Education and university research

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We now have to debate perhaps the most important expenditure area in the entire state budget, namely that which concerns education and research.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report and also clarify that I am now speaking about the Liberals' policy for the entire expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! The latest PISA measurement arrived last winter. It showed the greatest loss of knowledge for Swedish school students ever. Every fourth student cannot read properly. More than 61,000 ninth graders have failed in reading comprehension over the last nine years. Every year, almost 20,000 students leave primary school without eligibility for the high school's national programs.

In recent weeks, the Piaac and Timss surveys were released, where, among other things, they have investigated mathematics skills among primary school students and also adults' reading comprehension. Here we actually see glimmers of light, and that is good. Sweden performs relatively well in these surveys. However, they leave a certain aftertaste. We are one of the countries that is worst at compensating for students' home conditions. The equality is too poor, and we often fail in the compensatory mission in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! University teachers are warning that students admitted to the country's top higher education institutions have difficulty absorbing course literature. They also testify to a lack of knowledge transfer in the Swedish school system.

How did we end up here? Well, Madam Speaker, about 30-35 years ago, very large changes were made in the Swedish school system which collectively have meant that we are somewhat less well-equipped today. We have seen falling knowledge results as a consequence of these changes. The teachers' status has been weakened, and we see significant discipline problems in Swedish schools. This is a consequence of many of the reforms that were made in the beginning of the 1990s and also in the late 1980s - the municipalization, the free school reform, the target management, the new so-called modern pedagogy, and much more.

Madam Speaker! This government is now trying to reverse the development. We are restructuring school policy to focus more on factual knowledge, especially at the younger ages.

For far too long, Sweden's students have been subjected to experiments without scientific grounding. The intention has often been good, but the results have been devastating. So-called "listening reading" has become an established form of learning where students are simply supposed to listen to texts instead of learning to read. It is an enormous betrayal, Madam Speaker, especially towards those students who need school the most.

We are now revising the school's curricula. Syllabi shall place greater emphasis on factual knowledge and that the basics are mastered. It will help all students.

Seven out of ten children have a screen instead of a book at bedtime. Every third parent argues about screen time. It is not strange that many worry that children's lives are being consumed by social media. We must dare to set boundaries, especially in school.

To counter the risk of illiteracy, we are now moving from screen to binder in Swedish schools. Students will receive proper textbooks and real fiction. We are trying to phase out distracting screens from teaching. The previous government had a more uncritical approach and an over-reliance on the potential of digital teaching materials.

Madam Speaker! In the budget bill for 2023, we allocated funds and introduced a state grant for the purchase of real books. This year, it amounted to 658 million kronor. That investment is strengthened in the pursuit of the principle that every student should have a textbook per subject. We have pushed through legislation ensuring that all schools shall have a staffed school library. We are determined to turn this literacy crisis around.

Madam Speaker! The insecurity in schools is increasing. In many classrooms, it is so rowdy that the students cannot concentrate on the teaching. This risks particularly affecting boys from academically weak homes. A new state initiative shall facilitate for schools to employ more qualified people who can contribute to increased safety and study environment in the school. It can involve establishing safety teams that work for calm and peace, well-being and safety in and outside the classrooms. It can contribute to more special education teachers and smaller teaching groups.

Previous governments have been quite reluctant to invest in smaller groups outside the classroom. It has been argued that it would be exclusionary. We believe it is the opposite. If students receive the support they need, everyone gets a fair chance.

Madam Speaker! We want to be clear that it is the teacher who decides. We are therefore investing in emergency schools where students who disturb or create insecurity can be temporarily placed. Additionally, we are strengthening the school's and social services' ability to work side by side to catch students with high absence early through more social teams. We are also investigating the issue of a national absence register.

Madam Speaker! We know that early interventions make a big difference. Therefore, from and including 2028, we are making the Swedish primary school ten years long. All students will attend for ten years, and the preschool class will become grade 1. By letting the education of six-year-olds follow the primary school's subjects and curricula, the focus on early reading and writing training is sharpened.

We are introducing continuing education for teachers so that they, through scientifically proven methods, receive better tools to support students in their language, reading, and writing learning. The school is full of skilled teachers. We know that, Madam Speaker. But we also know that many teachers experience that their education has not given them sufficient knowledge about which methods for reading and writing learning work best. All too often, the continuing education is not based on a scientific foundation but on trendy concepts purchased by private school owners or municipal politicians. So that cannot continue. A national professional program for principals, teachers, and preschool teachers will be introduced during the coming years.

Teacher education needs to be of higher quality. We now have an investigation to take a position on. It arrived a few weeks ago and proposes increased requirements for teacher education, both the teacher program and the preschool teacher program. I truly welcome this.

We want to strengthen knowledge in Swedish. School can be one of the few places where students with parents who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue regularly encounter the Swedish language. To strengthen knowledge in Swedish, the government intends to introduce a pilot project with language-strengthening measures for students who have a need for intensive training in Swedish. Currently, the introduction of a mandatory language preschool and a maximum cap for the number of children in preschool groups is also being investigated.

In the future, the Riksdag will also need to reform the free school system fundamentally. Unserious actors whose primary goal is to make quick money have been allowed to operate in the school world for far too long. This must come to an end. The only driving force we can tolerate in those who run schools is the students' best interests. This must be the starting point for all school providers in Sweden.

But it is not only in independent schools that we see problems. There are also very large differences between municipal schools and between municipalities, not least when it comes to how many resources one allocates to the school. There is a difference of 70,000 kronor per pupil between the municipality that invests the most in the school and the one that invests the least. Therefore, we are investigating a national school funding norm. We want to increase equality.

Madam Speaker! Ingenuity, innovation and science have made Sweden a wealthy knowledge nation. We shall continue to compete with the best in technological development and not be a mediocre country. With the Liberals in government, a historic investment is therefore being made in Swedish research. The new research bill contains investments of 6.5 billion kronor and focuses on, among other things, cutting-edge research and groundbreaking technology.

We are investing heavily to keep up with AI development and meet the needs of the climate transition. We are developing Swedish research environments to attract and retain the best researchers. We prioritize space research but also the understanding of which methods work best in schools to meet the literacy crisis. I want to be clear that it is cutting-edge research that makes Sweden relevant in research contexts - not being moderately good at everything.

This government, unlike the previous ones, dares to invest in the best research and the best researchers. Sweden shall be a country that is awarded Nobel Prizes, not just a country that awards Nobel Prizes.

Madam Speaker! This school budget focuses on ensuring that more students acquire basic skills early on. Nothing is more important than all students being able to read, write, and calculate already in primary school. We have begun the work of taking the school back to the basics, where students are secure and learn more. The basics in the classrooms and the school system must function; it is important for everyone, but especially for those students who need the school most.

Madam Speaker! It is about the basics in school and about world-class cutting-edge research. One can simply see when it is liberals who are in charge at the Ministry of Education.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the review of the entire Education Committee!

There is a lot that is very good and that Member Malm and I agree needs to be invested in. It is about reading and much more.

There is a reading risk - probably several. One of them is probably the government's inability to read statistics. Regarding how the school results actually look, it is such that almost regardless of which of the surveys that have come out recently we look at, Sweden is at the top - if one sorts out those who speak Swedish at home, that is. It is important to keep in mind if we are to solve the problems in Swedish schools, for there are many to take on. One of them is the enormous dropout rate.

We are looking at what the government actually does. It is nice that one says many things, but in reality, it is also about what one does – and it is not to invest in the school. I believe that all parties on the opposition side at the current moment invest more in the school than what the Liberals achieve in the government.

We see that money is going where it makes no difference. A lot of money is spent on emergency schools, which can be good in some places. But if one demands that it must be emergency schools that the money is spent on, it is not possible to spend it on what is actually needed. There is no trust that the profession knows best itself and can actually assess what the money should be spent on. That is why we in Centerpartiet want a sector grant instead of all the targeted state grants.

I would like to hear from Member Malm if the Liberals are ready to have a somewhat broader conversation about how we reach the group that is truly a problem and whom we are not succeeding in lifting: the low-performing students. How do we ensure that they can move from today's standstill, where they are met with a closed door, to getting a job? What does Member Malm and the Liberals want to do to stop the dropouts in Swedish school?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! What Niels Paarup-Petersen raises is very relevant.

On the labor market, we have a fairly large group that is very difficult to get into jobs. They are the long-term unemployed and so on. Politicians tinker with various different attempts at solutions for that group. It concerns new-start jobs, entry-level jobs, various tax reliefs, labor market programs and so on.

In the same way, actually, we have in Swedish schools a group of students who do not manage primary school and therefore do not become eligible for the national programs. In that case, the ambition has been that they should study a so-called introductory program. Approximately one in five who start an introductory program ultimately receive a high school diploma. That is too low.

The problem is that a large group of students who are very school-weary are expected to go the furthest of all in the school. That problem has also been seen by previous governments. Now a report from an investigation of what we call vocational school has arrived, which has been looked at to, for example, be able to get much more vocational introduction. It concerns many in the group who have not managed to complete primary school.

The second thing I want to say regarding this, and which I think is important, is that we must constantly continue to try to push resources down towards the younger ages, especially when it comes to reading and writing skills. Support is generally implemented too late in Swedish schools.

Madam Speaker! It is two concrete things. Much more is being done. Now, a number of different investigations are being launched regarding, among other things, the school's financing, free schools, curricula, and much more, which collectively shall contribute to improving the Swedish school system.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Malm.

There is a lot of good in some of the inquiries that are now going to present their results. I have great hope for the grading inquiry and for the new vocational orientation, which is to be just as long but have fewer points. I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement there and find ways forward so that those who today are weeded out in Swedish school can succeed by getting a path to a job. In the current situation, the weeding out is enormous. 20,000 students are weeded out every year because Swedish school is catastrophic in that area.

Then we come back to the fact that we see that the government is not investing in schools in practice. Purely financially, they are not investing in schools. It is clear that it makes a difference whether one has the money to do things or not. One can say a lot of things and fine things one wants to do, but if there is no money on the table, it doesn't help.

I understand that Fredrik Malm will say that it is a municipal responsibility. And it is. But the state has reduced its share of the funding for Swedish schools over time. That responsibility must be taken. And it is actually only the government that can do that. Other parties here in the chamber of the Riksdag manage to find more money for schools than the government does.

Now that we have such a large scale of layoffs, I think it is a bit sad that the government does not have a higher ambition to invest in ensuring that there are funds to ensure that they can get early support etcetera.

Yes, there are things in the works. But it is 20,000 students who are being knocked out every year if we do nothing now. The Centre Party has said that one should let them proceed on merit points to the vocational programs that already exist; it opens up for many of them to be able to proceed already now. If we do nothing now, it is in three years that 60,000 will go out without having a future. We see how it looks. They become unemployed, and we get increased crime etcetera.

There is still no answer from the government on what we should do in the short term to solve it. I am still hoping for some more answers from Fredrik Malm and the Liberals.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe that both Niels Paarup-Petersen, myself, and everyone else here in the chamber know that there is no magic wand that can be waved to solve all challenges. This is a laborious task that needs to be done.

We also cannot adopt new legislation in the chamber if the proposals have not first been investigated, referred, reviewed by the Council on Legislation, and so on. We will therefore not get away from the fact that it will take time to reverse the development in Swedish schools. It is largely about handling the consequences of the major change that was made 30-35 years ago.

Madam Speaker! I would, however, like to point out that it is very routine-based argumentation and rhetoric from the Center Party here. If one looks at the development of appropriations in the budget bill, one sees that in large part every table shows that there is a continuous investment in Swedish schools. The description of large cuts is incorrect, at least not when it comes to the state resources for schools.

However, it looks very different in the municipalities, because many municipalities unfortunately do not manage to take their responsibility as the principal for Swedish schools. That is why we need increased state responsibility.

My and my party's perception is that we need to return the responsibility for the funding of schools from the municipalities to the state. Unfortunately, there is no majority here in the chamber for such a reform, but it is, in my opinion, the most important thing of all.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me first express a slight disappointment that Fredrik Malm's party leader and Minister for Education, Johan Pehrson, chooses not to be present when we debate this expenditure area. It is unfortunate, especially in light of the fact that the research and innovation bill was presented last Thursday. The Minister's presence in the chamber today would have been welcome.

I intend to ask a couple of questions about the research and innovation bill. I have read it twice, first quickly and then a bit more carefully. A summary of my impression is that it is a potpourri of positively charged words such as excellence and groundbreaking, but it is quite difficult to see the big picture.

It is difficult to make an assessment of whether the government's policy will lead to good results because there is no impact assessment. Expenditure item by expenditure item are placed side by side. We can take the expenditure items Groundbreaking research, Excellence clusters groundbreaking technology, Excellence centers and Strategic research areas as examples.

I want to ask Member Malm: How is the idea that all these individual initiatives placed on the research councils supposed to work in the big picture? Is it the same researchers who are supposed to be everywhere? What is actually the idea with the government's excellence initiatives, concretely?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party suggests perhaps that there should be a single grant instead; now there are many different grants.

The basic principle with increased resources is that Swedish research should be able to improve quality, that we should also be able to attract the best researchers in the world here, and that we should be able to win Nobel Prizes and not just award Nobel Prizes. In that case, cutting-edge research, what one usually calls excellence, is extremely important. Of course, basic research and all our educational institutions also have an important role, but we need to invest extra in precisely cutting-edge research.

The grants are distributed through various actors and so on, and the member knows that. But it is clear that not all researchers are to research exactly everything or be everywhere - or what the member now implied. The ambition must be that the researchers should be able to get more time for their research.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Malm for the answer.

That is where it can become a bit tricky. The more one allocates research funds to the research councils, the greater the administrative burden becomes for the researchers and the universities, and the greater the transaction costs become. The government has chosen a policy where one puts very much money into the research councils and very little money into basic funding, which makes the researchers more and more less free. Those who actually decide what is important, what is central for Sweden, and which research questions one should devote oneself to are the politicians and the research councils.

I do not believe that it is the system that gives the best research results. We are pursuing a different policy and want to carry out two deep reforms instead. Partly, we want to reorganize the entire sector and have several different forms of associations, not just agency universities, and partly we want to reform the funding system.

One can reflect a bit on the 6.5 billion that are being poured into a system that does not deliver. It would be better if the government addressed the system error instead of sending more money into the same thing.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to Member Malm from the Liberals. Member Malm said that one can see when it is the Liberals who are in charge in the Ministry of Education. But let me express my surprise when the word education is only mentioned twice in the research and innovation bill. Is that not a very central word for the Liberals? Hardly a single small crumb goes to education in this year's research and innovation bill. How did it become so?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! When I listen to Member Anders Ådahl, I almost get the impression that he thinks the 6.5 billion that will come in that final year, 2028, as an extra addition to research in Sweden is too much money. I do not share that view. I would, of course, gladly like to see the resources be even larger, but we are not made of money and have many pressing areas to strengthen and invest in. But 6.5 billion is a large addition to Swedish research.

Member of the Board Ådahl also says that the system does not work and that we must fix the system. I would say that Swedish higher education stands strong, but it can of course be further sharpened, which we now have the ambition to do.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Last week, another review from the School Inspectorate showed that the students who are assessed to need special support in primary school to learn to read, write, and count are not receiving it today. It is deeply serious. We know, and the government says it itself, that Swedish schools have major problems with equality. We have a literacy crisis. Far too many students do not learn to read properly.

Halfway through the parliamentary term, the government has not succeeded in reversing the trend. On the contrary, they have forced through major cuts in Swedish schools by locking the state's contributions to schools at fixed prices and by not supporting the municipalities during the cost crisis. Those who need extra support have been hit hardest.

In the Social Democrats' budget proposal, there are proposals for an additional 3 billion directly to primary school, in addition to what the government and SD have proposed for the school. This corresponds to an additional teacher in every class during grade 1. These are resources that are to be combined with sharpened requirements to provide special support to the students who need it.

The Liberals unfortunately say no to this initiative. Instead, they are allocating 4.7 billion to a specific tax cut for those who earn over 62,000 kronor a month.

Given the literacy crisis we have and what Fredrik Malm himself just said from the rostrum - that nothing is more important than all children learning to read and write - I wonder how he justifies that his government prioritizes lowering taxes for those who earn the most instead of investing more in the school and the primary school students who attend there during this mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This reply is also very relevant in question of the risk of addiction.

There are structural problems that are very difficult for the House to truly change. Strong forces today drive many young people from reading to scrolling and such. We also see this in other areas, for example the public health area, by moving less. This also affects children's sleep, concentration, and so on.

This is a broad global trend that is a consequence of digitalization, and one must understand that it also has an impact on school results. What is important and something we can do is to ensure that support is provided earlier, which was also raised in the exchange of remarks with Centerpartiet. We need to screen children to see who needs extra support. It is obviously a particular challenge with people who are newly arrived and who do not have the Swedish language with them. This is being studied specifically in investigations regarding language preschools and other matters.

Madam Speaker! I foresee that we will be able to make larger investments in the years ahead now that inflation has been largely broken down. Fixed prices have been a problem for companies and the public sector, such as municipalities. In practice, inflation has eroded much of the reform space for both the state and municipalities. But now we have, as we said, broken down inflation, which is positive.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Just as Member Malm says, there are many things in our society that need to change in order for reading to increase. Structural changes to the school are also required. The government has already started several of them. But today's students - those attending primary school during this very mandate period - have had to experience that their support staff are being laid off. There has been less staff in the school.

SCB's latest figures show that the cost per pupil in Swedish schools is lower than it has been in a long time, and that is not a good result. It means that the pupils have fewer resources around them.

Have the government and the Sweden Democrats completely given up on today's students in order to possibly, at some point in the future, make Swedish school better? It is an immense betrayal and will cost Sweden for generations to come when these students do not get what they need from Swedish school.

There have not been any lack of money in Sweden during this time, Madam Speaker. The government has also not chosen to distribute money in a way that has partially contributed to fueling inflation. The problem is that money has been spent on the wrong things. Constantly, tax cuts for those who earn the most have been prioritized so that they can avoid feeling the effects of inflation. At the same time, the cost has been borne by the students who will have been in first, second, third, and fourth grade during this government. It is they who have had to pay by not receiving the support they need to be able to read, write, and count.

If there is nothing more important than these students learning to read, write, and count, I urge everyone to vote for our budget which entails exactly more support for them.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to the Social Democrats, one can easily get the impression that we have a state ownership of Swedish schools today, but that is not the case. In broad terms, the funding is 80 percent municipal and 20 percent state via targeted and general state grants to the municipalities.

On the other hand, we of course accept the regulatory framework here – the Education Act and much more. But fundamentally, the examples the member brings up are a consequence of municipal priorities. We must also be honest and say it as it is: the municipalities perform very differently when it comes to Swedish schools. In the City of Stockholm, for example, they do not invest particularly much in schools. On the other hand, they raise the tax, together with the region, so that teachers in Stockholm have less purchasing power, for example. It looks very different, then.

Madam Speaker! One can look at the budget bills. Then one sees that for every year we increase the support for Swedish schools, for research and so on. We have made major investments in textbooks. We now have an extensive pace of reform when it comes to reviewing the independent school system, the grading system, the school funding system, the curricula, the administrative burden on principals and teachers, and much more.

I would really welcome it if the Social Democrats could also see this issue. Then we could jointly help to reverse the development in Swedish schools which unfortunately has been downward for many years.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm has spoken very broadly about the school from the rostrum. There is much that I believe we can all stand behind and agree on. But a number of questions remain.

A question concerns the underfunding, which was just discussed. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has been very clear that with the bourgeois government's budget, there will be cuts in the Swedish school system.

The Liberals are part of the governing bodies in 90 of these municipalities. Before the last election, the Liberals were part of the governing bodies in about 150, I believe, of the municipalities. Liberal municipal politicians now see how the budget slaughter that continues year after year leads to teachers having to be laid off, that staff within student health must be laid off, that one cannot have as many mother-tongue teachers as before or that one cannot have study guidance in the mother tongue and so on.

At the same time, the Liberals' coalition partner, the Sweden Democrats, come out and do what they always do, namely lay the blame for all social problems and budget gaps on people who happen to look like me. This time, they do it by questioning mother-tongue instruction.

I wonder: How is it that the Liberals do not consider all these 90 municipalities, where the Liberals themselves are involved in governing, when it comes to the budget? The majority of those municipalities are now having difficulty making it work.

I also wonder: How do the Liberals – who still call themselves the Liberals, which can be considered strange – view the fact that they have a coalition partner, which is the largest party in the government support, that questions research and facts regarding the importance of mother tongue instruction for children who are multilingual or bilingual?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Our parties have one thing in common. We change our party names sometimes. The difference is that we change the party name to strengthen the connection to our ideology, while the Left Party changes the party name to weaken the connection to its ideology. There is a difference there.

I would like to say this, Madam Speaker: There is nothing that prevents a municipality, a municipal politician or a party at the municipal level from investing more in the school. There is nothing that prevents it.

There is a reason why we still have such a large state funding of Swedish schools. The trend over time has been that the state has taken a greater responsibility for schools because many municipalities have not managed their responsibility as owners. It is clear that SKR is free to, so to speak, do the same thing. If one now considers that the state supports are too low, there is nothing preventing the municipalities from reprioritizing and prioritizing schools more. I would truly welcome this.

