Swedish school. It is very important that we have digital learning materials. They work very well as complements and provide the opportunity to individualize the teaching. When digitalization and digital tools are used in the right way, and when teachers are trained in using these tools, they are important for Swedish school.

But there are several dimensions to this. It is important to look at the research that exists on how particularly very young children are affected by, for example, tablets. There are brain researchers who speak about how it can have an inhibitory effect on the brain's development and the neurological development in children at a very young age to be clearly exposed to, for example, tablets and mobiles.

There is also another discussion about how children and young people in particular who have great difficulties with reading and writing can be affected by different methods to, for example, crack the reading code. Physical books and paper and pen can be just as good as digital aids.

Of course, one should not roll out major changes in the Swedish school system if they are not scientifically tested and if it is not empirically proven that they contribute to increased knowledge and so on. I am completely convinced that this is a discussion that will continue.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the answer!

If I am allowed to make a free interpretation of this, it would be that this strategy is important because it is based on and aims for teachers and school principals - those who work in the school - to receive a competence increase regarding when and to what extent digital teaching materials are used.

The third leg of the national digitalization strategy is research and follow-up on how digital learning materials affect learning and the pedagogical situation in schools. I nevertheless interpret Fredrik Malm's answer positively – that this is an important strategy. It needs to be renewed in that case, and I therefore look forward to the government's proposal.

There is another thing that is important when it comes to reading specifically. Here, it might be natural to bring up the question of the books in the hands, namely the staffed school libraries. I may have missed something in the government's budget, but I lack any mention of the staffing of the school libraries. I would very much like to hear how the Liberals and Fredrik Malm view the issue and what the Liberals' investments look like moving forward regarding staffed school libraries.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer to the last question is that it is being prepared in the Government Offices. It is perfectly logical. The question has been investigated, and the government has just taken office.

The slightly longer answer is that from my perspective - and I believe it is shared by many others - one shares the ambitions and goals that exist for how we should strengthen school libraries in the future. They play an important role, not just because a student goes there and borrows a book. Staffed school libraries are important because there is library staff who can in various ways help students search online, evaluate facts and information, support teachers in their role, and so on. Then, during the preparation process, we will see referral reports and see what will subsequently come to the Riksdag. I definitely think that one should have the ambition that as much as possible in the investigation should be implemented.

The same applies to the Teaching Materials Inquiry. It is a very important ambition to clarify and specify in the steering documents what constitutes a teaching material and so on.

If a publishing house today, Mr. Speaker, develops a new textbook in a subject, it is developed together with digital complements. One can actually speak of a learning environment. It is a question of both a physical book and a digital environment.

If someone then comes along and offers a free app with a textbook that they have put together themselves, it is not quite the same thing as the material that a publishing house has produced, which has been quality-assured, processed, and aligned with steering documents, curricula, and so on over several years. They are two completely different things. In that case, it is important that money for teaching materials also exists in the Swedish school system. Teaching materials are not free but should be prioritized, which means one should not just go for the cheapest available on the market.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is about the financing of the Swedish school system and the entire education system. It is a question of the education system that shall give every human being in our country the opportunity to grow and develop throughout their life. It shall make us grow with new knowledge, feel the joy of understanding our world a little better and discover new perspectives on existence, in other words, that which creates freedom and power over existence.

At the same time, education and investments in people's skills are Sweden's most important competitive advantages. It is not through low wages or slave-like conditions at work that we are to compete with the rest of the world, but with new ideas, innovations, new technology, and high added value. This requires, Mr. Speaker, that we understand the importance of a good school for everyone. A good and educational schooling is both a right for the individual and the most important investment society makes in a human being. A good schooling protects both society and the individual from future unemployment, ill health, and crime. Therefore, it is important that the school is not hit when the economy is tough.

A policy that in practice means fewer teachers, fewer textbooks, and fewer special educators will result in children suffering and the society incurring increased costs when the children grow up, even if the government tries to sound like it is investing in, for example, textbooks by renaming a pot of money to specifically "learning materials investment".

I actually think everyone understands this, but nevertheless, Sweden is governed by a government and the Sverigedemokraterna who let just the schools and the welfare in Sweden's municipalities and regions take the hit in the economic crisis.

When schools' costs for electricity, food, teaching materials, and wages go up, the government should of course compensate for it, just as the Social Democratic-led government did when the pandemic hit the municipalities' finances hard. But instead, the Kristersson government chooses to repeat the Reinfeldt government's mistakes during the financial crisis and lets municipalities and regions handle the crisis by cutting back on welfare and thus on schools. Just as then, it will deepen the crisis, increase inequality, and weaken Sweden's competitiveness for a long time to come.

Unfortunately, I am convinced that the representatives for the government base will still sound like they are investing in schools during this debate. We have already heard such examples. They live, so to speak, in a parallel reality. It is a reality where one does not by any means compensate schools around the country for the billions they have in increased costs, yet still claims that one is investing.

It would be more honest if the representatives of the government basis told what the schools are to cut back on in the future to keep the budget. What is it that is to be removed? Is it the special education teacher who practices reading with the children? Is it the leisure staff? Or is it the school lunch that is to be converted to crispbread a few days a week? Sweden's students and teachers actually deserve answers from the representatives of the government basis.

The government could have saved the school from cuts, but instead, it has chosen to prioritize lowering the tax for high-income earners by a total of 12.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker! Schools are in desperate need of more state subsidies, but of course, that is not enough. School funds must also be used efficiently. That is not the case today. School funding overcompensates private school corporations for costs and for responsibilities that only municipalities have. This leads to sharply increased costs for taxpayers and to easy money for a few school corporation owners. Money that could have been used for more teacher-led instruction is instead used to pay for empty seats, marketing of private schools, and the expansion of school corporations.

The sorting out of students that occurs with today's unfair queuing system increases the profitability for the school companies, but it also leads to school segregation and exclusion. It results in a weaker society. Furthermore, the market school has exacerbated the problems with grade inflation and religious influence in schools.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school has, in a way that no other school system in the world has, become an issue for the stock market. Already the day after the election, Academedia's shares rushed on the stock exchange. When the Tidö Agreement had been presented, Academedia dared to move the positions forward even further with a new dividend policy. 30 percent of the profit made on school and education shall be distributed to the owners. The school corporations understand, namely, that the conditions for profit extraction outlined in the Sweden Democrats' and the government's Tidö Agreement will not hinder their pursuit of profit. If there was any concern remaining among any independent school owner, Ulf Kristersson could dispel the last doubts by appointing a school minister who came directly from a school corporation.

Mr. Speaker! That the equality in Swedish schools has become increasingly worse is a major problem. The market school has a large part in that, and it is one of many reasons why we Social Democrats have tried to remove the pursuit of profit in Swedish schools. But that is not the only thing we have done. We have also increased the state's responsibility for equal funding of quality development throughout the country. Unfortunately, we now see how the government's base not only saves the market school but also stops the expansion of the equality grant, stops the work for more equal quality in teaching. In budget terms, it is called quality dialogues.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government do not only fail to compensate for increased costs. Compared to 2022, they are cutting by almost 1.5 billion on education and research, mostly on adult education but for example also on vocational colleges, universities and colleges. This despite larger youth cohorts, despite increased demand for education through the transition study support, despite the threatening recession and despite the great skills shortage in both the welfare sector and in industry. That, Mr. Speaker, is really bad policy for a country that is to compete with knowledge and new technology. But perhaps it is not intended that it is what we are to compete with in the future.

Mr. Speaker! In our Social Democratic budget alternative, we strengthen equality and knowledge development in the schools that need it most. We increase the equality grant by 1 billion kronor during 2023.

We propose over 1 billion more than the government for adult education, vocational colleges and higher education and 200 million for folkbildningen under another expenditure area. Collectively, this would correspond to over 20,000 more places for education and transition in our country and counteract both unemployment and skills shortages.

We are spending a total of 1.4 billion more than the government on education and research. Also, if one looks only at school for children and young people, we spend more than the government.

Furthermore, we propose that the general state grants to the country's municipalities and regions be increased by 12 billion kronor. That is twice as much as the government's completely inadequate proposal. In the classrooms, those funds would have made a big difference.

Mr. Speaker! During the years that we Social Democrats have been in government, we have prioritized more money for welfare and for the school in every budget negotiation. This has, for example, meant that the number of employees in the school has been able to increase by 38,000 people. The knowledge results have turned slightly upwards, and more students are learning more.

Now, instead, cuts and continued profit-seeking await in Swedish schools. We deeply regret it. Our Sweden can do better.

We Social Democrats have submitted a budget motion that prioritizes education and welfare, household finances, climate transition, and increased security throughout the country. This is more important to us than tax cuts for those who earn the most.

