Education and university research

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by sending my thoughts to the victims – those who were killed, those who were injured – and to all their relatives for the terrorist attack this weekend at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia.

I think this shows, Madam Speaker, how incredibly important it is that countries like Australia and Sweden, and all democracies around the world, stand up for vulnerable minorities and protect them. A few months ago, in the autumn, we saw another attack against a synagogue in Manchester. It was in connection with Yom Kippur, and the attack this weekend was directed against a Hanukkah celebration in Australia.

It is all our responsibility as democrats to stand up for those who are vulnerable, whether it is Jews, Somalis in Minneapolis, or any other group that is stigmatized or branded out.

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

We now have to debate one of the state budget's most important areas, that which concerns education and research. Why is this so important? For me as a liberal, it is important because we will never be able to build a liberal society if we do not have citizens who are educated. We need to raise the general baseline in society regarding the level of knowledge and general education. Our children and youth must receive the upbringing that one receives in school. We need to sharpen our edge, strengthen our excellence and strengthen our higher education so that we can get more Nobel Prizes in Sweden.

The Swedish school system is in a prolonged crisis, Madam Speaker. Every year, between 15,000 and 20,000 children leave primary school without eligibility for the national programs of upper secondary school. The latest PISA measurement shows that every fourth upper secondary student cannot read properly. Universities are sounding the alarm that new cohorts of students are finding it increasingly difficult to absorb their course literature.

Disruptions of order have become commonplace in schools. Reports of threats and violence have increased by over 150 percent over ten years. According to the OECD, Swedish schools now have the worst discipline in Europe, and mobile phones are also pointed out as an important cause of this.

The knowledge crisis, Madam Speaker, coincides with serious equality problems. Differences between students with foreign-born and Swedish-born parents are very large. Sweden is still one of the countries that is worst at compensating for students' backgrounds.

This is a meritocratic collapse. The liberal social contract is based on the idea that will, drive, and competence, not background, should determine the future. For this, a functioning knowledge school is absolutely crucial and every person's springboard to realize their potential.

How did Swedish school end up here? In the 90s, very large changes were carried out in our school system. Reform after reform was implemented without sufficient consideration for long-term consequences. The municipalization broke down the school's equality, and the funding was shifted over to 290 different municipalities. The teaching profession lost in status, and the school became harder to govern.

The Social Democratic austerity measure from the 90s haunts us even today, and it is no secret that the Liberals want to re-nationalize Swedish schools. The free school reform was implemented with good intentions but had consequences that were not foreseen. Large corporations have established themselves in the school market. Grade inflation has increased, and municipal school budgets have been pressured. The free school system needs a complete renovation.

At the same time, a constructivist, or postmodern, view of knowledge has gained far too much traction. Knowledge has been treated as relative rather than as something to be conveyed systematically. The teacher's role has shifted from knowledge authority to facilitator, often at the expense of structure, clarity, and requirements. When responsibility for knowledge progression is moved from the teacher to the student too early, it particularly affects those children who lack support from home. It is no coincidence that this has coincided with growing knowledge gaps.

Overall, the municipalization, market management, and a one-sided pedagogical ideological development have created a perfect storm, as it is called, of declining results, a weakened teacher role, and increasing disciplinary problems.

Madam Speaker! The school must return to the basics. Teachers must be allowed to be teachers. The classrooms shall be characterized by respect, structure, and study. Every child shall be given a real chance to succeed. With this school budget, the Liberals are firmly determined to reverse the negative development that we have seen in Swedish schools. It is the largest school budget in modern times, both in current and fixed prices. Already in 2026, the school is provided with 4.3 billion kronor more. In total, it concerns 14 billion kronor over three years.

But this is not just about money. It is about a new direction. We are implementing the largest school reforms in 30 years. We regulate teachers' teaching time. We introduce a clearer support system for students in need of special support. We clean up in the independent school sector. We reform the curricula. They shall become clearer and more concrete and place greater weight on factual knowledge and stable basic knowledge for the benefit of all students, but especially those without support at home.

Madam Speaker! Children's everyday lives have changed rapidly. Screens have pushed out books, and distractions have followed into the classrooms. Therefore, we are taking the step from screen to binder in Swedish schools. Students shall have real textbooks and fiction. Over three years, more than 2 billion kronor have been invested in this. All schools shall now also have staffed school libraries.

We are also introducing a national mobile phone ban. PISA shows that Swedish students are more distracted by digital tools than the OECD average. A mobile-free school strengthens both safety and concentration.

The insecurity in schools is a growing problem. In far too many classrooms, it is so rowdy that the teaching suffers. It hits particularly hard on students from educationally weak homes. Therefore, funds are now being allocated to strengthen safety in the school environment.

Schools get better opportunities to employ more adults, work with safety teams, and strengthen student health. It can also contribute to more special education teachers and smaller teaching groups. Previously, such solutions have sometimes been dismissed as exclusionary. But we believe the opposite: To provide the right support in the right environment is often the most inclusive thing one can do.

The insecurity in schools is a growing problem and hits hardest at students from homes where Vilhelm Moberg and Selma Lagerlöf do not crowd each other on the bookshelf. Therefore, safety is strengthened through improved student health, safety teams, more adults in the school, and smaller teaching groups.

The teacher shall have the mandate to lead the teaching. Therefore, we strengthen the disciplinary work, expand school social teams, and intensify the work against school absenteeism. Early interventions in reading and writing learning are prioritized, as is a more equal preschool. Teachers are the school's most important resource. Therefore, we now also regulate teaching and planning times. Teachers shall be given time to teach, prepare, and follow up, not be drowned in administration. A sustainable teacher work environment is crucial for a strong knowledge school, Madam Speaker.

The school choice system, which I have returned to many times before, must be reformed. Unserious actors, extremism, and short-term profit interests do not belong in Swedish schools. We are also tackling grade inflation through a new grading system and centrally adjusted national tests.

Research and innovation have made Sweden a leading knowledge nation. Today, we rank second in the world in innovation rankings, and with the Liberals in government, we solidify that position through historical investments in research and innovation. The new research policy strengthens cutting-edge research, advanced technology, and research infrastructure. Sweden shall be at the forefront in areas such as artificial intelligence, climate, and technology.

This budget focuses on the most fundamental: that more students early on receive the knowledge they need to manage school and life. The basics must work in the classroom and in the school system. It is crucial for all students, but especially for those who need school the most.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals exist to give every human being the freedom and the opportunity to shape their life, take responsibility, and realize their dreams. We demonstrate this today by presenting the largest school budget ever and implementing some of the most extensive structural reforms for Swedish schools in 30 years. School is every child's chance at a better life, and therefore we in the Liberals will always put school first.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would really like to thank the member for bringing up the horrific act in Australia. We need to stand up against terrorism and antisemitism today and every other day. Many thanks for that!

The Chairman spoke in his address about the failure in the system surrounding the school. The Government has said that during this mandate period, a complete renovation of the independent school system shall be carried out, and the Skolpengsutredningen, which was appointed to address the unequal funding of schools across the country and also the overcompensation of the independent schools, is complete.

Last week, we could read in Dagens Samhälle that the government is throwing the Skolpengsutredningen in the trash, according to the Moderaternas Josefin Malmqvist. As it happened, this news came out the day after Almega went out and said that it should be thrown in the trash, because it will cut the legs out from under the independent schools.

Lotta Edholm, on the other hand, has said in the media that it is not true that the investigation has been scrapped. My question to the member is therefore: How do the government parties intend to carry out a complete renovation of the independent school system? Will you proceed with the Skolpengsutredningen?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The question of the free school system is interesting, because when the free schools arrived in the early 90s, many of us – not just me, but we Liberals and many others – had fought incredibly hard to secure freedom of choice for students and parents. It was nothing that the Left Party, which was called VPK at the time, was a supporter of. Nor was it the Social Democrats and several others. They frantically opposed the possibility of providing freedom of choice and opportunities for other pedagogical alternatives for students and parents in Sweden.

We had to fight incredibly hard for this reform. It was very important given how rigid, bureaucratic, and cumbersome the Swedish school had become. It was above all conformist and uniform in a way that disadvantaged students who wanted to be able to choose another alternative. It actually began with the fight for freedom of choice also in preschool.

It has now been over 30 years since the reform was introduced. We have seen a development that has escalated, at least over the last two decades. Previous left-wing governments did nothing about the matter for eight years. We see a development without desired diversity in pedagogy and with too many unserious actors in this sector. We who are supporters of this freedom of choice have a huge responsibility to do something about this. That is what we are doing during this parliamentary term. I would have wished that it had happened earlier.

No investigation is being thrown into any wastebasket at all. In the Tidö Agreement, it is very clear that we are in agreement, all four parties, that the state governance of the school needs to be strengthened also in the financial area.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is good and positive that the Liberals now see that there are extreme deviations in the private companies' Skolsverige. It is no longer about freedom of choice or about different types of pedagogy. The independent schools are owned to a large extent by a few large corporations, which extract very large amounts of tax money from our welfare. It is fine that we can agree that it no longer serves Sweden's school well.

The Chairman said that previous left-wing governments have done nothing about the matter. The problem is that there has not been a majority in Sweden's Riksdag for this. Your party, the Sverigedemokraterna, the Moderaterna and the Kristdemokraterna have voted no to all types of proposals to limit the friskolor's ability to make profit withdrawals, for example. Your parties must take responsibility for the fact that nothing has been done previously.

It was a very interesting answer from the member that the investigation is not thrown in the trash at all. I really look forward to seeing it on the Riksdag's table and that we get to vote on whether the municipalities should receive greater compensation for the supply responsibility they have compared to the friskolor. I long for the day when we get the proposition on the table and can vote on it.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party listened to approximately one half of what I said and not the other half. What I am saying is absolutely about freedom of choice, Isabell Mixter. The difference is that you want to break the back of an entire sector. We want to reform and renovate the system to achieve reasonable, not skewed, economic incentives for the actors in the sector.

There are too many unserious actors in the free school sector, but there are also very many who are serious and competent. We want to protect them. We want to protect freedom of choice. We want to find a way to long-term guarantee students' and parents' opportunity to control these choices so that they can make important choices for the future.

It worries me that if nothing is done to address the problems in the independent school sector, there is a risk, Madam Speaker, that a future left-wing government will slaughter everything and that we will then be back at square one. Then students will have to go to the school that is closest, regardless of whether they enjoy it there or not. Teachers who want the opportunity to work in another operation or in another way will not have the opportunity to do so. Then we lose all diversity.

The Left Party has always been for uniformity. The Left Party has never been for diversity. We are for diversity, but we are also for order and tidiness. It should not be high chaparral and the wild west in this sector. Therefore, there is a very big difference, Madam Speaker, between the Liberals and the Left Party. The Liberals want to implement reforms to achieve reasonable conditions and order and tidiness in the system, while the Left Party does not want this system at all. That is the big difference between our parties.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm began his speech by speaking about a long-standing crisis in Swedish schools. I can only agree – and it is the Liberals' crisis. No other party has had as great a responsibility for Swedish schools for many, many years as the Liberals. It is they who have set most of the budgets. It is they who have governed the curricula. It is they who have held the ministerial posts. They were responsible for school issues, the January Agreement, etcetera. Even now, they hold the school minister post. That is how it looks.

It can be nice to talk about wanting to nationalize the school system, but we know that it is not true. The Liberals just want to take care of the municipal schools. All the independent schools shall remain. Thus, one does not solve the challenge that there are too many school providers, if that is what one wants to address. The only way it would make things better would be if one said that the independent schools are by definition better than the municipal ones, but then one simultaneously says that all the independent schools should be closed because the municipal ones are better. It does not add up.

It would have been nice if it were true that the Liberals are investing in schools, but it is not. The increase from 2025 to 2026 in the government's budget is greater on repatriation than on schools. That is what is being invested in. To make it sound like one is giving more to schools, one includes the savings made earlier and then subtracts them. Then one adds that one is giving 1 billion to preschool – which the preschool already has. It is not money that one gives to schools. It is only money that one gives to the parents. The preschool does not get more money at all. It is just made up.

In practice, the increase in the budget from 2025 to 2026 is around half a billion. That is approximately what you are coming up with in new money. That makes a difference out there on the ground. This is not the biggest school reform in 30 years. It has never been less on the table. It has never been so little!

I will conclude my speech with a small riddle: What is it that provides both better order and better school results but which the government is not investing in at all?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The Center Party's mathematics is interesting. Niels Paarup-Petersen spoke about the return grant, but that does not belong to this debate but to the previous one. Niels Paarup-Petersen is probably still in that one since he participated in it. His way of calculating is based on the assumption that very many people will utilize this return grant. I am not so sure about that.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party says that the great crisis in Swedish schools is due to the Liberals because we have held ministerial posts. I would say that the reason is rather that a municipalization of Swedish schools was carried out 35 years ago, which the Centre Party was for and the Liberals were against. This has meant that Centre Party municipal councilors – who have actually been more than the Liberals for a quite long time – have had responsibility for Swedish schools and mismanaged that responsibility. That is one of the reasons.

Another reason is that the municipalization that has been pushed through and washed over the Swedish school system to a large extent has been driven by school administrations' almost commercial symbiosis with various tech actors, inspirational speakers, and others who have pushed people to ensure that everything is digitized in Swedish schools.

Another major problem that has contributed to the loss of knowledge in Swedish schools is the lack of order and structure. There has simply been too much fuzziness. Our party has tried for decades to tackle the fuzziness and bring more order and structure into the school. I would have wished that the Center Party had been a partner in that work. I have never quite perceived that the party is particularly engaged in this, but rather one has a mañana, mañana attitude toward Swedish school policy and Swedish school development.