Our party tries in all municipalities where we are involved to, of course, all the time, in every negotiation, put in that little extra for Swedish school, for that is the most important issue for my party. Other parties make other priorities.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that Fredrik Malm is standing and lying outright when it comes to what the Liberals do in different municipalities. Everyone who has ever been a municipal politician or been involved in municipal politics knows that the Liberals hardly fight for the school in such a way that they actually invest sufficient funds in the school – except when they are possibly part of collaborations where we red-green parties force the Liberals to do this.

Fredrik Malm turned away from the second question. I understand that this is difficult, because – if we are to return to the name – it is perhaps not so liberal to move away from what research and facts have shown for decades. It is argued that if students learn their mother tongue well, they have an easier time learning the Swedish language but also other subjects. They perform better, even in mathematics. They perform better in various subjects that are very important.

Fredrik Malm chose not to say anything about that. I hope to hear something in the second answer, but I understand that this is difficult. This is not the only area where the Liberals are forced into some kind of silence or embarrassment because one cooperates with a party that only wants to focus on repression and on racist proposals, which are presented time and again.

At the same time, Fredrik Malm says that the municipalities can actually invest money in the Swedish school and prioritize the school higher. Almost all municipalities allocate a large share, if not the largest share, of their money to the school. But it is not enough, because of the underfunding from the state. It is not enough, because rotbidrag and rutbidrag to the upper class are prioritized over money for the school. It is not enough, because tax cuts for millionaires are prioritized over strengthened student health and staffed school libraries, which are not funded. We also have a shortage of school librarians.

What are the answers from Fredrik Malm? I believe that the local politicians from the Liberals are waiting for these answers.

(Applause)

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I must remind that we would prefer to stick to what is decided within the Riksdag.)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! That last part becomes a bit difficult in this area, because schools in Sweden have been municipalized since the 1980s. But I understand what is meant from the Presidium's side.

Regarding mother tongue, our view in Liberalerna is: If one has a right to mother tongue instruction, one has a right to it. Not everyone does. It depends on whether one can achieve something with the language. If one uses the language, so to speak, in everyday life at home, one has a right to this. It is important that it does not, so to speak, encroach on other subject instruction and lesson time in the school. It should have its own time. In that case, I think it is perfectly reasonable that children who have a mother tongue other than Swedish should be able to be taught in it.

I have not reviewed all the research, but logic says exactly what Daniel Riazat means: Being able to speak more languages is better than being able to speak fewer languages, I think. It can certainly also have a positive impact on learning.

Madam Speaker! Then there came a long string of remarks from the Left Party. There were highs and lows. It is argued that priorities are wrong. The Left Party has a fundamentally socialist view, which means that, for the most part, one can tax the wage collective as much as one likes. It is argued that one can make larger investments in public activities than everyone else. The only thing is that we, in the end, with the Left Party's policy, Madam Speaker, will not have enough people working in Sweden. And that hits our economic growth.

One must also ensure that there is a private sector and that there are people who struggle and toil and who go to work every day. They deserve to have slightly lower taxes so that they can have more freedom in their everyday lives. That is also a prioritization. The Left Party does not do it, but we do that prioritization.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! In my concluding remarks in the last exchange of remarks, Fredrik Malm spoke about growth policy. The receipt for the government's growth policy arrived last week when the forecast for Swedish growth had to be scaled down further.

At the same time, we have a climate crisis in the world, skyrocketing gang crime in the country and major global health problems such as several emerging pandemics, antibiotic resistance and so on, and we have a deteriorated security situation.

The solution to the societal problems - declining growth and the increased threats - could be achieved in one stroke by investing in research. Investing in research creates growth and can contribute to solving the societal problems.

The Liberals say that they are investing in research. At the press conference last week when the research bill was presented, it was said that these were historical investments. It was the largest research bill ever.

I noted that Fredrik Malm in a previous exchange of remarks said that resources are increased every year. But it is with this that Lotta Edholm had to sit and explain herself for 30 minutes when she had said that historical investments were being made in schools. It was actually 2 billion in cuts.

It is the same thing with the historically large research proposal. In the last 20 years, at least three have been presented that led to more research, that is to say, where in constant prices there were higher amounts. This is a lie.

I wonder: Why do the Liberals not invest in research?

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The simple answer is that we do it. We increase the appropriations for Swedish research and for higher education. This has been done in most of the research policy bills that have been submitted. They always arrive in the middle of the mandate period, and they run over four years. The one that was just presented will run until 2028.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to growth, it is important to point out that growth is extremely important so that we can finance our common welfare, so that we can make investments, and so that people will have more in their pockets, real wage increases, and much more.

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as Linus Sköld is rambling here. There has been a pandemic, we have the war in Ukraine, and we have uncertainty. Sweden is a very large investor. I believe that we are, for example, the tenth largest investor in the USA. It will now get a new presidential administration with significant uncertainty about what will happen there.

We have enormous challenges in the Middle East region, which can affect oil prices and much more. If a growth forecast comes that adjusts growth downwards, it depends on the global economic situation and much more.

What is important is that we have a government that is prepared to implement structural reforms to get more people into work, and that includes investments in research. It is extremely important, not least in view of the pandemic, climate threat, vaccines, medical research and so on.

It is about our ability to make the groundbreaking new innovations and be able to roll out medicines that allow us to live longer, that we can cure severe diseases and so on. All of that presupposes that we truly prioritize exactly education and research.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear that Fredrik Malm does not believe in politics as a force for social change. The declining growth is a result of circumstances in the outside world.

The policy that Fredrik Malm stands for has nothing to do with the growth figures. I find that to be disillusioning from someone who sits in the government, I was about to say, or in any case supports the government.

What I would say is that the largest research bill ever next year involves an addition of 1.5 billion. It is not even an adjustment of the existing funds for research. It does not even correspond to the 3.43 percent that the price and wage adjustment gives in the rest of the state's budget.

The large investments - because there are large supplements - are in the next parliamentary term. It is several years away. It is now that we have declining growth. It is now that the climate crisis is here. It is now that we have an uneasy world. What is the government waiting for? Do you want declining growth?

No, I guess the answer is that you want to lower the tax for the rich. You will burn half of the reform space on lowering the tax for the very richest instead of taking growth-creating measures. Then you call it historical investments. I think it is embarrassing.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we are back in a rather common left-right debate.

Some of the major problems hindering Swedish growth today are the very high prices for electricity and energy. It is a consequence of Linus Sköld and his governments having dismantled Swedish nuclear power, which has contributed to this.

Another major issue is the problems with infrastructure when it comes to people getting to work in large regions. It is also a consequence of the fact that Linus Sköld and his party did not make those investments but instead prioritized that high-speed railways should be built and so on, instead of getting the regional commuting to start functioning.

Madam Speaker! We can keep going back and forth and bickering about this for as long as we want. It is quite tedious. It is more important that we see what we can do to lift the Swedish school.

We agree on some parts. But there are also significant differences. Above all, the government focuses very much on the content. We do this through a number of quite heavy investigations that are now reviewing resource allocation, independent schools, curricula, the grading system, and so on.

It is clear that if it had been done earlier, if the previous government had been a bit more ambitious and interested in it, then perhaps we would have boosted growth even a little faster.

Now we are making the necessary reforms so that we can achieve a better social economy and, above all, so that we get more young people who are interested in learning things and are interested in continuing their studies at universities and so on, in order to develop our entire society and our democracy.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, it is sufficient to look at the table in the budget bill. No matter how much one wants it from the Social Democrats' side, one cannot claim that we are saving when we invest more resources in this area.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm referred to the large-scale studies Pisa and PIRLS. That was some time ago. There are also other studies that show adults' competencies and also young people's digital competence.

When it comes to what concerns students' ability and competence, there is a common pattern, and it is that equality is lacking.

It surprises me a little when I read in the budget, and it surprised me already last year, that for the state support for equality and knowledge development, the term "equality" is being deleted.

Some may remember that I asked about this a year ago. The answer was that it was just a matter of deleting one word. It would not have any significance. That was also how the Minister for Education Lotta Edholm answered a question. It was a symbolic act and something that would still contribute to equality.

The question is what the symbolic act is when, from September 1, one no longer needs to report in what way the efforts one makes for the money contribute to increased equality.

I and Miljöpartiet believe that what we need in school is more equality. We need more teachers who are skilled at their jobs and have enough time with their students. We need more people who, when they consider career choices, truly see that the teaching profession is a dream job and actually choose that education and that career path.

But this government chooses to let go of focus on one of the biggest concerns with the knowledge development, namely the lack of equality. Why is that being done, Fredrik Malm?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet was responsible for the Swedish school system for quite many years from 2014 until approximately 2021. During that time, equity decreased dramatically in Swedish schools.

Madam Speaker! I believe one must start by defining what this is for something. It is a concept that people generally wave around. It has absolutely nothing to do with equality, because children are different. It is about having equal rights and having equal obligations. But above all, children should also have equal opportunities to develop based on their own circumstances. That means that not everyone will be able to do as much and that not everyone will have read exactly the same thing in the same way for the same amount of time all the time in the end.

Equality, therefore, is about seeing the individual and investing in that the individual student should be able to reach as far as that student has the potential to reach and be able to stretch boundaries, learn a little more, raise ambitions, and so on.

Madam Speaker! If we look at the Green Party's school policy, we see that the Green Party has often gone in a different direction. They have been quite vague and have not thought that this matter of structure, order, and peace and quiet is particularly important. For a long time, they have perceived it as something authoritarian. They praised digitalization very much and said that it would lift the Swedish school. But that is not what happened. They have for a long time been hostile to the idea that there should be grades in the Swedish school at all. But it is also important to increase motivation for children and young people and so on.

What this government is doing now is, to a large extent, trying to counter the consequences of decisions that the Green Party has been very instrumental in. And we are determined to strengthen equality in Swedish schools.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the history lesson. That is somewhat how it usually goes when Fredrik Malm and I meet. But if we do it so that I, as the representative of Miljöpartiet, speak about Miljöpartiet's policy, then perhaps Fredrik Malm can answer what the Liberals' response to this is. It was Miljöpartiet that established the equality grant due to the inequality that was seen, and it was not taken out of thin air.

This government has continued to invest in this support. I think it is good and completely correctly intended. But why are you losing focus on equality? What the member concluded with was, in fact, to say that equality is important.

I think it will be better if Fredrik Malm describes the Liberals' policy and I describe the Green Party's policy. If each of us gets to speak about our own, it might be more consistent with the truth. Now, I would therefore like to hear about the Liberals' education policy. Why are you letting the focus on equality slip?

I will say a few things about grades and digitalization. These are phenomena that need to be managed in Swedish schools. Digitalization is more than the choice of teaching materials. Digitalization in schools is, above all, something completely different from what young people and adults engage in on social media in their spare time.

When it comes to grades, we have a problem with the grading system, and that we all agree on. Therefore, an investigation with proposals for a new grading system will soon be launched. The sad thing about that crow's song is rather the government's lack of interest in discussing these major issues with the opposition, so that we can take a collective grip in the Riksdag.

I will go back to my original question. I want to hear about the Liberals' education policy, and I want to hear why the Liberals are losing focus on the lack of equality.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's greatest concern for the Swedish school system seems to be that the government changed the name of a state grant, from the equity grant to the knowledge grant. I see a number of other challenges.

It was said here profitably by Miljöpartiet that the Liberalerna are allowed to talk about their policy. However, this did not apply to the previous turns of speech to that extent. But it is good that Miljöpartiet addresses this.

The simplest thing is to read the Liberals' party program and various school policy programs. But one can also read the Tidö Agreement. In the Tidö Agreement, one sees what this government will do during the mandate period. And it is very strongly influenced, at least in the school section, by the Liberals' core values. These are also shared to a very large extent by the other three coalition parties. It is about moving from screen to folder. It is about going back to the basics, providing support earlier, raising the status of the teaching profession and improving the working environment in schools, so that students who cause disruption, for example, can go to an emergency school. It is also about us getting the free school sector in order, so that we still have a freedom of choice but that there are reasonable economic incentives for individual principals. It is also about many other things.

All of this is laid out. One can simply google the Tidö Agreement. Then you get it up and can see the school section which is twelve pages. The Tidö Agreement is also very concretely specified, significantly more than another agreement I was partially involved in a few years ago, namely the January Agreement which was considerably vaguer. But the Tidö Agreement is very concrete in terms of what we are going to do. And I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that when it is implemented, it will contribute positively to turning around the development in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! By investing in all children's schooling and giving all adults the opportunity to further their education, Sweden can compete with knowledge and competence instead of with low wages. In return, all people receive the freedom that knowledge entails.

Sweden becomes strongest when everyone is included and contributes. The lack of equality in our education system therefore affects not only individuals but our entire society. Students who have needs for special support do not receive it today. Compared to other countries, Swedish schools provide special support too late and even later. This means that people at a young age risk giving up. Young people who lose hope in school seek out other environments for validation. The unequal Swedish school system nurtures criminal gangs in this way.

Half of the parliamentary term has now passed. The clearest mark that the SD government has left in Swedish school so far concerns cuts and the failure to stop the billion-dollar profits that the school corporations extract at the students' expense.

Instead of ensuring support for Swedish schools during the cost crisis, the SD government decided to cut state support to schools in terms of fixed prices and instead lower taxes for those who earn the most. This has had direct consequences. Sweden is now spending less on each pupil's schooling than it has in a long time. Support staff have been laid off. The people who are supposed to provide that specific support or identify a child who is drifting are the people who have been let go first.

A report from Sveriges Lärare testifies that the school is now experiencing the worst crisis since the 1990s. But, Madam Speaker, there is an important difference. The students who are in school today would not have had to be affected by cuts. The SD government has deliberately chosen to let today's students take the hit for the cost crisis, and it is a betrayal of all the students who are affected and continue to be affected. It is a betrayal of all the teachers who try to make up for the colleagues who have been laid off or who have had to leave their jobs, and it is a betrayal of Sweden and of our common future.

Madam Speaker! During the cost crisis, we Social Democrats have consistently shown in our budget motions that it would have been possible to prioritize differently.

If our budget proposal had passed, more students across Sweden would have received this extra support to learn to read, and teachers would have had a few more colleagues and thus a slightly better working environment. If we had been in power, we would also have settled the issue with the system of profit-driven school owners who use tax money for teaching to finance profits for themselves, flashy advertising, or investments abroad – all while their actions drive problems such as grade inflation, segregation, and an ever-increasing documentation burden for Sweden's teachers.

Madam Speaker! Since our proposal for the framework for the state budget fell, we have no reservation here, but we refer to our special statement.

We Social Democrats propose significantly more resources for the school than the Sweden Democrats and the government. For the entire expenditure area, we propose 4.7 billion kronor more. I now want to tell how we would have wanted to use that money.

For the sake of clarity, we therefore say yes to the resources the government allocates to the school, but beyond that, we want to see the following initiatives already in 2025.

In order for the learning outcomes in Swedish schools to increase, it is absolutely central that support measures are implemented earlier than today. Boys and girls who risk falling behind must be caught early. Therefore, we propose 3 billion more than the government on the knowledge grant. This corresponds to an additional teacher in every classroom in grade 1. Our proposal would contribute to order in the classrooms and to providing more children with the support they need. At the same time as we finance the initiative, we want to tighten the requirements that all schools actually provide support so that students achieve the learning goals when it comes to reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Among the students who today do not receive the support they need in school, the group with neuropsychiatric functional impairments, NPF, is overrepresented. However, there are good examples of how one can work to support students with NPF in a way that also benefits all students. We Social Democrats therefore want the school authorities to be tasked with, together with individual schools and based on the research and proven experience that exists, developing the best methods so that all students, including students with NPF, receive the support and help they need to succeed in school. We want to allocate 200 million to this next year.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats also mean that the Swedish language shall be the main language in Swedish schools. All students who follow the Swedish curriculum and do not reside temporarily in our country shall attend a Swedish-language school. This is important for the Swedish language to develop and be the glue that holds our society together. It is also important for all those students who have Swedish as their mother tongue to learn other subjects as well as possible.

Preschool is also central to ensuring that all children are given good conditions to learn Swedish and develop in other ways. But there too we see a major lack of equality. Not infrequently, the children who are in the greatest need of training and development in the Swedish language have the worst access to just this. We have therefore for several years demanded that language requirements be introduced for all staff in preschool, and in our budget we include more than the government that the staff who need it shall receive training to meet the language requirements.

But unfortunately, it is not enough that the staff can speak Swedish; when many in an area have a different mother tongue, one must work specifically with language development. We Social Democrats therefore propose a special initiative on this in the 200 preschools in the country that need it most.

Madam Speaker! In order for everyone to be able to work and take the jobs that are available in today's labor market, access to childcare during inconvenient working hours is required. This is unfortunately lacking in many parts of the country, and therefore we propose that the state grant for this be increased.

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves an education system that puts the students' needs first and equips the next generation for the future. Instead of preserving the market school and making cuts to that which builds Sweden strong, a policy is required that invests in equality, quality, and safety in school. We Social Democrats will continue to work for a school where resources are distributed based on need, where all students receive the help they need, and where knowledge and education are prioritized over profits and market interests.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I must thank for the clarity from Åsa Westlund regarding the Swedish language. It sounds very good that the Social Democrats have woken up when it comes to the Swedish language being the main language in schools - then I assume that applies to breaks and everywhere -, that they want language requirements for staff and that they also want to make investments in the Swedish language.

But there was a time when another party proposed exactly these things and was accused of being racists. One of the parties that accused us of being racists, because it was we who submitted these proposals, was Åsa Westlund's party. Does this mean that one has now redefined the concept of racism, or is that something self-appointed as well?

I read in the Social Democrats' special statement and heard Åsa Westlund say that the equality between schools and municipalities is lacking. There we agree. The equality is lacking. The conditions in the country are too different. But why is that? Well, it is due to the municipalization that was carried out in this country 30 years ago. It is quite a long time ago, and for a fairly large part of the time that has passed, the Social Democrats have governed.

But who was it that came up with the municipalization proposal? Yes, it was the Social Democrats. The Social Democrats have thus paved the way for the situation that is now being called problematic. What are Åsa Westlund's views on this?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have already introduced language requirements in preschools in several municipalities in the country where we govern. One of those municipalities is in my own county, and I have visited there several times. I have seen how the language requirement has made it easier to recruit staff. They work intensively with language specifically to ensure that the large groups who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue pass Swedish better.

I have never called anyone who advocates for this policy a racist. On the contrary, I have encouraged municipal councilors in my county to pursue this policy. I therefore find it somewhat difficult to relate to Patrick Reslow's claims.

I hope that there are more parties than just Patrick Reslow's and mine that want the Swedish language to be the main language in Swedish schools and that this shall apply to all schools without exception. We have, as said, already proposed this.

Equality is failing, says Patrick Reslow. Yes, it is, and there are surely several reasons for that. We have a great inequality in society that contributes to the school also being unequal. We know that it is precisely children of parents without their own education who have it toughest in Swedish school.

There are surely also reasons in the municipalization and in the free school reform. The free school reform was one of the reforms we voted against, but we voted for the municipalization. It may indeed be a problem what happened 30 years ago, but the question is what we do here and now to rectify those problems.

I see that the Sweden Democrats and the government during this mandate period are sacrificing four-year-olds by cutting back on their schooling, a schooling that they will never get back. What does Patrick Reslow have to say to those students?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me also point out what I said. I did not accuse Åsa Westlund of calling us racists, but her party called us racists when we proposed exactly these things several years ago. Back then, we were racists. One could not demand that Swedish be spoken during breaks and in the classrooms. It is easy to check this in excerpts from municipal council debates in, for example, Malmö city. But it is very good that the Social Democrats have changed their position there and that one is getting on track. The Sweden Democrats were right in the end on this point as well.

When it comes to equality, the municipalization is part of the problem. Even Åsa Westlund admitted that it could be so. Are the Social Democrats for a state ownership? It would be a clear step towards increased equality. Are the Social Democrats prepared to say that we should have a state ownership for the school?

If one is not prepared to have a state ownership for the school, what requirements should one then place on the municipalities? It is after all the municipalities that have the greatest financing responsibility for the school - 80-20 we have talked about.

The Social Democrats have governed this country for several years, most recently for eight years before the Tidö government took office. We have seen the policy: more money, more money, more money. However, it has not led to any reduced inequality. We still have an equality that is failing, even with more money into the coffers. It has not worked. What is it that says it would work now?

But above all: Are the Social Democrats willing and prepared to introduce state ownership for the school?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is almost comical that the two parties that have so far spoken for state ownership of the schools are the parties that, in constant prices, cut the state subsidies to Swedish schools. What does that say about a future state ownership? I do not want such a state ownership, in any case.

I think it is quite futile to even point fingers and discuss who should have the responsibility for Swedish schools when it is a shared responsibility. We have a responsibility here and now to take the responsibility we have. That is what we are discussing. Patrick Reslow unfortunately belongs to a government base that has cut back on Swedish schools during half of the parliamentary term, betrayed the students who need extra support, and ensured that they leave primary school without having received the support they need to be able to learn to read, write, and count. That is the responsibility we have here and now, during this parliamentary term. That is the responsibility that I shoulder.

Unfortunately, I see that the government and the Sweden Democrats are constantly pushing away this responsibility. People talk about the municipalities, but it is the state that has cut the state grants to the schools. It is also the state that has the responsibility to support the municipalities in an economic crisis.