Mr. Speaker! Since our proposal for the framework in the budget fell in the framework decision, we have no motion of our own. We therefore refer only to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note in the Social Democrats' proposal for appropriations for expenditure area 16 that savings are being made on appropriation 1:5. It concerns 20 million on elite classes, 75 million on social teams, 100 million on lovskola, 50 million on jour- and akutskolor, and 685 million on teaching materials. To be precise: there is an investment of 36 million on a teaching materials committee and then 5.5 million that I cannot see specified anywhere in your motion text.

These are, then, investments aimed at strengthening the study environment and making it easier for teachers to conduct teaching and ensuring that students who today are disturbed during teaching have a chance to keep up without being disturbed by their friends. They also aim to strengthen knowledge development.

My question is why the Social Democrats choose to cut just these appropriations.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is quite simple. We Social Democrats do not believe that the money will increase because we rename it to many different things in the way the government base does. Therefore, we have not named our initiatives x, y, z, å, ä and ö. We have named them big, substantial things such as the equality grant of 1 billion, which Patrick Reslow unfortunately forgot to mention in the enumeration he just made.

We are therefore putting more money into this area than the government does. There will be more of what the member counted up with our budget, if the schools consider that it is needed, and it will not just be a little more but very much more because we also compensate the municipalities for the price increases they have in schools and so on. With our policy, there will therefore be more of this in Swedish schools.

I want to ask the Sweden Democrats: What is it that you think Swedish schools have too much of, since you do not compensate for the price increases the schools have? What is it that should be removed? Is it the special education teachers? Is it the school lunch, which is to be replaced with crispbread? Or is it the leisure staff?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, it is quite clear why I did not mention the equality grant. It is not under appropriation 1:5. I touched upon savings on appropriation 1:5. The equality grant is located somewhere else. I hope that one knows where the appropriations are located.

I noted here that Åsa Westlund does not say why one does this. The reason for that, which I read in your own motion, is what I want to hear: You say that it is better with general state grants than with targeted state grants.

It is interesting that when you do strike at targeted government grants, it is about striking at elite classes. It is about striking at social teams. It is about striking at lovskola, jourskolor, and akutskolor, and against teaching materials – things that are important to get order and a strong knowledge development. That is what you are striking at.

But Åsa Westlund and the Social Democrats are not striking at the very largest targeted state grant, namely the equity grant (likvärdighetsbidraget). There, they think it is okay that it is a targeted grant and not a general one. But in these cases, they want general grants because it, as expressed in their own motion text, is better that the municipalities themselves get to control the funds. But that is not the case when it comes to the equity grant.

Why not? The thought that comes directly is that after-school programs, emergency schools, holiday schools, social teams, and specialized classes are not something the Social Democrats are passionate about. For eight years, we have seen how they have left the vagueness there and let the disorder flow in the schools without coming up with concrete proposals.

But why does one choose to strike against just these targeted grants and not against others?

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I did not perceive at all what the Sweden Democrats think Swedish schools have too much of. I did not perceive whether it is the teachers, the leisure educators, or the school lunches that are to be cut. I actually think that Swedish students and teachers deserve an answer to that from the Sweden Democrats. Since the Sweden Democrats do not compensate for the price increases that the schools have had, the money must be taken from somewhere. The Sweden Democrats avoid answering that question. I note that.

We write in our budget motion that all these things are worthy, but we are putting more money into the municipalities - not a little more, but much more.

It is not that we are against either remedial school, social teams or teaching materials. We have made major efforts in that area during our time in government, things that you are now partially continuing, so do not come and say that we would de-prioritize these things! We are allocating more money both to the school and to the country's municipalities to cope with the price increases that exist.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was a sulfurous volley from the Social Democrats here against the new government. We barely had time to furnish the offices before this came about regarding how terrible everything is going to be.

In particular, one uses a rhetoric that the Social Democrats have employed to near perfection over the last eight years, directed against what is called the market school. They try in some way to stick to the bourgeois parties that we should be some kind of profit-maximization advocates in the school sector. Nothing is more wrong.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the Social Democrats had eight years and did nothing. Nothing was done. They were in the newspapers every single day saying that the friskolorna are terrible, we will stop the market school, we will stop the profit, and so on, and so they did nothing.

A proposal was submitted – or two, actually – half a year before the election, which was more to be regarded as some kind of pamphlets for the election campaign. They were so poorly substantiated and it was such a sloppy legislative work from the Social Democratic side that it was completely impossible for the Education Committee to stand behind these products for a new piece of legislation.

Practically nothing happened during the eight years with the Social Democrats.

In accordance with the Tidö Agreement, we will now create a new free school law, reform the school voucher system, reform the admissions to the schools and make the selection system more restrictive, tighten the ownership review, introduce a profit stop for the free schools during the first years and set requirements that the owners must be able to guarantee that they are long-term in their ownership.

Why did the Social Democrats do none of this? It is we who are forced to do this now.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat speechless. Did we do nothing? We did submit proposals to the Riksdag which the member voted down because he did not want to put a stop to the overcompensation to the independent schools. We submitted several proposals to the Swedish Riksdag, because that is what one does as a government. We also had a cooperation with the Liberals where the Liberals forbade us from touching the profits of the independent schools. But the member's memory perhaps does not stretch that far.

We have done a lot in this area, but we have clearly not succeeded yet.

Unfortunately, I make the same assessment as the school corporations themselves regarding the government's policy in this area, and that is that it will not affect the possibility of taking out profit nor the pursuit of profit in Swedish schools. It will, however, continue to be unnecessarily expensive for the taxpayers, and a long series of problems will remain, such as "glädjebetyg" and other things, which Swedish schools would need to address.

I hope I am wrong. Fredrik Malm's party colleague Lotta Edholm has every opportunity in the world to show that she is serious about making Swedish schools better. We remain ready to support proposals that put a stop to the market school. Please do so! But do not come and say that we did nothing when it was you yourselves who voted no to the proposals submitted to the Swedish Riksdag.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the proof that one does something is not that one says something in the newspaper. The proof that one does something is that one gets a majority in this room to press the green button and vote through the proposal one puts forward.

For our part, this issue is about holding two thoughts in mind at the same time. On one hand, we should have a Swedish school system where students and parents have the opportunity to choose a school and where not all schools are run by the municipality, but where there is an offering of different actors who can run schools. On the other hand, we cannot have a system that creates overly skewed economic incentives or that in different ways opens the school sector to fortune seekers or persons who are not serious in their activities.

Combining these two sides is really not impossible. It is about strengthening quality indicators and tightening regulations, and that is exactly what the government will do.

We value and strongly safeguard the right to be able to choose school, and we want the school system to function in a reasonable way.

We will reform the school voucher system as it is currently designed. The Social Democrats failed to do it in eight years. We will do it now. We will introduce a ban on taking out profit for schools during the first years. The Social Democrats failed to do it in eight years. We will do it now. We will strengthen the ownership review. The Social Democrats failed to do it in eight years. We will do it now.

In addition, we will set a number of further requirements on independent actors, increase the administrative appropriation to Skolinspektionen so that it can carry out more inspections, and much more to make the system function better.

We do not want to overturn freedom of choice and abolish it, but we want more children and students to have access to it.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, the Liberals forbade us from pursuing this issue. They threatened to bring down the government if we did. Then we submitted a proposal on this which the Liberals voted against. And then it is our fault that the Liberals did what they did. That is the conclusion of what Fredrik Malm says here.

It pleases me if Fredrik Malm and the rest of the government base mean seriously about making a reform that safeguards freedom of choice in Sweden but also ensures that the profits and easy money that the school corporations make today are removed. I do not believe they mean seriously, but we are open to such a long-term agreement. But then it must be serious, and it must take into account that we are to achieve increased equality in Swedish schools.

Until you present such a proposal, I am skeptical, as your history in this area leaves some things to be desired.

I find it difficult to accept the argument that we failed because you defeated us. But some might fall for that type of rhetoric.

I also note that I have not received an answer from Fredrik Malm on what Swedish schools are to cut back on going forward, regardless of whether the students attend an independent or municipal school. But everyone will have it tougher going forward with this government's budget.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have failed with Swedish schools. Eight years ago, the Social Democrats and then Magdalena Andersson when she was party leader promised that we would have the EU's lowest unemployment - we know how that went - that gang crime would be halved and that the proportion of students who failed would be halved.

How has it gone with these different goals that were set up?

When it comes to unemployment, we know, and it has been analyzed quite well. It has gone completely pear-shaped. Sweden was initially in 11th place, and 17 countries had higher unemployment than Sweden. But then it was only a handful of crisis countries that had higher unemployment than Sweden, with Greece and Italy at the forefront.