There are, therefore, a number of different reasons. We can, of course, argue about that, but it is more important to do something about this – and the government is doing so.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that something should be done, and that is why one wonders why the government is not doing it. Nothing has come to the Riksdag's table at all. There are some investigations that might eventually become something. We shall see. The only thing we know is that many of the things that are in the Tidö Agreement and which the Liberals got for selling their souls are not happening. That is the only thing we know for certain at the current stage. Then perhaps something will come. We hope so.

What is one actually supposed to do? Fredrik Malm talks about mañana. Every single thing the government proposes lies 5–10 years in the future. There will be another 100,000–200,000 students graduating from the Swedish school system before any of the proposals have any effect whatsoever. Then we say: Let us invest in qualified teachers now! Let us open up the vocational programs so that one can enter there on a permanent basis from primary school. That would make a difference now. It is mañana in the sense that we do it tomorrow, not in 10–15 years. If we do it tomorrow and not in 10 years, I gladly take mañana. That is how it looks in reality.

We are investing in qualified teachers. We want to give more money to those who employ qualified teachers, and we want to train more qualified teachers. We want to ensure that the qualified teachers get money in their pockets to take on the schools that have it the hardest. We know that it is that which makes a difference. There is nothing else that has such clear scientific support and has an effect on both order and results as when one has qualified teachers.

But the government is not investing a penny. The only answer the government has regarding qualified teachers is to train 1,000 fewer per year. How is it going to make Swedish school better to have fewer qualified teachers? I don't understand that. It is nothing that will make Swedish school better. We will keep these 20,000 every year.

The current government has, as said, a Swedish record in knocking out students. There has never been a mandate period when so many students have not completed school as this one. That is what happens when you do not listen to the profession. You do not ensure that there are teachers on the ground, but only talk about long-term investigations and just agree along with all sorts of things that make no actual difference. The Liberals were in a hurry before their congress and shouted out new proposals every day. That is how it turns out. It makes no difference.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a substantial difference between Fredrik Malm and Niels Paarup-Petersen. Niels Paarup-Petersen is a pure populist in debates like these. He is trying to trumpet to those who are listening that things can be implemented the very next day. It is just a matter of hammering something out. If you hammer something out, everyone becomes eligible to teach, says Niels Paarup-Petersen.

No, the only thing we can practically pass now that directly becomes reality is to regulate the teachers' teaching time. That will be able to be done quite quickly. It is a pure budget issue. But it so happens that Niels Paarup-Petersen and his party are against it. This is because their municipal politicians do not like it since they are in the grip of Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner.

Then Niels Paarup-Petersen says, Madam Speaker, that the Liberals are doing nothing. What? A parliamentary term spans a cycle, which means that we first have to write regulatory letters, and according to Swedish legislation, we have an investigation requirement. I hoped that the Center Party was aware of that. It means that things need to be investigated and then referred. After that comes the referral to the Council on Legislation, a government bill, and so on. It means that a number of different proposals will arrive in the spring.

A number of proposals have also been made already. We get a ten-year primary school in Sweden. We reform student health. We remove a lot of administration for teachers and school leaders. We get new curricula in Sweden. We get a new grading system, language preschool, and vocational school. We get emergency schools for students who cannot be in school because they are too violent. We carry out major reforms of the independent school system. All of this had, of course, needed to be done earlier, but unfortunately, the previous government did not do much.

The only thing I remember from when, for example, Gustav Fridolin was Minister of Education was the hand heart. I actually don't remember anything else, and not much happened after that either.

Now we are implementing policy. I look forward to that. It will be good, and it is necessary for the Swedish school system.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! One can undeniably be captivated by what Gustav Fridolin accomplished. The only thing was apparently a hand heart. But he also established the School Commission, which forms the basis for a good deal of the proposals that have been implemented, for example, the investigation on staffed school libraries, which the Liberalerna have brought to fruition during this mandate period. A few more things Fredrik Malm can surely remember, if he exerts himself a little.

Fredrik Malm said in his speech that Swedish school is in a prolonged crisis. One can, of course, go back and perform a historical analysis and talk about how it was 30 years ago and who did what. We have done that many times during the parliamentary term. But in Sweden, it is the government that governs the realm. It is therefore a matter of what the government did last year or has done this year. Above all, it is about what the government is going to do moving forward. We know nothing but hope for things. There is a number of inquiries on the government's table that we have not yet seen become reality.

To lay the foundation for a knowledge school, history lessons are not enough. We need to know what needs to be done now and what one does that yields an effect in schools now. It could be about funding or about various quick measures, that is to say, not a teacher training that one thinks will revolutionize Swedish school. The first students would in that case graduate in 2033.

What will be better already next year as long as the Liberals rule over Swedish school, which will at least happen shortly after the summer holidays?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I could respond with some concrete things directly. It would be very good if Sweden's municipalities became better at applying for the state grants that exist. This applies regardless of what color the municipality is: red, blue, or green. Something else that should be done is that in all schools in Sweden, mobile phones are phased out immediately so that one gets completely mobile-free school days. That would be very good. A third good thing would be if the School Inspectorate received sharpened powers.

It is also very important that all municipalities, regions, and county administrative boards as well as Skolverket collectively look at the issue of civil preparedness, crisis preparedness, total defense and so on, and conduct an inventory. They should ensure that schools have a clearer crisis preparedness if the times of unrest we see around us now also reach Sweden to a greater extent. In schools, one must operationally review how security can be strengthened here and now, given what happened at Risbergska and at a number of other incidents we have had.

Funds have been allocated, and we have also acted quickly on this. We will need to tighten security around Swedish schools, but there is certainly a good deal that can be done here and now.

There is also much else. What is crucial, however, is that the schools that engage in a pedagogy that is not successful and does not teach the students sufficient knowledge should change their pedagogy. It should be teacher-led instruction, structured in a classroom environment where the teacher is an authority in the classroom and where homework is not phased out and it is said that the students can do a bit of what they want. Structured instruction with high demands and high expectations is the way forward for Swedish schools.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is a difference between high requirements and high expectations. High requirements when one does not have sufficient resources to handle the requirements lead to ill health. I do not know if it leads to a knowledge school. On the other hand, high expectations have a positive effect.

In what way school safety and preparedness are to increase knowledge results in Swedish schools, I will leave unsaid. Mobile-free – that is most schools already today. The schools can manage this. Applying for state grants, Fredrik Malm spoke about. The government's intervention to raise the knowledge level in Swedish schools shall therefore be that the municipalities should become better at applying for state grants.

It is not really that which raises the quality. I think it is such things as conducting education on a scientific basis and with proven experience. There is legal support here to do that. What is the government doing so that the schools can truly be able to work based on a scientific basis and proven experience?

One can also reflect on the same theme, scientific basis and proven experience. The National Audit Office's report says that there is insufficient support from the authorities. Simona Mohamsson and I had a debate during the question period last week regarding the position of the Education Act when it comes to the Swedish language in school and the right to the mother tongue. There, it was stated as a reason for why not enough was invested in the Swedish language that it does not state in the Education Act that the Language Act applies in school. It does. It applies in all of public Sweden.

What is it that is needed? Is it that the government holds everyone by the hand so that they will follow the legislation that exists? I do not think so. The operations should have the prerequisites to follow legislation, research and proven experience. What does the government then do so that schools will get those prerequisites here and now?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Camilla Hansén asked me if I could list some things that schools or municipalities could do right here and now. I thought to myself that I should not rattle off everything that is in the Tidö Agreement and which will become government bills, which will be introduced during the year and which may subsequently need an implementation period. That would be a bit unprofessional.

I took on the question in the serious manner that characterizes me as a politician by actually answering the question that Camilla Hansén asked. I rattled off ten things that could be done here and now. Then Camilla Hansén says: It has no scientific basis. What are you doing to strengthen the scientific basis in schools?

Madam Speaker! The truth is that when Miljöpartiet was responsible for school policy in Sweden, one moved step by step away from the idea that the school should be built on a scientific basis. One went so far as to want to introduce digital devices, digital units, for children from the age of one in school.

It was completely in conflict with cognitive research and our world-leading brain researchers at Karolinska Institutet. It was written into the curriculum for preschool. We have now removed that. It is the right step to take in a scientific direction.

In the new curricula, it will clearly appear that it is phonics that applies to cracking the reading code, that is to say that one sounds out to crack the reading code. Then Camilla Hansén and Miljöpartiet criticize it and think that we instead interfere in the profession.

It is a bit difficult to know how the Green Party is supposed to fare. On one hand, it is said that we must listen to the science. When we then do so, it is said on the other hand that we are micro-managing and not letting the professionals decide for themselves. You cannot have your cake and eat it too – in the end, none of this will amount to anything.

Now we have decided on a direction that is completely necessary to lift Swedish schools. No one would be happier than I if even Miljöpartiet also joined forces and became a part of that journey forward.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by agreeing with everything Fredrik Malm said about the terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, every single syllable. Then it becomes a bit more difficult.

According to Fredrik Malm, the consequences of the friskola reform could not be foreseen. It is enough to read the reservations when the decision was made. Lena Hjelm-Wallén predicted the overcompensation perfectly. You perhaps did not want to see it. You turned a blind eye to it. But they were foreseen, and they were there. It was only a matter of reading and taking them in.

Malm later claimed that previous governments, that is, the government I sat in, did nothing and did not submit any proposals to stop the profits in friskolan. It is a pure lie. We submitted proposals to the Riksdag. Fredrik Malm voted against those proposals, every single one of them. It is exactly as you have voted against every initiative to limit the profits.

Now we know how it looks. According to the Riksdag's investigation service, over 19 billion kronor have left the classrooms and gone to hunting lodges and Porsche cars in recent years. Now Fredrik Malm also says he sees this development. He says that he wants to do something about it. That is good. I welcome it.

I have a question for Fredrik Malm. Where are the proposals? Why does the Tidö government, which holds 82 percent of the power, not submit proposals to the Riksdag? Perhaps even more importantly: When there are proposals on the Riksdag's table, why do Fredrik Malm and the Liberals vote against those proposals time and again and again?

If you do not submit proposals in the Riksdag, if you do not vote for proposals in the Riksdag, you become nothing more than a think tank. Then perhaps you also do not need to remain in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It was not so in the 90s when the friskola reform was introduced that one truly anticipated how the reform would develop. It also has to do with the fact that the reform has not really been taken care of and handled in a way that I think, in hindsight, can be seen would have been reasonable for one to have done.

Madam Speaker! I will not swear to it, but I believe that Anders Ygeman is factually incorrect when he says that the overcompensation spoken of applied from the beginning. I believe that the friskolorna had 75 percent of the school fee in the beginning. Then the Socialdemokraterna submitted proposals that it should go up to 100 percent.

It was probably the case that at the beginning of the reform, there was a somewhat different attitude from the legislator's side towards student fees that were very low, that is to say, meager student fees. When it was then prohibited, which was of course very good, an upward adjustment of the school fees for the independent schools occurred.

Madam Speaker! In previous exchanges, this has also been addressed. It is said that during the last parliamentary term, there was such concern from the left because there was no majority.

Madam Speaker! That is not the case. Politics is dynamic. If one wants to reach a majority, one can also secure a majority. Centerpartiet and Liberalerna were part of the January Agreement and negotiated the budget with the government.

Social Democratic ministers could have contacted the Center Party and the Liberals. They did not want to speak with the Sweden Democrats, but they could have also spoken with the Moderates and the Christian Democrats and could have resolved some of these issues.

It concerns, not least, the question of, for example, regulating the system of queues, where all parties wanted to go in that direction. But the Social Democrats were not interested in doing the craftsmanship.

The government submitted propositions that most closely resembled pamphlets. It did not receive support for this because they did not maintain the quality that was reasonable for us in order to approve them.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! One is taken aback. The reason why Fredrik Malm has voted against every proposal to limit profits would therefore be that the Socialdemokraterna had not contacted Fredrik Malm.

The truth is that the Liberals set as a requirement for cooperating with the Social Democrats that we would not limit the profits. When we came out of the straitjacket that the Liberals put on the cooperation, we presented proposals on the floor of the Riksdag. What does Fredrik Malm do then? He votes against the proposals.

Madam Speaker! All these measures by the Liberals are the Social Democrats' fault. Had we only put forward proposals on the floor of the Riksdag, the Liberals would not have been against them. There is a mockery over it.

Madam Speaker! Note one small detail as well. I asked two questions to Fredrik Malm. Why has the government, after 82 percent of its term of office, not presented proposals before the Riksdag? Why did Fredrik Malm not vote for the proposals that have been before the Riksdag but instead voted against them?

In a previous exchange, Fredrik Malm was very keen to state what a serious politician he was when answering the questions. Now, the answers are conspicuous by their absence. Is it perhaps because the answers are uncomfortable? Fredrik Malm has repeatedly voted against the proposals. The Liberals have made decisions at the party congress but voted against the proposals in the Riksdag.

Despite four years of liberal government rule, in cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna, not a single proposal that in reality limits profit and profit extraction will be placed on the floor of the Riksdag. Fredrik Malm argues that it is the Socialdemokraternas fault.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I can inform Anders Ygeman that this chamber consists of 349 mandates. It is not 349 placards but 349 mandates. If the Social Democrats have approximately 100 of the mandates, they cannot expect to receive support from 175 when they submit proposals that they do not anchor or discuss with others in advance.

Now we have a government that gets its policies through because it has a majority here in the chamber. It is because we talk to each other and resolve different issues. It means that from the Liberals' side we quite often have to make compromises given our size. The Sweden Democrats, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats also have to compromise. But overall, we agree on the direction for Sweden.

We talk to each other, we anchor our proposals, we negotiate them and we present them to the Riksdag. And we get our proposals through.

The problem for the Social Democrats is that it is expected that other parties should, as a default, press yes when the Social Democrats put forward a proposal. That is not how democracy really works.