We have shown that it is possible. In every budget motion we have submitted, we have made different priorities. We have put money into the Swedish school system, because we know that it is what builds Sweden strong for the future, and not lowered the tax for those who earn the most. It is a clear priority. I can only state that that priority is also very clear in the debate we are having today, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! One in four 15-year-olds cannot read properly. Several leading universities have in recent months come out and testified to problems with newly admitted students being unable to grasp the teaching because they cannot manage to read heavy texts. Karolinska Institutet testifies that in the medical program, they have had to switch to teaching with PowerPoint instead of textbooks because it becomes too heavy for the students to take in. Furthermore, we see that the differences between those performing at the lowest level and those performing at the highest level are increasing.

This government is now implementing extensive reforms to address the literacy risk we see in Sweden. We ensure that all students shall have a textbook in every subject in every grade. We are introducing a state grant so that more schools can purchase more books. We have developed reading lists and implemented many other reforms to encourage reading in Swedish schools in various ways.

We have also introduced a legislative change that this chamber recently voted through, regarding requirements for staffed school libraries. The basis for that decision was an investigation that was submitted almost four years ago. It was Åsa Westlund's party colleague Anna Ekström, then Minister for Education, who received the investigation on staffed school libraries in January 2021. She noted, however, at that time that we were not there yet, and so she hid the investigation in a filing cabinet.

This could have become a reality four years ago but did not. Now, this government has picked up the investigation and ensured that this will become a reality starting from next summer.

My question to Åsa Westlund is precisely this: Why did the Social Democratic government not implement the proposals from this investigation, which could have been implemented already four years ago and would have enabled more students to have better access to a school library?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I must unfortunately begin by disagreeing with Josefin Malmqvist. It is not the case that the government and the Sweden Democrats are implementing any extensive reforms for Swedish schools. They are investigating upcoming reforms for Swedish schools. That is good. But here we are discussing the budget, and in that case, the government and the Sweden Democrats are failing today's students by not allocating enough resources so that they can receive the support they need to learn to read, write, and count.

I think it is irresponsible towards these students and towards the teachers, but it is also irresponsible towards Sweden's future. As has been stated previously here in the speaker's chair, these people, who in Swedish school do not get the chance they need to learn the basics, will live among us for the rest of their lives. They will have poorer opportunities to get jobs, they will have greater mental ill-health, and they will run a greater risk of ending up in crime.

Why, Madam Speaker, do the government and the Sweden Democrats not want to take responsibility for the pupils in primary school during this parliamentary term by saying yes to our proposal to increase resources so that there is one additional teacher in every class in grade 1?

I will also answer Josefin Malmqvist's question about school libraries. I think it is excellent that this law is now in place. However, I didn't quite follow the math. Josefin Malmqvist said that the investigation came in 2021 and that the law therefore could have been in place four years ago. I couldn't make it add up. I have seen that this government has also delayed a bit in producing the bill. We also had covid during the last parliamentary term.

I think it is simply good that the school library legislation is now in place. Let us now follow up to ensure that independent schools also make use of it.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! It is symptomatic: instead of answering the question about her own policy, Åsa Westlund shifts the blame.

This government is now implementing an ambitious reform policy for the Swedish school system. We are raising knowledge results, we are reforming teacher education, we are redesigning the curricula, and we are developing a new grading system. Area by area, we are now implementing the reforms that the previous Social Democratic government failed to implement over eight years.

My question to Åsa Westlund was precisely about staffed school libraries. It was one of the areas where there was actually a completed proposal that we also stood behind. The Social Democrats, however, chose to hide it in a filing cabinet. In January 2021, that is nearly four years ago, a completed proposal was received, but they responded that we were not there yet.

My question to Åsa Westlund is therefore: Why was it not chosen to prioritize Swedish school pupils already then? Why did the Social Democrats not, when they had the chance, lead the Ministry of Education to implement a reform that would have mattered for Swedish pupils?

Now this government is implementing the reform. We are implementing a long series of reforms for which we have now appointed inquiries to obtain a basis for. Area by area, they are becoming a reality.

I can also reassure Åsa Westlund that there will be very many propositions for the opposition to take a position on in this chamber before the next election. That distinguishes this government from the previous one. We have a well-thought-out and thoroughly worked-out reform policy, also for Swedish school.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I still cannot make sense of it. The previous government received this investigation one and a half years before the election but did not implement the proposals. Then this government took over and waited two years before this was put in place. Whose fault is it? It took longer during your mandate period than during ours. I find it difficult to even grasp the question. But we can at least agree that it is good that this is now in place.

However, I must reiterate that it is not the case that this government is carrying out any reforms whatsoever. We are halfway through the mandate period, and what Swedish students have noticed are cuts. They have received fewer support staff and fewer teachers to help them learn to read, write, and count. The students who are there today will not get their primary school years back. That is why it is important that our budget motion passes, so that they can receive this support. An extra educator per class in grade 1 - that would have made a difference here and now.

There are many reforms that are also important moving forward. I look forward to debating them, but today we are discussing the budget and the failure that this government and the Sverigedemokraterna are committing against the students who do not receive the support they need because resources are lacking in Swedish schools. This government has on several occasions chosen to prioritize lowering taxes for those who earn the most instead of putting the money into Swedish schools and Sweden's future.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! For those of you who have just arrived, I can say that we are dealing with the Education Committee's report 1. It concerns the budget for expenditure area 16, which is a large area. It contains everything from preschool to university and research, and in between, primary school and upper secondary school.

The Tidö parties invest a total of barely 104 billion SEK in the expenditure area, and more than half, 55.4 billion SEK, goes to universities and colleges. A quarter goes to preschool, primary school, upper secondary school, and adult education (komvux). The reason is that the latter part is mainly financed by the municipalities with municipal funds. But the state contributes funds for, for example, continuing education, teaching materials, language reinforcements, emergency schools, and school social teams.

For the Sweden Democrats, education and schooling are central to future prosperity, not only for the individual but also for the country as a whole. Sweden shall have the best school in the world on all fronts, and precisely that ambition shall permeate the entire education policy.

Swedish school has since the introduction of compulsory school in the 60s been an experimental workshop. Since then, the focus has been on inclusion and social justice rather than on knowledge and education. Different pedagogical methods taught in teacher training programs have been the engine in this negative development. Teachers have been transformed into social workers providing upbringing instead of concentrating on teaching. Teachers' authority has been eroded as student democracy has been strengthened, and parents have not been able to distinguish between what is the school's role and what is theirs.

The introduction of the mastery learning theory in the mathematics subject in the 70s meant that we had some of the world's worst mathematics skills in the early 80s. Homework-free schools and the lack of repetition, which is the mother of knowledge, have put children who already have it difficult in an even more difficult situation. Suddenly, it also became wrong to separate children who needed more help into smaller groups, and the mixed-ability classes disappeared. The grades were resisted; they were wrong, because they were for sorting students. Students who were far ahead in their knowledge development were made to stand back and were expected to take greater responsibility for their classmates.

Then came the digitalization fever, which spread like a wave across Skolsverige. Most of all, the students were supposed to research instead of learning basic facts. Classroom teaching was phased out in favor of being "developed." When chaos crept into the classrooms, the teachers were supposed to stand there and apply low-affective interaction. When they nevertheless tried to maintain order, it resulted in a harassment complaint against the teacher. Principals and political leadership chicken out many times.

Then I have still not mentioned perhaps the greatest dismantling of all those that have affected development, namely the municipalization of the school.

This is how it has looked - an experimental workshop where the teacher educations have acted and put forward pedagogues who have not been of benefit to the development of knowledge. That is why we are now struggling with costs for the school, where money is spent that does not always lead to concrete results.

Those who believe that this development has been favorable for Swedish school policy should think again. It is these questions that should be central in the school policy debate. It is here that the problems lie, but that debate often remains in the shadows.

From the Left, as usual, more money is the universal solution. Those who have been present from the beginning of today's debate have already heard it: More money solves everything! If it is not about money, it is what they call the market school, i.e., market in the sense that students should be able to choose their school. For that, it is wrong, say the four left-wing parties with the Social Democrats at the forefront.

So, one succeeds in steering the political discussion away from the school's content to systemic issues. It is much easier, because then one does not need to talk politics. But for everyone who has children in school, the most important thing of all is that the children learn what they are supposed to and that the school functions.

It is high time to put an end to the sixty-year experiment and return to the basics. The Sweden Democrats and the governing parties have begun the paradigm shift for Swedish school. We are not always in agreement on the details, but the direction is largely the same.

The budget that is now being presented should therefore be seen in the light of the many reforms that are underway. There, for example, we have a new curriculum, which shall elevate the school with clarity, rigor, and a strong focus on knowledge. There is a new teacher education with stricter requirements for all teacher educations and with more focus on subject knowledge and subject didactics. It is about order and tidiness in the classrooms with a clear focus on that it is the teacher who decides in the classroom and has strengthened opportunities to act against disruption.

It is about, for example, the proposals that exist and the investments being made regarding school social teams and emergency schools. We want a mobile-free school. It did not work with voluntariness, just as we Sverigedemokrater predicted. Now, therefore, a completely mobile-free school is coming across the entire country.

We propose a new grading system that is clearer and which counteracts grade inflation. I would say it is a grading system that everyone can much more easily understand how it works, in combination with a new vocational school for low-performing students.

We are investing in strengthened student health, where objectives, purpose, and collaborations are reinforced and where the current primary responsibility shall be reviewed. We will present proposals for a national school funding norm precisely in order to achieve an equal school.

We want state ownership. There is no majority for that, and in that case, one must find the next best thing: national rules for what the school fee should look like, equal for everyone.

We also want stricter rules to deal with unserious actors through increased requirements when establishing or taking over schools. This is important to defend the right to choose a school, which is central in Swedish school policy and in Swedish schooling. Then we must get rid of actors who do not follow the regulations correctly. There is a broad consensus on this, and not only from a political standpoint but also from all the independent schools that behave properly.

We shall also ensure that there is an obligation to cooperate with the crime-preventing authorities by loosening confidentiality provisions.

There are reasons to speak about what many times has been the elephant in the room. Several of the knowledge measurements that have been made recently clearly show that the school's problem is an immigration problem. It is simply students with at least one parent born abroad who are pulling down the results. We could see it in Pisa, and we saw it most recently in Timss.

For students with a Swedish background, there has been a steady development since the mid-90s with slightly improved results recently. The development for children with at least one parent born abroad is significantly weaker, also over time. Given that we also have many students whose both parents are born abroad, there is reason to assume that the knowledge development is even worse for them.

As if this were not enough, the large-scale reading, calculation, and problem-solving test for adults also pointed in exactly the same direction.

This clearly shows that mass immigration has had negative consequences for Swedish knowledge development as a whole and that it also contributes to increased costs for the school. It is therefore this group that the Social Democrats now want to forcibly mix with other students. The question that should rather be asked is: How would the knowledge development have looked if we had had a stricter and more responsible migration policy? That should hardly be any rocket science.

It is no news that family background is the single most important explanation for how students perform. But this also implies limitations on what changes and improvements can be achieved. No matter how much society wants to compensate for differences between students, we cannot [compensate for] for example, study tradition, culture or religion. More money will not help. Students have different prerequisites. Not everyone has a head for reading; not everyone can be expected to become doctors or engineers. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that there are alternative paths in school, adapted to students' prerequisites, which provide opportunities for a fulfilling working life and self-sufficiency.

It is also important that we invest in the Swedish language early in the years. I honestly mean that I am glad that other parties have now woken up and realized that the Swedish language is important. We from the Tidö parties advocate for a mandatory language preschool for those children who otherwise do not encounter the Swedish language at home. We hope for broad support for this. We have also commissioned other investigations that aim to strengthen Swedish language skills among younger school pupils. In this context, it is also no secret that we Sverigedemokrater are pushing to abolish public funding for, for example, mother tongues in order to focus on precisely the Swedish language in school.

Madam Speaker! The budget covers more than just primary and secondary school and preschool. It also covers colleges, universities and research, but I will leave that part to my colleague Robert Stenkvist later in the debate.

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

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It was a speech that opened up for few questions - we shall see if we have time for all those that popped into my head.

We begin with the question of inequality. That the solution to the problem of inequality in Swedish schools would be state ownership is based on the idea that if the state takes over something, it works much better. It becomes the same across the entire country. That is why there are an equal number of police officers across the entire country. That is why the Sis-homes are fantastic across the entire country. That is how it works, namely. The Public Employment Service exists everywhere. That is how it is: The state is incredibly good at delivering equality across the entire country. We really see that when it comes to the defense, across the entire country. The state has never saved on that either.

This is how it looks. The state is probably the worst principal we have for any kind of activity. When Patrick Reslow started in the Riksdag and worked for the Moderaterna, they scaled back the entire police education. That is how the state takes care of its area of responsibility. Is this serious? No. You do not see municipalities that one day wake up and feel: No, we are not going to have any teachers or any schools here anymore – we are shutting down the entire area. That does not happen. But that is how the state acts. The state is not a particularly serious actor.

We also see that the parties in here who say that the state should take over are the ones who are saving on the school. Those who want to keep the municipalization are the ones who provide more money. I think this is worth taking away. It is those who say that the state should govern the school who, from the Riksdag, interfere with what happens in the classroom. I do not want that. I do not think that I know anything about how to best teach out in the classroom. I believe that the teachers, the profession, and science best take care of that. This also applies to how one best teaches children with two languages everything they are to learn in school - in their mother tongue or in some other way.

If one wants state ownership – that all money should be state-owned – one must also be able to answer the question: Should a student in Sollefteå cost as much as a student in Malmö? Should they have more or less? How do you create this equality compared to today?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is a lack of equality we are talking about, not inequality.

It is a bit regrettable, I think, that Niels Paarup-Petersen and Centerpartiet are not listening to the teachers. If you ask the teachers, one of the first things they say is that they want a state employer. They can also testify that when the state employer disappeared, the status for teachers was lowered. The agreements became worse and the like. We are a few parties in this chamber, an unholy alliance, who think this. It is good that such things exist sometimes, I can think; it livens things up.

When one hears Niels Paarup-Petersen vent that the state is the worst employer and the like, one still wonders if Niels Paarup-Petersen thinks it works very well with the municipalities as principals. We have 290 municipalities that are to make their own prioritizations when it comes to how investments should be made in schools, and we see how it looks – it doesn't work. Different municipalities invest different amounts, and then there are different results.

As a student, one should be grateful if one lives in a municipality where the school is prioritized. If one does not, one has poorer conditions.

Even if the state is perhaps not always perfect - that I can think; Niels Paarup-Petersen knows very well - it is nevertheless done significantly better than by 290 different actors. One actor or 290 actors - that is what one has to choose from. And then I believe more in one.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is a fundamental democratic way of thinking that it is good that there are several different perspectives and several different ways of doing things. What is needed in Sollefteå is not necessarily the same as what is needed in Malmö, Stockholm, Skurup or Kalmar. I believe that slightly different things are needed.

I believe there are several from different parts of the country who see what Trafikverket and many other state agencies are doing with small municipalities around them. If the state were to decide exactly how things should be done and could simply shut down a school without anyone being able to do anything about it – one cannot talk to one's local politicians – it will have consequences. That was also, among other things, why it was considered that the school should no longer remain under the state's ownership.

I think this matter of state ownership is interesting. Yes, the teachers would like to have it. I understand that. The grass is certainly greener on the other side, until one is there – that is what people often think.

The school results are better now than they were when the school was last state-run. They are better than they were in the 60s, which the Sweden Democrats repeatedly say they want to return to when it comes to the school. The children read better today. The latest survey, which Patrick Reslow himself refers to, shows that those who are young adults now, that is between 16 and 25, read better than those who went to school then, in the 60s and 70s. They read better, if they are born in Sweden and speak Swedish at home.

We have a problem with a lot of students who do not have the Swedish language with them from home. This pulls down the average. But those who speak Swedish at home perform better today than they did then. Why do you want to worsen their results just because you wake up one morning and have an idea that it was better before? I do not think that is particularly smart.

We want the best school in the world. I believe that Patrick Reslow wants that too. But then we must focus on what actually makes a difference. The only thing SD has managed to get into the Tidö Agreement when it comes to school policy is this matter of "snitching" etcetera. It is not this that creates a better school, but rather trust for the teachers and a belief in giving them the power out in the classroom. There is still much to be done for this government in that regard, and I hope that the Sverigedemokraterna wake up to this instead.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are many other points in the Tidö Agreement that the Sweden Democrats have been involved in implementing. It is therefore not true that it is only one point.

When it comes to tests, the problem is that in the 60s we did not have that type of tests. What one has to go back and look at are samples, and it does not become quite the same.

What one should also remember is that our version was a bit narrower. When we talk about going back to the 60s, we mean governing documents. We mean that one should take greater responsibility for the content in the school, that one should not keep tinkering and experimenting, and that one should stop with social inclusion. The idea of social justice should be removed – it is knowledge that should apply. This is what we mean. It is no copy of the 60s school straight up and down; there were also shortcomings there. It is also good that a school system develops.

The big problem in Swedish school is, as Niels Paarup-Petersen says, those who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue and do not at least have a parent who was born in the country. They generally perform very poorly when it comes to both reading and mathematics skills. Then there are exceptions, but this applies generally speaking. This is something that has been fostered over several years and which one has let run wild without doing anything about it. It has exploded through a mass immigration without its like, completely without control.

To say in this situation that it is much better now than in the 60s becomes crazy. We must also count these students - otherwise it becomes very strange.

I do not quite understand Niels Paarup-Petersen's defense of a system where we have 290 actors instead of having uniform rules that apply to everyone.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker, listeners and colleagues! Imagine that I have two parents with a foreign background without having been suspected of several cases of fraud. Imagine that I have two parents with a foreign background but still have the ability to read research reports and also listen to the professionals when it comes to school. Imagine that I have two parents with a foreign background and still manage to talk about the important points regarding Swedish school and see what is important instead of talking in a way that takes focus away from the real problems.

I wonder why the Sweden Democrats and Patrick Reslow hate Sweden so much. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats and Patrick Reslow do not see that we live in a society where people have the ability to live side by side regardless of what hair color, skin color, faith, non-faith, or sexual orientation they have. I wonder why the Sweden Democrats are resistant to facts when it comes to the question of the school and many other things as well.

Niels Paarup-Petersen spoke about the 60s here, but we all know which year the Sverigedemokraterna are actually thinking of.

Once again: The research is clear - mother tongue instruction enriches students and leads to them performing better in Swedish and other subjects. Otherwise, the Sweden Democrats must be held accountable. Which research report speaks against this?

Another question is: Why do the Sweden Democrats starve the Swedish school on the one hand and, on the other hand, blame everything on children who look like me?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats love Sweden. Sweden is a fantastic country. It is the best country in the world, and I believe that most Sweden Democrats would die for the country, defend our values and stand up for what is beautiful. What we hate is communism. That is what we have always done, and that is what we will always do.

When one hears the Left Party standing and saying that others think poorly of Sweden, one becomes a bit angry and indignant. We Sweden Democrats love our country. I do not believe that anyone, except possibly Daniel Riazat, thinks otherwise.

When it comes to being fact-resistant, there is no clear research that native language would be beneficial. That is exactly why we have commissioned an inquiry - to find out what mappings exist. There are mappings and reports. Are they objective? No. Is it research? No, but it is clear - in Daniel Riazat's world, it is probably research as soon as someone cobbles something together on paper and prints it out. But more than that is required.

There is research in other countries on this. There, it is not entirely unambiguous that mother tongue instruction works. We have neighboring countries, for example Norway, which have rules stating that as soon as one can speak enough Norwegian to manage in school, one is no longer entitled to mother tongue instruction. Why do we not have that system in Sweden?

In Denmark, there is no requirement for mother tongue instruction because the municipalities are allowed to do as they wish. If they have the money for it, they can have it, otherwise not. Why? Well, because it has been established that the research does not support that it gives an effect. But in Daniel Riazat's world, it does because Daniel Riazat wants mother tongue instruction. That is what it is about.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! As usual, Patrick Reslow and the Sverigedemokraterna continue to talk about everything except the truth. Patrick Reslow says that he would die for Sweden and that he loves our country.

The truth is that Patrick Reslow and the Sweden Democrats love the marketization of the school and the independent school owners. The truth is that Patrick Reslow and the Sweden Democrats love those who are to receive rot- and rut-grants year after year or the upper class who are to have their taxes lowered year after year more than they love the Swedish school and Swedish society. The truth is that the Sweden Democrats know very well that the Swedish welfare society would not run without people who look like, among other things, me.

In their racist policy and ideology, the Sweden Democrats still cannot help but talk about this. It obviously gives the government problems, because there are parts of the right - although very few nowadays - who on the one hand want the market but who on the other hand do not want to mix it with the Sweden Democrats' racism.

This means that there is different talk from the government parties now. Those who are sitting and governing and leading, Ulf Kristersson, that is to say the Sverigedemokraterna, continue to come up with fact-resistance and speak against the profession, while the other government parties need to counter this.

I wonder again: Why is it so important for the Sweden Democrats to lower taxes for millionaires instead of providing resources to schools and removing resources from student health and various other things to give root- and rut-benefits to the upper class, while simultaneously blaming mother-tongue instruction for costing something?

The total budget for mother tongue instruction is 0.6 percent of school expenditures in Sweden - 0.6 percent! It cannot even be compared with the Sverigedemokraternas tax cuts for billionaires year after year during the recent years. Even Patrick Reslow's former party Moderaterna has lowered taxes previously.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It does not take much to trigger the class struggle rhetoric of Daniel Riazat. This was what I wanted to bring out so that people can see how it sounds and looks.