When it comes to gang crime, we all know that it has only gone in the wrong direction.

When it comes to the proportion of students who fail, it unfortunately looks just as pitch black. It is roughly the same number of students who are weeded out. Approximately 16,000 students leave grade 9 without complete knowledge, and every fourth child leaves grade 6 with a fail in one or more subjects.

What did the Social Democrats actually do during their eight years at the Ministry of Education? The reforms have been conspicuously absent. But this spring, the last spring before the election, they suddenly became desperate and handed out a number of sloppily put together propositions on bussing and lotteries for students to schools. These reforms, thank goodness, we managed to stop here in the chamber. Reforms for increased knowledge in Swedish schools, however, were conspicuously absent.

That is why I ask Åsa Westlund: Why would the Social Democrats' policy now suddenly yield a different result?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I tried to convey this earlier, but I will do it again. In every budget negotiation, we have prioritized the school, because more resources are required to achieve better results. But that is not enough. One must also work correctly with the money that exists, and we have presented several proposals to put a stop to the market school that exists in Sweden and the profit-seeking that leads the school in the wrong direction.

We have, however, not been able to push this through or we have been defeated in the Swedish Riksdag when we have tried to do this. Josefin Malmqvist actually cannot blame the Social Democrats for what the Moderates do in the Swedish Riksdag.

We have done a number of things that the government is pleased with. One has, for example, stood behind this with order and discipline in school.

I still think that Josefin Malmqvist should receive a commendation for taking up what is perhaps the most important problem in Swedish schools today, which we devote far too little attention to, namely how we are to get more students to receive passing grades and how we are to facilitate the transition to upper secondary school for these students, so that they are not knocked out. I am happy to discuss this further in the future.

When Josefin Malmqvist is standing here anyway, I want to know how the Moderaterna intend to handle the cuts in schools moving forward. The municipal schools and the independent schools moving forward will have much higher costs than they have revenues, because the government chooses not to compensate either municipalities or schools for the increased costs. Is it the teachers who are to be laid off, is it the leisure educators who are to be laid off, or is it the school lunch that is to be withdrawn, Josefin Malmqvist?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by being very clear. I am in no way satisfied with the Social Democrats' reforms regarding order and discipline in Swedish schools - just so that there is no doubt whatsoever in that area. On the contrary, we see that the development has gone in completely the wrong direction in recent years, and even here there is an extensive need for reform which I note that the Social Democrat-led government has completely ignored over the past eight years.

My question to Åsa Westlund also remains: What reforms have been implemented to ensure that more students pass and that we reach the goal of halving the proportion of failing students? I cannot find any such reforms. They still shine by their absence.

The only thing I hear from the Social Democrats is words about market school and that the 16 percent of students who attend independent schools would be the entire answer to Sweden's school failures. Nothing could be more wrong here!

Now we present a comprehensive reform agenda together within the framework of the Tidö Agreement to re-establish Sweden as a knowledge nation. Here are reforms for an even increased knowledge focus in Swedish school, to get more well-educated teachers, so that more people want to work within Swedish school and for order and discipline in Swedish school. These are reforms in area after area that have been completely absent during the past eight years.

The results speak for themselves. We see no improvement within Swedish schools with Social Democratic leadership at the Ministry of Education. Here stands Åsa Westlund, still saying that if we just ban independent schools and bus students, we solve segregation. This is supposed to solve Swedish schools, she argues. It has not worked until now. Why would it work now?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I really did not say the last thing that Josefin Malmqvist put in my mouth. There are many Moderate representatives before her who have tried to say that we say so, but we have never said so. I just want this to be said.

One of the most important things that the Social Democrats have done during this time is the teacher salary increase. I do not think that the Moderates thought it was bad. It has led to more teachers earning better in Sweden. It is important in order to be able to recruit more teachers for a long time to come.

38,000 more employees in Swedish schools makes a difference out there in reality. With your budget, there will be fewer. That is also a difference, just the opposite.

Reform for safety and study environment is requested by Josefin Malmqvist. We have just hammered through a major such reform that clarifies the possibility to intervene even physically for employed staff in the school, for example, and clarifies and creates greater security in the school's management, so that one can take these issues seriously. I believe that Josefin Malmqvist's party also voted for that proposal.

I note once again that there is no government representative who has so far said what it is that Swedish schools should save on. Where are the teachers that you think are too many today? You are not compensating for the increased costs that the schools have for increased wages or for increased school lunches, so what is it that you are going to cut back on?

Students and teachers are facing this now. What is your answer? I think that you in the government base owe students and teachers an answer to that question and not pretend that you are investing when you are actually cutting back on Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost express my approval of the committee's proposal.

That Swedish schools are struggling with major problems and have a very great need for renewal has surely emerged in every debate we have had in this chamber during the previous mandate period. For a long time, we have seen how the knowledge- and education-oriented school has successively been weakened and now devotes itself more to social activities than to learning.

Of course there are many exceptions, but if you ask the teaching staff, a high proportion would probably answer that their profession today involves more than just teaching, conveying knowledge, and spreading education. It is a negative development that must be taken most seriously.

The clearest example of this development is the proportion of pupils who leave primary school without complete grades. In the current situation, it is about a quarter of all pupils in grade 9 who are affected. This can, of course, be due to many things. It can be due to the individual's attitude and efforts, but it can also be that interventions were made far too late. In any case, the system must be designed so that requirements can be set which must also be continuously followed up. Summer school in grade 8 or 9 is far from sufficient.

But the problems in school are not only about loss of knowledge but also about the lack of qualified teachers and the lack of measures to effectively get unqualified teachers to become qualified. The school also has serious disciplinary problems, where several minutes at the start of every lesson must be spent on silencing the class so that the lesson can start at all. We have problems with teachers being threatened and subjected to violence.

All these things are known, but together they constitute the greatest obstacles to achieving a high-performing school. A good level of education is important for our country if we are to be able to compete in the rapid development that characterizes our contemporary time. Knowledge and education go hand in hand with development and economic growth. But Swedish school policy has simply not kept up.

For eight years, the necessary reforms to improve school results and address the problems that Swedish schools face have more or less been signaled by their absence. Much has been said about the need for reforms and for action, but in reality, it has been eight completely paralyzed and wasted years.

Instead of delivering powerful political proposals, the left has become totally stuck on issues such as profit bans, self-invented concepts like "market school," or constructing the composition of schools in a manner that suits social engineering—issues that in no way hit the real problems. And perhaps one could expect a critical approach to one's own policy after an election loss, but instead, it is nothing new on the left.

So we are now finally turning the page. The Sweden Democrats, together with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals, have charted out a new, much-needed and long-awaited political direction for Swedish schools, where the focus lies on knowledge and education, where the ambitions are high and where students are given all the conditions to succeed in their studies, regardless of whether they are high-performing or low-performing. It is a school where there is peace and quiet in the classrooms and where the teacher can once again be just a teacher and nothing else.

In the budget report we are now considering, parts of this new vision for Swedish school are found. Let me point out some of these:

A first priority is the ambition that more students should reach the knowledge results. It must be ambition number 1. The students shall reach higher knowledge results. Then we are not just talking about those who balance between F and E, but also about those who balance between D and C, C and B, and B and A, as well as those who have A and want to develop further and have more challenges. It is a matter of developing the knowledge for all students and not just constantly focusing on those who do not succeed in achieving an E.

Early interventions are essential to prevent loss of knowledge in later studies. The government basis therefore proposes investments to expand the "lovskolan" (the school of law) already at younger ages, so that the interventions do not wait until the later part of upper secondary school. We allocate 100 million for this purpose.

It is also important to increase access to special education teachers, establish special teaching groups, and introduce other special pedagogical interventions to catch the students as effectively as possible. 400 million is allocated for this.

When it comes to high-performing students, we note that the previous Social Democratic government chose not to state whether the pilot project with specialized classes would be made permanent or not. We asked what would happen with this, but received no answers; it was simply deferred to the future. Now we have a new government, which is clear on this point: Specialized classes are good, and they shall exist and be developed.

We see that the arguments for specialized classes are missing in the Social Democrats' budget motion. There is nothing about how they want to develop this. Why not? The Tidö parties, on the other hand, are of a different opinion: Specialized classes are positive, and it is also positive that students who do not attend specialized classes can also seek more challenges in cases where they have specific skills. We need more of these elements, not fewer. Therefore, we propose that 20 million be allocated to strengthen the quality of and the establishment of specialized classes.

That there is peace and quiet in the classrooms is a fundamental prerequisite for the teachers. The teachers have also been given expanded powers to act in order to maintain order and study, and we think that is good. But there is still a need to expand emergency and out-of-hours schools, and it is very large. Therefore, we allocate funds even for this purpose.