When it came to the regulation of the friskolor, the Socialdemokraterna during the previous parliamentary term had ideas about various social experiments and about what the admission system should look like that had had completely unreasonable consequences. They also had an idea that aimed at totally prohibiting the possibility of making an expression of interest to a school in advance. Despite there being support from all eight parties to regulate this and make it more restrictive, the Socialdemokraterna chose not to listen. Anders Ygeman had a majority here, 349 against 0, and still managed not to get his proposition through. It is nearly a world record, I would like to say.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! It can only be stated that Fredrik Malm's and the Liberals' version of politics is to not present proposals in the Riksdag that they claim to be for and not to vote for proposals that they claim to be for. With that definition of politics, it is perhaps not so strange that so little has happened when it comes to the friskolor, except that the profits have continued to increase.

Madam Speaker! We have just celebrated Nobel Week. Around the world, the prize has helped to spread knowledge and education. The prize winners have celebrated – well-deservedly – and lectured.

The Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded this year to Philippe Aghion for his research on so-called creative destruction. Aghion is full of admiration for Sweden and does not spare any praise. Some of it perhaps can even be directed towards the Tidö Government.

But on one point he is deeply critical, namely the Swedish market school and its consequences. He argues that with the policy Sweden pursues, we lose the future's Marie Curie and Albert Einstein. Smart children from poor families are being weeded out. He argues that we must settle the score with the market school.

It is not difficult to understand his criticism. The gaps in Swedish schools are growing. 28 percent of students in Swedish schools fail in at least one subject. This is a higher level than we have ever seen before. The gaps in Swedish schools have increased with the Tidö government. 20,000 students did not achieve eligibility for upper secondary school because they failed in one of the core subjects: Swedish, English, or mathematics.

The gaps in Swedish schools are persistent and are inherited. Among students with parents who only have a primary education, only just over half become eligible for upper secondary school. How many potential Nobel Prize winners we are losing, no one knows.

The results of the Timss study should have been a cold shower: The differences are increasing between low- and high-performing students in grades 8 and 9. The low-performing students even have worse results in grade 9 than they had in grade 8. It is an inconceivable failure.

The current government has wasted an entire mandate period. The government's school policy does not bite on inequality but has instead worsened it. As the market school and the pursuit of profit have spread, increasing inequality, gaps, and segregation have followed in its wake.

According to the Riksdag's investigation service, over 19 billion kronor have disappeared from the classrooms in recent years. This corresponds to the cost of hiring 10,000 teachers in primary school. But instead of new hires, there have been cuts to teachers and staff in school and preschool, poorer teaching and school environments, withdrawn Bregott, and worse food. Preschool children are forced to live on water and crispbread while the owners take out million-profit gains. Furthermore, it is the same preschool that the school minister sold her shares in and left the board of precisely when she became school minister.

At preschool, children are left with iPads with Babblarna at high volume instead of reading a book in a safe embrace. It is obvious to everyone except the Tidöregeringen that profit interests must be removed from Swedish schools, so that it is always the children's learning that is in focus.

Madam Speaker! In recent decades, society has lost control over the school to the market. Step by step, Moderates, Liberals, and Sweden Democrats have shifted the focus in Swedish schools. The focus in Swedish schools has shifted from our children learning and developing as much as possible to profit-driven corporations earning as much money as possible.

Swedish school suffers from a number of systemic failures. Profit-seeking, weak governance towards quality and equality, and lack of resources lead to segregation and increased disparities. Sweden has gone from previously having one of the most equal and high-performing school systems in the world to a school where inequality spreads between students, schools, and municipalities. The school has become Sweden's greatest market failure.

Madam Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have failed to address the systemic flaws in Swedish schools. Firstly, the pursuit of profit is allowed to continue unchecked, increasing inequalities and draining resources from schools. The proposals that the Government has investigated are toothless and would, according to Skolverket, the Government's own expert agency, rather have led to consolidating the school corporations' position in the school market.

Instead of banning profit extraction, they want to introduce an administrative monster that is toothless, blind, and expensive. But the profit hunt and the excesses remain.

The school corporations are still allowed to have unfair selection systems to choose profitable students. The SD government consistently prioritizes the interests of the school corporations over the students.

Secondly, the SD government has turned the underfunding of the school into a sport where they promise as much as possible but do as little as possible. The mandate period began with what they called the largest investments in the school in 30 years. It turned out to be a reduction of the appropriation to the school by 2 billion in constant prices, with layoffs and cuts all over the country as a consequence. With that arithmetic, it is perhaps not strange that mathematical skills are developing deficiently.

In this budget, the government claims instead that they are making the largest investment in modern times in the school system, but there are no record investments in this budget – not if you compare it with reality, only if you compare it with the government's own planned cuts. Number juggling has been elevated to an art form. The SD-government prioritizes tax cuts for high-income earners over more resources for the school.

For the third time, the government is doing nothing about the weak governance regarding quality and equality in schools. The result is that the differences between different schools, municipalities, and school providers are allowed to continue to grow.

The Tidö parties' talk about introducing a school fee norm ended in disagreement and paralysis. While the Moderaterna are honest and say they have thrown the proposal in the trash, the Education Minister tries to maintain the appearance of doing things that they in reality do not do.

While the Tidö parties bicker, several billion continue to leak out from the school system via school funding despite the fact that there are ready proposals to stop it. Once again, the interests of the school corporations are prioritized over those of the schoolchildren.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that society must now take back control over the governance of schools, so that Swedish schools can once again become the world's best and most equal. This requires three overarching measures that address the systemic errors in the school system:

Firstly, profit-taking must be prohibited in schools, preschools, and upper secondary schools, so that full focus can be placed on the students' education and nothing else. The school's money must go back to the classrooms.

Secondly, they must move away from the market school model that enables the pursuit of profit. It is about the school funding overcompensating independent schools and the unfair selection systems, which enable corporations to select profitable students and screen out students with greater needs.

For the third, the state must now step forward to ensure the school's quality and equality throughout the country. The state shall take increased responsibility for the school's funding while binding rules shall be introduced for what is most important to raise the quality. It is about teacher density, class sizes, and student health. A sector contribution with increased resources shall be introduced so that the municipalities can live up to the raised requirements for good schooling for all.

Already this year, it would have been possible to take some decisive steps so that Swedish school can once again become the world's best and most equal.

Our budget proposal contains a total of 4.6 billion kronor more for school and preschool – with a focus on more teachers, more staff, and increased equality in the school system. We propose a substantial investment in school, of 3.7 billion. We also propose 600 million more for preschool in order to reduce group sizes, introduce language requirements, and strengthen language development in preschool.

With this budget, the Tidö government had the chance to show that they were serious about all the talk regarding complete renovations and record investments. They missed that chance. The systemic flaws remain, and they are growing.

Madam Speaker! Nobel Prize winner Philippe Aghion is not alone in wanting to stop the profits in Swedish schools. 74 percent of Swedes want to stop the profits in schools. Nine out of ten teachers want to stop the profits in schools. It is only the Tidö parties and the school lobbyists who stubbornly defend the unlimited profit extractions. It is a betrayal of our children and young people but also towards our country's future.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! There was much in Anders Ygeman's speech that I will return to later, but I would now like to ask Anders Ygeman if Anders Ygeman thinks it is right to lie to the Swedish people and use incorrect figures.

Anders Ygeman is now speaking in every debate about a profit withdrawal of 19 billion. That is not correct. Anders Ygeman surely knows that too, because I believe that Anders Ygeman can count.

I have received a correct investigation from RUT when I asked about Skolkoncernen's profit withdrawals. According to it, the operating profit, when subtracting premises, is 6.7 billion. It is the operating profit. It is thus one-third of the figure that Anders Ygeman uses.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the profit withdrawal, it is something completely different. In 2024, it was two of the groups that took out a profit. One was Academedia, which took out a profit of 178 million. The other was Jensen, which took out a profit of 6 million. That is very far from the 19 billion that Anders Ygeman constantly claims it is and that even people in this chamber believe.

Read a correct investigation from RUT, where the local costs for the friskolor are subtracted and you get completely different figures!

Then one can still have views on whether one should be allowed to make a profit distribution or not, and one can have views on whether there are good or bad independent schools. Personally, I think there are good and bad independent schools, but there are also good and bad municipal schools. But to lie to the Swedish people time and again and say that it is 19 billion in profit withdrawals, of the taxpayers' money, I do not think is decent of a politician.

I want to hear whether Anders Ygeman thinks it is correct to lie to the Swedish people time and again or if Anders Ygeman thinks we should use correct figures.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Here we now see the answer as to why nothing has been done for 30 years regarding the profits in the friskolor and how far into the Riksdag the friskole lobbyists reach. The answer stands here, right in front of me.

I dare to assert that the Riksdag's investigation service is doing a good job, and they have, according to themselves, calculated with the most commonly accepted concept. Kristina Axén Olin has a different concept. She arrives at a different figure. Both figures are true. But what is really troubling for Kristina Axén Olin is that the profits are much larger than that. This only concerns the largest free school corporations over a few years. In reality, these profit extractions have been ongoing for 30 years and in many more than just the large corporations.

Kristina Axén Olin does not care that children sit with iPads and listen to Babblarna instead of receiving pedagogical education. She does not care that the school's money goes to hunting lodges and Porsche cars. She does not care that over 1 billion kronor has gone to criminal Islamists. No, she cares about the profits and about the profit lobbyists and makes herself their spokesperson here in the Riksdag.

If the focus is not on getting the money back to the classrooms and not on Islamism, but instead on whether to use EBITDA or something else to calculate how many billions the independent school corporations have made in profit, it is clear that no measures will be taken. Then the money disappears from the classrooms.

Kristina Axén Olin! Clean up in front of your own door! Stop the profits! Make sure the money comes back to the classroom!

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course, all children should have the right to go to a good school and have the best education. Personally, I do not think it is important who is the principal. We must have good schools regardless of whether they are independent schools or municipal. Nearly a quarter of the children in Sweden attend an independent school. A third of our upper secondary school students attend an independent school. Many independent schools do a fantastic job, just as many municipal schools do. But Anders Ygeman shall use correct figures. One should not say that 19 billion of our tax money is disappearing, because that figure is not correct, Madam Speaker.

The Riksdag's investigation service has also conducted a completely correct investigation for me, when asked for the right figures. In that case, the profit for last year was 178 plus 6 million.

Madam Speaker! I am not surprised that this is being done, because this follows Anders Ygeman, the Socialdemokraterna, and their troll factories. One thinks that it is perfectly okay to lie and spread falsehoods and does not want to stand by it afterwards.

In 2017, Anders Ygeman's district, in a motion during the S congress, proposed that the members should learn how to obtain an anonymous Facebook profile to become kitchen-table fighters for humanity. I am therefore not surprised that Anders Ygeman continues in this manner and proceeds with falsehoods and does not dare to stand by the fact that there is a completely different calculation of the profit margin in the friskolor. This I deplore.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Kristina Axén Olin seems to have listened a bit poorly. I said, in fact, that one can calculate in several different ways and arrive at several different profit levels.

There is something that is most exciting here. I asked this question to RUT: How much profit have they made? And I received the answer: 19 billion. Kristina Axén Olin has asked another question to RUT and received a different answer. She then claims that I am lying. It would be appropriate if Kristina Axén Olin accounted for her question. I suspect that it is tailor-made – directly from the profit lobbyists. That is also the reason why Kristina Axén Olin received a different answer than I did.

Both answers measure the surplus in the free school groups. Kristina Axén Olin concludes that it is 6,000 million kronor over the last three years and that she does not want to do anything about it. RUT concluded that it was 19 billion, but Kristina Axén Olin's answer is the same. She does not want to do anything about it.

The important question, Kristina Axén Olin, is not whether it is 6, 12, 19, 20 or 25 billion. The important question is: How do we get the money back to the classrooms? Now it goes to hunting lodges and Porscar. It goes to Islamists. Your government has, in four years, done nothing to limit the profits – not a single thing to ensure that the Islamists cannot have free access to our tax money.

This does not worry Kristina Axén Olin, however, how the Riksdag's investigation service calculates. Perhaps Kristina Axén Olin should direct her focus a bit differently.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! First of all, I reacted exactly the same way as Kristina Axén Olin to the figure of 19 billion. It is the second time I have heard Anders Ygeman talk about 19 billion. The first time was in a debate we had on Sveriges Radio.

I do not know if Anders Ygeman has produced his own RUT report, but the Social Democrats did have one prepared regarding the companies' finances. What Anders Ygeman perhaps does not know is that these reports become public if one says they should be. I have read that RUT report, and there is nothing about 19 billion there – nothing at all! Is it something that Anders Ygeman has dreamed up, or where do these sums come from?

Secondly, we thank you for descriptions of how discussions are conducted within the Tidö parties regarding, for example, the school fee norm. We ourselves know what those discussions look like and what they lead to. Providing reviews when one has not even been on-site is not appropriate.

The Social Democrats no longer rule Sweden. They do not rule over school policy. It is an important signal to send. It is over. Now it is other visions and ideas that matter.

For the third time, Anders Ygeman refers to Philippe Aghion, apparently now a great idol for Anders Ygeman. Philippe Aghion is, therefore, a member of the French Communist Party. The Social Democrats' Anders Ygeman stands here and refers to a person who is a member of the French Communist Party. I do not know if the Social Democrats in Sweden are enthusiastic about communism these days, but it becomes a bit strange. We all know what communists, regardless of where in Europe they come from, think about private enterprise.

For the fourth: What is it that children in municipal preschools encounter? Well, they are placed in front of a TV by teachers who do not speak Swedish, and then they are made to watch some digital program that has been translated into their own language. Is this what Anders Ygeman thinks is good?

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Let us start from the beginning. It is not I who claim that the private school corporations have made 19 billion in profit over the recent years. It is the Riksdag's investigation service. It can be read. If Patrick Reslow has failed with the googling, I can help with that part.

Philippe Aghion is above all a free researcher who has been awarded the economic prize in memory of Alfred Nobel by the Swedish Nobel Prize Committee. That is why I highlighted him. If Patrick Reslow wants to brand researchers depending on whether they are members of the Moderaterna, the communists, or the Sverigedemokraterna, that is his business.