It is possible that Daniel Riazat does not understand it, but just because one does one thing does not mean it has to have effects on something else. If one lowers taxes in the right way, it can be of significance for the country. I understand that Daniel Riazat does not understand this, because the countries that he thinks are fantastic do not have any particularly good track record when it comes to public finances. By the way, neither does Daniel Riazat himself.

We love freedom, and we love the right to choose school. We think that is important. That is what we love. What we do not love are municipal politicians, for example former municipal politicians, who ignore their budget and run their own race. Thankfully, in most cases they are forced to resign, but Daniel Riazat knows this better than I do.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that my colleague Lorena Delgado Varas has fallen ill, but she sends her regards to you all. Unfortunately, she cannot participate in the higher education policy research debate later today.

We naturally stand behind all the parts that we in Vänsterpartiet have in our budget. We have a specific statement on this.

Madam Speaker! Today we are here to talk about expenditure area 16, which falls under the heading Education and University Research but which perhaps should fall under the heading Education Market, Cutbacks and Research that the government neither reads nor listens to.

To begin with, I want to say thank you to everyone who works within the Swedish school system. I want to thank children, preschool teachers, childcare workers and everyone else who has endured far too large groups of children, who do so even today and who have endured that there have been too few employees for many years.

I want to thank the students, teachers, study and career counselors, school health personnel, school caretakers, school canteen staff and everyone else who has done their absolute best, despite underfunding and fact-resistant government decisions.

I want to thank all of you who are debating the market school's and the cuts' catastrophic consequences. I want to thank the student councils, the student unions, the teachers' union, the school leaders, and all the trade unions that organize many within the school system.

Even though we need to address the negatives of the school system during this type of school debate, it is you who give us hope for the future. But a thank you can be expressed with more than words or applause. The best way to say thank you, I believe, is for us as politicians to listen to you about what is actually happening and for us to give you all what is needed in the Swedish school, according to you in the profession and according to you as experts.

What is needed are sufficient financial resources so that you can perform your work in the best possible way. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet listen to the worrying reports and provide the funds needed to avoid dangerous cuts. That is why we prioritize preschool and school over routine grants for pool cleaning in Danderyd. I wish that everyone thought the same on that front here in the chamber, but the right-wing nationalist government continues with its policy of increased inequalities and continued market experiments, while simultaneously portraying people with foreign backgrounds as people we should be against.

Vänsterpartiet allocates 20 billion more than the government for recovery support for the municipalities - of which the largest cost is often for the school - which also matches the sum that SKR has signaled. In addition to this, we allocate almost 3 billion for the preschool's maximum fee to introduce a free allowance, as well as for staff reinforcements in preschool and after-school care. We allocate 300 million kronor for course literature for students in adult education, and in a first step, we allocate 1 billion kronor to introduce key figures in student health. I will not rattle off the entire list, but in total, Vänsterpartiet allocates an extra 5.4 billion on the school in addition to the 20 billion I mentioned earlier. Even that does not go all the way, but we show that it is possible. It is possible to turn around the cut-back policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has changed. Those words have been mentioned by many politicians before, perhaps primarily right-wing politicians and suit-racists who in general want to paint a demonizing picture of our country and some of our fellow human beings who happen to look like, among other things, me. But since we represent the Education Committee, we should speak about the real problems.

We should talk about why, year after year, reports come out that the biggest sources of discrimination in school are, among other things, racism and ableism. We must talk about how mental ill-health is increasing among students. We must talk about the unsustainable working environment for teachers. We must talk about how it is possible that our tax funds, which are supposed to go to the school system, instead go to banks, foreign owners, and companies in different countries. We must speak about why the municipalities that invest extra large amounts of money in schools also have to pay the equivalent to unprofessional independent schools that do not even have or take the same responsibility for children and students.

There are politicians here in the speaker's chair who solely represent the school market and who will say that this is not true and that the money is invested back into the school. Then one can ask why Sweden's largest school group, Academedia, last year took out over 78 percent of the surplus as profit. We are talking about billions in surplus that are taken out year after year within the Swedish school system.

One can wonder how certain parties can stand here and speak about how we should not have mother-tongue instruction and paint students with foreign backgrounds as something suspicious and bad, while at the same time being okay with companies in Qatar, India, and other countries owning school companies in Sweden. One can wonder how it is that we have parties that talk about how we need calm and that we need study time, but who are involved in fueling the racist tone that even students in Sweden sense. One can wonder how it is that we have politicians standing here spreading falsehoods about how the Swedish school system looks and blaming all social problems, including those in school, on students with foreign backgrounds, when we know that the majority of those who seek higher education are girls with foreign backgrounds. What is that if not fact-resistance, and what is that if not failing to listen to the profession?

Year after year during the last ten years, while I have sat here in the Riksdag, I have spoken about the consequences of the school market. I have spoken about the consequences of the cuts and criticized different governments, but we are actually in a completely different situation now than we have been previously. I criticized the Social Democrats for not tackling the problems sufficiently. I believed that more investments needed to be made in the school, which I still believe. But I realize that what is happening today is something that has no parallel in modern Swedish history. It is a hostility towards knowledge that does not lead us toward a future equal knowledge nation.

It will lead to companies hiring employees who do not have the competence they should have. It will lead to the environmental and climate transition being hindered because of the joy grades. It will lead to children from different backgrounds being unable to work together outside of school in their leisure lives and later in working life. It will lead to the gaps increasing significantly during the coming years, which we have also seen them do during the recent years. And unequal societies do not do well. Unequal societies do not reduce crime. Unequal societies do not build away the housing shortage. Unequal societies do not lead to anything positive.

Because of this, it is important for Vänsterpartiet that we unite before the election and that we, from the opposition, already begin to form an alternative to this blue-brown government. We have much in common within the opposition, and we are ready to cooperate on those points. We are ready to cooperate on the issue of the principle of public access in schools. We are ready to cooperate on getting rid of the school market as it currently looks. We are ready to be involved in leading the school in a more egalitarian direction towards what the Swedish school was once in time, but with even better systems than before.

Just as I said in the debate on the higher education area: We stand behind all our policies within the school system and have a specific statement. There are no reservations, so we will abstain in the vote on expenditure area 16.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! This government and the Christian Democrats have a motto: It should pay to study, and it should pay to work.

This government has now presented three budget bills. Distributionally, the investment is largest for those who have the lowest incomes. The reality cannot be changed by the members through their claims. We have lowered taxes in all budget bills. We prioritize lowered taxes for wage earners.

I shall provide some instruction in economics. Someone who has a monthly income of 125,000 kronor pays eleven times as much tax as a person who earns 25,000 kronor a month. That is a fact. We therefore still have a progressive taxation.

Madam Speaker! We prioritize lower taxes for wage earners who go to work every day. This is good Christian Democratic policy. I also believe that fewer and fewer people believe that lower taxes automatically lead to worse welfare. It is never tax rates that finance welfare, Riazat. It is tax revenues that do it. The more people who have an educational background or entrepreneurship that leads to them receiving a relatively high salary, the more strongly they contribute to the common good with the other half. I call that good solidarity.

My question to the member from Vänsterpartiet is: How does the member encourage our young people to choose higher education to obtain knowledge that lasts a lifetime?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if Jesus would agree. But Kristdemokraterna 2024 is just not quite there.

The Christian Democrats talk about how it should pay off to educate oneself and to work. Yet we see how the growing wealth has nothing to do with either work or education, but has to do with wealth that is passed on either as an inheritance or in other ways. It is simply about people who profit from others' work and build their added value in that way.

You have set records in business bankruptcies in recent years. We currently have mass unemployment. We have shock-increased electricity prices, and despite the fact that inflation is decreasing, we see how the food giants, due to your paralyzed government, do not lower prices to the extent they could, but instead take the profits.

We have a situation where municipalities are forced to raise taxes, which is actually not good because it is not progressive, due to the fact that the government has withdrawn resources from the municipalities. This means that those with the lowest incomes will be affected.

At the same time, the Christian Democrats and Lili André are talking about lowering taxes for those who have the least. The question is: What is a single parent, who has received 2,000 SEK in increased food costs, 1,000 SEK in increased electricity costs this month and increased costs for practically everything, for example the rent, supposed to do with the 200 SEK in lower tax that you have given them, while Ulf Kristersson and Lili André have received several thousand SEK a month in reduced tax?

Is this fair, do Lili André and the Kristdemokraterna think? Is this Christian?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind you that this is a debate regarding expenditure area 16.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether I should thank you for a non-answer on what Vänsterpartiet is doing so that young people will choose education and also higher education.

The purpose of the government's tax cut is for people to keep more of their own effort or, even better, that people move from unemployment to employment, complete their upper secondary education or begin studying for higher education.

It is first and foremost a win for the individual, but through the economic gain that education provides in the form of a good salary and a tax reduction beyond this, it is at the same time an enormous win for society. What does the member think about that?

By having people enter the workforce, we get more people who pay tax. It is good for Sweden, it is good for freedom, and it is good for welfare.

Christian Democratic policy and distribution policy, Madam Speaker, is not about distributing poverty and exclusion in a fair way, but it is about distributing prosperity for a welfare for all, especially for those who are most vulnerable, that is to say those who perhaps do not always manage to pursue higher education or have other challenges. This provides prosperity also for those we need to assist.

I ask once again: What is the member's and the Left Party's position on education and research policy? How do you get the young person and the unemployed person to prioritize an education to get a job and, hopefully, a high salary?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, and in contrast to the government's representatives, we do it by coming to the budget debate with sufficient funds for all of this to be able to happen. I think that is where one must start: by simply financing the education system sufficiently instead of withdrawing money from it.

It is hypocrisy when the government parties talk about more people should work and that it should pay to work. It is hypocrisy to talk about freedom and tax cuts and then talk about welfare and that people should have it better.

You governed during the 90s and during a large part of the 00s. During all those years, resources have moved from those who have been in the worst position in our society to those who have had it best. At the same time as the levels in social insurance and other things aimed at those who have had it hardest have stood still or gone down, you have spent billions and billions and borrowed for the Swedish state to lower the tax for millionaires and billionaires.

Instead of investing in schools, you have removed various taxes for those who have the highest incomes. It is not true that this government invests and lowers taxes for those who are worst off. On the contrary – if you look at your own budget, which I know you have done, you see that the greatest resources go to those who already have it good. Therefore, teachers and preschool teachers are going around the country on their knees and wondering why pool cleaning in Danderyd is more important than they being able to reduce the size of the children's groups. They wonder why a person who has their bank account in Jersey or Guernsey should be able to own a school in Sweden and put our tax funds in their pocket instead of the children and the teachers getting these funds.

You are answerable. However, you will not be able to answer it; you are doing this deliberately to create the differences that exist in Sweden.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! We have won the battle against inflation and are now shifting focus in economic policy to instead devote ourselves to building Sweden stronger and wealthier. The government's budget is now a growth budget that contributes to strengthened purchasing power. It contributes to more people entering the workforce and to making it more profitable to run businesses and to invest in infrastructure, research, and education, this in contrast to the opposition's tax increases, benefit increases, and budget holes.

The IMF predicts that Sweden will have the highest growth among comparable countries next year. This is good news, because if Sweden fails to increase growth, it will also affect the school system. It is only with a growing economy that we can together carry forward future welfare and security.

Madam Speaker! In many classrooms in Sweden, teaching of absolute world-class quality is being conducted, but that is not the case everywhere. Therefore, in this budget, the government is now making the largest investment in schools in 20 years, measured in current prices. Here is also the largest research bill ever.

Education is indeed the key to Sweden's future. Therefore, we prioritize precisely knowledge, more skilled teachers, and increased safety in Swedish classrooms. These are three cornerstones for restoring the Swedish school.

Madam Speaker! The latest PISA survey shows the greatest loss of knowledge in the Swedish school system ever. At the same time as the latest TIM measurement joyfully shows that we have improved in mathematics, PISA shows that almost one in four 15-year-olds cannot read properly. The differences between those who perform best and those who perform worst are increasing, and the proportion of low-performing students is twice as high among students who are second-generation immigrants. It is a betrayal of these students and a failure for the Swedish school.

All students shall be given the opportunity to succeed. We need to have, and shall have, high expectations for all students, and through structured teaching based on evidence and hard work, it is possible.

That all students can read and understand what they read is the foundation for being able to succeed in school, for being able to acquire knowledge in all different subjects in school, and for being able to prepare for future studies and a future professional life. It is also fundamental for being able to function as a democratic citizen and to take up space and be involved in a democratic society. Reading is a fantastic opportunity to discover new worlds and to understand one's surroundings.

Therefore, this is one of the government's most important priorities within the school system. As some colleagues here have mentioned earlier, we are now doing this as part of the ten-year primary school so that more students get the opportunity to learn both reading and arithmetic earlier. From the autumn term of 2028, the primary school will be ten years long, and then it will be teachers with training in, among other things, phonics who shall teach the students to read.

It is important that we politicians do not go in and micro-manage what happens in the classroom. What we are saying is that the teaching should be based on evidence and proven experience. When it comes to, among other things, methods for learning to read, it is crystal clear that phonics is the method for which there is extensive research evidence, and therefore we are now so pleased that the teacher education so clearly points out that it is this method that should be used. Thus, we create the best opportunities for all students to succeed in school.

There is plenty of research showing the need for early interventions in school. By shifting focus and supporting more children already in preschool and primary school, more students can be given the opportunity to succeed. Therefore, this is one of the government's important initiatives in this budget. We are investing almost 1 billion, namely 900 million, to strengthen just the preschool, to increase the quality in preschool and get smaller child groups. It is important so that all students are prepared before they then start school.

The work for Swedish students does not stop there, but rather continues throughout the entire schooling. Therefore, I am pleased that we earlier this autumn adopted a proposition on staffed school libraries. It is a step in this work, and it applies already from the summer of 2025. In this budget, a decision is made on funds and targeted government grants for an additional half a million textbooks already next year in the Swedish school. These are concrete reforms that make a difference in Swedish classrooms.

Madam Speaker! Skilled teachers are the single most important factor for students to succeed in school. Research from Stanford University shows that a skilled teacher can provide the equivalent of an entire year of learning compared to teachers who create the least value in the classroom. An entire extra year! It makes a big difference who teaches in the classroom. Initiatives for more skilled teachers in all classrooms are therefore central to us raising the knowledge results in the Swedish school and for all students to have the opportunity to succeed. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government recently received an investigation on a completely new teacher education in Sweden with a greater focus on the core of the subject, what the teacher is to teach, and also on practice. How do I teach best? That should be the focus in the vocational education that teacher education actually is.

We are restoring the status of the teaching profession, among other things through less paperwork, less documentation and by freeing up time so that more teachers can devote themselves to what is the core of the teaching profession, namely preparing and conducting teaching. The meeting with students is the central thing.

In this year's budget, funds equivalent to 1,900 more special education teachers in the Swedish school system are added. That is one example. Additionally, a targeted initiative is being made on language training for employees within preschools. Reform by reform, we are now lifting up the Swedish school - and the knowledge results therein.

Madam Speaker! Last week, my colleague Oliver Rosengren and I visited Hitachigymnasiet in Västerås. The school has several times won the award Company of the Year for UF. It was palpable how an entrepreneurial spirit characterized the entire school. The school is located adjacent to both ABB and Hitachi, and it is clear how they work with skills supply throughout the school.

It was incredibly inspiring to meet students and teachers in the technology program and in their excellence programs. They demonstrated great commitment, subject knowledge, and an ability to convey their knowledge. Therefore, I am extra proud that we have now made permanent the initiative on excellence education that the previous bourgeois government introduced on a trial basis but which is now becoming permanent, so that more students get the opportunity to study and achieve their full potential.

Almost all the top students at the school in Västerås also studied university courses already during high school alongside their regular studies. Dennis, Elvira and all the other students truly showed how fantastic Swedish school can be when it is at its best.

Madam Speaker! In many Swedish classrooms, teaching is conducted at an absolute world-class level. We have every reason to be proud of that. But we also have major problems within the Swedish school system, and it is our responsibility to remedy them.

Not all students today have the same opportunity to succeed. Therefore, the now moderate-led government is implementing reforms to restore the knowledge school, reforms for increased safety and study, and to restore the status of the teaching profession so that we get more who want perhaps Sweden's absolutely most important job, namely to be a teacher. The budget we are debating today is an important step in the direction of just this.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I have in previous exchanges criticized the government and the Sweden Democrats for not wanting to provide support early by supporting our proposal for an extra teacher in every class in grade 1. Instead, they choose to lower the tax for those who earn the most.

In this post, I intended to ask how the resources allocated to the school are used.

Despite the government having acknowledged that today's system for compensation to independent schools means that the independent schools receive too much payment in relation to the responsibility they have, the government allows the overcompensation to independent schools to continue year after year. Next year, the independent schools will in this way be paid 2.7 billion too much just in the primary school area. It is scandalous, Madam Speaker. If the bill to stop the overcompensation that the Social Democratic government submitted in 2022 had passed in the Swedish Riksdag, it would not look like this. Then the school corporations would not have been able to grow and make such profits as they do now, under the SD government.

Madam Speaker! It is completely unreasonable that the government allows the overcompensation to the independent school owners to continue. It has been for two years now, completely unnecessarily. It is not enough to refer to the fact that a new compensation system is being investigated. In the meantime, billions for education continue to roll away to a few independent school owners in a completely immoral way, which has contributed to the fact that precisely those individuals have been able to enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense.

Madam Speaker! Why, Josefin Malmqvist, does the government let this continue? Why are those specific individuals, those private interests, being favored so much with the taxpayers' money?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! The government is now carrying out a major reorganization of the Swedish school system. We are addressing many of the shortcomings that governments have turned a blind eye to for 30 years. It is about reformed curricula that have not focused sufficiently on knowledge. It is about tackling the extent of "joy grades" that we see in Sweden. It is about reforming teacher education so that it equips our students in a purposeful way to learn in the best possible way for the future.

In area after area, we are now implementing reforms that, with a hand on my heart, should have been implemented many years ago in Sweden. But previous governments turned a blind eye, including the government that Åsa Westlund's party friends led for eight years. We are doing something about that.

Just as Åsa Westlund knows, we in Sweden have a requirement for preparation. Everything we implement needs to be prepared, and that means we are now proceeding at rocket speed with extensive investigations to obtain decision-making bases that we can use to make decisions in the chamber. I promised Åsa Westlund in a previous exchange of remarks to do this, and I can promise again that we will do so during this parliamentary term.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, I did not perceive any answer to my question. It does not help to refer to investigations or preparation requirements. There is a finished proposal that allows municipalities to stop the overcompensation to independent schools today – actually already two years ago.

On any day during the time the Moderaterna have led the country, they could have presented the bill. It would have stopped 2.7 billion in overpayment to a few people who run just private schools in Sweden.

It is an irresponsible attitude towards the taxpayers' money, and I meet many who believe that this is due to the fact that there are clear personal connections between the representatives of the Moderate government and the individuals who benefit from the policy. I hope that is not true. But since Josefin Malmqvist cannot account for why the bill is not being presented and the billions in overpayment to the independent schools are not being stopped, what is one to believe?

Is the situation so serious that the government is influenced by whom one has friendships with? It is precisely those individuals who benefit from the government's policy. And it is not about small sums; it is 2.7 billion just in the primary school area during the next year. It is money that could have gone – which would have gone – to teaching but instead goes to independent school owners for something they do not even deliver in society.

Why is the government doing nothing to stop this? Why has it already been allowed to continue for two years, Madam Speaker?

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! In this political debate, it is clear that there are great ideological differences. We and the government believe in the students', parents', and teachers' opportunity to choose school and workplace themselves. We believe in the opportunity to choose where one believes they will get the best conditions to learn for the future. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, want to decide where students should go and which schools should exist and not.

We have now had a free school reform in Sweden for 30 years, and the fact is that it has very strong support among parents, students, and teachers all over Sweden. It is important to safeguard. Here there is a major ideological difference: We safeguard the free school reform. We see that there have been shortcomings that we now need to tackle, and that is what we are doing. We have a large inquiry looking at the rules for free schools when it comes to ownership and its regulation. We have an inquiry that looks specifically at the school fee and how it should be calculated in a fair way - and in a similar way.

There is also an important difference here: It is not about everyone doing exactly the same thing. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, there is a difference between Skellefteå and Malmö. So it should also be, but we need to create common conditions so that students can succeed in all of Sweden. That is the basis for the government's policy, and we will return to the chamber with a decision basis on that during this mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josefin Malmqvist for a speech that was, in many ways, good.

One could say that there has been a lot of talk. There is talk that the government is working at rocket speed in certain areas, but one could say that the only thing currently moving at rocket speed is unemployment – and it is unfortunately going up.

It started with us being told that this is the largest research bill ever. I have emailed the material from the Riksdag's investigation service, which shows that it is the fourth largest in 20 years. It is still a certain difference, and I think it would be good if we could build these discussions on facts. The members can therefore read it, now that we are talking about literacy etcetera.

What I appreciate about the Moderaterna's view on the school is, among other things, this point about that we must have high expectations etcetera. I really agree with that. But something that is currently missing to connect the high expectations in Swedish schools are reasonable and well-substantiated requirements. We have, in fact, a grading system today that is completely insane, to put it bluntly. Completely unreasonable requirements are set just to be passed in Swedish school. The requirements are not based on any kind of scientific basis and mean that a huge number of students are knocked out completely unnecessarily and end up in exclusion, which increases unemployment, crime etcetera.