Access to learning materials is another important prerequisite for learning. Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of schools opting out of traditional learning materials, and Sweden is the country in the Nordic region that invests the least money in printed learning materials per pupil. Sverigedemokraterna have for a long time demanded reforms, and we are now pleased that 685 million is allocated for 2023 for the purpose of strengthening access to high-quality learning materials.

In addition to this, the budget also contains extensive investments in continuing education for teachers and preschool staff, as well as contributions to teacher salaries that can be used either to raise teacher salaries or within the career step model.

Funds are also allocated to meet the growing need for skilled labor. Adult education is therefore allocated 4 billion and the university college approximately 3.75 billion. Additionally, the university college is given VAT compensation equivalent to 43 million, which is long-awaited from the university college's side.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are admittedly not part of the government, but we belong to the government support and have been highly involved in the development of this budget. It is a strong budget and a budget that clearly signals a change of course. It is precisely a change of course that is needed in Swedish school policy.

It is a massive task to repair what has been destroyed. But we are ready to do it together with the three other parties that share our view on the need for reforms in Swedish school. It will be necessary to make difficult decisions, and it may even be necessary to make unpopular decisions. But it is precisely that which has been missing previously: the ability to act and to act correctly. We are ready to take our responsibility in this to strengthen the knowledge development in Swedish school.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking you for the past year and wishing the Speaker, the Chamber Office, the Committee Office staff, and the committee members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Robert Stenkvist (SD) agreed.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a new situation in Swedish politics. For the first time, we have a government that obviously considers the Pinochet government's solutions regarding the school to be the very best.

It is a bit funny in this context that it happens to be the Sweden Democrats who have been involved in and practically decided what should be included in the palace agreement and in large parts of the budget. My question first becomes: Why do the Sweden Democrats like Pinochet's school policy? It involved making a market experiment of the Chilean school. In this case, it concerns the Swedish school, where a few owners of venture capital companies and other companies should be able to make a profit at the expense of the children's education.

It may not just be the Sweden Democrats who have been involved in deciding this. We are aware of this fact that one says one thing before the election and another after the election. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats said one thing to the people a number of years ago, only to now suddenly be Pinochet's representative in the Swedish Riksdag and want to protect a few shareholders at the expense of the children's future.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have probably never met anyone who is as fascinated and obsessed with the Sweden Democrats as Daniel Riazat. I actually think it is interesting that he is.

We do, however, have many good ideas, so Daniel Riazat is welcome to continue being fascinated by the Sweden Democrats and take in what we think. That is very good. But it becomes a bit strange when he then starts talking about dictatorships. Is there anyone in this chamber who has advocated for dictatorships? That would be the Left Party. It is they who have advocated for dictatorships where elections don't even exist. And speaking of saying one thing before the election and another after, the advantage here is that we advocate for a system where we have elections, while Daniel Riazat's comrades in other countries do not even want elections. That is a big difference.

I think it is a bit strange to ask questions concerning a leader from the 70s who is no longer alive and who has no connection whatsoever to the Sweden Democrats and Swedish politics. It is very strange.

Daniel Riazat is, of course, looking for whether the Sweden Democrats want to shut down profit-making schools. No, we do not want that. Daniel Riazat wonders why we have changed our minds. Yes, politics works like that in some parties - it is a dynamic process. If Daniel Riazat says that his party has not had a dynamic process over the last 30 years, I wonder what kind of politics Daniel Riazat stands for. We have an open democratic process in our party. We can change our minds if we discover that we are wrong, and that is what makes our party so fantastic and good.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! Patrick Reslow speaks of an open process. I believe we see things a bit differently regarding democratic and open processes, because in this case it was de facto a very closed process where the Sweden Democrats said one thing one day and the next day, after they had had some dinners with Svenskt Näringsliv, said another thing. I do not know how it can be called open when one acts in that manner.

Yes, it is true that I will continue to stand in this chamber and raise this. As long as we have the world's most extreme market system and market logic in the Swedish school system, Vänsterpartiet, together with other parties, will stand here and raise the issue. There is no chance that we will let the Sverigedemokraterna get away with the fact that large cuts are being made to schools and that certain school corporations are being overcompensated at the expense of the children's future and present. It is being done at the expense of the staff's well-being at the various schools around the country, and it is being done at the expense of Sweden as a knowledge nation. We will continue to say that as long as this system is allowed to continue.

This is not about some kind of fascination with the Sweden Democrats. It is hardly the case that the Sweden Democrats' own voters and members are fascinated by the Sweden Democrats, and it really is not I either – just as little as I am fascinated by other fascist parties that have existed in history. In this case, it is about the fact that the Sweden Democrats always hide behind the raw, harsh rhetoric that Patrick Reslow shows us today. It consists of always talking about others when the Sweden Democrats do not want to answer the question of why one hates the Swedish school system.

Once upon a time, the Swedish school system was based on the principle of equivalence and equality, but the Sweden Democrats and their coalition parties think something completely different, namely that there should be greater differences. We will never agree to that.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Hate rhetoric is something that Daniel Riazat has to stand for. We hate nothing. We love Sweden, and we love the Swedish school system. We believe that the students are worthy of a good school. We are prepared to defend every day the students' right to a good education.

We do not hate things. We are not like Daniel Riazat. We do not hate – we do not have such strong concepts.

We like school and education. We think it is important and that the students deserve it. But the students and the parents should be involved in the choice. There must be freedom of choice and more providers. That is where Daniel Riazat's party differs from mine. It is a big, a significant, difference. It is an abyss between us. That abyss shall remain.

It is also interesting that Daniel Riazat is surprised that one seeks contact with society. We discuss with Svenskt Näringsliv, teachers' unions, LO, or whatever it may be. We are prepared to discuss with everyone. We are prepared to take in opinions from everything and everyone in the democratic society.

It is a democratic process. Perhaps Daniel Riazat should try it sometimes too.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by wishing the Speaker's Bureau and the Chamber Office a Merry Christmas. I also want to extend a wish for a Merry Christmas to all the members of the committee and the fantastic office of the Education Committee. Above all, I want to extend a wish for a Merry Christmas to all school staff who every day do a fantastic job with Sweden's pupils and students.

I also want to start by saying that the Centre Party will not participate in the decision because our budget proposal was rejected. I refer instead to our special statement.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I would still like to say a few things. Fundamental to the Center Party's school policy is that all students have the right to a good education regardless of where in the country they live and what background they have or whether they are girls or boys.

The foundation for children and young people's opportunity to take a journey in life and achieve their life dreams is laid in secure families and in a school that meets every student on their own terms.

A well-functioning preschool, primary school, and upper secondary school is the foundation for a world-class higher education and competitive jobs. Everyone shall be given the conditions to succeed throughout the entire country.

The first steps in our education system are already taken in preschool. To level the playing field and give more children a good start, we therefore need an equal preschool of high quality.

The children who benefit most from a good preschool are the children who have the most difficult circumstances. At the same time, it is the children with the most difficult circumstances that Swedish preschools have the hardest time reaching.

To reach the most vulnerable families, the right to public preschool should be expanded so that it is offered to children from the age of two. The fee should be lowered in line with this.

Children must be able to trust that there are adults who see them even in preschool. Two major challenges are then the size of the children's groups and the lack of trained staff.

A solution for the size of children's groups, according to the Center Party, is to review the guideline that sets limits on how many children may be in a children's group. We should instead work with a guideline for how many children each qualified staff member is allowed to be responsible for.

To address the staff shortage, more preschool teachers need to be trained, and it must become easier for childcare workers to pursue further education while working in the preschool.

Centerpartiet therefore wants to secure a competence development guarantee for preschool teachers, while we also want to see a childcare lift and a national standard for basic education of childcare workers.

Mr. Speaker! For the Centre Party, it is important that every student is met with high expectations and is given the support required to be able to reach the knowledge goals in school and be able to realize their dreams.

Every seventh student does not complete primary school, and every fourth student leaves upper secondary school without complete grades. At the same time, the number of students who make the wrong choice for upper secondary school is large. In industrial towns and suburbs all over Sweden, thousands of children are left without the prerequisites to create their own future.

We must never accept that. The focus must now be placed on ensuring that all children in the entire country get a good start in life. Crucial for a good schooling are primarily successful teachers. The foundation for a successful teacher is laid already during the teacher education.

Many teacher students leave teacher education without being prepared for what is required of them in their teaching role. Despite countless changes to teacher education, there are still deficiencies. Teaching is a craft. It is not something one learns solely by listening to lecturers in a classroom.