Then there was some completely confused picture of free schools and municipal schools and preschools. I can be very simple, Patrick Reslow: I want to close bad schools, I want to close bad preschools and I want the money to go back to the classrooms and to the preschools. The bad behavior of one form of operation does not justify bad behavior in another form of operation.

But let me just state in conclusion, Madam Speaker, that Patrick Reslow is not in the least worried about all these billions that go out in profit. He is not one bit worried about the money for the Islamists. He has spoken with free school lobbyists who say that one should attack the figures instead.

I do not need to know what is happening in Tidögänget's negotiations. I can see the results: not a single bill on the Riksdag's table. 81 percent of the time has passed, and the losses continue.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! In that case, we can forget that Philippe Aghion is a communist and certainly influenced by this in his theses.

But let us then look at the French students. Anders Ygeman stood here and denounced class differences in Sweden and the like. What opportunities do French children in marginalized areas have to attend schools other than the municipal ones? What is required in other countries to make such a journey? Well, it is required that the parents have a very thick wallet.

I must remind Anders Ygeman that it was the Social Democrats who once – honorably – ensured that the friskolor received 100 percent of the school funding. It was right, because we should not have student fees in Swedish schools.

Here one stands now and criticizes our system, refers to individuals around Europe and thinks that their systems are so fine. That is not the perception at all, on the contrary. In France, we really have elite schools. There we can talk about a class society in the education sector. Is it such elite schools that Anders Ygeman wants more of in Sweden?

No, we do not like Islamists. I wish that more Social Democrats acted as they speak here in the chamber, for example, Anders Ygeman's friends in Gothenburg when land is to be provided for some mosque, or Anders Ygeman's friends in Malmö when it concerns Islamist associations that receive heaps of grants. Then it is not a question of cracking down on Islamists.

We should not have Islamist schools. We should not have Islamists running schools. We are very clear on that. We can agree on that. But it is not about closing bad schools; it is about Anders Ygeman wanting to close all independent schools. Because that is precisely what will be the effect if we, for example, ban profit. They will be drained and disappear.

We are going to close bad schools – municipal or independent.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Patrick Reslow and I agree on the French school system. I can also direct strong criticism towards it. And if Patrick Reslow had devoted himself to reading at least one piece of Philippe Aghion's statements in Sweden instead of googling his political residence in an attempt to brand him, he would have known that Philippe Aghion is just as critical of the French school system as he is of the Swedish one. It might have been appropriate before he took the podium of the Riksdag and attempted a murder of the year's Nobel laureate.

Patrick Reslow claims to be against Islamism. In reality, he is the biggest guarantor for the financing of Islamism – 1 billion kronor! Not even Saudi Arabia has managed to finance Islamism in Sweden as much. 1 billion kronor has gone to criminal Islamists thanks to the fact that Patrick Reslow does not want to put a stop to the profits in the free school system.

When we submitted proposals to limit profits in the independent school system, the shares in the independent school market plummeted. When Kristina Axén Olin and Patrick Reslow won the election, the shares rose. Now that they stand here as the independent school lobby's foremost parliamentary representatives, the independent school shares have increased by 100 percent. What is the reason for that? Well, it is because the market is making the entirely correct observation that the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna will not limit the profit by a single krona.

The free school lobby celebrates. The Islamists celebrate. The Swedish people mourn. Swedish students mourn. Nine out of ten teachers want to limit the profit, but not a single Sverigedemokrat.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! I stand here with a script, but when one hears lies, attacks, and platitudes in the chamber, the adrenaline pumps. I do not therefore know if I will stick entirely to my planned speech.

It is troublesome to listen to the Social Democrats. Everything is always the fault of the independent schools. The greater part of Anders Ygeman's speech in the rostrum was about independent schools; it was a complete fixation.

It is not the case, however, that Anders Ygeman is interested in what is happening in the independent schools. No, no, no – everyone is being swept over the coals and said to be aberrations that must be removed. The limited companies shall be removed, and we shall not have profits. We shall, therefore, not have money coming into the systems. At the same time, it is said that the municipalities are so poor and need money. How are they to get money into the systems? These students are going to go somewhere, after all, but that is always forgotten.

The focus in the debate must, at all costs, be on how each individual school functions and what it delivers. We must act against bad schools. We must be able to impose fines, and we must be able to shut down schools regardless of whether they are municipal or independent. When it comes, however, to good schools, we must ask ourselves what those schools do that is so good. Why do students seek them out? What can we learn from them? It could be a municipal school or an independent school; it doesn't matter.

Fundamentally, it is the students themselves who have chosen the school they attend, and we stand up for and defend that right. Therefore, we do not want to hear nonsense about us belonging to the independent school lobby or whatever it is – not from a party that has such strong ties to the trade union movement that LO sits and fully controls the party. We decline that.

It is incredible generalizations that are being made. That we as Sweden Democrats would be for Islamists and favor them is nonsense. It is not the Sweden Democrats who are responsible for having created a society where one sees Islamists roaming around and where one sees gang formations and the like, but it is to a large extent the Social Democrats. It is a society that has created a "we" and a "them" and where persons who have no loyalty to Sweden live here and commit crimes, commit violence against the population, and so on. Then the Social Democrats have the nerve to say that we, who for years have protested against that development, would have any guilt in it. Shame on you!

Swedish school has many problems, but there is also much that works very well in Swedish school. In the international measurements, we can see, for example, that Swedish students who have Swedish parents fare very well. We rank quite high in mathematics; I believe we are the best in the world outside of East Asia and Singapore. In natural sciences, we are fourth best in the world. On the other hand, we have a large group of students who do not meet the Swedish language and who do not have Swedish parents. They are failing, and that has been allowed to continue for several years.

The solution is always the same: Ban profits and inject more money! However, they say quite little about the content. In fact, the opposition has no policy for the content. One does not know what to do, because what do you do the day you have banned the profits? Yes, we wonder that too. What are the political proposals they intend to take?

Adding more money is not what is needed. Anders Ygeman and I had a radio debate some time ago, and the entire debate was about how important it was to inject more money. More money for the school was the universal solution. But in the report we discussed, it stated clearly and distinctly that it was not money that was the problem, but it was something else. It was students who did not come to school, students who fought during lessons and disorder in the classrooms and on the schoolyards. It was a lack of interest in school for some, and it was bullying, mobile phones, and so on.

It is these things we must get in order. The school's primary problem is that it is an unsafe situation in the school, that is to say that in some places there is disorder and lack of order in the classrooms. This must be addressed. When someone asks what the government is doing to achieve this, the answer is: A lot is being done in this area, for once. We are used to investigations being appointed, to them coming up with proposals and the proposals ending up in a desk drawer – that was typical for the previous government – but now we are doing something about this.

We see to it that more emergency schools are introduced, something that even the Social Democrats think is good. It is being done in Gothenburg, that is to say, expanding more emergency schools. We also see to it that the disciplinary measures are tightened with suspension and the possibility of moving students, that is to say, removing them from the class. We must also see to it that there are action plans for how to act in crises at the schools. We must see to it that all teachers know what to do in cases where violence and threats occur at a school, which has happened.

These are important matters. The day we get order and clarity in the classrooms, we create the conditions for knowledge and learning, and then we also ensure that the learning outcomes improve even for the group that does not have Swedish parents. Added to this is also a full commitment to the Swedish language. It is important. If one does not encounter the Swedish language at home or in school, one cannot also fully take in the studies.

We are now moving forward with clear curricula. It is about having a curriculum that does not focus on fluff, but where one is clear that it is cognitive behavior and the like that should apply. Cognitive science must be in the foreground, and the fluff must be in the background. We have also long said that the teaching must become more classical. We must have more factual knowledge at an early age so that it can then be developed and used for analyses.

This is what we are doing now through the proposals being put forward regarding a new curriculum. In this budget, we also ensure that we begin the work of preparing for a new curriculum, because it is truly needed. It shall be characterized by a clear knowledge orientation and a focus on just factual knowledge in the early years.

We must work very hard to ensure that more people become teachers. We know that the working situation in the schools today causes many to quit. Many drop out of the education after having been out on internship, because that was not what they wanted to do. They did not want to go out and be security guards, they wanted to teach. It is also something that characterizes this budget: the investments in the teaching profession, and then not just on tools to maintain order but also on continuing education, on strengthening the profession's attractiveness, on strengthening teacher education and so on.

Madam Speaker! This speech turned out a bit different than I had intended, but when one hears lies, platitudes, and the like in the speaker's chair and in the exchanges of remarks, I think one must react. I believe I have every right to do so, and therefore it became a different speech than I had intended from the beginning.

In conclusion, I would like to wish Madam Speaker, the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office staff, and my committee colleagues from both the majority and the opposition a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! I will do my best not to accuse the member of anything; it seems to be a bit sensitive to have to answer for one's own policy. I still have a few questions.

The chairman said in his speech that one should, of course, be able to shut down bad schools and unserious actors. I want to ask a bit about a revelation that came out last week regarding conditions at a preschool owned by Tellusgruppen. The school is located here in Stockholm. Tellusgruppen was previously called Hälsans förskola. There, the children were given crispbread and water to eat. Lotta Edholm previously sat on the board of this independent school group.

This time, the revelation involved, among other things, that a one-year-old had fallen through a window and that a parent had to go home and fetch breakfast for the children because the key to the refrigerator – they do have a lock on the refrigerator – was missing. The children therefore had no breakfast to eat.

It has been 37 degrees hot at the preschool during the summer. There have been too few educators and it has not been possible to have supervision over all the children. At certain times, children have been missing.

It is obvious that this is not a safe place to leave one's child as a parent. The same group says that they aim to increase their turnover annually and have quite high targets for this. It is quite obvious that it is about wanting to make larger profits.

Tellusgruppen also has childcare activities, at a fancy hotel here in Stockholm, so that mothers and fathers can eat brunch. That activity is profitable, so these funds are taken from the preschool activities and go straight into the nanny activities.

I wonder how Patrick Reslow views this.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is no one who stands up for knowledge and education who likes this. I do, however, want to be clear that one cannot crush an entire sector just because one takes up a few bad examples. That is the difference between Isabell Mixter's party and our party.

We must act very forcefully in these situations, and it does not matter whether it is an independent or a municipal school. Ultimately, one must not be allowed to operate at that unit if one does not behave as one should. I can stand for that, and the Sverigedemokraterna stand for it.

If one uses the school funding for something other than what it is intended for or if one totally fails in the commitments one has – if there are serious quality deficiencies – one should not be able to take out a profit. If the deficiencies are not remedied, we must question whether one should be allowed to operate the business in the future. I do not think that. There are examples of actors who have mismanaged a school and then been granted permission to start another. That should not be possible; instead, we must start talking about business bans.

The same applies to a municipal school that fails in its responsibilities. Even there, we must be able to step in – all in – and do everything to ensure that we protect the students. That is, after all, what it is about.

I hope that this was a sufficiently good answer for Isabell Mixter.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! It is fine that the member says that this should not be allowed to occur and that one should shut down unserious actors. The question is how it is to be done and what the government parties intend to do.

You are sitting and governing together in the Tidö government. So far, there are no proposals at all on the Riksdag's table to regulate this so that it becomes possible to shut down unserious actors. Does the government intend to give the School Inspectorate new tools to be able to shut down unserious actors? Do you intend to introduce profit caps for those who misbehave? It is very unclear what the government actually wants to do to shut down unserious actors.

I could stand here for quite a long time and speak about other free school groups that act in similar ways. We have previously heard about how seven children had to share a banana at a private limited company-run preschool. We have heard that Engelska Skolan pays its teachers lower wages than the municipal schools and has teachers without Swedish qualifications. One has also attempted to hide a pedophile scandal at Engelska Skolan to protect the school's reputation. We have Academedia, which wants to open 200 preschools in Germany. That can be done because they have achieved such good results in Sweden. They use a portion of the profit to expand in a completely different country with the help of Swedish tax money. It is completely baroque. It is theft from the Swedish people.

I want to hear what you intend to do to shut down unserious actors now that you are in power. I understand that you do not want to abolish the whole mess, as we want to, but what are you going to do to at least shut down the unserious actors?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! If Isabell Mixter had opened the Tidö Agreement, she could have read exactly what we intend to do regarding these matters.

A proposal will come in the spring. A first partial report has been submitted, and a proposal will come regarding a ban on profit extraction in the case of serious quality deficiencies. There will also be corresponding rules when it comes to the municipal schools. It is a bit more difficult there, because there are no profits to extract. However, there may be other things that can be done something about. It could, for example, be a political leadership that does not behave properly; there are indeed such examples.

This is in motion, and I do not understand why anyone would claim otherwise. It is not as if anyone has said that this should be postponed or that nothing would come of it. Then perhaps it will not turn out as the Left Party wants, for there we are not ideologically aligned.

When one brings up all these schools, I always miss the good examples. What about the good ESS schools, which actually deliver? Are they forgotten by chance? The Procivita schools are absolutely fantastic. I do not know if Isabell Mixter has visited Academedia and looked at, for example, a Procivita school. Those schools are very popular and very good. There is very high activity, and there are high demands and high expectations of the students. They deliver very good results. Why are they not highlighted in the debate? It is very strange. I think it is odd.

I think we should give criticism to those who deserve it, but we must also stop criticizing those who do not deserve criticism. I think that is important and honorable.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Patrick Reslow claimed that I lied when I said that more than 1 billion kronor of tax money has gone to criminal Islamists who run schools and preschools. I just want to ask Patrick Reslow how much he means it is.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was not there that Anders Ygeman lied. He lied when he said that we would not be against Islamists and Islamist schools; that was what he lied about. That is where he told a falsehood.