We have not received an investigation report yet, but from the investigator we have received quite a lot in various articles indicating where things are heading. While the Liberals have been very clear about how they view, for example, the grade F, I lack a bit of an answer from the Moderates in that area. Can we expect that the hard passing grade for moving forward will disappear, or can we not expect that? The investigator is very clear about what he believes.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Paarup-Petersen for an important question.

I agree with large parts of the problem description that is being painted. That we today have nearly 20,000 students who graduate from primary school without the possibility of seeking further education is a failure. It is a failure because we do not create paths for these students to seek further education, but it is also a failure that they have gone through a nine-year primary school and do not have sufficient knowledge to be able to continue their studies.

Therefore, the question is quite complex. We must first and foremost implement reforms to ensure that more students take relevant knowledge with them from primary school. Simply removing the admission requirements for upper secondary school will not make the students learn more. I believe rather that we need to consider how we create more paths forward.

As Paarup-Petersen was in, we are actually carrying out two major investigations now. One is the grading investigation that the member referred to earlier and which will submit its report in February. It will be an important piece of the puzzle in the work to deal with the "joy-grades" we see in the Swedish school today. That investigation also has a mandate to look at what requirements we should set for which courses in upper secondary school. It may be that the requirements should look a bit different.

In the investigation, there is still a limit to society's acceptable knowledge, so to speak. Regardless of what one calls that limit, there is a limit. But what is actually most relevant in this is to consider how more students take away relevant knowledge from primary school and how we ensure that there are different paths forward for the students.

The second investigation I want to mention, and which is perhaps the absolutely most important in this context, is the one that now presents a proposal for a vocational school. It would be a third track in upper secondary school aimed at those students who might be more tired of studying, and that track would perhaps not contain as much theory. We believe that it could be an important path for many of these students to be able to continue their studies.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Josefin Malmqvist very much for the answer.

I believe we are in complete agreement. It is of course not just about lowering the requirements - we must ensure that all students learn as much as they possibly can - but we must still set reasonable requirements, and in the current situation, we are not doing that. I believe all researchers have been incredibly clear that today's requirements in the grading system are not reasonable. It is therefore also about what requirements we set in relation to what knowledge one can actually expect.

Since then, as the member says, it is very important that the investigation into a vocational school is also moved forward, so that new paths will emerge. But even if a vocational school were to be established within four or five years, there will be 60,000-100,000 students who will not get a way forward, and therefore I hope that we can at least agree on doing something temporary, as the Centerpartiet has proposed. It is about actually getting these students out into reality and ensuring that they can get a job. In the current situation, it is a complete standstill, and I would rather that they get a job.

If we are then to ensure that it turns out well and that we get a school system where more people succeed, we must also ensure that the money goes where it actually needs to go. There is another issue there that is also linked to investigations that are underway and where it is a bit unclear how the government will land on it. It concerns the principle of public access. Even there, the Liberals, who in the government are responsible for the school area, have been clear, but I still do not quite know where the Moderates stand.

It is a challenge that the Minister for Education and the Minister for Education are repeatedly out there pretending that the government has a position, even though we don't really know where the largest government party stands. I think that is a somewhat difficult picture for the voters to deal with - as well as for us others.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt about where the largest government party stands, and I am happy to advocate for our views on various issues. But before investigations have been presented, they are often quite difficult to comment on, that is to say, before we have seen the entire basis of the investigation. The members can, however, be assured that the Moderaterna and the rest of the government in due time will be clear on where we stand regarding all investigations; it is just difficult to anticipate the investigations before we have read their proposals.

To connect to the first part of the member's question: That is correct. It is not enough to redo a grading system, we need to redo the Swedish school - and much of it - fundamentally. We need to start by reforming the curricula to ensure that we set reasonable requirements that are adapted to children's cognitive development. I completely agree with the member that many students today are affected by unreasonable expectations that are unclearly formulated, which we know contributes to stress and mental ill-health among many young people.

Furthermore, we have an unclear grading system that in no way is anchored today. Instead, the teacher sets the grades themselves, which makes them very difficult to compare between different classes and between different schools - not to mention between different parts of the country. So we cannot have that.

Now we are introducing new curricula and a new grading system, and we are creating more paths so that more students can succeed. Also, those who are tired of school and do not have the strength to continue studying shall be given the opportunity to feel that they can contribute to our Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! In addition to thanking the Speaker, I want to thank all teachers, principals and other types of staff who are in Sweden's schools for actually making this work. It is not always we politicians make life easier for you. That is probably the purpose for all of us, but it is not always we succeed.

All of us who are here naturally want to create a better school, and at some point one must start by asking what the purpose of the school actually is. What is the purpose of Swedish school? Yes, it is of course to ensure that the students who attend there receive a lot of knowledge, that they are given the prerequisites to manage life, that they can build their own path forward and that they receive factual knowledge. They shall also learn to analyze the world – what it looks like, what different things mean and how they are to get a job in the future etcetera. It is extremely essential, and there is a lot of focus on this right now.

There are, however, other purposes with Swedish school, for example to create democratic citizens. We must not forget that. We want a democratic society where the individual human being can take initiative, ask questions and be contrarian - as most of us who are currently sitting in the chamber have an ability to be sometimes. We must have citizens who dare to question what everyone is saying right now and take a path forward that leads to something better tomorrow than what we have today. That part is sometimes talked about a bit too little.

When one looks at Swedish school from the perspective of what we politicians work with, the idea of the school is also that we should take care of the children who are there. We ultimately force the children into school, because we have compulsory education in Sweden. If all children have a responsibility to be in school, we who belong to the adult world have a responsibility to take care of them while they are there and ensure that they are doing well. It is also something that, in the current situation, perhaps is talked about too little, because we have incredibly many children, or students, who are not doing well in Swedish school. It is actually also our responsibility to improve this.

Does Swedish school deliver? Yes, it actually does. In very many ways and in many respects, Swedish school delivers very well - and generally speaking, better and better. In recent years, school results have generally become better and better. That is how it actually is.

I have great respect for the staff in the school, who manage this while we have taken in a large number of students who cannot speak Swedish when they start school. At the same time as this has been handled – which is a major challenge – they have succeeded in raising the results in recent years. It is actually impressive.

In any case, the results have been raised for those who already know Swedish. Then we have a large group who do not have the Swedish language with them from home, and we are not doing particularly well with them. This means that Swedish school also time and again breaks records in dropouts. It is a huge challenge.

We have many students who do well, and that is wonderful. However, it is also a great challenge that in the current situation we have a huge number of students, 20,000 students every year, who do not pass school. We cannot live with that dropout rate. We cannot accept that there are so incredibly many students who are given worse conditions than they should have. These are 20,000 students who end up in unemployment. They are offered to continue for three more years with what they have not succeeded with over the last ten years, whereupon they also fail. After that, we have nothing to offer them. We see this time and again, and it is perhaps the greatest failure in Swedish school.

We actually have a responsibility to make it better for these young people. What do we need to do then? We need to provide better support. More people have mentioned this here from the rostrum. We need to keep track of the absences, and we need to step in at the beginning of these students' schooling and take care of the lacking knowledge in the Swedish language. That is because it is the foundation for being able to tackle all the other subjects.

Madam Speaker! We also need to provide support earlier, because in the current situation, it is often the case that we provide the support at the end of the school period even though we know that there are problems. Then we can make large interventions that they might get a little joy from. It is very nice, but they do not get the knowledge they could have acquired if they had received the support from the beginning. It is a betrayal. We must be able to do this better.

Since then, we have had a school system that has some very large basic weaknesses. One of them concerns the grading system. We actually have an insane grading system. I believe the school commission used roughly the same words that I usually use. Not all my words should be uttered in the speaker's chair, Madam Speaker, but he called it outrageous. It is a very reasonable word for the grading system we have today, which, completely unnecessarily, year after year, singles out students who are not good enough. Every year throughout their entire school life, they are told that they have failed and nothing else. Their efforts are not counted, because they fall below some kind of imaginary limit that we have set up in the Riksdag. It is outrageous!

It is really not bourgeois politics to say that your contribution only counts if those in the Riksdag think it should count and if you reach what those in the Riksdag have made up. It is not bourgeois politics, but several of the parties in here - including those who sit in the government - apparently think it is a reasonable system, because they refuse to say that they want to get rid of it. I find that very sad.

We still have a huge distorted competition. Again, I want to say – regarding the fact that we have a bourgeois government – that if you are bourgeois, you want good competition. You like competition, and so do I – but I want honest and fair competition where people actually compete on equal terms. In the current situation, however, the easiest way to make money in Swedish schools is to save on qualified teachers. You get paid for someone else's costs, but you avoid paying for what actually makes a difference. It is not a reasonable system.

This also means that the money does not always go to the students who have the greatest needs. Then we will also fail in the future with those students who need more support. This has been built into the system, and it will continue to be so until we change the rules. Those who sit in the government must actually start waking up.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the teachers' prerequisites, their education is absolutely a part of that. We have too many teachers who - according to the teachers themselves - do not know how to teach things in the classroom. It is a challenge.

We also have a situation right now where we see that both municipal politicians and the government's leading representatives in the education field repeatedly want to interfere in what happens inside the classrooms. But it is not we politicians who are to decide how one should teach! It is the profession, i.e., teachers, principals and research, that should do that - not us. I don't know what it is like with you - you might be fantastic - but I in any case have no idea how one gives good teaching inside a classroom. We must ensure that there are reasonable rules and that there are conditions for research and the profession to be able to decide how the mission is carried out. We shall say what is to be achieved, not how it is to be achieved. It is an incredible amount from the government that enters the classroom and points, and that is a problem.

Here we can talk about evidence. I had an excellent exchange with Josefin Malmqvist recently about not drawing conclusions from investigations in advance. We can state that there are certain parties in the Riksdag, and parties that give the government their support, which in certain areas go very far ahead of investigations. This applies, among other things, to mother tongues, where the consequence and conclusion have been established before the investigation has even been commissioned. This is a challenge if we are to have an evidence-based school system.

I have nothing against people asking questions and investigating whether something works and whether it is good or not, but it is a challenge – if we are to have an evidence-based school – when one has the conclusion ready before the investigation has even started.

The government has initiated many inquiries; we have noted that here. Many of them have been up for debate. It has also been said that we have a huge number of heavy inquiries. But so far, they are quite light initiatives from the government. They are heavy inquiries and light initiatives. This means that Swedish school is currently standing and waiting. Swedish school needs resources now, not at some point in the future.

At some point, the government and their supporting parties must actually take responsibility. You cannot just say "in the future", "it is the municipalities" and "it was they who were there before". Now it is actually you. It is you who have the responsibility right now, and the government must take that responsibility now. That means it is not the Social Democrats', the Center Party's or future governments' fault when one does not invest in Swedish school now. It is your responsibility, and right now the government is not investing in Swedish school. You are not doing it, but it is your responsibility.

Centerpartiet is investing 18 million in sector grants so that the schools can actually allocate the money where it is needed instead of the Riksdag making up that they should establish emergency schools in all 290 Swedish municipalities. It is made up. They are not needed out there. Some need them, and they are very welcome to use them. It can be very good, but not everyone needs it. That just means that there are very many who could have made interventions against the most dangerous and rowdy students but cannot do so now. They get no money, because they did not choose the Liberals' idea. They actually needed something else, but then they get no money. So, you are not governing the school in a good way.

Madam Speaker! There has been much discussion about state ownership today, as usual when we have school debates. If one wants only one owner, does one want to remove all the independent schools? We still do not have a clear answer to that. No, it is said from the benches in here. It is good to know, because then we have 700 owners left. People talk about it being a problem that there are 290 owners, but we have 700 owners left if we are not to remove the independent schools. That is the reality.

If one simply removes the municipal schools, does state ownership only mean that we have one state school and a lot of independent schools left, provided that one does not also demand that the independent schools become a monopoly. I hope not, but that will probably be the next step.

School results are improving right now, and we must remember that this is happening while we have municipal schools and a lot of independent schools. Those who have finished school in recent years read better than those who went to school in the 60s or 70s. This applies to those who are born in Sweden, and then second-generation immigrants are included. Those who are born in Sweden, including second-generation immigrants, therefore read better than one did in school in the 60s or 70s. This is worth taking with you. It is moving forward in a huge number of areas.

Let us be happy about what is good in Swedish school. Let us cooperate better than we do today to make it even better and to take care of the dropout rate, which is Swedish school's absolute biggest problem. Let us do it together – it is actually time to cooperate a bit more than we do in the current situation.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! If school is to be a place for learning, it must also be an environment where students feel well. Unfortunately, we see a worrying development where mental ill-health is becoming increasingly common among our young people. This is not only a threat to their future but also a threat to Sweden as a knowledge nation. Mental health is, in fact, a completely decisive factor for school performance. It is impossible to expect a student whose thoughts revolve around whether they want to continue living to be able to solve equations or understand the language of mathematics.

The government has a comprehensive agenda for mental health that spans everything from preventive and promotional measures to major investments in specialized care. No previous government has had as high a level of ambition as the current government in this area.

In the fight against mental ill-health, the school constitutes a strategic frontline. The earlier we catch the problems, the lower the risk that they take root and follow into adulthood. The Christian Democrats believe that Sweden needs an elevhälsogaranti (school health guarantee) which means that every student can come into contact with school health services within a reasonable time. We also believe that all students need to be offered routine conversations with the school's counselor. Furthermore, the regions should receive a unified mandate for school health and the entire child and youth healthcare, so that no student falls through the cracks in the handover between school health and child and adolescent psychiatry.

Education in mental health should also be strengthened in schools. Several other countries have systematic education in mental health today, but Sweden lacks such a strategy. In countries such as Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Australia, students receive education on how to manage emotions such as anxiety, motivation, conflicts, and stress. In Sweden, we have had physical health on the schedule since the mid-1800s. Now it is reasonable that mental health also takes up a larger place in the education.

Madam Speaker! We also need to review parts of the school system so that the system itself does not drive up mental ill-health. The school should counteract stress and anxiety and not be an engine for this, but today there are unfortunately such tendencies. The knowledge requirements are an example of this. Today, the knowledge requirements are quite vague and can be interpreted slightly differently by different teachers, which makes it impossible for the students to know what they should do to achieve different grade levels. This naturally feeds a stress that easily becomes overwhelming, and therefore the knowledge requirements need to be rewritten. The students need clear expectations of them and reduced room for own interpretation.

Madam Speaker! Mental health is, of course, not only affected by the school system but is also shaped by the school environment. One of the biggest challenges there is, unfortunately, bullying. For far too many children, they do not just carry a backpack to school, but they also carry a lump of anxiety in their stomachs that many times weighs even heavier. Bullying causes one to fall behind in school but can also create scars for life and lead to mental ill-health that has the most devastating consequences ahead.

Mobile phones have given bullying a completely new playing field and have made it easier than ever for bullies to reach their victims around the clock. Social media and digital chats make bullying harder to detect even when it occurs during school hours. This places higher demands on both schools and parents to work actively against bullying.

That is why the government is now introducing measures so that it is visible in practice that there is zero tolerance for harassment and violations in Swedish schools. It must not just be fine words, but it must be measures that make a real difference out in the schools.

The principal's responsibility shall be clarified. All schools shall have evidence-based anti-bullying programs. It shall become easier to move the bully - and not the victimized student - from the school. All parents must be able to feel secure that the students in the school are treated with respect.

Madam Speaker! Mobiles and screens do not only make it easier for the bullies but are also one of the biggest sleep disruptors for our young people. We have a sleep crisis in Sweden - Swedes of all ages, and in particular young people, sleep poorly. Half of the middle school students sleep too little. A third of all girls in upper secondary school sleep less than six hours per night when they should be sleeping eight to nine hours.

Lack of sleep is both one of the causes of the growing mental ill-health and, naturally, a challenge when it comes to school results. When one sleeps poorly, it becomes harder to manage everyday stress and challenges. Focus deteriorates in school. Life feels heavier - sometimes even meaningless.

That children and young people sleep far too little is often due to them sleeping with their phones in bed. They scroll themselves to sleep eventually but then still get up and check notifications during the night. The power of algorithms and fear of missing out causes them to fill their brains with trivialities during late evenings and nights and thus miss the important sleep. Parents must help create the conditions for the school to provide students with knowledge by managing the screens at home.

Even when it comes to doing homework at home, the screens are a problem. The screens compete for attention through their mere presence. Even when you succeed in resisting the temptation to pick up the phone, the very thought distracts, stealing energy and concentration. Today's students have virtually all the world's entertainment within arm's reach, and only one in five does their homework without digital distraction. A challenge in today's screen society is therefore to get the children to lift their gaze and learn the basics. The school must be a counterforce that stands up in the fight against the TikTok brain and its demands for quick kicks and entertainment, with a focus on students learning to count and write and having the stamina to read longer texts without shortcuts or quick kicks – just a bit of boring drudgery, quite simply.

That is why the government is now ensuring that all students from preschool class to grade 9 receive a mobile-free schooling. The mobile ban shall also apply during breaks and at fritis. Every morning, all schools in the entire country will collect the students' mobiles and keep them in storage during the day.

For a long time, there has been a digitalization fever in schools. Everything digital has, in the name of modernity, been considered good, but that time is over. The digital faith in schools has reached its end - now schools must return to the basics.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to highlight the importance of parents for the children's health and schooling.

No matter how compensatory we want the school to be, how much we try to set things right, and how much we wish that family background should not play such a large role in school results, the family will always be important. The importance of the family must therefore be recognized by the school, and parental responsibility needs to be re-established.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important that parents receive support to be able to take their responsibility, that parents receive tools to be able to help their children meet the school's requirements and more actively involve themselves in the children's learning.

Parents must become the school's allies and speak well of its importance in the children's lives and recognize teachers and school leaders as an authority. School and parents simply need to cooperate and help each other so that our children get the opportunity to learn as much as possible in school.

Madam Speaker! The school is part of a larger society where everyone needs to help each other so that children can be safe, feel well, behave, and also be given the opportunity for knowledge for life. That is how we turn the knowledge results, and that is how we secure Sweden's future.

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

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking Mathias Bengtsson for an excellent focus on mental health. It is very good. We are truly in complete agreement that mental health should be part of the teaching. We have proposed that for quite some time, so there I hope we can reach an agreement. There are other parties that are not entirely in agreement with us, but there perhaps we can land sooner or later.

As I said in my speech, we have an incredibly great adult responsibility for the students whom we take into Swedish school, because they must be there. In the end, we force them if they do not want to be there, and that is nothing that one should take lightly. One can state that we do not quite take this adult responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Mathias Bengtsson had many great parts, but there was one thing that I missed a little, if I didn't miss it. Mathias Bengtsson was on the curriculum but not on the grading system itself.

Swedish research shows that there has been a significant deterioration of Swedish students' knowledge after the implementation of the Lgr11 curriculum, and we must listen to the research in this chamber – especially in this debate. How do the Christian Democrats and Mathias Bengtsson view today's grading system and its consequences in the form of mental ill-health in Swedish schools? Do you see any connection between those, and that it is therefore incredibly important that we move away from today's unhealthy parts of the grading system?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Niels Paarup-Petersen for the question. The answer is: Yes, I see problems with the current grading system.

It is primarily two problems that I touched upon in my speech. One is that the knowledge requirements are too unclear. It is clear that it drives ill health and stress when the teachers do not know how to assess. It then becomes even harder for the students to know what is expected for different grades. It is clear that it leads to stress and anxiety.

The second problem is the dropouts in the Swedish school system. Up to 20,000 students do not proceed after lower secondary school so that they can study a upper secondary program.

I believe that this can be met with different measures. One measure that we have touched upon in this debate is a vocational school or a lighter upper secondary line for those who do not reach eligibility. But I am also open to differentiating the upper secondary eligibility for different upper secondary programs. Someone who studies a national science program perhaps does not need the same upper secondary eligibility as those who study the practical programs. One could experiment with that based on what is required to complete the different programs.

What I do not think would turn out well is if one were to remove the limit completely and say that anyone can get into any program. I believe that would create lower quality in the programs. I also believe that it would lead to a risk that students get into a program that they then cannot manage. It then becomes a double failure if they fail both in upper secondary school and in upper secondary school.

I think that the elimination is a problem and that one can tinker with both the vocational school and a differentiated eligibility.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer, which is quite pleasing. But one should not be completely satisfied.

It is one thing that I would like to hear a little more about. Some of us are, to some extent, good conservatives, and we want the efforts that one makes as a human being to count and form the basis for what life offers next. One should actually be able to make an effort and move forward. One of the most basic foundations of conservatism is that it is one's own effort that should determine where one gets in life and that one should also be able to be rewarded. If one does more, one should also be able to be rewarded more. That is where I believe we differ from certain parties in here.

In the current situation, your effort is not counted at all. It makes no difference whether you don't come to school at all or if you come every day, do everything you can, but still fall just below the limit. It is like telling the students: Don't bother doing anything! If you know that you will not reach the requirements, you might as well not do anything. Then you might as well sit in the classroom and throw erasers or sit and look at your phone, because your effort will not be counted. It will not give you anything.

It is the system that we have created – I say "we" but mean generally – and which in the current situation must be changed, is my opinion. There I would very much like to know, also linked to mental ill-health, if it is a good thing to tell the students that they should only receive the grade F regardless of what they do. It makes no difference what they do. Is it something that builds strong people who feel well? I do not think so. Therefore, I would like to know if the Kristdemokraterna will support that even in the future, if we are to have a limit, differentiations shall be made so that your effort is always counted, regardless of whether it lies below or above what we have invented as a passing level.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Niels Paarup-Petersen for the question.