Students must be able to trust that the teacher education maintains high quality and provides the tools that are needed. Centerpartiet has for several years campaigned and will continue to campaign that the teacher education should be reformed. The teacher education must in a better way develop the students' skills in the actual teaching.

Today we have a teacher shortage in Swedish schools, and it has become even more palpable. Teachers are forced to devote too much time to things other than preparing and conducting teaching. It is a development that must be reversed.

Within the framework of the January agreement, several of our proposals were found. These included, among other things, the issue of career systems, professional programs, and more career services. Teacher assistants have also been introduced, which is important so that teachers can focus more on teaching and less on administration.

At the same time, we see now that more must be done. We need more professional groups and more safe adults in schools to relieve the teachers and support the children. We need to remove administration from teachers that does not lead to increased knowledge.

The digitalization of the school has so far primarily focused on the teaching itself. But the truly great gains can be made by digitalizing the administrative systems.

To get more teachers to the school, we need to raise the status of the profession and ensure that the teachers have a good working environment.

Mr. Speaker! When we discuss school here tonight, I want to specifically highlight the mental ill-health of young people. For many young people, the root of ill-health is things that have happened or happen daily in school. The work of preventing and detecting mental ill-health is closely linked to school. But the responsibility cannot be placed solely on the teachers.

They already have to take care of children with great needs without having adequate education to handle mental illness. Instead, school health must be valued and expanded with more school nurses, counselors, and psychologists. School health must also be based on the students' needs and be available every day, every moment when the students need it.

Mr. Speaker! A central part of the Center Party's policy is about creating vitality throughout the country. This includes, among other things, creating conditions for small schools. More and more small schools all over our country are now being closed when the municipalities have to save money or when the requirements to run a school become far too great.

It should not be the case that small schools are closed because it is too troublesome to keep them open. The state and society at large place great demands on the schools. In many ways, that is good. But there must also be greater flexibility in how measures can be implemented so that small schools are granted reasonable working conditions.

The focus should be on results and not micro-management. An example of an effort where small schools must be able to adapt their operations includes, for example, access to school libraries. I believe we all value school libraries. But if you place that requirement on a small school that cannot manage the situation, we will instead get a closed school instead of a school library.

We shall have a school of high quality. But we shall also have a school that can see the individual student's needs and circumstances. Children should not have to commute for hours to go to school because meticulous rules force the school to close.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish school is good. It is very dependent on all the fantastic staff who every day work hard to educate and form future generations.

Together in this chamber at this late hour, I actually believe that we can create even better conditions both for teachers and for children.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Demirok!

The Speaker touched upon one of my heart issues, namely teacher education. My questions are posed out of genuine curiosity regarding how the teacher educations should be developed.

What I am wondering about is: Is it a major reform of the teacher education that is envisioned? What are the major quality problems? What does one, in that case, want such a reform to address?

We know that more teachers are needed. In that case, it is a matter of the teaching profession needing to become a dream job. How does the teacher education itself factor into that? Where should we focus our efforts? Is it on the teacher education, or is it on the conditions for the teaching profession to truly become a dream job?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. I believe we are facing a situation where we cannot afford to choose either one or the other. The situation in Sweden's municipalities is quite acute when it comes to the staff shortage. There is a shortage of preschool teachers, there is a shortage of teachers, and there is an overall shortage of staff in schools. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in several places. It is not enough to just make the working environment better if more people do not apply for teacher training. It is not enough to reform teacher training if the working environment is perceived in such a way that it does not entice teachers to stay in schools.

What we see today is more and more, especially young newly graduated teachers, who are given an excessively large burden in school and who quite quickly seek to leave the school. In that case, measures must be taken in the work environment. But if a teacher is not equipped to meet the reality that actually exists out there, if the teacher has not been given these tools, is it then the teacher's fault that he or she seeks to move on? Or is there actually something to be done, to reform, in the teacher education?

I do not have all the answers on what a reformed teacher education looks like in detail. I am not supposed to have them either. We have an academy that is fully capable and equipped to actually handle this situation. Our task is to provide the tools that the academy needs to be able to handle this.

In this chamber, I believe it is not just one or two times that teacher education and the prerequisites for teachers have been discussed. And somewhere, I believe that debate will continue regardless of what we land on here tonight.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Teacher education is already the largest education. Many people apply to teacher education to become teachers. A teacher education reform takes a very long time. If we were to decide on such a thing tonight, which we are not going to, and I believe most are very grateful for that, it would take roughly ten years before a teacher trained in a new teacher education program stands in the classroom. I still wanted to highlight that part.

I am also wondering if the concern is about the practical handling of teaching students. As a student teacher, one has 20 weeks of practice-based training during which one should learn the craft.

It may be that reforms are needed. And I completely agree with the member that we have an academy to evaluate this. The signals I hear from that academy are not that they want three parallel teacher training programs continuously without them considering why, for example, the teacher training is extremely much more regulated than other educations and therefore becomes quite difficult to develop.

This is not a question but rather a wish for a reflective conversation regarding what this could be and whether it is truly the right path to take to focus on teacher education when we want even more people to dream of becoming teachers.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Camilla Hansén for the opportunity to have a reflective conversation. I believe we should seek more occasions for exactly this.

I have listened to many debates in the chamber where the teaching profession has been problematized and where the status of teachers has been problematized to such an extent that it is actually fewer and fewer who apply to teacher training. It is clear that words have meaning. What is said in this chamber comes out and affects the conditions for people to seek a workplace.

If it has been perceived that we have said that the entire teacher education is now to be redone from scratch, that has not been my intention, and I do not hope that is how it has come out from here either. But I am completely convinced that things need to be done in the teacher education.

Contrary to what Camilla Hansén encounters out there, I meet many who highlight exactly this. There are several things that need to be handled in a teacher education.

However, I do not believe in the solution that it must be either/or, that we are now to stop looking at teacher education because it might take a long time. If that were the case, we would not debate any of the things that we debate in this chamber, because nothing happens quickly.

I believe that one must look at all aspects. One must look at the conditions for the teachers, the municipal conditions. One must look at the work environment. One must look at the pay scale. But one must also look at the education. Because if we do not equip the teachers correctly from the very beginning, we will face a reality where more and more newly graduated teachers quickly seek to leave the school. It is not a reality that I want to see.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! In June this year, the Education Committee debated a report on increased safety and study environment in Swedish schools, which the Riksdag subsequently voted on. For the sake of clarity, it should be said that Muharrem Demirok was not a member of the Riksdag at that time.

In this report, which was a consequence of the writings in the January Agreement that both our parties together with the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet agreed upon, this was a point in strengthening the study environment in school. Part of this proposal was to regulate the use of mobile phones in the classroom.

In this proposal, it stated, among other things: Mobiles shall, as a rule, only be allowed to be used during teaching after the teacher's instruction, and the possibility to confiscate such [mobiles] as well as having mobile-free days shall increase.

I had followed that very clear requests had come from school leaders, from teachers, and also from students that they want this to be regulated. They do not want students sitting and using mobiles privately during lesson time. They do not want teachers to be forced to compete with the students' mobiles for attention and so on.

Furthermore, it was also clear in the bill that if the teacher says that one may use the mobile phone because it is needed for, for example, teaching segments, or if students who are in need of special support or have disabilities may need the mobile phone for their learning, it shall be permitted.

The interesting thing is that it was only Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet that reserved themselves against this and demanded a rejection of the bill in this part.

I have a question for Muharrem Demirok. Now we are going to present a number of different proposals of a similar nature that will strengthen teachers' and principals' powers for more study in school. How will C position itself on this moving forward?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the question.

No, I probably cannot refer to a debate that took place in June, but perhaps if it concerned detailed plans in Linköping. But I cannot refer to what Fredrik Christensson has said from the Riksdag's rostrum.

However, I have seen the consequences of what you call an increased effort for more peace and quiet in schools. I meet teachers who describe the anxiety that has now crept into the classroom. I have heard teachers describe how students, children, wonder what this means for them. I have heard teachers talk about whether they are now to become order police, not just when it concerns mobile phones but when it concerns whether children are legal or illegal in Sweden. That is what I have seen.

We can probably handle the talk about mobile phones. If you present a proposal, we will see how we stand on it. But if the question of study and order and tidiness moves over to teachers actually having to check whether children are allowed or not to be in Sweden, if children are to be accused for choices that their parents have made, then I, Fredrik Malm, wonder what order and tidiness in school actually means.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This is introduced, among other things, to prevent, for example, offensive photography in school, which occurs. It is clearly regulated that if the teacher says that one can use a mobile phone for a certain part of the teaching or if one needs it as, for example, special support and a mobile phone can be of help, then one should be able to do so. But that students sit with the mobile phone and engage in private matters, to chat or photograph people and so on, during lesson time, is what one wants to move away from.