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

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! Then I and Patrick Reslow can gladly agree that 1 billion kronor that should have gone to schools and preschools instead has gone to criminal Islamists during the time with the Tidö Government.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Anders Ygeman and I do not agree in the way he says it. What we can agree on is that we shall not waste money on Islamists. They shall not receive any money at all, and we must ensure that this is addressed.

Islamists have not only arrived hux flux after 2022. We had Islamists running schools before 2022 as well. Why was Anders Ygeman not as interested in discussing these issues before 2022? I know that Anders Ygeman does not have the right of reply, so we must see it as a rhetorical question. It does not only concern Anders Ygeman, but it concerns Social Democracy as a whole.

It was racism to go after Islamists and the like. To say that they were not allowed to run schools was racism – it was wrong. As soon as the Sverigedemokraterna said something, we were racists. That is how it sounded.

Anders Ygeman's party does not even want to discuss issues with us. They haven't even gotten there. If the Social Democrats had wanted to discuss these issues with us during the last parliamentary term, we certainly would have been interested in doing so. But they didn't want to. But now they want to because they are in opposition, and in opposition, one does not need to take responsibility.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! The primary reason that the Social Democrats did not stop a lot of things was that we, you, the Liberals, the Moderates, and KD said no. One must give them that. Many of their proposals were rubbish, and I still think so. But they tried, at least. They should have done it better, because then we could have gone further, which the Liberals were on earlier. Had the Social Democrats done a better job, certain things could have been done a bit earlier. But let us build the discussions in the chamber on facts.

It was very good that Patrick Reslow brought up the PISA result, which shows that those who speak Swedish at home fare well in school. Here, second and third-generation immigrants are also included. Isn't it fantastic that we then have Europe's best school results. Think that all those who have come here and who speak Swedish at home are involved in creating the best school results in Europe. I think that is something one can take away, because one should also highlight the good examples, as Patrick Reslow pointed out. One should not only bring up those who misbehave but also bring up those who behave, linked both to individuals from different countries and to schools.

It is claimed that the opposition's solutions are the same over time and that we have no solutions. But the Center Party wants more qualified teachers, and we want them to be in rural schools and in schools in disadvantaged areas. We allocate money for this in our budget, but you do not. You want fewer qualified teachers. The government's only concrete proposal here is that fewer teachers should be trained. How is that supposed to make more people pass school in disadvantaged areas so that they get jobs? How is that supposed to contribute to better integration?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a Timss report that showed that students with Swedish parents are pulling ahead in terms of knowledge. It was, therefore, students with Swedish-born parents it was about, not students with foreign-born parents. If one is a third-generation immigrant, one has probably had a fairly good chance of speaking Swedish at home, but they are not the ones referred to in the report and not those one points at. It is about Swedish-born parents respectively foreign-born parents. It is primarily first-generation immigrants who are in focus, and it is here that efforts must be made. We have known that previously, so it is no news.

It is very important to have more qualified teachers, Niels, and I appreciate that question being raised. I have also previously told you that we are in complete agreement on this point. We continue now to give those who are not qualified the opportunity to become qualified through KPU courses, which I believe is important.

The reformed teacher education will result in a period with fewer graduated teachers. But in the long run, I believe it will be good because we increase the attractiveness of the teaching profession and get even sharper students to choose to study to become teachers. I believe this is very important. That the number of students falls in the future might be able to compensate for the fact that we have fewer qualified teachers for a period of time. I don't know that, but it is my guess.

The current government and the Sweden Democrats are therefore doing a lot in this area.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind again of the rules of conduct in the chamber. Here we speak through the Speaker and do not say "you", "you" (singular/informal), or just first names.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate Patrick Reslow's answer.

If you are a second-generation immigrant, you are born in Sweden. If you are a third-generation immigrant, your parents are born in Sweden. It is pure mathematics. They are therefore included in "Swedish-born" in the results of the Timss report.

We may agree that Sweden should have more qualified teachers, but as the member himself is pointing out, will your policy lead to fewer? That is the actual consequence. You know for certain that there will be fewer now, but hope that there will be more in the long run. But is it a necessity that there will be fewer? That is the big question.

Everything the government is doing now will undermine the conditions for obtaining a good school for those who are not succeeding today. There will be fewer qualified teachers, which means that the larger cities will get teachers but not the countryside where the greatest problems are. One cannot introduce an emergency school in Pajala municipality for just one student. But because one does not implement the solution the government wants to see, one gets no money. The Sweden Democrats want to concentrate teacher training to three locations, which means that the countryside will get no teacher training and thus no teachers. The state grants shall be targeted, which means that rural schools and schools for the marginalized will not receive any state grants, and that is already the case in practice. Not even the books will get there with today's state grants.

Why do the Tidö parties hate Sweden's rural schools and schools for those at risk of social exclusion so much that they are not to be given qualified teachers or money in the coffers so that they can give those students who have it hardest a better education?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! According to the Timss report, students with foreign-born parents therefore perform worse than students with domestic-born parents.

Niels Paarup-Petersen complains that we are constantly saying "in the long run", but I do not know how he imagines we are going to get more qualified teachers quickly. There is no quick fix, and a teacher education takes four to five years. Is that not "in the long run" in the Center Party's world? Regardless of what one does, it takes some time.

I believe that the tightening of the admission requirements is necessary. We see that the profession is not attractive and that new teachers quit when they enter schools. Therefore, there was a need for people who can steel themselves more. But this must, of course, be combined with more order and organization in the school. As long as we have disorder and lack of organization in our classrooms, fewer will want to become teachers, and then there will also not be more qualified teachers. Everything is connected.

This is what we have concluded in the Tidö agreement. I welcome the Center Party to join in, as I understand that we share the same opinion on this issue.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Madam Speaker! The Christmas break is just around the corner for the country's school students. Hopefully, rest and wonderful Christmas presents await the children. But many students will return for the next term with a strong sense of failure. There are ninth graders who already know that they will impossibly receive passing grades and that they will therefore not receive eligibility for upper secondary school.

Almost 20,000 students are knocked out when they finish grade 9 without eligibility for upper secondary school. That is nearly 16 percent of the students. The proportion of students who do not reach the goals in primary school has increased with this government. It is a catastrophe. We know that those who do not pass primary school have a much greater risk of being affected by unemployment and being knocked out later in life.

The differences across the country are large. Rural municipalities with a low educational background have the most students who do not reach the goals, and the difference between schools in the same municipality can be large. In a school where many of the students' parents are well-educated, the students do better, but in schools where many students have parents with a shorter educational background, the students do worse.

There is something rotten in Swedish school. The differences have increased. Today, your background determines very clearly whether you will succeed or not.

In the previous debate here in the chamber, the integration debate, the Moderate member claimed that it is possible to make a class journey in Sweden. I truly wish that were true. However, we see that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a class journey in Sweden. It is extremely cemented, depending on what background you have, whether you will manage to succeed in school or not. We have left far too many children behind with today's school system. It guarantees early on that they will not succeed in life.

Madam Speaker! This autumn has been characterized by many announcements regarding the school. One could almost believe that the government, or at least the Liberals, have had some kind of popcorn machine in their chamber. Many of the announcements have been about the school's problems being a lack of disciplinary measures, as if mopping the dining hall and detention would give the students passing grades.

The real problem today is that the school is constantly being cut, receiving less and less money with each passing year. The government actively chooses to prioritize other things than welfare. It is tax cuts for themselves and the rich, and it is increased duty contributions. The teachers and special educators who work in the schools and at the after-school centers have to work faster. They have more students to take care of and an increasingly difficult assignment.

What is needed for the school to function and for all students to succeed is long-term funding, not press release money. The government says that it is making historically large investments in the school. It is truly trying to put lipstick on a pig. During the mandate period, the government has namely actively chosen to prioritize other things over money to the municipalities so that they can at least maintain the same level as previous years.

In 2024, Sweden's teachers reported that the cuts in schools were the worst in 30 years. Nine out of ten warned that they could no longer provide the students with the education they are entitled to. In 2025, school leaders reported that six out of ten school leaders have been forced to make cuts. It is deeply serious. It is the students' education and future that the government is putting at stake.

We in Vänsterpartiet include 2.9 billion more than the government for schools in our budget proposal. In addition to that, we include 8 billion more than the government in general state grants to municipalities and regions. We see, in fact, that what is needed is real money, not talk.

Madam Speaker! However, it is not enough that preschools and schools receive more money. It is more than that which is wrong in Swedish schools. At the same time as teachers testify to constant cuts and an unsustainable working situation, not everyone is equally unhappy. The profits of the school corporations are growing. One of the largest corporations, Academedia, made a profit of 821 million last year, and the CEO took out an annual income of 11 million.

The market school creates deep problems in Swedish schools beyond the fact that tax money disappears into profit. If one does not care about figures, which some parties here in the chamber do not seem to think is so important, I can say that it also leads to other problems. For example, the municipalities cannot plan their operations. They do not know how many students will attend the municipal school. Yet, they still have costs for premises and teachers. Furthermore, the municipalities must have a readiness to be able to receive all students in a municipality, as they have the responsibility for the supply.

In addition to that, the free school system has led to the school becoming increasingly segregated. The students who have parents who make active choices end up at a certain school. Remaining at the municipal schools are the students who need more support. Still, one head is counted as a bag of money in the Swedish school system. It is totally unreasonable.

This government has said that they are going to do a complete renovation of the friskola system. In reality, it does not seem to be much of that. It seems this debate today confirms that. So far, we have not seen any proposals on the table, and if one reads in the newspaper, one sees that the government currently seems to be very much in disagreement about which proposals they should move forward with.

It is clear that we need a change of power next year. We need to settle the score with the market school.

Madam Speaker! Everyone who has had children in preschool has probably seen that the working environment there is not sustainable. In October, TV4 did a report where it was testified that the violence between children in preschools is increasing. One preschool teacher, Ulrika, testified about anxiety attacks at work. What the staff at the preschools highlight as the big problem and the reason it looks like this is resource shortages. In Ulrika's department, there were four staff members for 23 children.

Simona Mohamsson quickly spoke out and said that a maximum limit for the children's groups in preschool is needed. The Left Party has been pushing for this for too long. Today, there are only guidelines for the size of the children's groups. We believe that it needs to be regulated by law, similar to the Norwegian model.

When the government goes out and says that there shall be a maximum ceiling in preschools, it echoes quite hollowly if they do not simultaneously provide resources to the municipalities to actually increase the staffing density. Now we see how the birth rate is falling. It is an excellent opportunity to actually reduce the children's groups. Instead, staff are being laid off in preschools around the municipalities. It is not strange, given that the municipalities, with the government's state grants, cannot balance their budgets.

Vänsterpartiet wants, as stated, to legislate on the size of childcare groups and that they should be financed by the state. We allocate 500 million in our budget for more staff in preschool and 250 million for a childcare professional lift. We believe that such a thing is needed, similar to what exists within elderly care, so that the staff will be as competent as possible to take care of our children.

Madam Speaker! Student health is an important part of the school, especially since we know that more and more young people are suffering mentally. We therefore allocate 1 billion to strengthen and introduce a key performance indicator for student health. We know that access to student health today is far too unequal between different schools. We must change that.

The government has also allocated money in its budget for reduced preschool fees. We have our own proposal in that area which covers both the preschools and the after-school centers. We also allocate funds to increase the staffing density at the after-school centers. It is truly necessary. The quality of the after-school centers has for all too long been overshadowed by other things. It is high time for investments in the after-school centers.

Madam Speaker! Since our budget proposal is higher than the government's, I cannot move for its adoption. I refer instead to our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! Last week I visited three schools. I visited S:t Eriks katolska skola, I visited Estniska skolan and I visited Viktor Rydbergs gymnasium vid Odenplan.

It is three fantastic schools with peace and quiet, a safe environment, and pleasant students, three schools that have completely different profiles but still have some ingredients that unite them. These include, among other things, skilled principals who have worked at the schools for a long time, skilled teachers who have also worked at the schools for a long time, and a clear idea of why that specific school exists.

We have many good schools and skilled teachers and principals all over Sweden. Nevertheless, it was 19,664 students who left primary school in June without eligibility to proceed to upper secondary school, and as everyone knows, we do not today have a labor market for students who do not have more than primary school behind them. It is a tragedy. Those students did not start the day after the 2022 election, but those students started during the time when the Social Democrats governed school policy for eight years.

It is almost even worse in upper secondary school. Of the students who started upper secondary school five years ago, every fifth student has still not received a high school diploma. Every fifth student in upper secondary school does not graduate or drops out. Those students started when Anna Ekström or Lina Axelsson Kihlblom was minister, so it is not the fault of the Moderate-led government together with the Sweden Democrats either. But it is a tragedy for our entire society that so many children and young people do not manage school.

We who are teachers and school leaders or work with school policy know what the problems are.

We have too high a turnover of principals in Sweden. We have a much higher turnover than the average in OECD. In Sweden, a principal stays for an average of three years. That is far too short a time.

We also know what the classroom situation looks like. In a classroom today, one has seven or eight students who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue or speak Swedish at home. One has on average three students who have a neuropsychiatric diagnosis and on average two students who are particularly gifted and become understimulated if they do not get to move forward. It is almost impossible to have that composition in a classroom and believe that everyone will succeed well.

We also see that seven out of ten students say that it is rowdy. Six out of ten students are bullied in school or feel violated. Four out of ten children answer in the Friends report that came out a few weeks ago that they do not like going to school.

In that, we see an increase in swastikas on benches and an antisemitism that is completely unacceptable.

We know, then, what the problems are.

We have talked a lot here about teacher education. The fact is that if everyone who had been a teacher chose to come back and work in schools as teachers, we would have no teacher shortage at all. But teachers are leaving schools because it is so rowdy.

I can regret that the Social Democrats, who nevertheless governed here for eight years, did nothing about the problems. None of this has emerged after the 2022 election, but all of this has been going on for a long time.

I am proud and happy to belong to a government that tries to decide on reforms that will make a difference. But unfortunately, it is not possible to change a process that has been ongoing for decades overnight.