Regarding the process moving forward, the government has appointed a grading investigation which will submit its proposal. After that, there will be negotiations between the government parties on how to move the proposal forward and what to do with it.

I understood that the question was what will be the Christian Democrats' entry into that type of conversation and negotiations. I share the member's view that it would be good if the efforts that students make during what is today grade E would also be counted, and that it would be more worthwhile to make an effort even if one is below the limit that exists today.

I also believe that interventions in Swedish schools today are often implemented a bit too late and that there is a very clear weeding out of those who do not manage today's high school eligibility. By experimenting with and reforming the grading system, one could create a system that steers towards earlier interventions. I am open to reviewing the grading system in that direction.

I perceive that I am quite in agreement with the member in many of these parts.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Mathias Bengtsson for the important words regarding bullying and how we need to talk about the problems and simply address them.

I do not share the opinion on everything, but part of what was said regarding digital tools or mobiles. It is far from only children who are affected by this situation. I also believe that we adults need to act as role models, which I myself find very difficult.

When it comes to the question of how the discrimination as such manifests itself, it is usually not the mobile phones themselves that exercise the discrimination or the bullying, but it is the people who use them who do it. Even if we were to remove all these mobile phones, there would still be structures behind them that are discriminatory. People were actually denied jobs and children were bullied in school before mobile phones existed. The difference now is, as Mathias Bengtsson said, that this can follow you everywhere and around the clock.

Therefore, I would like to know what Mathias Bengtsson thinks it signals to the school students that we have a party, the largest party in the government base, but also a government where everything is focused on painting certain types of students as a problem. There is constant talk only about how students who come from certain countries, who have a certain religious belief and so on, are the problem for society, for the school, for everything. We also receive reports that the biggest cause of discrimination in school is racism. How does it add up that one on the one hand acts as a government this way, while on the other hand we see these reports?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! What we have seen in schools for a long time is a bullying that is completely unacceptable. During the last ten years, that is to say largely under a different government than the one I represent, the bullying has also increased.

It is obvious that it has been too lax in the Swedish school system. Principals have not taken this seriously enough. The schools in Sweden have not had sufficiently evidence-based anti-bullying programs. They have not implemented sufficient measures against bullying. We are changing that now. Teachers who have not had sufficient authority will now be given sufficient authority to stand up against the one who violates, to stand up against the bully, and to stand on the side of the victim.

Daniel Riazat asks what signals this sends to the students. This sends the signal to the students that we stand on the side of the victim. The time when it was the bullied student who was supposed to change schools instead of the bully is over. This government ensures that principals, school leaders, and teachers have the powers required, and all students can feel secure knowing that the government stands on the side of the victim against the bully.

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mathias Bengtsson, for the answer!

I must nevertheless say that I do not think the government is tackling this issue. It is quite difficult for the government to do so. One of the reasons is that it is generally a difficult subject. Another reason is that parts of the government themselves are involved in practicing this type of rhetoric, bullying rhetoric or discriminatory rhetoric, against people.

We cannot stand here as adults and say that we want to solve the problem of bullying in schools when the largest party in the government support has a troll factory that bullies people online. We cannot stand here and say that we want to eliminate bullying and that children are reached more by bullying due to digital tools when we see how this, among other things, racist rhetoric is promoted, which leads to many students feeling insecure and uncertain and being subjected to it.

Read the Equality Ombudsman's report! There it is stated clearly and distinctly that discrimination has increased very much against students with disabilities, which is one of the biggest reasons for discrimination. The other is foreign background. In particular, students who have African origin or are Afro-Swedes are affected.

This is not happening in a vacuum, I mean. Children are not born to bully others or practice discrimination against others. Children also learn from adults. When we have a government and a governing party whose representatives go out and say things that are completely unacceptable, which Mathias Bengtsson would never accept otherwise, what kind of signal does that send to the students?

How many kronor in the government's budget, which we are talking about right now, do Mathias Bengtsson and the government allocate to counter bullying and discrimination in schools? The answer is zero.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The answer is 850 million for safety and study. It is special education teachers, it is smaller teaching groups, and it is student health. We have 700 million in the knowledge grant, also to hire more staff so that we can reduce the groups, and not least increased quality in preschool which helps those students – often with a foreign background or foreign parents – who need to learn the language to just learn the language.

Madam Speaker! It has been a problem in Swedish politics that we have had a high immigration to Sweden and, as a result of that, an integration that has not functioned. Children have grown up in exclusion and have not learned the Swedish language. One of the reasons that politicians have not addressed this problem has been that they have been afraid of being portrayed as racist. There have been political opponents who have played the racism card in a similar way as Daniel Riazat does in this debate.

Who is hit hardest by these problems? Who suffers from such political rhetoric and such political paralysis? Yes, it is the children who grow up in exclusion and vulnerability and do not receive the help and support they need. Now we have a government that helps those children and ensures that they learn Swedish, enter into society, and get a chance to succeed in school. That is helping children. It is not racism.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the presentation.

I am a bit curious to hear Mathias Bengtsson explain what the government's position is on a broader level when it comes to the digitalization of the school system.

We have had a crooked path here. The previous digitalization strategy ended because it was time-limited. One absolutely should have a new one. One was not satisfied with the proposal that came despite that a large part of the referral bodies were that - not all, of course - but would still come with a strategy for the school system's digitalization because it was completely unthinkable to be without one. Now, from the government's side, they no longer want any overarching plan for this, but they are satisfied with having given Skolverket the assignment to look at guidance for choosing learning materials.

If one is concerned about how the digitalization of society is proceeding – for it concerns society and not just the school – would it not be good to have a plan? That is what I am calling for. Why does the government not produce a strategy for this?

A strategy, therefore, is not only about the didactic choices that the teacher shall make in the classroom during their lessons or when the teacher plans their teaching together with their colleagues. It is about everything from hardware, information security and law to training of school administrators and teachers and research of the entire area. When will a strategy for this arrive?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Camilla Hansén for the question!

It is clear that it is good to have a digitalization strategy in a world that is becoming increasingly digitized. The problem in schools is that there has been a digitalization trend where everything digital has been considered good, regardless of content. Everyone has wanted to be modern early adopters and apply everything. It has been computers, iPads, and digital learning materials. The consequence of that has been more disruption in the lessons, less concentration for the students, and that it has been possible to misuse these digital tools to do other things.

My point is that digitalization must occur with caution. One must ensure that all teachers know how the digital tools are to be used before they are implemented and ensure that they cannot be misused and lead to something else.

The consequence of the digitalization hysteria that I want to assert we have had in Sweden has been that Swedish schools have become worse. Then we must turn it around. We cannot accelerate in this situation; instead, we must brake and turn back and then take it slowly and carefully and only digitalize where it actually helps.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Where it could actually help is regarding teachers' administrative workload. The government has no plan for this - they do not seem to consider digitalization to be a part of it.

It is still not about that we have ever had a strategy that planned for us to have some kind of hysteria, but it is about giving teachers the basis to make the didactic choices in everyday life.

I am quite convinced that there is no teacher who has opted out of books because they no longer believe that books are a good idea. On the other hand, the school has been underfunded, and one has had to search for the cheapest possible teaching materials. Of course, there is no pedagogical point in using the latest free apps that have arrived without any pedagogical review of the content. But that is where one risks ending up when there is no plan or guidance in this society-transforming period.

There is still a part that demands that we take action regarding societal development. I am thinking of the AI Commission, which truly emphasizes that everyone needs to have knowledge of what kind of society we are entering. It is not about some future that the students might encounter at some point later, in their professional lives, but it is about their lives here and now. It is about their ability to handle digital information and about understanding what is propaganda and disinformation. It is about how one behaves in digital contexts. It is nothing that is happening anywhere else.

I am concerned that Swedish students are falling behind when it comes to these skills. In terms of digital competence and information management, equality is lacking. When will the plan that Mathias Bengtsson seems to think is a good idea arrive?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Hansén, for the supplementary question!

It is clear that the government wants to reduce the amount of administration for teachers and free up time for what the teachers were educated to do, namely to teach. That preschool teachers, primary school teachers, high school teachers, principals and school leaders should have reduced administration is something I consider a self-evident matter. It is also something digital tools can help with.

I have naturally not meant that anyone had any ill intent when, as a teacher, they rolled out digital learning materials or as a school leader threw iPads or computers into the classrooms. I do not believe that anyone who has written a digitalization strategy wanted to make the school worse, but that is what has become the result. My conclusion is that it must not happen again.

Madam Speaker! If we were to accelerate in the direction that Camilla Hansén advocates, I see a risk that it will become more of the same. That is not what I want to experience. I want to get rid of the noise, the distractions, and the misuse. Therefore, I believe that the government's line with physical learning materials, more reading books, and a mobile phone ban is a good policy.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! At this time of year, many committees believe that they are having the Riksdag's most important budget debate. We all have important debates, but no committee has an area of responsibility that lays the foundation for our society's development and future in the same way as the Education Committee.

Being a teacher is Sweden's most important job. The political leadership at the national level needs to be focused on providing preschool teachers, primary school teachers, subject teachers, university lecturers and professors - in fact, everyone who works in the Swedish education system and within higher education - really good conditions. One needs to show a clear will for this when having this year's most important debate: the budget debate.

Now we have gotten a bit stuck - it happens sometimes - in what different parties think works poorly with Swedish education and research and how they want to remedy the problems. There is a logic in that, but it also makes it feel quite gloomy and as if we are not satisfied with anything we see within this area. I do not dare to act as a spokesperson for everyone in the room, but I am sure that others, just like me, see fantastic activities when they visit schools around the country.

We must take with us that Swedish school, on the whole, is good. Swedish research is good. When I meet the student movement and the youth movement, I truly get hope for the future. These people have gone through Swedish school and received the educations that we quite often talk about as something that does not meet the standard. When one examines adults' knowledge—it concerns large-scale surveys of Swedes' knowledge—they hold up well in international comparisons. But that does not mean in any way that there is room to rest or lean back, because the pattern recurs when it comes to a lack of equality.

The government presents goals for the school that we recognize. They are about developing knowledge and values and about conveying and anchoring respect for human values and the fundamental democratic values that Swedish society rests on. In the political direction, however, I see something else that raises questions about where the government is headed.

The government writes about re-establishing a Swedish knowledge school and returning to the basics. For me, it is nevertheless a bit unclear what is meant. It makes me uncertain about whether I attended the Swedish knowledge school or some other school. It states that one wants to return to factual knowledge and skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. I do not, however, see this as a step backward but as a focus that Swedish governments have had for quite a long time. Knowledge has for a long time been described as something that is expressed in several ways: facts, understanding, skill, and familiarity. I wonder how far back one wants to go and to what.

Madam Speaker! My concern is that the government worries about the results in the international surveys such as PISA and PIRLS but does not seem to react as forcefully to what many others see: the lack of equity. When it comes to surveys of young people's digital competence and skills, that is, handling digital information, which you know we do as citizens already at a young age, one is not as concerned. Nor is the equity sufficient when it comes to that competence.

Swedish youth are surrounded by technical gadgets. It is not about having access to such things, but rather that one needs instruction from teachers even in this area of knowledge.

I think it is good that the government is allocating more money to what we call appropriation 1:15. It is an appropriation that the red-green government introduced to counter the lack of equity in Swedish schools and which the current government maintains and, most importantly, invests in, even if it is obviously a bit less than what Miljöpartiet and some other opposition parties want to invest. Last year, the name of the appropriation was changed. It was called State support for strengthened equity and knowledge development, but last year the word equity was removed from the name of the appropriation. According to School Minister Lotta Edholm, this was to be seen as something symbolic, and the direction would not change.

As you noticed in the previous exchange, Fredrik Malm could speak very much about the shortcomings of Miljöpartiet during the time the support was introduced. It was intended to be a support for both equality and knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Let us leave the history lesson and focus on what is happening now. Then, in September, one does not need to report on how the money being used strengthens equality. Now that Fredrik Malm has had time to google, perhaps he can take a turn and answer the question we did not get an answer to earlier, namely why the Liberals are letting go of the focus on the measures to increase equality. We obviously see a lack of equality as a problem in Swedish schools.

The Green Party is making investments in the budget proposal for state support for knowledge and equality. We also want to invest in preschool - including smaller children's groups and increased equality - adult education (komvux), free time activities (fritis), breakfast in school, and strengthened student health. It is part of all that Swedish schools need, but not all. What does Swedish school need then? It is not about magic, but it is something that is within reach. What is needed for knowledge results to increase, for the work environment for employees and students to improve, and for the school to become a workplace that more people dream of working at is that the necessary investments are made - and there the government is not prepared to prioritize.

Madam Speaker! I also need to address the Green Party's budget proposal regarding higher education and research in this speech. At a quick glance at the appropriation tables, the differences are quite clear. It is primarily the Green Party that provides higher education institutions with more money for education at the undergraduate and advanced levels, as well as for doctoral education and research. We in the Green Party show that we see some of the obstacles that the higher education institutions describe to us and take measures that should have been taken much earlier.

We have not compensated for long-term reductions, but we have nevertheless begun a journey where we remove what is called the productivity deduction. The budgets of higher education institutions have been trimmed over several decades through the productivity deduction. One consequence is that Swedish higher education institutions are near the bottom when comparing teaching time with other countries in Europe. We want students, even in higher education, to meet skilled teachers and researchers during their period of study. We believe that it makes a difference.

The foundation for excellent research is not laid in the scientific academies, which were established by old kings. It is laid in preschool, primary school, upper secondary school, and throughout the educational institutions across the country. It is the entire educational path and the entire research community that lays the foundation for the upcoming Nobel Prize.

This fact that the Liberals have governed the Ministry of Education for two years is interesting. One would think it would mean strengthened academic freedom, a focus on education and research, and that students get more time with skilled teachers and researchers. But that is not what we see. Last year, an extra cut was also made on the state universities, and the productivity deduction is still in place. Where are the reforms and the money that are supposed to make higher education and research a driving force both in the climate transition, which we as a society must do, and in a socially sustainable society?

The government is now carrying out investigations that date back to the previous government's time. That is good. Staffing school libraries and a focus on high-quality teaching materials are things that I look forward to seeing in schools. A string of investigations will come to the government from various inquiries during this parliamentary year. We shall have to see in what condition the proposals reach the Riksdag after the government's preparation.

During the Nobel week, the government's research proposition also arrived, which we will handle here in the chamber after Christmas. Just like many others, I am tackling it bit by bit, but so far I am surprised by the one-sided focus on excellence without building breadth and on increased state governance of research in combination with an increased absence of researchers in the decision-making rooms.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is not participating in the decision on the state budget for the simple reason that in our fully funded budget, we allocate more than 5 billion more to education and research than the government does. I therefore refer to Miljöpartiet's special statement where we prioritize preschool, school, higher education and research to a greater extent than the government does.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report UbU1.

The budget regarding higher education has, as far as I can see, no dramatic deviations compared to the previous budgets. Some important appropriation increases are, however, noteworthy. One such is appropriation 2:64, where the research proposition next year receives an appropriation of 377 million kronor. But that appropriation will increase significantly in the coming years and later up to 1.5 billion.

The government has cut the funding for so-called development research by 180 million kronor. This is in order to support Ukraine, which we know is in a state of war. We naturally support this reprioritization given the current security policy situation.

Universities and colleges received just over 66 billion kronor in 2024. Of that, approximately 11 billion kronor went to research. It can be noted that the Swedish Research Council receives an increase in the grant in the coming budget year of more than ½ billion kronor. That is a lot of money.

It should be said that the universities also have revenues for research. External funders provided almost 30 billion kronor to the institutions. It is collaborative projects in question.

As we have discussed previously, there is a problem regarding the joint projects. But for defense research, for example, such collaborative projects are absolutely necessary, and in that case, the cooperation should rather be increased. For defense research, it is also absolutely necessary that FMV and FOI receive instructions to cooperate significantly more smoothly. Today, the administration and the regulatory framework are far too heavy and hindering. Here, the government should act forcefully moving forward.

The authority capital, which I have spoken about previously, has actually decreased. I believe it is the first time in a long while. It is now down to 17.2 percent of the universities' total turnover. Too large an authority capital has been described as problematic, among others by the National Audit Office and several others. I guess that the authority capital is still far too large and should be reduced further.

Fewer students have started at the university. That is good. We need more people attending the university of applied sciences. Unfortunately, we can also read that the number of people who received a vocational qualification in 2023 decreased by approximately 1,000 people. That is not good at all. I assume it is a post-pandemic effect.

Madam Speaker! On 27 April 2016, I took up in a speech in this very chamber that the state should invest in nuclear power research. All other parties, all on the left wing and all on the right wing, said then that it was impossible and that the state cannot finance research in that way. It simply would not be possible.

In his government statement this year, Ulf Kristersson announced that he intends to invest in research on nuclear energy. Congratulations, Kristersson, you intend to do the impossible! It is an impossibility that I, moreover, proposed already in 2016.

Madam Speaker! Overall, it is a good, forward-looking and progressive budget regarding the universities and research. It is a budget that we gladly stand behind.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like, without joy, to speak a little about the very concept of research. My perception is that we are all eroding this concept because we use it in various partisan interests. How many in this chamber - yes, today as well - have we not heard it said that the research shows something, and then one presents the policy one has always advocated? It is strange that the research always shows that what one stands for for purely political reasons is always backed up by the research - regardless of party and proposal, but most often from the left. It is a research that is, to say the least, flexible, Madam Speaker.

In the work itself, research in many areas is not in agreement. This applies in particular to educational research. And even if the research is both verified and agreed upon in one area, this research applies precisely to the conditions under which the research was conducted, not all other conditions that the debaters want it to. The interpretation of the research is a chapter in itself. How easy and tempting is it not to take a research result out of context and use it for one's own purpose?

Furthermore, the research says completely different things over time, Madam Speaker. Let me take a small example. As recently as the 90s, researchers warned that a new ice age was approaching and said that we all must strive to release carbon dioxide, in a desperate attempt to prevent the impending catastrophe. Today, the researchers, as you know, have a somewhat different approach to that issue. It can sometimes be useful to look back at what researchers have said previously, to get some perspective on current issues.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Robert Stenkvist notes no dramatic deviations in this part of the budget. For that reason, I intended to dwell on a few small details and thus not the large cuts. As we all know, the saying goes that the devil is in the details.

Robert Stenkvist! The budget proposal does not implement a reduction of the grant for student organizing, but rather announces it. It concerns approximately one-third of the total amount. The grant was introduced when the Alliance government abolished the mandatory union membership a couple of decades ago.

The measure to reduce support for student organizing fits quite well into a Sweden Democrat policy of reducing student influence, worsening opportunities for civil society organizing, and attacking trade unions and folk education. Circumventing the possibilities for student organizing fits well into a policy where one attacks every center where opposition to one's own policy can flourish.

Robert Stenkvist! Am I right in assuming that is the reason for the reduction? Or why does the government announce that it will reduce the funding for student organizing by a third?

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld is completely wrong. This cut is not a demand from the Sweden Democrats. Consequently, the rest of the reasoning collapses like a house of cards, namely that the Sweden Democrats would be against the organization of students and civil society. But the cut in the budget is not a demand from us. Raised eyebrows? Well, that is how it is, at least.

Sverigedemokraterna have absolutely nothing against students organizing themselves. I have myself been a member of a student union. Nor are we against civil society having different organizations. What one can wonder about is why there always has to be a lot of money involved. It is possible to organize without state subsidies. One can still have influence. It is not proportional to the state subsidy one receives. There always has to be money in the game! But money was probably needed.

I am not aware of this. The reduction is nothing that we in the Sweden Democrats have discussed, and it is not a requirement from us - not as far as I know in any case.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I note that Robert Stenkvist, therefore, does not fully stand behind the government's budget proposal. That was interesting news.

I want to bring up another detail that is in the budget. It concerns the fact that the price, that is, the compensation amount that the educational institutions receive per student, is being increased in large areas such as humanities and social sciences and natural sciences and technology. The natural sciences and technology increase was already announced in last year's budget. In this one, the increase for humanities and social sciences is launched. It will be approximately 1,000 kronor more per student.

This is nothing we have any objections to. It is in order to raise the amounts, because the teaching time has been affected by far too long periods of efficiency requirements. I therefore have no objections to this in substance. But the devil is, as they say, in the details, and the government makes a difference in how the price is raised.

There is, in fact, a sum that the educational institutions receive for admitting students and another sum that the educational institutions receive for students passing through the education with approved credits. When it comes to the natural science and technology programs, the amount for admitting, that is, taking in, students is increased. But when it comes to humanities and social sciences, the amount for examining students, that is, students passing through the programs, is increased.

Robert Stenkvist! Why are you making this difference?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know why this distinction is made. I only know that the amount for nature and technology is something that we from a Sverigedemokratiskt standpoint have pushed for. We have also pushed the issue that perhaps the entire financing system in the university and higher education area should be reviewed so that it becomes more quality-driven.

I am not aware of this exact difference. It is interesting. Could it have to do with the throughput, that is to say, that there is different throughput within science and technology and humanities and social sciences, and that one has therefore set different amounts? Throughput is something that affects how universities and colleges act to get students through. One might not have the same problem within science and technology. That is a thought. If it is in this way, it is a relevant difference.