In the vast majority of schools, this is handled. The students come in in the morning and put their mobiles in a box. That is placed in a cupboard, and it is no major problem. But it can appear at some schools. Then the principal or teachers must have the authority to say: This lesson or our school day at this school shall be free from mobile phones.

What the Center Party together with the Green Party, as the only parties in the chamber, say is: This is something we absolutely do not want. It is repressive and authoritarian.

Centerpartiet also refers to the fact that there should instead be trusting relationships and dialogue between teachers and students. I would say that it works in the vast majority of cases. But in some cases, it does not. In those cases, we must have the tools.

Madam Speaker! I become a bit puzzled when Muharrem Demirok speaks of this having had terrible consequences. The legislation was introduced on August 1 of this year. But if it has had such consequences, is it the Center Party's view that we should tear up the legislation so that it becomes free rein for students to sit with their mobile phones during lesson time and engage in a lot of private matters? I find it difficult to see how one learns more in school then.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank Fredrik Malm for a confidential conversation here in the chamber regarding order and discipline in the classroom. I believe we share the ambition that there should be order and discipline in the classroom. But we may not always share the view on the path there.

I believe in strong teachers who have the strength to own their classroom. The day we start to feel that legislation is needed for the teacher to own their classroom, we have bigger problems.

It may be that more parties in the chamber have concluded that this is a good way to go.

One should perhaps not start with anecdotal evidence. But I will make an attempt anyway. I have visited a school in Linköping, and the mobile phone ban came up. The big problem now has become that children want to go to the toilet more and more often. That is because they sit there and look at their private mobile phones. They have it in their pocket, and the teacher cannot take it from the pocket. That is their entry point into this. Problems have now arisen regarding how to regulate the toilet visits. That is where it has come to.

When we do not start by working from a trust-based operation, when the trust between teachers and students is not there, we will only need to chase them more and more with additional legislation. The problems will constantly find their way around. That is what I mean by that it should be trust-based operation. I believe that the teacher must be given the conditions to own their classroom. The student should feel such great confidence in and trust in their teacher that one actually does what they say.

We will probably have the opportunity to return to this. But I would also like to hear more in the future about the situation that many teachers are now describing to me. They are afraid of what the new decisions in the Tidö Agreement mean for trust in the classroom and what the teachers are supposed to do. Should they chase students during their breaks or not?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! School is crucial for every student's opportunity to realize their own dreams, shape their own future, and reach their full potential. School is also crucial for Sweden's position as a knowledge and research nation in the world and for reversing the negative trend we have had in recent years with segregation and exclusion. The education system is central to meeting the large immigration of low-educated persons in recent years and to give more people the opportunity to become a part of our Swedish society. School is, quite simply, crucial for preserving and developing Sweden's role as a welfare society and a knowledge nation.

The quality of school in Sweden is crucial for economic growth and development. Since 1960, we have seen a development in the international measurements - we know them well, TIMSS and PISA. We see a correlation between higher scores in these international measurements and higher economic growth for the country. In fact, it has been seen that 100 points in PISA gives 1.3 percent higher economic growth. There is a very clear correlation here. There is therefore no doubt that school is central to Sweden's growth.

But perhaps even more important is every single individual's, every single student's, opportunity to realize their dreams. That is why I am so distressed by the development we have seen within Swedish schools in recent years. 16,000 students leave grade 9 without proper knowledge. Every fourth student in grade 6 has failed in one or more subjects.

This is a question that is completely decisive for our development moving forward. Add to that the deficiencies we see regarding concentration in Swedish schools. More and more people are now reporting that they use noise-canceling headphones, different types of headphones, just to be able to concentrate on the lessons.

It does not only affect the students' work environment but also the teachers' work environment. We also see that more and more teachers, unfortunately, choose to leave the profession. Today, approximately half leave during the teacher training or during the first years in the profession. Today, it is estimated that 45,000 trained teachers choose not to work as teachers in Sweden. We have a huge task to consider what it is due to. When we ask the teachers, when we ask those individuals, what it is due to, we see that disruption in Swedish schools is one of the most important reasons why one chooses not to work as a teacher.

It is obvious that Swedish school needs extensive reforms and a completely new direction. It is about reformed teacher education, about reduced documentation requirements for teachers, and about re-establishing order and discipline.

I note that several during the debate feel satisfied with the legislative proposals that passed the chamber in the spring. It is good that we have taken some steps in the right direction. But it is not enough in the long run. We need to ensure that the absolute best in Sweden want to work as teachers and can manage to work a whole professional life as a teacher in Sweden. We have a rather long way left to walk to make that possible.

We also need to re-establish a traditional view of knowledge within Swedish schools, with measurable knowledge. We need to reform our curricula and syllabi to achieve an increased focus on measurable knowledge. It is absolutely central if we are to hold our own in the international competition.

We need to see increased teacher-led instruction in Sweden with books, with textbooks. We want to see a long series of reforms, including external examiners and final exams in order to be able to quality assure and follow up on the measurable knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing an expenditure area within the framework of the state budget. Here we are now taking some first necessary steps in the right direction in the reform agenda that we have mapped out the way for within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. It is about social teams, about on-call and emergency schools, about increased access to high-quality teaching materials, about expanded and broadened literacy initiatives, and about increased access to special education teachers. Yes, the list can be made very long.

Madam Speaker! I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report that we are now debating. I look forward to returning to this chamber during the mandate period to describe and pass reform after reform to, in different ways, re-establish Sweden as a knowledge nation. We need this for the sake of every individual student. We need this for Sweden's growth and competitiveness in the long term. This is what I look forward to continuing to fight for.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! This government, which in practice is remote-controlled by the Sweden Democrats, has proposed that the allocation to the municipalities shall amount to a total of approximately 6 billion kronor for 2023. According to SKR's calculations, it will then be missing nearly 14 billion solely to be able to maintain today's level of welfare.

Since school is by far the most expensive of the municipality's activities, it requires no great knowledge of mathematics to calculate that the school will be hit very hard by this. This applies especially to municipalities like my own, Hofors kommun, which has some of Sweden's highest taxes today.

My question to Josefin Malmqvist is: Why do the Moderaterna choose to instead lower the tax for those with incomes over 50,000 kronor per month at a cost of approximately 13 billion kronor rather than ensuring that the school receives the resources it is in great need of?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Swedish school is in great need of reforms - for an increased focus on knowledge, for increased order and discipline, for increased access to physical teaching materials and textbooks. The list can be made very long. These are reforms that have been conspicuously absent during the past eight years. These are reforms that we are now launching - reform by reform - in order to, in the long term, reverse the negative development that we see within Swedish school.

It is true that schools also need additional resources. Therefore, we are adding targeted resource supplements in this budget, and we are adding general state grants in this budget. It is part of what Swedish schools need.

But I note that Vänsterpartiet makes it very easy for themselves. Reforms are conspicuously absent - reforms that research and internationally proven experience show are truly needed in order to be able to re-establish a knowledge focus in Swedish schools. These reforms are completely absent. Instead, the focus is solely on banning independent schools and on more money. That will not solve the problem.

My question back to Samuel Gonzalez Westling is therefore: How shall we ensure that more students pass in Swedish school? How do we contribute to reducing the proportion of students who fail in Swedish school? Where are these reforms in your policy, Samuel Gonzalez Westling?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that I did not receive any direct answer from Josefin Malmqvist to my question, other than the claim that targeted resources will be provided. One must then keep in mind that even if one counts the targeted resources, approximately 8 billion is still missing to reach what SKR, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, has stated is needed in order to be able to maintain today's level in the school. One is therefore not to make any special investments and get a better school, but rather to maintain today's levels.

When it comes to the issue itself, I still think that Josefin Malmqvist owes the chamber an answer as to why one chooses instead to lower taxes for those who earn absolutely the most. Those funds could actually have been spent on developing the welfare. One could have ensured to at least maintain today's levels. But one chooses to lower the tax for people such as us, who stand here in this chamber. We get a tax cut at the expense of children's schooling in Sweden. Does Josefin Malmqvist think it is right and proper that it should be that way?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I think this is very interesting, and I look forward to us being able to have a substantive debate regarding the financing of Swedish schools in the coming years. I believe it is needed. Within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, we will appoint an inquiry that, for example, shall look at the school funding and at a national school funding norm, which among other things concerns the support to the school. I believe that there is quite a lot in this that we need to reflect upon.

A concrete example concerns how much schools spend on rent for premises in Sweden. It varies between 500 kronor per square meter and 3,000 kronor per square meter. It is an enormous difference in resources that are taken away from the pedagogical mission.