As several speakers have said, this is a historically large budget, and we have made several decisions. Even though some from the opposition do not want to be acknowledged, we have already made decisions here in the Riksdag regarding propositions on a ten-year primary school and more mathematics and Swedish.

We have made a historic investment in learning materials. We spend almost half a billion every year on learning materials for schools and have as a goal that all children should have at least one book in every subject. We have spent 430 million annually on staffed school libraries, which became law this summer. We have, as mentioned, spent 550 million per year for the purchase of learning materials and teacher manuals. We have spent 480 million per year for the purchase of fiction in preschool, preschool class, and primary school.

We have given the public libraries 40 million for reading promotion work.

So do not say that we have not done anything so far, because we have! But we are not satisfied with that, Madam Speaker. We move forward.

We have earmarked money in the budget for 2026, which we will decide on tomorrow, so that teachers will have more time for preparation and follow-up work.

We are adding an additional 1.8 billion to schools with major problems.

We are strengthening student health with 200 million for more school nurses, school doctors, and school counselors.

We are providing half a billion to the preschool for quality improvements, which means smaller child groups and staff training.

We are developing new curricula that shall be based on a scientific foundation and be well-substantiated.

We are also introducing an equivalent grading system and centrally graded final exams that are intended to counteract grade inflation.

We are allocating 300 million next year for further security-enhancing measures.

We are adding an additional 50 million to school social teams that can work with children who have special needs for it.

We are adding an additional 120 million for safety and study and opportunities for schools to have peace and quiet and to counter bullying and other things.

Madam Speaker! I could continue reading lists, and I may have reason to return. But we are doing things to reverse this trend. As long as there are 19,664 students who do not pass primary school, we will continue with more reforms, because in the Moderaterna's Sweden, all children shall pass school.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Wonderful that Member Axén Olin has been to Viktor Rydberg's gymnasium! It is a good school – I would have been there myself but had to cancel, so I shall visit it another time.

As the member correctly says, it is very important that one has good teachers, that they stay, etcetera. It is a bit easier when one has a school in the middle of Stockholm's center, in the middle of a large city. It is a bit easier than when one has it out in the countryside.

In the current situation, teachers are not out there at the rural schools, and the government wants fewer teachers. They want to implement a change in teacher education that results in a thousand fewer teachers coming out every year. That means fewer teachers.

One can look at the investment in books that was mentioned. Rural schools do not get a share of it, because they are small, so the books will not go there.

One can look at the investment in emergency schools. They are not coming to the countryside. Pajala cannot start an emergency school. It is simply not likely.

When will the government also start investing in the rural schools, which ensure that the whole of Sweden can live? That is not what is being done in reality at the current moment.

Återigen: I think it is good that we build these discussions on facts at the foundation. I believe the member said that those who have now left the school started under the Social Democrats' rule.

(KRISTINA AXÉN OLIN (M): Exactly.)

Exactly! We take 2022, 2023 and 2024 and subtract ten years from them. Which years were those? It was 2012, 2013 and 2014. At the school starts then, who was it that ruled? It was the Alliance. One can still say that. All those students who have graduated so far, except this year, have therefore started under the Alliance with the Alliance's policy – and of course the one that was earlier. These are long-term structures. It is primarily the Liberals' policy that has ruled almost the whole time. But those students did not actually start under the Social Democrats. It is those who graduate in the coming years who started under the Social Democrats.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! It was not entirely easy to understand what the question was, but we have a very clear problem with rural schools and the recruitment of both teachers and children nowadays. It is a very specific problem.

On the other hand, they have exactly the same opportunities to receive the grants that we have allocated for teaching materials. I actually do not understand that question from Niels Paarup-Petersen, that is, why one should not buy textbooks for the children just because one lives in a rural area. Of course, one should do that.

What I meant, Niels Paarup-Petersen, is that we will decide on a new teacher education, where much more pedagogy and didactics and much more practice are needed, to say a few things. We should also discuss much more about how we strengthen the principals and the principal education in different ways. Fundamentally, the principals are incredibly important. Just as I said earlier, it is at least in my opinion and experience actually more important who is the principal in a school than who is the employer.

There are many more things we must do, but if we get peace and quiet in the school and teachers get to work with what they want to work with and what they are passionate about and which made them choose to become teachers and we can get the teachers to come back to the school – if they get peace to work and get to do what they want to do and are trained for – we will not have any teacher shortage. I am convinced that some of them live in rural areas as well.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall clarify regarding the targeted government grants. They are indeed very rarely applied for by small principals and small schools. We know that. It is very clear. All government grants are applied for to the absolute greatest extent by large schools and large municipalities.

This is the problem: Tidö has an extremely metropolitan perspective in all its policies across the entire school area, and that is because it is the Liberals who are running it. That is how it looks. They only have representation in large cities, and that is how it almost always looks.

The Moderates have sometimes had a somewhat similar structure, and sometimes one is a bit better at seeing the whole country. We do know, however, that it is a challenge for most parties.

We agree on one thing here, namely that the scientific basis shall be the foundation. I would therefore very much like to know from the Moderates' spokesperson on school issues what the scientific basis is for removing SVA, that is, Swedish as a second language. I have not seen that there are scientific evidences for this.

I would also like to know what the scientific basis is for the discussion about school uniforms and for wanting to remove student influence, because everything I have heard when I have spoken with those who actually know school science, pedagogical science, cognitive science etcetera shows the opposite. I am, however, proceeding from the assumption that there are clear scientific evidences for these proposals, so I would therefore appreciate being told what these are.

We agree on this regarding teachers working with what they actually want. That is also why we do not want to interfere with what happens inside the classroom. It is also why we do not think that politics should decide which methods should be used, but that should be done by the profession together with research. Decisions should not be made on this in the Riksdag or by the government, as the Tidö parties want. It should be decided by the profession and science – not in the Riksdag.

We would never come up with defining in the Riksdag how one should operate or what treatments one should give within the healthcare area. How can we come up with doing this within the school area? What undermines the teachers' profession and the principals' profession is that the governments are so incredibly nitpicking time and again. It is time to step back and let the profession lead.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with Niels Paarup-Petersen. We are not going to interfere with how people teach inside the classroom or be in there meddling, as Niels expressed it. I hope that we can now turn this around and ensure that everything taught in school actually rests on a scientific basis, is proven, and comes from a consensus among the research community. We will get that part in order too. We absolutely should not be sitting here in the Riksdag deciding such things. Niels Paarup-Petersen seems to have misunderstood our proposal, I do not know why.

I did not perceive any further question, but in that case, perhaps I may return later, because Niels speaks so fast that I do not quite manage to keep up. But I believe that professionalism is important.

Yes, regarding what concerned rural schools, this is a problem. On the other hand, all rural schools are located in a municipality or in a region, so one should reasonably be able to help each other to apply for state grants in a better way. I will take this with me and consider what we can do. Of course, there should be the same quality in rural areas as in the big city, even though there are specific challenges.

I also want to take the opportunity to point out that a majority of the 19,664 students who left primary school without eligibility this summer were actually Swedish-born children – just so that we do not forget that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Now I have been scolded again for that I should speak more slowly. It is not the first time, and it will not be the last time, but I will try to take this to heart so that we can perhaps see to it that people understand what I am saying. That responsibility lies with me.

Since we in Centerpartiet invest more in schools than the government does, we cannot say very much about this, but we have a specific statement that I refer to, Madam Speaker.

It is so – and I am very happy that more parties have started to see this – that around 20,000 students every year fail to complete primary school. It is primarily in marginalized areas and in rural areas. It is very clear.

We know this, and generally speaking, we have not acted on it previously. We in Centerpartiet have talked about it for a good while now. We have created specific programs linked to it, and more and more parties are taking it up. I am glad about that, because this is the Swedish school system's absolute biggest problem and perhaps the Swedish society's absolute biggest problem.

Regardless of whether one is most interested in the labor market, integration, school policy, fiscal policy, or whatever it may be, the basis for why we have challenges and problems is that students are not succeeding in school, because when you do not succeed in school, it is clear that you will not get a job.

Unemployment is more than five times higher for those who do not pass school and who do not have a high school education than for those who do. This is the reality, so if one wants to solve unemployment in Sweden, one must get the students to pass school. It is also seen that crime is many times higher among those who do not pass school, so if one wants to solve crime here in Sweden, one must ensure that the students pass school.

We clearly see that tax payments are generally much lower among those who do not pass school. This is an economic burden for society, as they receive other benefits with taxes etcetera. If one wants the state to receive more money, one must therefore invest in getting the students to get through school. This is the reality.

What do we do then? Yes, we do a lot, but what is the government doing? It is not doing so much. That is the great challenge. In the current situation, in practice, nothing has come from the government during the entire mandate period that makes a difference in the short term.

Yes, a ten-year primary school is coming – that is true. In 2033, perhaps the first students will come out with the new grading system if Skolverket learns how to build IT systems, which I am incredibly skeptical about.

When it comes to the ten-year primary school, they will come out even further ahead – is it 2038 or something like that they will come out? There are such long lead times on those types of measures, and we cannot wait that long. That is why we are very clear that we need to invest in the school now. We need to invest in things that can actually make a difference now – also. It does not mean that one should not do the long-term things. I want to be clear about that.

Some things the government does are good, but they do not help in the short term. We are talking about an additional 100,000 or 200,000 students leaving school without having a path into the labor market or toward obtaining a profession, and then all other problems we have in society remain unsolved. It does not help. One can lock up another generation, but that cannot be the best answer we have as a society.

What is it then that we need to invest in? Well, we need, for example, to have sector grants instead of targeted state grants, because the targeted state grants do not go where the money is needed most. That statistics is very clear.

One can ask Skolverket, Skolinspektionen, or SCB who it is that receives the money. It is the schools that already have it best and easiest and the municipalities that have it best and easiest that receive the largest share of the money. Many of the state grants are not even fully utilized, so make a sector grant that ensures the money goes all the way out to where it is needed most!

We are investing 3.3 billion kronor more than the government. But if the government only managed to change its targeted grants to sector grants, it would do a lot to get more money to the schools where it is needed most – and of course, they need to go to the schools that need the money the most.

Madam Speaker! It means that money needs to be directed to schools for those on the margins of society and to rural areas, as the Center Party does. But that is not being done in the current situation, and it means that the poor results of rural schools and schools for those on the margins of society continue.

We need to give money to qualified teachers so that they actually get out into the schools, so that there are more qualified teachers and so that they get paid for having the most difficult tasks. We actually need to ensure that the principals who do not hire qualified teachers also receive less money. Then everyone would understand that one should hire the qualified teachers, because they are the ones who give the best results.

Regardless of whether one looks at the rowdiness or the school results, it is qualified teachers who are effective in improving the situation. Still, not a single krona is invested in this from the government's side. Instead, they want to produce a thousand fewer qualified teachers every year. It will not make the situation better.

I hope that many of the reforms the government is making and that we are voting for can make a difference in the long run, bring many back to the teaching profession, increase attractiveness, etcetera. But in the current situation, it is not such. As long as one does not invest in the teachers and give them more in salary, it will not happen, and the government has not invested in the school. I know that one would like to talk about a historical investment. It is only because one calculates based on the already established reductions that one has carried out oneself. They are not real investments. If one compares how much money it was in 2025 with how much it will be in 2026, one sees that the government has invested more in the return migration grant than in the school. It is not enough.

It was said earlier from the Liberals' side that we are against regulated working hours. That is actually not true. I think it is a pity that untruths are being spoken from the rostrum. We have said yes to it. I want to be incredibly clear about that.

There was also talk about skewed incentives linked to independent schools. Yes, there are skewed incentives. That is why we propose that one should not receive as much payment if one does not employ qualified teachers. While the government talks about skewed incentives, we are doing something about them. One should be paid according to responsibility. If one establishes schools where it is most difficult, one receives more payment. If one employs qualified teachers, one receives more payment.

The government, the Left Party, and the Social Democrats give the same amount of money to every school regardless of whether they deliver or not and regardless of whether they take responsibility or not. All parties should change this. Some things take time – that was also said by the Liberals in a previous exchange – but some things can also be done now, namely directing the money. One can change the skewed incentive structure in Swedish schools with the help of the budget. It can be done in the autumn budget if you want. It is not tomorrow, but it is by spring instead of 2038. That is a big difference. We can, therefore, solve this together if you want.

However, it is not all about the structures. It is also about what the children learn in school. We see that many who do not succeed are in rural areas. They need qualified teachers. Our initiative would make a huge difference. We want to pay 5,000 kronor extra for every qualified teacher who goes there. The government has no answer. We want the same thing to apply to the exclusion schools.

It is also about the language. Many parties have understood this and come forward with different types of proposals. We want to invest in intensive Swedish for those students who need it, so that those who learn Swedish progress faster through school. This applies, for example, to the newly arrived who come here as children and have not learned Swedish. They have more difficulty learning mathematics. Poor mathematical skills are the biggest reason why students do not pass.

We want to open up for schools to be able to teach mathematics in other languages while the child is learning Swedish, to the extent that the conditions exist. It is not a requirement for all schools, as it is not possible for everyone to deliver. But there should be an opportunity to do so. It could make a difference, for example, in cities like Malmö where there are large areas of exclusion.

I appreciate that several have been in favor of an increased focus on letting the teachers do the job, but in reality, we micro-manage the school to an extreme extent. This government has done so more than any other. The government simply wants us in the chamber of the Riksdag to decide on teaching methods. If science were to come up with new teaching methods, the Riksdag would then need to make a new decision before teachers could start using other methods. That is not sustainable.

We completely agree that Fonomix is a good method, but science and what constitutes proper science should really not be decided in the chamber. It should be determined by the profession and research. It should not be in the curricula. It should state that it is up to the profession how it should be done.

We are in complete agreement on what is good. But it is not we in the chamber who should decide those types of things. It must be a matter of professionalism. Otherwise, we undermine the profession even more than we already have.