Linus Sköld said something about us not standing behind the budget. Well, I said that the cut was not a requirement from us. It is not the same thing as us not standing behind the budget. They are two different things. We have never pushed this issue. That is what I mean by it is not a requirement from us.

It means that we, of course, stand behind the budget. I just motioned for its approval from the rostrum.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Robert Stenkvist for the speech.

I want to make a brief argument regarding the research bill, about how one chooses to make priorities and a bit about how the Sweden Democrats reason regarding the priorities.

We have seen and read that a very large amount of the research funding going forward – the 6.5 billion when it is fully expanded in 2028 – will go to the research councils and not directly to the universities. What one can most likely assume then is that those who succeed in applying for these funds will be at the established larger universities, such as Uppsala and Lund, the technical universities and so on. It does not have to be wrong, but it is not entirely certain that it will be right.

In addition to the large universities, we have quite a few colleges around Sweden. It is likely that they will be disadvantaged by this prioritization. My question to Member Stenkvist is therefore: How do the Sweden Democrats view the role of colleges in Sweden moving forward?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe they will have the same role as today - as education centers - and that they also conduct some research, preferably niche research.

I have many times said in the chamber that the smaller universities should niche themselves. Then they can truly make a difference. They cannot do that if they imitate Uppsala University or Lund University. Then it will amount to nothing.

I believe that the smaller and medium-sized universities have an important function in the future, even when it comes to regional education policy and niche research.

When it comes to the government's distribution between universities and the councils, it is something I have talked a lot about with different people from the academy, for example those who conduct research, students and research students.

I had an opinion earlier that more money would absolutely go to the universities. Then I have heard that many think differently and that one gets higher quality in the research when the money goes to the councils. I think we should continue this discussion. We should evaluate where the money does the most good - 50 percent say the universities, and 50 percent say the councils.

I am not an expert. I do not know where we get the most for our money. I know that there is bad research. Yes, I think it is bad research, I can say. It exists in the universities, and it actually also exists when it comes to the advice, especially within the humanities.

This is a discussion that we will likely have to carry forward.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for an interesting and honest answer. I really appreciate it.

Towards the end of Stenkvist's speech, Stenkvist touched upon the concept of research. It is clear that this will be a bit extra interesting for me, as someone who has been in that world, to discuss. I have myself been a researcher, and I have very high confidence in the scientific community and the research community. Scientific methods are used. One searches carefully for the truth. It is also actually the case that research involves questioning today's truths. Something that was true in the 50s does not need to be true in 2024. That is research dynamics, so I believe this is something we have to get used to.

Then I cannot help but be somewhat amazed by the example regarding climate research in 1990. Sweden's first Nobel laureate, Svante Arrhenius, received the Nobel Prize in 1903. In 1896 he wrote an article – excuse me, Madam Speaker, now it becomes German – with the title: Ueber den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche. He was the first researcher to show that there was a connection between carbon dioxide emissions and the warming of the earth. It is clear that I then wonder, Member Stenkvist: Was this an opinion, or was it scientific fact in 1896?

It worries me a bit when Prime Minister Kristersson and also Minister for Enterprise Busch mix up the concepts and say that the research community and experts engage in opinions when it is actually scientific conclusions they are conveying. What does Stenkvist himself say about the concept of research and the difference between research results and opinion?

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

As the member is obviously aware that speeches should be held in Swedish, so that everyone can understand what is being said. Perhaps there can be a translation next time.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! That was a title that Ådahl took up.

Now I lost everything I was going to say when Ådahl came in on the last part. Just in this case with Busch, I agree with Busch. I heard what they said. Those who were referred to were rambling, I think. I don't know if they are experts in this area. They point to something that might come in the future. It is not research. I want to protect the concept of research. That is why I bring this up. I want the status to be maintained, so to speak.

I have huge respect for research within physics, particle physics - everything. Enormous progress is being made. It is real progress. When it comes to research within social sciences and humanities, it is we who are here who misuse and erode the concept of research. They are not real researchers.

I have seen political scientists. They are, of course, not real researchers. They are political scientists and come out with purely political opinions. I mean that over time it lowers the trust for this. It is we who misuse and erode the concept of research. These are not real researchers who truly stand by their research.

Svante Arrhenius was completely right. No, I think Ådahl was a bit off - now there is an academic here. I wonder if Arrhenius spoke about global warming or if it was the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide that he spoke about. There wasn't directly any carbon dioxide in his time. I believe it was 0.03 percent. Now we are up to 0.04 percent. It is measured in ppm. Now my speaking time is over, unfortunately. I could have continued. We really got into interesting things.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Knowledge is the key to the Swedish success story. Knowledge, optimism for development, and solidarity are what have taken this country out of poverty and hell and made it one of the world's best countries to live in.

Knowledge is important for the individual, for society, and for growth. Sweden shall be a world-class knowledge nation. That is how we compete internationally - with competence and smart innovations, not with low wages and poor working conditions.

Higher education and research are powerful tools for strengthening society, the human being, and the development power of regions. But the opportunities regarding higher education and research are unevenly distributed.

Access to higher education varies across the country and between people. Just as in school, the family's educational tradition plays a major role. When it comes to what proportion proceeds to higher education, it differs completely depending on where in the country one lives. In Danderyd, it is 79 percent who have started university studies at age 24. Corresponding figures for the ten municipalities with the lowest transition rates are between 10 and 20 percent.

Besides the social composition, geographical proximity to higher education and the situation on the local labor market also affect this.

Being able to study where you live is crucial for the entire country to be able to grow and develop and for the individual to be able to realize their dreams. That is why we invest in learning centers. That is why we safeguard access to higher education throughout the country. And that is why we see, unlike the government, that excellent research can exist in the entire country.

Madam Speaker! Academic freedom needs to be strengthened. Researchers must be free to choose their research questions and methods and be free to publish their results. Educational institutions and university teachers shall, of course, on a scientific and artistic basis, be responsible for the choice of content and method in the education. The entire freedom of academia must be protected.

Last summer came the first and perhaps until now the clearest attack from the SD government on the academy. It was the boards' mandates that were shortened significantly - with very short notice and completely without any sustainable explanations.

Last summer came this year's attack when the then Minister for Education, in a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet, condemned certain university courses in a very mocking way, based on their content.

It has been a long time since the largest party in the government basis has wanted to censor certain fields of research. This was clearly manifested just now in the speaker's chair when Robert Stenkvist said that there is bad research, especially within the humanities, and that political scientists are not real researchers.

What the government has done so far to secure academic freedom is to appoint an inquiry into cancel culture. But when the Swedish Council for Higher Education asks staff at the universities, they assess that the Tidö Agreement - the SD government - is more than four times as great a threat to academic freedom as cancel culture.

For us Social Democrats, it is critical that research and education remain free from unjustified political attacks.

Secure employment for researchers is also a prerequisite for academic freedom. A good working environment for researchers should be a matter of course. This also applies to more stable funding. It is one of the reasons why we allocate more than 50 percent more than the government for supplements to research at the universities, the so-called basic grants.

This is a budget debate. But I will nevertheless take the liberty of making a small digression about something that has happened during the past week. I want to say this: Equality has not gone too far, and neither has it in the country's educational institutions.

There is a long way to go until equal higher education. Both students and staff are distributed unevenly across the programs and research areas. The denser it becomes among the professors, the sparser it becomes among the women.

We Social Democrats want to see increased equality even in academia. The government does not want that. In the research bill that it placed on the Riksdag's table last week, it strikes equality from among the research policy goals. I think that is serious.

Madam Speaker! The government is cutting the number of educational places. Through lowered ceiling amounts at the universities and increased price tags, the number of educational places in academia will decrease by several thousand. By not increasing the appropriation for the universities of applied sciences, one in reality reduces the space available to arrange educational places at the universities of applied sciences.

Through large cuts at the appropriation level for adult education, valuable opportunities for people to educate themselves in order to be able to take the jobs that exist are disappearing. Outside our budget area, there are also tough times for non-formal education and folk high schools and tough times for labor market training.

We naturally reject the lowered ceiling amounts. We are adding more money than the government for the vocational college. We are investing in adult education.

The government has phased out the support for the trade schools. We see a continued need for the state to take responsibility for the skills supply in the country's important industries with narrow professional fields. Such learning environments require access to equipment that the price tag of the education does not cover. Therefore, we propose that a special investment support also be introduced for investment-heavy educations in adult education. This could, for example, involve vocational educations such as electricians working with power, educations within railways, machinery and vehicles, or certain construction educations.

As was indicated earlier in an exchange of remarks, the government also proposes that the funds for student organizing be significantly cut in 2026. To that point, I want to say that the Social Democrats most emphatically reject this saving.

We allocate almost 700 million more than the government on research in this year's budget. The 1.5 billion that the government's representatives presented as historic, we increase by almost 50 percent. How the closer technicalities in the distribution of those funds look, we will debate until the spring when the research bill is to pass through this chamber. Now it is about the resources. The government hardly accounts for the funds going to research in 2024 with inflation. We have substantial investments beyond that.

The Social Democrats have no reservation in this area. We follow the budget principle. When our budget has fallen in the framework decision, we leave no reservation on the expenditure area, but we stand behind our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I am the next speaker on the speaking list, but I nevertheless wish to reply to Member Linus Sköld regarding student influence.

Upon closer inspection, we see that during the pandemic, the amount for student influence was increased from 48 to 68 million. Then, from 2026, it is intended to return to the normal level, which is 48 million as before. It is not any major change.

I actually want to ask how the member thought about this area. The member claims that it is a reduction when it is actually a return to the normal amount.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Reducing an appropriation by a third is reducing an appropriation by a third, regardless of what was planned in last year's budget.

So that is how it looks with your budget regarding adult education, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström. Every year you and the government claim that you are investing in adult education. But if one examines that claim, one sees that in reality you are only investing in relation to your own planned reduction.

This is the same thing. To claim that it would not be a reduction when a third of the appropriation disappears, what kind of wordplay is that? It is clear that you are cutting a third of the appropriation.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! It can be seen in different ways. Of course, it was the case that during the pandemic, when it was difficult to reach out to the students, the appropriation was increased by 20 million to facilitate student work when people were not on-site. Now that people are back, one returns to the previous amount. It is the change.

One can call it a cut. But it was also a return to what we had previously. I do not actually consider it a reduction, but rather that we are returning to normal levels. I still think the member sees it in a different way than I do, in any case.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! The member standing here definitely sees it differently than the member standing there. I cannot emphasize enough that a budget change of minus 20 million is a budget change of minus 20 million.

The student unions will receive 20 million less to organize for, to carry out advocacy for, or to engage in the design of the educations for. It is truly a deterioration of student influence in every way, regardless of what Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström says.

In the same way, a reduction of the funding level by over ½ billion for adult education is a reduction of the funding level by over ½ billion. Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström and her friends in the SD government can call it an investment as much as they want. It is still the case that the money will cover fewer educational places next year than it did this year.

In the same way, it is with the grant for student influence. I believe it was in 2008 that the mandatory student union membership was abolished. At that time, the state grant was introduced at the level that Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström mentions, and it has not been adjusted upwards since then. A supplement was received during the pandemic. But the students have been back on site for a long time. Why has Marie-Louise Sandström not cut the grant in this year's budget or in last year's budget? It is an unsustainable explanation.

In the best-case scenario, one can assume that it is a plan that the government parties seem to have completely missed to correct. In that case, they all have the opportunity to correct it in next year's budget, as it does not enter into force until 2026.

In the worst case, it is to gaslight us, to try to talk about something else and make up a reason why it is so, and to mean that the government is not responsible for its own budget. In any case, the student organizations get a third less of the grant, and I think it is shitty.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Last week we debated student support with an appropriation of 33.8 billion kronor. Today we have debated education and research. It is an appropriation of a full 104 billion kronor for 2025. Just over half goes to education, and 11 billion goes to research.

To reach the level of higher education and research, it is required that we have a functioning educational chain from preschool through the entire primary school and upper secondary school.

My colleague Josefin Malmqvist has previously presented in a meritorious way how the Moderaterna and the government view this. We see that many major changes will be made, the largest in the last 20 years. Many investigations are ongoing, and I look forward to February when we will receive more investigations that can lead to government bills. This will improve much for both students and teachers, which feels very positive.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates and the government consider higher education and education to be very important activities. One must cooperate with companies and society to achieve as high a quality as possible and so that as many as possible can participate in this.

The government is investing in the higher education institutions with 30 different grants. For the state higher education institutions, the investment is 26.6 billion for 2025. For the private higher education institutions, which include Chalmers University of Technology, Stockholm School of Economics and Jönköping University, 4 billion is invested. We are also investing 19 billion in state research and education.

We also make specific changes regarding the individual educational providers, for example Chalmers, which is responsible for both student health and deck officers, and Högskolan i Jönköping, which is also responsible for student health, which involves large increases of 16 million during 2025 and 19 million during 2026. Until 2026, there will be increases of 40 million for Handelshögskolan in Stockholm, so that they can work with the changes that occur with the individual units when they receive more state assignments. These are therefore significant differences that will occur, and I believe that there will be improvements and that we are expanding the work with both the individual and the state colleges and universities.

We have specific educational providers, for example Teach for Sweden, which work very much with getting adults who previously have another education and who want to study in a teacher education program or who want to study pedagogy. There we invest 16 million 2025-2027, which is seen as very positive. We need to get more people who want to become teachers.

When we discussed this a year ago, we spoke about the research bill that was to come in 2024. As you have heard before, it arrived just a few days ago - Research and innovation for the future, curiosity and utility. We will debate it more after the turn of the year, which I look forward to. But the figures are already here. It is an exciting research bill where many important areas that must be highlighted are addressed. It is the largest increase ever made in research with 6.5 billion up to 2028. For 2025, the increase will be 1.5 billion, for 2026 it will be 2.5 billion, and for 2027 it will be 4 billion. Up to 2028, we therefore have a research budget of 43 billion, which is a dizzyingly high sum and obviously very important.

We have previously discussed here whether this is the largest investment ever, and we may have received different answers from the Riksdag's research service regarding this. But according to the Riksdag's research service, it is the largest investment that has been made. When looking at previous years and following the consumer price index, one can say that in 2008, when there was a conservative government in which the Moderaterna were included, it was the largest investment according to the consumer price index. But if one looks at the figures, this is the largest investment that has ever been made on higher education and research.

The smallest investment that has been made in recent years was 2000, when there was a Social Democratic government. At that time, the investment was 2 billion.

This is, therefore, an incredibly large investment that is very important.

Madam Speaker! It is also very positive that with this research bill we are rethinking, thinking anew and want to be clearer. The previous research bill, which was at 3.7 billion, contained a bit more of the same thing. Now we are doing this over and thinking anew.

In this research proposal, we are investing heavily in important areas, and there are very many of them. I intended to take up a selection of these areas. It is about cutting-edge research, which is very important. It is about research infrastructure. It is about AI, which has recently been discussed in the AI commission. It is also about life science, green transition, food research, forest and agriculture and space research, as well as about researchers' various opportunities and holding companies that work extensively with getting the research into operation.

Madam Speaker! The focus of the research bill is that Swedish research shall maintain high quality, that Sweden shall be a leading knowledge nation and be among the foremost countries when it comes to research as a share of GDP, and that Sweden shall be one of the world's foremost innovation countries.

There is some concern that Sweden and the EU risk losing competitiveness as many countries invest more in research. The EU's goal is for every country to invest at least 3 percent of GDP on research. Sweden is at 3.5 percent of GDP, which is obviously very good. But we must continue to rank high and perhaps reach even higher.

Madam Speaker! We need to retain researchers. We want them to stay. And we must attract international researchers. To that end, we are investing in something called a career support initiative. This means that researchers can be given the opportunity for an assistant professor position for five years. Then, after an evaluation, researchers can also have this position at the level of associate professor extended for an additional five years. It is very important that we have mobility. We want to bring in students and researchers from other countries. We also want them to move between universities. We are also lowering the experts' tax in order to be able to retain and recruit foreign experts.

Madam Speaker! In order for us to achieve a greater impact and maintain our leading positions, it is important that we dare to prioritize spearhead research. We must dare to invest in priorities.

The government highlights and invests in excellence. We heard earlier that it was negative that this is being done. I think it is positive. We are investing in excellence centers with an additional amount to the Swedish Research Council of 1.4 billion. There are also long-term programs for groundbreaking research and clusters for future new technologies here. It is a large and important investment.

The government's direction is also that the direct research grants to universities and colleges - the basic grants - shall to a greater extent be distributed via our research councils. We believe that this is positive. We must try something new because what was done previously has not quite worked because we are unfortunately being left behind.

Even the green transition must be competitive, and we place very high demands on it. We need to prioritize groundbreaking technologies such as quantum technology, biotechnology, AI and new strategic research areas, for example within space, the polar regions and metals and minerals.

We will also invest heavily in advanced research infrastructure, for example, the further development of our facilities that we are very proud of: MAX IV, ESS and Scilife Lab.

Madam Speaker! Life science and various research infrastructures are very important. With my previous background as a doctor, before I became a politician, I believe that life science research is very important. Precision medicine leads to fantastic results and major changes. Here, the research of the pharmaceutical companies also has a large and important part. It is therefore extremely important that we prioritize life science.

Madam Speaker! We also need to attract more students to the teacher training programs. This can be achieved by enabling a strong connection between theory and practice. I mentioned, for example, Teach for Sweden. It ensures that theory and practice can be combined while working simultaneously. Therefore, it is also important that we can facilitate this for the higher education institutions. It has been a concern that one has not been employed. One must have an employment if one is to be able to attend a training where theory and practice are integrated. Therefore, the government is making an amendment to the Higher Education Ordinance which means that employment can become a specific eligibility requirement within the form of education, and it is very much anticipated.

Madam Speaker! We are currently in a challenging time with war in our immediate vicinity. There is much unrest in the world. There is also a technical competition, one could say, where we are in the process of being overtaken. Now the government is investing in high quality in higher education and in high quality in research and, of course, in academic freedom. We are making major investments in these areas so that Sweden can be a leading nation. We shall have a strong competitiveness. We are therefore investing a great deal in prioritized research and higher education.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! A unique thing about the Swedish education system is the constantly recurring opportunities to continue educating oneself and building on one's knowledge. It is absolutely necessary for us in Sweden to be able to compete with knowledge and new technology that the population is prepared to further educate themselves throughout life. That was also why the Löfven government already in 2014 initiated Kunskapslyftet and expanded the number of education places for adults by over 160,000 during our eight years in government.

But when the SD government took over in 2022, they drastically cut support for adult education. They shut down functioning vocational schools. We protested. In our budget proposal, we allocated more resources to adult education, universities of applied sciences and vocational schools, but also of course to non-formal education and to labor market training.

In the spring of 2023, the government and SD acknowledged that we had been right. More resources were needed for adult education, and therefore this was proposed in an amendment budget. The same thing happened the following year. The government allocated too little money in the budget bill and then returned in the spring amendment budget with more resources.

But the problem is that when the government has such poor foresight as it has had regarding adult education, the money cannot be used effectively. It becomes underutilized because the jerkiness here does not suit the system.

This year, the Social Democrats are again allocating over half a billion more than the government to adult education. Sweden has record-high unemployment. In that case, wouldn't it have been good for adults to be able to educate themselves during the unemployment to be able to take the jobs that exist?

Why, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, have you not learned from the previous two years – would it not be better if adults could educate themselves instead of being unemployed?

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Linus Sköld, for the question! It is always good to educate oneself. That is why we have, for example, the transition study support, because we want adults to educate themselves. The Government has allocated more money so that CSN can accelerate the work. Everyone who applies for transition study support faster will be able to receive a decision. Quite a lot is being done, I think, to get more older people into education.

Furthermore, we are looking at more paths to vocational education. As mentioned earlier today, we are also making it so that upper secondary education can be pursued in different ways. Those who are not as theoretically inclined can now instead receive more vocational training as a new path within upper secondary school. It is an education that we intend to invest in there.

The government is doing a lot to invest so that more people will enter education and so that there will be educations that suit many different backgrounds.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! The government is not investing so that more people can enter education. It is very clear. I detailed in my speech the cuts that will be the consequence within the academy, in the university college, and in regional vocational adult education. And this continues in other expenditure areas as well. When it comes to adult education, the Folkbildningsrådet says that there will be thousands fewer places at the folk high schools next year. The labor market training is halved with this government at the helm. People's educational opportunities are withering away under the government's rule.

In the budget amendment, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström and her friends will have realized that more money is indeed needed for adult education, as unemployment is the highest we have had in ten years, if one does not count the pandemic years. To then cut back on people's opportunities to educate themselves is unwise economic policy. It is truly unwise economic policy.

The Social Democrats were right in the 2023 budget and in the 2024 budget, and we will be right in this budget as well. Welcome back with an amendment for the spring, where the government adds more money to vux.

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström's only answer here is the transition study support. The transition study support is a direct result of negotiations between the parties that the government has mismanaged. It has been a formidable catastrophe. The government has failed to provide funds to CSN so that the processing pace can be increased. They have dragged their feet regarding the regulatory simplifications that both the parties and CSN have called for. And when they finally get their finger out and begin implementing the changes, the entry into force is a whole year away.

The transition study support is a very good reform - don't misunderstand me - and it is also good that the government is now freeing up money for CSN. But the handling so far has been a formidable catastrophe.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know whether I should thank the member for the question, as I do not know if it was a question. But obviously, we think it is incredibly important with education.

It is positive that the member knows what the government will do by the spring, because we do not know ourselves. Apparently, the member knows more than we do.