We can compare ourselves with other OECD countries. Sweden is one of the countries within the OECD that spends the most money on school. But if we focus on the part of the resources that are spent on the pedagogical mission, on the students' opportunity to learn, on textbooks and on teaching, we see that Sweden is one of the countries that spends the least money on school.

To answer Samuel Gonzalez Westling's question, I can please the members by stating that I will gladly discuss the funding of Swedish schools in the coming years to ensure that significantly more resources go to the teaching that our students so desperately need, to learning materials, to teachers, and to the pedagogical mission. Extensive reforms are needed here, and I look forward to returning to this chamber with a discussion regarding exactly this.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Last week, Josefin Malmqvist and Caroline Helmersson Olsson organized a seminar on vocational schools. I would like to thank the members for that, as it was a very informative and good seminar.

Unfortunately, it was also clearly shown what the consequences of the government's policy will be. Vocational schools that have started up around Sweden will be shut down. One example that we learned more about concerned the vocational training for distribution electricians, something that Sweden really needs more of, because we need to build more distribution networks for electricity around Sweden to meet and secure the energy supply and furthermore meet the climate transition.

There are also many other industries with a crying need for competent labor. Nevertheless, the Moderaterna choose in this budget to cut back on vocational training within komvux and at the yrkeshögskolan. Furthermore, they are to abolish this vocational training which has supplied a large part of the business sector with just distribution electricians.

Why, Josefin Malmqvist, do you choose to shut down this education? How are the companies that are to secure our electricity supply in the future supposed to obtain competent personnel now when you shut down this education?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Sweden needs an increased focus on vocational training. We see that industry after industry is crying out for competence while we have a growing group that stands very far from the Swedish labor market. Therefore, we need more focus on educational initiatives that actually lead to jobs – educational initiatives that target shortage occupations, where we know the labor market is crying out for staff.

It was among other reasons why we had certain objections to the previous government's proposition on the dimensioning of upper secondary school. We saw that the industries need to be given an even greater influence over the design of the educations and the dimensioning in terms of places.

I am pleased that in this budget we can maintain today's level within the universities of applied sciences, where almost every fourth place is vacant. I am pleased that we are making an investment in 5,000 new places within regional vocational education. These are important additions to secure Sweden's competence supply.

But these places will not solve the entire problem. Both Åsa Westlund and I know that a large part of the problem also concerns ensuring that there are applicants for the training places - that people demand them and want to participate in the training because they actually lead to jobs.

A significant need for reform remains from the political side, and I look forward to being able to look, among other things, at how study and career guidance, as a concrete example, can be developed to ensure that more people demand these educations.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. However, there was no answer as to why the Moderates choose to abolish this type of education that has applicants and where people get jobs directly after the education in professions where there is a shortage and which society cannot do without.

There is not just one but several examples of this. As I said in my speech, it unfortunately seems that the government representatives and the Sweden Democrats are living in a parallel reality. If you compare the appropriations you give for 2023 with those for 2022, you are cutting back on vocational training: yrkeshögskolan, komvux and yrkesvux. You are also closing the vocational schools.

It is a bit difficult if one cannot read it from the tables and then has to stand and explain to people out in the real world why they have to shut down their vocational training, why they have fewer places at the university college and why there will be fewer places at vocational adult education.

Josefin Malmqvist has not done that, but the Moderaterna often refer to this as some kind of restoration after the pandemic, and that is why they are reducing the number of places. But we have a societal crisis now too! One needs to invest in competence and education in order to be able to compete with the rest of the world. I think it is sad that the Moderaterna and the other government parties are closing down fully functioning vocational programs and cutting back on both vocational colleges and vocational adult education when so many companies are crying out for that labor force.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! The inaccuracies from Member Westlund were numerous. I shall try to address them one by one. Today we are debating the state budget, expenditure area 16. That is what we are discussing today.

I noted that Åsa Westlund would like to talk about vocational schools. Vocational schools are, therefore, a pilot project that continues until next summer. Skolverket has just completed an evaluation of in what way that activity should continue. What form it should take and how to ensure that the funds become as accurate as possible, we will simply have to come back to.

When it comes to places in vocational training, universities of applied sciences and adult education, what the member is saying here is not correct. We are expanding with 5,000 new places in regional vocational adult education because we see that it is needed. Within the universities of applied sciences, there will be approximately the same number of training places as there have been this year. No reduction is taking place here.

In area after area, I must therefore say that it is regrettable and also somewhat telling for the Social Democrats that this is what they have to come up with. In the end, they stand here in the rostrum and try to grasp at straws instead of themselves pursuing a reform-oriented policy for more educational places and higher quality - also within vocational education - to ensure the supply we need in Sweden with, for example, trained vocational teachers. That is indeed one of the areas of shortage and a reason why it is not easy to expand the number of educational places in the long term.

I look forward to proposals from the Social Democrats. After eight years at the Ministry of Education, we have still not seen any such proposals. I hope to see more of them going forward, because that is the only way to secure Sweden's competitiveness and skills supply in the long term.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have run for election on the basis that everyone shall be included when Sweden transitions. In the election campaign, we promised to strengthen welfare, increase equality, and invest in climate work. Now we have submitted a budget proposal that does just that.

Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries and can afford to invest in what is important to build the new, green folkhemmet. We can afford to invest in education for everyone, from the smallest in preschool to those of us in the middle of life who need to transition our professional lives. We can afford world-leading research.

When Miljöpartiet speaks about transition and sustainability, many recognize the different aspects of sustainability which are sometimes expressed as social sustainability being the goal, a sustainable economy being the tool, and the planet being that which sets the limits. In Miljöpartiet, we formulate the basis for the green ideology as solidarity with animals, nature, and the ecological systems, solidarity with the world's people, and solidarity with future generations.

The Green Party's budget proposal is based on exactly that, and what we want to do is to invest in what is important to build a solidary and socially sustainable future. We invest in future generations, knowledge and research.

Miljöpartiet wants to create an equal school. The connection between school failure, poverty, exclusion, and crime is strong and well-documented in research. We all agree that the knowledge results of children and young people must increase. Far too many leave both primary school and upper secondary school without sufficient knowledge, and the best preventive measure is to ensure that everyone leaves school with sufficient knowledge.

The state must continue to direct resources to increase equality in preschools, schools, and after-school centers across the country. One does the entire society a disservice when one saves on the schools. The state should take greater responsibility so that schools across the country have sufficient resources.

Miljöpartiet also wants to create a fair school choice to counter segregation. We want to put a stop to profit distribution because it drives segregation and increases inequality between schools. The school's purpose should always be education, never profit. The strange thing is that the government, despite the voters' massive support for removing profits in the school sector, chooses to continue giving the market school artificial respiration with more regulations and more controls that will increase teachers' workload and administration.

I want to highlight two specific initiatives that Miljöpartiet wants to make and where we are providing new grants. It concerns equality grants for preschool and initiatives so that children of people who do not work shall be able to attend after-school care.

Preschool plays an important role in compensating for differences in children's upbringing conditions. Participation in preschool plays a role for children's future school results. In Sweden, almost all children attend preschool today, but among the children who do not participate, a larger proportion come from families living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. At the same time, fewer licensed preschool teachers and trained childcare workers work there.

Miljöpartiet wants to establish an equality grant for preschools similar to the one we have already pushed through for schools. Fully expanded, it would amount to 2 billion kronor annually and would reach all preschools but be distributed based on a socioeconomic index. The equality billions that must be allocated can be used to hire more educators, raise wages, offer staff better professional development, or perhaps increase the availability of special educators, all based on local needs.

We want all children who do not attend preschool to be actively offered a preschool place every year from the age of three. We also want the municipality to follow up on the children between the ages of three and five who do not attend preschool.

Miljöpartiet also wants more children to have the right to attend after-school care. The after-school center is an important complement to school. It provides the child with support in learning and both social and linguistic practice. After-school care can play an important role in supporting those children who have the worst conditions for completing school.

Unfortunately, it is often the children who benefit most from after-school care who lack the right to go there. A child who has parents who are long-term unemployed or who, for other reasons, is in a vulnerable environment risks losing the support of the after-school center because today it is only children of parents who have a job who are allowed to be there. Miljöpartiet wants to give all children the right to after-school care and at the same time strengthen the quality and equality.

Preschool, primary school, and after-school care lay the foundation for good knowledge development, which is important for higher education and research and for Sweden to continue to be a strong knowledge nation.

One of the most important success factors is skilled teachers who spend enough time with their students. For Sweden to continue to be a strong knowledge nation, the teaching profession needs to be a dream job for more people. Teacher education is already the country's largest higher education, but we know that we still need more people who dream of becoming teachers.