In the current situation, school policy is defined jointly by the Tidö parties. So far, very little has landed on the Riksdag's table. We already know now that several of the reforms promised in the Tidö Agreement will not happen. We are told that they will happen during the spring, but in the current situation, fewer have happened than we have been told will not happen. One example is a common school choice, which was said to be one of the decisive things to clean up the independent school system. It was to ensure that there would be freer choice of school than today. A common admission system where everyone applies on equal terms would increase freedom of choice in Sweden. But that very proposal is gone. Instead, certain schools shall be allowed to keep their privileges to select students. It is not reasonable.

In the current situation, it is such that no other area within Tidö has as many points that have been stopped as the school. All proposals concerning getting order in the independent school system have, strangely enough, been stopped, but no others.

It is probably time for the government to deliver on the Tidö Agreement, at least on this point, and start paying for accountability. Then we can actually get things in order. Let us have a school policy that is not just for the larger cities but focuses on the 20,000 students and where they go. Then we can actually make Swedish school very much better together.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I have heard countless speeches earlier where Niels Paarup-Petersen repeats the same mantra that the government micro-manages while the Center Party listens to the professionals and wants to give the individual teacher the power over how to teach. Therefore, I went to the Center Party's website and read what is stated under the heading it and school. There, the Center Party asserts that digital aids improve school results, that students still learn to read and write, and that many municipalities have been good at purchasing computers. I would say that computer purchases are not necessarily good, but they have indeed been made to a very large extent.

The Centre Party also states that there is a shortage of digital teaching materials in schools. I would not say that there is a shortage of digital teaching materials in Swedish schools. The Centre Party wants to give the Swedish National Agency for Education a mandate to increase the proportion of digital teaching materials in schools.

The Center Party wants digital learning to permeate the entire education system, that is, from when children are one year old and can start preschool all the way up to the university level. No difference whatsoever is made, Madam Speaker, between ages. No reasoning is made that children who are one, two, three, four, or five years old have different needs. No consideration is taken of the fact that today there is an entire folk movement of parents who are trying to free their children from digital addiction.

Madam Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen says that the government micromanages. It happens that we do. We govern, and sometimes we micromanage. All governments do that, but we do it on a scientific basis. What the Center Party is doing here is to enter into massive micromanagement based on pure guesswork, without regard for what science says, despite the major problems we see today with children's exposure to screens.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounds like we need to review our websites. We are actually doing that. It is a task that is currently with our officials.

We were the first to say no to requirements for digital learning materials in preschool. Then you followed, Fredrik Malm. That was very good. At the same time, it is important that students of all ages gain digital understanding.

The Liberals speak quite often about how it is important to understand all the dangers of the digital – mobiles and such things. We think it is good that the school teaches such things. But digital learning materials can also improve results.

The problem arises when it becomes like when the person who is now the Liberals' minister for higher education purchased iPads and computers for all students in Stockholm without having any idea about the usage. They were computers; they were not learning materials. The Liberals need to understand the difference between the digital and digital learning materials. They are two different things.

Much research shows that digital learning materials, if used correctly, can improve children's results. To believe that it is only physical structures that can increase knowledge, I think is quite naive. That does not mean that we should say which learning materials should be purchased. That is the difference. We think that one should purchase the learning materials that work.

For me, it is completely indifferent whether the learning material is digital or physical as long as it is good – preferably the best that exists. That is the decisive factor. You want people to say specifically which ones should not be used. You want all possible things, including deciding what should be used. We believe that the profession should decide that. I want to be very clear about that.

It is wonderful that the Liberals highlight the importance of a scientific basis. I asked the question before, but received no answers. What is the scientific basis for school uniforms? What is the scientific basis for reducing student influence? I would very much like to know that, because I have not been able to find anyone who has been able to show that the value of reduced student influence would be based on a scientific basis. It is one of your biggest things.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Centre Party is trying to take a small step back and say: Well, if it is used in the right way, we can imagine it. On your website, you say that you want to give Skolverket a mandate to increase digital learning materials in schools, Niels Paarup-Petersen. But at the same time, the Centre Party representative here in the speaker's chair says that it is up to the teachers and the schools to decide and that this should be decentralized. That does not add up.

The fact is that the Center Party has been drawn into a frenzy over that everyone, down to the youngest boy and girl, should be exposed to screens. But the research is very clear. Sweden has some of the leading researchers in the world in cognitive research, brain research, and neuroresearch at not least the Karolinska Institute but also elsewhere. They show very clearly that it has been harmful for many children.

We see that concentration difficulties are increasing. Mental ill-health is increasing. More children are diagnosed with ADHD and other conditions as a result of extremely extensive screen use at very young ages. We see problems with sleep, distorted ideals among girls in particular, bullying, and much more.

A girl or boy who is 15, 17 or 18 years old should of course be able to have a laptop in school in the teaching. It is not strange at all. And there should of course be a digital IT environment in every school. But that is not what Centerpartiet is saying.

The Center Party says that we should have more digital aids and digital learning materials throughout the entire school system. You even assert that one learns to read and write better. The research says the opposite. We are now writing into the curriculum that one should learn through phonics, but the Center Party wants people to learn through an iPad. That is the difference. We govern on a scientific basis. The Center Party governs on guesswork in these matters.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I can say it again, because Fredrik Malm has a tendency not to hear what is said when he receives an answer. I suppose I have to say it again.

We were the first to say that the screen requirement in preschool should be removed because there was no scientific evidence for it. We put that forward before the government did. So, we are completely in agreement on that.

But one cannot talk about mobile phones and TikTok and at the same time lump together sleep problems and distorted beauty ideals with teaching materials inside the school. They are two completely different things. That is what has been the problem when the Liberals have talked about these things; they have lumped everything together.

We completely agree that there are a lot of problems with social media, TikTok and such. But that does not mean that there are no solutions to get more people to succeed with math. It is not about a digital IT environment or about having a laptop, it is about what is on it.

We are talking about digital learning materials, and we must ensure that we know which ones are good. We have long said that Skolverket should have structures to ensure that the learning materials used are good, both digital and physical. That is what we have said. I think that is very reasonable.

If it says that we want to increase digital learning materials in all classes, we shall correct it; I do not have it in front of me, so I do not know exactly how it is written. I already have an assignment underway to rewrite our texts on the website. It is in any case not this that we think.

What we think is that learning materials should be good, and they can many times be digital. A huge number of digital learning materials have the best conditions to increase the results among those students who have it hardest. A lot of students do not have a chance to pass school if we do not give them the best digital learning materials. This also exists and must be accommodated. It cannot just be equated with TikTok at eleven o'clock in the evening in bed. It becomes an absurd debate if one equates the two things.

We need a serious debate about these matters and place the decision on which teaching materials should be used on the professionals and not on politicians.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned, there are in one class seven or eight children who do not speak Swedish, three who have neuropsychiatric diagnoses and two who are particularly gifted, according to the statistics if one takes an average. The Government has done some things regarding this. We have, for example, made the specialized educations permanent, which have been on a trial basis for as long as they have been. We have also made a decision here in the Chamber on a bill that it should be easier to read at a faster pace and at a higher level.

Today, there is an opportunity for schools to divide into different forms of groupings. One can, to a much greater extent, for example, make decisions to let children repeat a grade if they do not pass grade 9. Then perhaps more would pass grade nine. One can also repeat much earlier for that part. One can make decisions to let students skip a year, but all these systems are used very poorly. One could actually take a university course when attending middle school if the schools were a bit more flexible.

The teachers' association wants to reintroduce general and specific courses in mathematics, Swedish, and English in a proportion as large as 70 percent. I have full respect for that and think the same way.

Is the Center Party prepared to support the ideas of creating more level groupings and difficulty levels in schools? That is what the profession desires. Some schools do so a bit secretly and on the side. Will the Center Party support these proposals?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I have not seen that this is in the Tidö Agreement. I have not seen proposals on leveling on the table. Are there proposals that lie there? Has anyone else seen it? Which proposals are it that we are to support? That is the problem. You can talk a lot about what you would like to do, but you do not submit any proposals. You have very many things that you say you are going to do and that you have not done. Then suddenly other things come from the side that you ask if we can support, but they are not on the table.

In the current situation, it is possible for a teacher or principal to ensure that a student is moved if necessary. One can also divide into small groups, in half-classes, etcetera. But again: It is not I who should decide that. One may need to do completely different things in a school in Venjan than what is needed to do in Växjö. These are two different levels and two different sizes. I cannot stand here in the chamber of the Riksdag and say: "Now you shall divide the classes" or "now you shall level-divide."

There are many classes where the first and second years go together. That is also a reality in Swedish schools. I am not going to sit here and define it. They have the opportunities. If there are obstacles in the legislation for creating level-setting, we can absolutely discuss that. But my perception is not that it is needed, because it is already being done in many places in the current situation.

I also appreciate that specialized education has been brought up. It is very good. It doesn't work in the countryside either. How is a student from a small town that is 50 kilometers from the nearest upper secondary school supposed to participate in a specialized education? They can't. It is again a metropolitan phenomenon. This is a Tidö issue again. It is only those who live in a large city who have the opportunity to participate in such.

There is no digital spearhead education at all. We have spoken with Skolverket about it and that it does not exist. Is one allowed to create such a thing? We do not know, that is Skolverket's answer.

The parties in Tidö focus on the problems that exist in large cities and the opportunities that can be given to children in large cities. But the one who is talented but from the countryside does not get the same opportunities as those who live in the city, and that is unjust.

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

Kristina Axén Olin (M)

Madam Speaker! It was a bit interesting. During the previous parliamentary term, there was an investigation during the Social Democrats' time that dealt precisely with the possibilities of having digital education at all in a number of subjects. What I remember was that it was only we Moderates who thought it was a good idea to be able to use digital education to a greater extent in rural areas. But perhaps it should be taken up again? Possibly it would be a way, Madam Speaker, to solve this for schools in rural areas specifically. It might not be as good, but it would still be a substitute.

We from the Tidö parties have now, among other things, introduced a possibility for the culture school to also conduct various forms of teaching digitally. It is the same thing there. If one plays cello or some more unusual instrument and lives in a rural area, it can be difficult to find a teacher. In that case, a digital culture school can be an opportunity. It has, in any case, so far proven to be fantastically successful. There are probably reasons to expand it.

Madam Speaker! It was pleasing that the Centre Party at least stands behind that the schools and the profession themselves should be allowed to choose to have level grouping, resource schools, and all that which is much longed for by the teaching profession to achieve a better teaching situation in the classroom. I thank you for that.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to thank Kristina Axén Olin for good questions and a good discussion.

The challenge is exactly this when the government says: If you do it in this way, for example by introducing small teaching groups, you can get money. If you do it in another way to solve the challenge, you get no money. It is this micro-management that I spoke about earlier.

The targeted state grants go towards very specific things. That means we get a worse school system where it is only the large schools, which are often in larger cities, or in any case in cities, that get the opportunity to receive the money.

You have a mixed class with ones and twos, and then you are told that you should create small teaching groups in order to be able to manage your problems. You have one teacher. How are you going to do that? It is not possible.

It means that they do not get more money. They cannot receive support for their challenges, because they do not do as the Liberals have decided that the problems should be solved from their big city perspective.

It is the problem with the detailed regulations. It is not just about rules, but it is also about how the money is distributed. That is why we say that there should be sector grants. The school in Venjan will need money for other things than the school in Växjö needs.

Then the distribution of the money must be made based on their needs and not according to what the Liberals wake up and feel like here in Stockholm. They are different things. It is very important to understand that difference.

I partially remember how it was. I have also said that there should be digital opportunities in rural areas. If it was during the January Agreement, it might have been that we were forced to vote for something that the Liberals were for. They have, after all, said no to all digital things.

My own favorite example is French 2 or French 1 in Dalarna. All the small municipalities in Dalarna joined together. That meant that two students from Malung-Sälen who wanted to study French, and who had never had a chance to do so because there was no qualified teacher, could get French 2 with a teacher in Paris. It was only because it was digital.

Those who say that everything digital is rubbish have really not understood how one can spread knowledge in a modern world.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin where the previous exchange ended, with digital teaching. I also believe that it is needed, above all, in rural schools. We see a major problem, not least today when we see how rural schools are often those that are cut first, are closed down, and the like.

It is something we are very concerned about in the Sweden Democrats. We also have our own proposals to support rural schools, which we hope can become a reality during the next parliamentary term.

When it comes to detailed management and the like, it is a bit difficult if the profession is to decide. Somewhere we have a problem with the equivalence in Swedish schools. I belong to a party that wants a state ownership. In that case, it is quite a lot about giving directives on how things should look.

Since then, it is clear that within those frameworks, things can be done differently. But to some extent, it must sometimes be so that in order to achieve equality, a certain type of alignment is required.

It is important that one, to some extent, directs certain things in detail. This applies, for example, if we see a general problem in schools with being able to read. There, audio learning is an important tool. Science is also in agreement that it is an important way. This has been driven in the curriculum discussions.

Why then should we not have it everywhere? Why should a municipality somewhere be able to say "We don't really like that, so we do something else"? Then perhaps one doesn't get any result, and then we are back in the inequality again.

My question to Niels Paarup-Petersen is: How does he view the equality as a problem in this context?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Those are very good questions from Patrick Reslow. I would like to hear what own proposals you have to strengthen rural schools in the next round of remarks. I have not seen so many of them.

That the profession decides does not mean that you cannot govern. That is the first part. For example, healthcare is entirely governed by the profession. That the profession decides does not mean that the individual teacher in the individual classroom decides everything themselves. It means that it is not we politicians who define what is the correct way to do things.

It is science, principals and teachers who together arrive at what is the best method. Sounding is such a method. But it should not be determined in a law in the Riksdag. We would never get it into our heads to write: Now you shall use this type of method to remove a subject in care. It is the equivalent.