Of course, we always review where money is lacking and where there are concerns, just as we did with the transition study support. Major investments were made, and the government also sought proposals from both CSN and the parties on how to facilitate, for example, digitalization. It is about simplifying the handling of the applications, quite simply. The government made major investments to solve this.

Both from the Social Democrats' side and from the government's side, one can probably say that there was a very large influx of applications, which one had not really expected. One had not really budgeted for it. The plan was that it would be scaled up after a year, but many more applied, and it became a surprise for all parties. Solutions were needed to accelerate the processing. Now, for the most part, things are in phase, and there will be quick answers when it comes to the transition study support.

Of course, the government can also conduct reassessments of where more study places may be needed. Exactly where I cannot say at this moment. But I can still say that the government is careful that there are educational places. Care is taken that we have teacher training that works and that we have schools and upper secondary schools that work, so that we can obtain more educations. We are doing an incredible amount to improve this. Of course, we want to reduce unemployment.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal regarding expenditure area 16 and rejection of all motions.

We face great challenges and opportunities in the Swedish education and research landscape. The Government has presented a budget proposal for education and university research that amounts to a total of 104 billion kronor for 2025. These are not just numbers - it is a clear investment in Sweden's future as a leading knowledge and research nation.

The goal is clear: Sweden shall be a country characterized by high quality of education and outstanding research. This is to create a society where knowledge is not only a prerequisite for economic growth but also a guarantee for democracy and social cohesion.

A significant part of the budget, closer to 56 billion kronor, is directed towards universities and colleges. We are strengthening these institutions' opportunities to offer education and research of the absolute highest class so that Sweden can continue to be a prominent knowledge and research nation. It is through education and research that we can ensure that Sweden continues to develop and that our citizens receive the knowledge and skills required to meet the challenges of the future.

Madam Speaker! This government now has a focus on quality and accessibility. In recent years, certain branches of education that are very important for Sweden, especially the technology educations, have had an all too low throughput. It is a development we need to break.

Engineering programs are often expensive when it comes to labs, materials, and teacher-led instruction. This risks having a negative impact on the total if nothing is done. Therefore, the government is increasing the compensation to the higher education institutions for each engineering student.

The government's budget prioritizes skills supply. This means larger investments in vocational colleges, which play a central role in meeting the labor market's needs. Sweden lags behind in the STEM field compared to many comparable countries. We will now receive a STEM strategy that Kristdemokraterna and several industries, research centers with several, welcome.

We know that when education and work life interact, it creates not only jobs but also career paths and innovation. The purpose of the strategy is to develop measures to increase the number of students who begin and complete a STEM education within higher education, in vocational colleges, and in upper secondary education in Sweden.

The Government also proposes that the compensation for the fields of education humanities, social sciences, law and theology be increased. It is an important signal that shows the value of these fields of education and that we ensure they maintain high quality.

Campus-based education has long been the core of our academic tradition, and we believe it should remain so. At the same time, we see the value in distance education, especially for those who need to combine studies with work and family life. But we must ensure that distance courses and distance education also maintain high quality.

Madam Speaker! We also have a greater demand for vocational training for adults, which is pleasing. We see the importance of vocational training and lifelong learning, which gives more people the opportunity to educate themselves, strengthen their position on the labor market and meet the changing needs of the labor market.

This government has already expanded the places for vocational training, and for the coming years, the appropriation is increasing by nearly 600 million kronor. Funds are also allocated to komvux for increased quality, to increase the conditions for the municipalities' planning of komvux, as well as to increase the number of apprentices within komvux. This will make apprenticeship training more attractive and accessible for adults who want to acquire vocational competence.

Madam Speaker! The government's research policy is a response to global challenges. We must invest in groundbreaking research within climate, health, and digitalization. Sweden is already one of the most productive research countries in terms of scientific publications per capita. With our budget, we continue to build on this strength.

The Swedish innovation system is now being strengthened in several areas where global competition is increasing. An important prerequisite for developing new innovations is also a well-developed research and innovation infrastructure.

Sweden has a technology-intensive business sector and is today a strong innovation nation. But we must defend that position, and therefore this government is investing a historically high appropriation for research and innovation, a total of 40 billion kronor.

Madam Speaker! For the first time, a Swedish government is now initiating a process to identify strategically important technology, with earmarked funds for this, which enables strengthened cooperation between academia, the business sector, and society. With this process, the government continues to safeguard academic freedom, which is an important component of a democratic and strong society. It cannot be taken for granted but needs to be actively promoted and protected, which this government monitors. Academic freedom is a fundamental principle that must be protected.

What we need to focus our efforts on, regarding the issue of academic freedom, is to counter external pressures, hate, threats, and harassment. Then, Madam Speaker, we can ensure that our teachers, researchers, and doctoral students can work freely and without fear. This is crucial to maintain a high quality in our research and education and to promote an open and democratic public debate.

Madam Speaker! By investing in education and research, we are investing in Sweden's future. We ensure that our citizens receive the knowledge and skills required to meet the challenges of the future and that Sweden continues to be a leading knowledge and research nation. I move again for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Development research was abruptly defunded last summer. Already allocated funds were withdrawn, at first completely without explanation. This left an entire research world, to put it mildly, upset.

Development research, for those who are not familiar with it, is research in collaboration between disciplines and with other countries to form knowledge on life-critical issues such as how one can build lasting peace in conflict-affected areas, how food production can become climate-resilient, how one combats infectious diseases, multi-resistant bacteria and viruses, how one can manage pandemics, how one promotes education in poor countries or how one strengthens human rights, democracy and equality.

Sweden has been a leading actor when it comes to development research for half a century. In the Swedish Research Council's latest report on development research, they write that the Swedish Research Council finances development research of the highest scientific quality.

In the research proposal presented last week, the Kristdemokraterna had the opportunity to redirect funds to research on how people can obtain food in countries with famine and how the famine should not be exacerbated by the climate changes primarily caused by the Western world. Does Lili André not want the population in the world's poorest countries to be able to have better living conditions? Is world leadership and the highest scientific quality not excellent enough for the development research to be worth investing in?

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for highlighting development research, Linus Sköld - a very important and pressing area!

This government is investing 40 billion on research and education. We are also allocating money to the Swedish Research Council, even more money than before, so that researchers there can apply for funds in competition. Our skilled researchers now have even more room to apply for funds from the Swedish Research Council. There, researchers who work within development research can also apply.

There is nothing that says we have specifically cut back on just these areas. There are also basic grants allocated to the universities. There, research funds can be distributed to those researchers who want to conduct research in this area. They can also apply for the free research funds.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I am astonished by this. Yes, you are absolutely investing 40 billion in research. That is why the 1.5 billion that is in the budget for next year are merely balancing figures of the 40 billion.

The development research was funded via calls for proposals at the Swedish Research Council amounting to 180 million. The government struck them out with a stroke of a pen without explanation. The government is by no means putting those funds back into the research bill. Every additional krona in the research bill is tied up, either via calls for proposals to be applied for in competition or for specifically designated projects. No reinforcement of the base resource that would allow researchers to choose to a greater extent what they want to research will come into question.

Lili André is simply poorly informed when she says that the government is not against development research. One can only listen to Robert Stenkvist's speech earlier today. We know that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who are running this government. If they do not want any development research, there will be no development research, and that is what happened.

The Christian Democrats are usually passionate about helping those who have it the hardest. This is about how one can strengthen the living conditions for those who live in the world's most vulnerable countries - the world's most vulnerable populations. This is what the Christian Democrats are usually passionate about and want to help with - but not Lili André. Lili André says that nothing has changed and pretends as if nothing happened.

We are talking about 180 million. The research proposal is on the Riksdag's table. They are not there.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite know if Linus Sköld is correct regarding those funds. You have previously in speeches expressed that you have spent money on other expenditure areas even though that has not been the case. We heard that the other day when we debated student support.

The Swedish Research Council has received funds so that researchers in competition can apply for research funding. These funds are not earmarked. They are for excellent research, and there, those researchers who wish to apply for funds within development research can also apply. That is my firm opinion.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! So, the research and innovation bill finally arrived, more than halfway through the parliamentary term, as is customary. With a long time to reflect, great expectation followed, and on Thursday, December 12, 2024, the day had come. The press invitation arrived only two hours before the press conference itself. On the podium stood the Minister for Education, the Minister for Energy, and the Minister for EU Affairs.

The research proposal was however overshadowed, as there were very high electricity prices in southern Sweden on the same day. It was also in Norway - even higher actually - and in Norway there was an even greater electricity surplus than in Sweden. There are those who say that Sweden's high electricity prices on individual days are due to decommissioned nuclear power. For the sake of clarification: Norway has no decommissioned nuclear power.

Energy Minister Ebba Busch, who, together with Prime Minister Kristersson, more and more frequently dismisses research results and statements from experts as merely opinions among other things, would thus speak about research. But the journalists on site were more interested in just this day's high electricity prices than what was stated in the research and innovation bill. The press conference unfortunately became a bit of a fiasco.

Madam Speaker! We have built in mechanisms that make research unfree. Yes, that is actually the case, and it is alarming. Sweden has long been considered an academic top nation, innovative and with outstanding research. It has attracted highly competent labor, strengthened entrepreneurship and created growth. Now we are losing more and more ground.

The government's response in the research and innovation bill has been more money for the same system – the system that does not deliver what is needed. It is unfortunately a total absence of reforms. I wonder: What does money help when the very structure is defective?

Madam Speaker! Even though the investments in research still constitute a relatively large share of our gross national product, Sweden has not kept pace with the international development when it comes to research results. The Center Party's starting point is that it is primarily not a lack of money that is the problem, but how the entire sector has been rigged – how the funding system looks, how the sector is organized, and how politicized one has allowed it to become. The Center Party wants to see two deep reforms: firstly, a new organization of the sector, and secondly, a new and long-term stable funding of the sector.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, almost all educational institutions are administrative authorities. This leads to both a conformity and an all-too-close relationship to the state power, which holds back creativity and the richness of ideas. University managements must devote more time to administrative tasks than to being academic leaders. The Center Party wants to see freer educational institutions and a pluralism of forms of association instead.

In the research proposal, we see that institutional autonomy is further weakened by the way the funding system is fed with money. In principle, almost all new additions of funds shall be distributed by the research councils. The universities and colleges are reduced to administrative units in the state's care. It becomes de facto an increasingly locked-in system for research. It is not a system that delivers when lack of freedom becomes a dogma. Education Minister Johan Pehrson cements the country Lagom - and perhaps even makes the matter worse.

The initiatives are temporary and burdened by administration. The Center Party wants to reform the research system fundamentally instead. We want to see more cooperation with the private sector regarding funding. Furthermore, it is necessary to lift the entirety of University and College Sweden; it will not work with a spearhead if the entire system is not lifted.

In order for Sweden to be able to secure its competitiveness, both international excellence and regional relevance are needed at the country's educational institutions. As a competitive country, Sweden needs to make high-quality higher education available across the entire country and throughout a long professional life. Our colleges are needed, and they need to develop their excellence while simultaneously raising the quality in their breadth.

For our two deep reforms, an order of operations was needed. It begins with a freer organization and continues with a freer financing.

Madam Speaker! What is also remarkable in the bill is how little space is devoted to education. Two times on 170 pages, the word "education" is mentioned. It is probably a sign of the times, and it is deeply worrying. All the energy in the bill is devoted to the fluffy concept of "excellence".

At the same time, we know that education has a very high value for a country because it contributes to both the individual's and society's development. When society is now being torn apart in an increasingly polarized world where people direct their attention almost exclusively towards like-minded people in their so-called echo chambers, a vaccine - a counterforce - was needed, and nothing is as effective against society's decay as education.

Education promotes our ability to think critically, analyze information, and participate actively in democratic processes. An informed and educated population is better equipped to defend democratic values and hold those in power accountable. An educated society also tends to have more innovation and greater economic growth.

Madam Speaker! Since education is crucial for building a strong, just and successful society, it is deeply concerning how the government has sidelined education in its policy. The Centre Party, on the other hand, advocates for a completely different path.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

It was perhaps a bit of a doomsday speech from the member regarding the, as I thought, positive research proposition that was presented last week. I do not quite see the reason for concern that the member sees. The Government and the Moderaterna see great value in that we cooperate with, for example, the business sector. It states in several places that we shall work together with companies, that companies foster innovation, and that we shall become more competitive and have more cooperation.

What I am also reflecting on is that the previous bill did not result in quite the boost that we had hoped for, but was a bit more of the same. Therefore, the government and the Moderaterna now wanted to make a larger change, which should be able to lead to that excellence—which I think is an important expression—and to Sweden being a country that holds its own when it comes to competitiveness. I feel that it was important that we, from the Moderaterna and the government's side, made a change to see if we can improve this. More of the same did not help in any case, so I think it was important.

When it comes to this matter of education (bildning), I have not checked if it is used as rarely as the member says, but education (bildning) is something we have with us throughout the entire educational system, as we have spoken about earlier today. We see that education (bildning) is important starting all the way from preschool, actually, and we are now investing an incredible amount in conducting investigations on teacher training, on the curriculum, and on what material we should have. Education (bildning) therefore accompanies us through the entire educational system, I believe, and that is perhaps why it is not mentioned so much. We assume, in fact, that education (bildning) has followed along into the world of research. I do not, therefore, feel that concern.

I am actually more curious about what solution the Center Party wants to see. The previous proposition did not quite provide the solution that was desired, and therefore we are now making changes. I cannot really see how the Center Party's changes can make this better, so I am curious about how the Center Party actually wants to organize it.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to tell a bit more about that.

It is quite obvious that we perceive the bill completely differently. I perceive it as the government just working with more of the same, which is the opposite of what Member Hänel Sandström thinks.

I mean that today we have a balance where the basic funds are relatively few and the funds that go to the research councils are relatively large. We have a system where researchers apply in competition. One applies in a lot of different places, and eventually, one gets money. This drives a certain amount of competition. At the same time, I mean that we lock ourselves into a system where the research becomes less free.

In the government's proposal for the research and innovation bill, one reinforces the imbalance that exists between basic funding and funds to be distributed by someone other than the researchers themselves, who know the questions best.

I speak a lot about the organization of the sector and that it should come before the reforming and financing of the sector. One thing that comes in the wake of today's system with authority universities is that our rectors are forced to be heads of authorities primarily. I mean that it is only if one has a freer form that it is possible to drive a strategic agenda.

That is exactly how it is done at the private universities in the USA, for example at Harvard and Stanford. They stand completely free from the state. It is the universities themselves that drive a strategic agenda, not the USA as a federal state. Sweden as a state should also not tell the universities what they should prioritize. Therefore, I argue that the bill on the table is more of the same, that is, more of what has not delivered.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Anders Ådahl for the Centre Party's description. We obviously have different interpretations of what "more of the same" is. I do not think this is more of the same. I am speaking much more about the fact that we must prioritize - and prioritize spearhead research - in order to be able to develop our competitiveness in Europe and globally. Of course, breadth must remain, but we see that we must prioritize spearhead research more. It is a change from how it has been previously.

The research councils receive large grants, but it is also so that one can apply in competition. We believe that it is possible to increase the quality in that way. We have also talked about that we have centers of excellence. There, one should be able to have more long-term research. It should be groundbreaking programs, and it should be technological development. Centers of excellence are something that already exists but which we prioritize because we believe that long-term perspective is important. It does not really exist today. We see a large increase ahead, and we obviously intend to continue after 2028 – we just have to be given the mandate to form a new government.

This has only just begun, so to speak. Sweden must be globally competitive and remain the research nation it already is. I do not see from the government's and the Moderaternas side that we are doing more of the same, but I see that we are now investing specifically and with priority, and investing in cutting-edge research. I believe this is important for the future of Swedish research and for us to exist internationally and be the small but smart country that is seen.

I want to hear how C sees this.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! That is where we differ. If one compares Sweden with the USA again, where there are very many prominent universities, the universities there are incredibly much more free from the state. It is not the federal state USA that decides that you shall research these molecules or these physical phenomena, but it is the researchers themselves who, in harmony with strategic decisions at the educational institutions, shape that policy.

I mean that the main question is who it is that prioritizes research. I get the impression from MP Hänel Sandström that the idea is that it is the state and the politicians in Stockholm who should tell what is important research. I mean that research does not work that way. The best ideas come from within the educational institutions and from the researchers. It becomes backward to think that one should consolidate politically around research areas.

Madam Speaker! It is, however, important with innovation initiatives when the research has been laid on the table and it is time to take it further and scale it up to startup and scaleup companies. Then the state can play an incredibly important role in a death valley of funding. Then we can consolidate much more clearly from the state. I mean that it is misguided that it is we politicians who can best see which areas are important when it comes to precisely research.

I also want to make a small passage about education. There is an incredible focus on technology research in this bill. I miss something about how Sweden as a country could implement technology research in society. I miss research on humanities, social sciences, and economics. It would have been needed to a much higher extent for us to be able to utilize the results of research broadly in society, both in the business sector and in the public sector.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe we are the last pair out here. It has been a short but intense debate - or no, it has not been short.

I intended to ask Anders Ådahl to elaborate on this regarding the free organization and free funding of the universities. I have reflected on this quite a bit myself. Ådahl took up the USA as an example, but in the USA, the higher education system is not funded in the same way as in Sweden. In Sweden, it is money directly from the taxpayers – workers and bricklayers – that goes directly into our research. It is a somewhat different system.

The USA has also had problems with antisemitism and riots. It is worth mentioning that they have a lot of problems too. In the USA, there is also no shadow of the equality thinking we have in Sweden. There, it is excellence ad absurdum, and that is also worth mentioning.

I would like to ask Anders Ådahl to elaborate a bit on his thoughts regarding free organization and free funding. We have, for example, Chalmers and Handels which are free. They are not state agencies.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Stenkvist, for a very well-motivated question!

It is absolutely true that we are not to copy the USA. It is not the point when I bring up the USA, but rather to show that in other places it is possible to think differently. Some parts we can probably take with us to Sweden, but many parts we should probably let stay on the other side of the Atlantic.

What I mean concerns a freer organization of the sector. We have, for example, Chalmers, the University of Jönköping and, as the member says, Stockholm School of Economics which have other forms. They can, through their forms, work in a different way. If we get more universities and colleges that can work in a different way, we get a natural competition in the sense that different forms can be pitted against each other, different strengths can grow in different places and we escape the conformity we have in Sweden.

It is, if the member allows me to say it, a rather socialist construction with only state administrative agencies. As a liberal, who believes in market solutions, I may not believe that this yields the best effect in the long run. On the other hand, I believe one must be honest and say that today it is very difficult for the university managements to take the academic responsibility.

I actually think it is difficult today to provide free money in large doses and wish that one has strategic agendas and can prioritize those funds at the universities. That is why I mean that we first must review the organization and in a second step see if we can have increased basic resources for the higher education institutions. I believe that one has to do it in two steps and furthermore over a long period. These are deep reforms that must be investigated very thoroughly.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, these are very large and very extensive reforms that Anders Ådahl is proposing. Some parts of those thoughts may also be good. I can state that Handels, which is not a state agency, has had certain economic problems. They have asked the state for more money. Then it is, once again, money from the state.

I do not know what it is that allows the universities in the USA to get the money they have. They have more people who can only bring in money. Unfortunately, we do not have that in Sweden.

I believe Anders Ådahl mentioned this regarding strategic research areas. We have had those for a number of parliamentary terms. If I remember correctly, it was a coalition government, where C was included, that introduced them at one time.

I believe that a small part of the research can be strategic research areas that we from the state - that is, the government and the Riksdag - say that we must have research in. This can concern areas regarding our society's prosperity and survival, and in that case, the state must step in. I can agree that it has sometimes become a bit too many research areas; this has its own dynamics and overflows its banks.

I reacted to this with the conversation with Busch. I do not have an entirely clear memory of what happened, but the experts began talking about that there is a future technology based on storing energy in batteries. I have heard other – real – experts say that it simply is not possible and that the energy losses are far too large. I have heard other experts say that it is an impossible technology, so Busch might have had a point in any case.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Now this becomes very special for me. On the one hand, I am a PhD researcher in energy and energy systems and can therefore assess Busch's statement quite precisely, on the other hand, I have been responsible for one of the strategic research environments in Sweden. We currently have 43 such environments, and I was responsible for energy at Chalmers for three years. I therefore know exactly how they work, what works well and what works poorly.

Education and university research

I will start with the energy issue. It is absolutely true that there are already alternatives that allow us to manage a system that works with hydropower and renewable technologies, delivers a stable power grid and has security of supply, low costs and the right environmental performance. We can manage that, so here I think that Busch should listen to the experts instead of guessing himself.

When it comes to strategic research areas, I have experience from Chalmers, which is a foundation university. When the government and Minister for Education Leijonborg presented this idea in 2008, it was easier for Chalmers to take that idea from politics and restructure its operations, because it was not a heavy administrative university. For the universities in Lund, Uppsala, and Stockholm, it was significantly more difficult, as they did not have the same internal possibilities to redirect their operations.

When the strategic research areas were evaluated in 2014, energy at Chalmers, Linköping, and diabetes research at Karolinska received the highest grades. The backlash went to Stockholm University and, if I remember correctly, Lund University. From there, money was actually taken away, because they had not succeeded in taking the political ideas and reshaping them into the universities' reality.

It is precisely this that I am worried about even now with the government's ideas. It is not easy to structure and lead when one is an administrative authority.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 December.)

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