To be a teacher is to have Sweden's most important job. Now, perhaps some people in this room and elsewhere feel a bit stepped on, because they certainly have other professions that are also very important. We agree that it is important to work in healthcare, to build houses and bridges, or to work with digital development. But there will be no nursing assistants, craftsmen, or IT gurus without good teachers in preschool, primary school, and upper secondary school.

I also believe it would be good if we parliamentarians - and perhaps even ministers - showed a little more respect for those who are conducting teaching and education in this country. The idea that a member of parliament or a minister can magically conjure up better school results from the Ministry of Education or the Education Committee's session hall renders invisible those who go and do this job every day.

When we now see that more students in most groups are leaving primary school with eligibility for upper secondary school, it is not something that the government should take credit for – neither the previous nor the current one. It is the hard work of teachers, students, and principals, and sometimes the commitment of families, that has led to these results.

There has been a lot of talk about what the new government has implemented so far. I want to be clear that it has not implemented anything. There is nothing in a classroom that has yet been affected by a decision coming from this government. There are no new goals or new resources.

This debate focuses a lot on education for children and young people, but I would also like to point out that we also need to invest in adult education and YH-education to counteract unemployment and create sustainable jobs.

Miljöpartiet is the party in this chamber that invests the most in the education sector. I want to emphasize that, in addition to being the party that invests the most in this budget area, we are also the only party that meets the needs that Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner report they have to maintain today's levels.

Madam Speaker! Since the Riksdag, through its decision in the first step of the budget process, gave the budget policy a completely different direction than the Miljöpartiet desires, I abstain from taking a position regarding the state budget for 2023 within expenditure area 16 and instead submit a special statement.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

The time is approaching 23:00. In order to make the most of the time, I judge that I can give Daniel Riazat the floor for a speech. I would, however, like to warn already now that any replies will not be able to be taken today, but they will be postponed until tomorrow. It will be a long day tomorrow as well, so it is important to make use of every minute.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! It is getting very late and it is very special to stand up as the last speaker at a quarter to eleven, but we must make the best of the situation.

Due to the fact that we in Vänsterpartiet, for various reasons, could not participate in the adjustment, we might have needed to speak a bit longer, but we will distribute it among our members. Samuel Gonzalez Westling will take that part during tomorrow's debate.

Today's debate is very special for me. Even though it is not unique that Swedish politicians who either precede or follow their time as elected politicians have had their fingers in the jam jar of venture capital companies within the welfare sector, it is probably the first time during my years in the Riksdag that I get to be part of standing in opposition to an SD-led government whose school minister was first a school politician in Sweden's capital, to then become a school capitalist, and then become school minister. Let us take this starting point with us when we debate Swedish school policy and the state budget regarding the school system.

There is one more thing we must take with us when we discuss the SD-led government's budget and the general school policy that is being pursued, and that is the palace agreement, which these parties call the Tidö Agreement. What are the common threads in this agreement? What is the common thread – or the common threads – when it comes to the choice of Sweden's school minister and the now submitted budget for 2023?

Firstly, it is about large tax cuts for the very richest in Sweden at the expense of the students. Secondly, it is about a continuation of the failed market system and market logic in the Swedish school. Thirdly, it is about enormous cuts for the country's municipalities. Fourthly, it is about the racist smokescreens that this entire agreement is permeated by in order to divert focus from the three preceding points.

I will begin with the question regarding the market school. In the Tidö Agreement, it is written, among other things, that there shall be a reclaim of the school fee in cases of, among other things, crime. We in the Education Committee have had hours of meetings with the relevant school authorities regarding this issue. They state that this will be incredibly difficult due to the Companies Act, which also encompasses Sweden's independent schools, because the majority of the independent schools are owned by limited companies and large corporations.

People talk about that profit distribution should not occur during the first years after a school has been started or purchased by a new owner. What does this mean in practice? Anyone who knows anything about Swedish school policy knows that it means nothing. There are currently no school groups that take out profit during the first years when they start or take over a school operation.

People talk about increased transparency. Better transparency is needed in independent schools, both legally, financially and pedagogically. It is written that since the principle of public access is poorly suited for smaller independent schools, it should be clarified in a transparency principle that applies to independent schools.

We must bring out the facts that exist. The national association of independent schools has said one thing on the issue, and that is what is stated in the Tidö Agreement. But when you speak with Idéburna Skolors Riksförbund, they say that the principle of public access would also benefit the smaller independent schools. This is a point that has been added to get away from the fact that one votes no to the principle of public access in the Swedish school system. Why is it done? It is done because one does not want there to be transparency in the largest corporations. It is done at the request of the largest corporations.

People speak of mandatory school choice with better information and shortened waiting times. All of these parties have voted yes to retaining the queuing system in the Swedish school. Now, they also want to further extend and worsen the selection system by having a mandatory choice, that is to say, it is not enough that a quarter of the students have fared worse, but now everyone is to get a worse system.

These were the points that exist, and there are a few more that, frankly, are not even worth mentioning when it comes to the market school. This is symptomatic of this blue-brown government. The entire budget and the entire palace agreement are about how one can maintain today's extreme system, which is about market logic in the Swedish school.

Let me move on to the question of cuts. That was the second common thread. It was best explained by the chairperson of the Swedish Union of Teachers, Johanna Jaara Åstrand. On November 8, 2022, she said in the newspaper Läraren that the budget in practice means a tightening of the belt for preschool and school. There is a great risk that large savings will occur. The municipalities receive 6 billion in state grants, but we have established that 25.4 billion were needed to compensate for cost increases and increased wages within the school system. They are far from sufficient.

Johanna Jaara Åstrand also notes that many items in the budget concern redistributions of money instead of new investments. She thinks it is highly remarkable that the government does not realize that it is in a recession that one must invest in education and knowledge to create faith in the future.

Johanna Jaara Åstrand further says that the union now instead considers that students, children, teachers and principals will have less money to work with while the debate is about increased knowledge, strengthened equality and that teachers should get a more sensible working situation. It does not add up with the budget.

In addition to this, we see that ever higher demands are being placed on teachers and staff. These demands increase with the government's policy, but the economic compensation is missing.

Let me give some examples of higher requirements. First and foremost, it is about extending the period of study. Who is going to compensate for this? Will the blue-browns' cut budget do it? No. People talk about more special education teachers and more students in special teaching groups. Where will that money come from? Is it in the blue-browns' savings and cut budget? The answer is no.

People are talking about elite classes at a time when we cannot even provide all students with a basic education due to the cuts that conservative municipalities have made over many years and which, unfortunately, previous conservative governments have also made.

People talk about reading and reading comprehension getting a larger place in schools. People talk about simultaneously reducing the administrative burden on teachers. How do cuts and increased demands on school staff go together with reducing the teachers' administrative burden? Is it through the blue-browns' cut budget? The answer is no.

There is talk about improving student health. Where are the initiatives to improve student health?

There is talk about tightening the scrutiny of schools with a confessional orientation, but at every occasion where the Riksdag has voted on this, the blue-brown parties have blocked all proposals to in any way touch the independent school system.

People talk about having faster integration and more equal conditions for newly arrived students. Is this being done with a budget cut? The answer is no.

Let me move on to the racist mists that permeate the entire Tidö Agreement. We can, among other things, bring up the issue of reporting systems for teachers. Is that what Swedish teachers are to be informed about in the budget and the Tidö Agreement? That what they should focus on today and in the future is reporting systems, and that is how their administrative burden is to be reduced. That is how they are to carry out their mission to create an equal school. The answer is no.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a well-known quote that one of the leaders for the budget and the Tidö Agreement has stated previously: When one goes to an election, one says one thing before the election. Then the election is carried out, and then one says the same thing after the election.

Is that really how Swedish school policy should be? We mean from the Left Party's side that in order to be able to create an equal school, an equitable school, it is the responsibility of politics to ensure that it is implemented. To ensure that all children will get equal opportunities to succeed in being democratic citizens in our country and building up the country for future challenges, it is the responsibility of politics to ensure that they can do so. Then it is important to say one thing when it is an election and then say the same thing after the election. It is not in the budget that the blue-brown government has shown us or in the palace agreement that the Sverigedemokraterna cobbled together for this conservative nationalist government.

Furthermore, there is a great danger when it comes to the question of reporting, namely that the science behind mother tongue instruction is being questioned and a signal is being sent to Sweden's teachers that they should hunt students, not help students. Nine out of ten teachers have already said that they will not do this.

We will have proven that the bourgeois government's budget and agreements will be the most failed school policy that we have seen in modern Swedish political history. I look forward to standing in the speaker's chair again and saying this once more until we get a new government and until we can change the direction you have introduced into Swedish school policy.

(Applause)

(cont. prot. 43)

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