It should be scientifically based in all essentials. That is the difference. Today we have a school where almost all parties would rather that we politicians step in and decide by law what is scientific.

We must have structures that ensure that what is scientifically proven is done. But it is not we politicians who should write that into a law. Authorities, together with the profession, shall ensure that there are structures in place so that it becomes so. That is what I want.

It does not mean that one should not be able to say that audio is the right thing. We can be honest. Neither you nor I are experts on pedagogical technology. That is why we are here and not in a classroom. Overall, we are not experts. We are experts at allocating money and writing laws, but not at teaching or whatever it may be.

Therefore, it should not be up to us to determine the individual method in law. On the other hand, we shall ensure that there are structures through authorities etcetera to ensure that what is practiced is scientifically proven. That was just what I wanted to say. I hope that it was clear.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind again of the address in the chamber. When it becomes fraternal, there is a lot of "you" that enters the address.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is easy, Madam Speaker, for it to become so. We do our best in the chamber.

I understand what Niels Paarup-Petersen means. But it is strongly pointed out that we have problems with learning to read. We have large groups of students who have problems with reading. This has major consequences later in life.

Then I believe it is important to put this in print and say: This is a scientifically proven method that works. It has worked previously, and it has worked in the countries where it has been implemented. It is a very simple way to learn to read.

I believe that it is worth doing, and I think it should be the same throughout the whole country. Otherwise, there is a risk that we get other solutions that do not lead to any result. In that case, we also have students who are affected because they live in the wrong municipality. I personally think that it would be serious.

It is better to have detailed control where detailed control is required. Then I shall be the first to sign that one should not have detailed control on exactly everything, but the profession must also be able to have free frameworks for its teaching. That is how it must be. But in certain issues, it is important to have detailed control.

I intend to bring up another matter. The member said that there are several reforms that will not come to fruition. That is not quite correct. We have a number of investigations that have had their time extended. We expect them to be completed by the autumn. Some partial reports have been submitted that will lead to a legislative proposal, but in other parts, it will not be until the autumn.

It is not that many reforms in the Tidö Agreement that will not come to fruition. It is perhaps two.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! Now I will not get an answer, so it is a bit mean to ask a question. The question of common school choice, we know is a reform. Then there are a number of others that have been raised. Now you said that there will probably be two. You can whisper to me later which two they are. I believe that many are curious.

We are in complete agreement that we have a major problem with students who cannot read and who do not learn to read. We also have a huge problem with politicians who come up with unscientific proposals. That is why I would prefer that we here in the Riksdag do not decide what science is.

We can absolutely micro-manage science from a state level, but not from the chamber. We cannot write in a law that something is correct science. Science evolves. That is the essence of what science is. It evolves, changes, and is expanded over time.

To then write in a law that something is a true science is a huge challenge. If one concludes that another method is better; shall we then change the law before it is used? Does the member understand the problem?

That is the challenge. That is why I want it to be professionals and authorities who decide. It can change very quickly. It cannot be a single party here in the chamber that prevents science from being achieved. Science is the same regardless of which village or city you are in, but the organization is not.

That is why we can control certain things, just as the member pointed out. But it is not the Riksdag that defines what is true science. It will never become that, and it should not be.

That is why things such as, for example, phonics, the sound-out method, must not be defined in law. Write a regulatory letter to Skolverket saying: You must ensure that it becomes crystal clear which methods are used for this. Those who do not follow it should, and so on. That is really for us. It is not a problem. But we do not want it to be defined in law.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is very much that is fantastic in the Swedish school system. Sometimes one can actually think that Swedish school is considerably better than the public debate suggests.

Swedish students are above the OECD average in both mathematics and social studies. If one were only to count students with Swedish as a mother tongue, Sweden would be among the highest-performing countries outside of East Asia. If one wants to look for individual bright examples, it is very easy to talk about all those teachers who every day help students understand the world, who take the time to explain an equation once more, who challenge the students who find it easy to learn and lift up those students who have lost faith in their own ability.

Every day, actions take place in Swedish schools across Sweden that become decisive for an individual person and shape the future for thousands of children, but they rarely make headlines. It is about the school staff who create a school where no one is held back and no one is left behind – a school to look forward to.

But even if Swedish school is better than its reputation, there are shortcomings that need to be addressed and solved. As politicians and legislators, it is our task to do so. If one is to talk about the school's challenges, one needs to talk about young people's mental health.

There is a great deal of research showing that mental ill-health and school failure are linked. Cause and effect often go both ways. Mental ill-health leads to school failure, and school failure leads to mental ill-health.

A large survey last year showed that 15 percent of Sweden's school students, equivalent to 110,000 children, report that they are feeling unwell right now. The students themselves state that their mental health affects their school results. It is not particularly difficult to understand. Sleep difficulties, anxiety, and high absence naturally have an impact on knowledge and grades.

Here I would like to say that one needs to distinguish between different forms of mental ill-health and be able to speak about this with more nuance. Some forms of mental ill-health require professional care and treatment, but much can actually be alleviated with the right support and understanding.

We need to increase knowledge about mental health among everyone, I would like to say, but not least among our children and young people in order to create understanding and counteract and prevent. In school, we have the opportunity to provide children with knowledge about mental health that they can benefit from throughout their lives, even if it does not appear on the test.

That is why we Christian Democrats are convinced that it is time to put mental health on the agenda. It must clearly be included in the curriculum as a mandatory component for a number of hours in both primary school, secondary school, and upper secondary school. It is about students learning to put words on their feelings, understanding why one can feel worry or anxiety and how it can be managed. They shall learn to manage conflicts and crises and to understand that the stress they may feel before an exam is not dangerous. And they shall learn what affects mental health, including both screen time and social media.

In many countries, this has been on the agenda for a long time, and there is support in research that it works. Children feel better, and mental ill-health decreases. That increases the opportunities to complete school. The World Health Organization, WHO, even recommends it. It is time that it is implemented in Sweden as well.

Madam Speaker! Student health is another important matter when it comes to the school's work against mental ill-health. But access to student health varies quite significantly between different schools. It needs to become better and more equal.

The Christian Democrats' policy aims to direct state subsidies towards student health and to introduce a student health guarantee so that every student shall have the right to come into contact with student health within a reasonable time. We also want to see routine conversations with a counselor. Just as all students today have health checks with the school nurse, they should also be able to have them with a school counselor, so that mental ill-health can be better detected and prevented at an early stage.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to highlight a particular form of mental ill-health, a disability that makes children and young people extra vulnerable to everything that disturbs and breaks routines, namely ADHD. We have a forecast which says that with today's development, 15 percent of all boys in the near future will have an ADHD diagnosis. There are many explanations for this: increased knowledge in society and among professionals, but also possible diagnostic drift. But there are also a number of other explanations being highlighted. One is that the school has driven this. Without there actually being any support for it, the school often requires a diagnosis to give the children the help they need. Another explanation is that the knowledge goals have been vague and unrealistic.

But the school has also found it more difficult to manage these students. In a survey, almost all teachers said that the students' perseverance has deteriorated in an alarming way just in recent years. The teachers believe that the strongest contributing cause to this is all the quick kicks that the students are used to getting in the digital world.

As one teacher writes: "Today, Swedish schools are competing with social media, and we are losing the battle." Another writes: "The majority of students have a concentration span of 2–3 minutes."

Several problems that we see around us, which create difficulties for students in school, begin and end with the screen. That which children and young people need to be able to feel well – such as sleep, movement, recreation, and relationships – is being sidelined. Instead, they sit there glued to the screen hour after hour, with the endless scrolling straight into meaninglessness.

It is possible to link mental ill-health, lack of concentration, and poorer academic results to the screens. 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 for schools in today's screen society is to get children to lift their gaze and learn the basics. The school must be a force that stands up in the fight against the TikTok brain and its demands for quick kicks and entertainment. The school must focus on teaching students to count, write, and endure reading longer texts without quick kicks and without shortcuts – a bit of boring drudgery, quite simply.

That is why the government is now ensuring that all students from preschool class to grade 9 have a mobile-free schooling. The mobile ban shall also apply during both breaks and free time. 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 fever for digitalization in schools, where everything digital, in the name of modernity, completely regardless of content, has been considered good. That time is over. The digital faith in schools has reached its end. Now, the school shall return to the basics.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Mathias Bengtsson for an excellent speech and the Speaker's chair for the sugar, two very important things.

This issue regarding mental health is something I know Mr. Bengtsson raises time and again and is very focused on. I appreciate that very much. We have previously discussed that we need to change our grading system and the consequences of that. I am afraid it will take a very long time before we have moved forward, given the proposals that are pending and Skolverket's inability to build IT systems.

We are in complete agreement that mental health and how to build a healthy self should be included in the school's curriculum. We have also submitted proposals regarding those parts.

When it comes to the grading system, it is important that we also do things before the system is changed.

Then I would like to ask: Is Mathias Bengtsson ready, for example today, to ensure that people can get into the vocational programs with their average grade? Half of those who are not allowed to get in today have a passing average. They can, therefore, receive knowledge. With the new grading system, they would have been allowed in. You think they should get in. It is the government's policy that they should be able to get in. But they are not allowed to get in today. They have to wait for ten years. Why?

This means that a very large number of children are graduating without getting a chance. To a large extent, they suffer because they know that they do not get a chance. That is why Sweden stands out with these figures compared to all other countries. We are at 16 percent. The others are at 3–5 percent. That is what makes us stand out.

Are the Christian Democrats ready to join hands to do something a bit faster than in, like, ten years?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Niels Paarup-Petersen, for the questions!

We have debated these issues a number of times, linked to the decline we see in Swedish schools. Many who have completed primary school have not received the knowledge that is needed to progress into upper secondary school. Fundamentally, the problem is that they receive too little knowledge during the first nine or ten years, in primary school.

Then I and the government also see that it would be necessary to have paths forward for those who do not achieve the knowledge that is required today to enter the national upper secondary programs. We are working on producing a, so to speak, third track in upper secondary school, where it would be easier to get in. It would be focused on apprenticeship training, practical work and vocational skills, so to speak.

What do we have to do while waiting for that? I would say that all the initiatives that the government is making and that we have already made to raise knowledge in primary school help the students who are in school today and who will be in school tomorrow so that they get more knowledge and can get into upper secondary school.

We have been into physical textbooks. I mentioned in my speech that there should be physical textbooks instead of the zeal for digitalization, which has not been good for Swedish students' knowledge and which perhaps has hit hardest against those students who have a hard time reaching the passing level. We are turning the course from the Center Party's ill-considered digitalization policy – shall I say it like that? – to a school policy that goes back to the basics, physical textbooks, where students get to trudge through tedious reading instead of getting the quick kicks. It will contribute to better mental health.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! It is not I who have been Minister of Education. It is not I who have done what, for example, Edholm has done, namely purchasing a lot of digital devices for all children without knowing what they should be used for. It is in practice the Liberals who have done it, not I. I don't quite think that it is the Center Party's thing. What we say is that one should use the methods that work best, regardless of whether they are physical or digital, and that the profession knows this better than you and I.

We completely agree that there should be more knowledge in school, but the government actually wants to lower the requirements when it comes to moving on to upper secondary school. That is, like, the official policy from the government. They want a new grading system that allows more people to move on with lower knowledge than today. That is what they actually say.

Many of those who today are not allowed to move forward should be able to move forward with the new grading system. That is one of the very ideas in this. One should not be knocked out by a single subject, such as math, which 80 percent do today. It is the government's official policy. It is just that you want to wait ten years to implement it. I suggest that we do it faster. I do not understand why you do not want to when you think it is right. That is actually what is the basic question.

We both like Dalarna. I said in my speech that the rural schools are hit very hard by the Tidö government's policy at the current moment. The state grants, for books for example, which the member was referring to, Madam Speaker, do not go to the small schools in any particular extent.

Is the school Bäsna in Gagnef? There is surely such a school that has not received this, because it is too troublesome to apply and too expensive in relation to what one gets out of it. It is also about emergency schools. Will Gagnef build an emergency school? Is it an answer that Gagnef can use, that an emergency school is to be built? I would very much like to hear about that. Time and again, it is the case that the money does not go to rural areas. The proposals from the Tidöregeringen are based on big-city thinking, and I know that your heart beats somewhere else.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will take one question at a time. I would not describe the government's policy for upper secondary school and the grading system in the way the member chooses to do. I would rather describe it as the government choosing to broaden upper secondary school, so that more people get an alternative and a line that suits them, instead of lowering the requirements.

If one were to do as Member Niels Paarup-Petersen suggests – like completely removing the passing threshold today – the risk is that students would enter the national upper secondary programs that do not pass them and who would then be eliminated once more or eliminated later. In that case, it is better that they are caught already after grade 9, I would say.

When it comes to rural schools, the government is making major investments in all of Sweden's schools. But one must remember that if schools are to be able to exist in rural areas, someone must want to live there, so to speak. The problem during the last parliamentary term, when the Centerpartiet was part of the government, was that the rural areas were brought to their knees. All of us who lived far from the big cities were hit incredibly hard by high fuel prices, an infrastructure that did not function, and a predatory policy that was ill-considered. That was the reason why the Centerpartiet completely collapsed in the countryside. In Dalarna, voter support was halved because the voters simply did not like the rural policy.

When it comes to the schools, it is always a balancing act between targeted state grants and general state grants, but the small municipalities will certainly get the targeted state grants for physical books. I was actually at Los school in Ljusdal municipality, in Hälsingland. It is located somewhere between Sveg, Ljusdal, and Orsa. It is a very small school, out in the countryside. They certainly received a share of the grants. They had purchased books that they otherwise would not have received.

I do not buy the narrative that the Center Party is trying to paint. On the contrary, it is this government that is finally standing up for the countryside.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! The member's passionate speech on the importance of mental health on the agenda caught my attention. There are, in fact, heavy-weight institutions that have signed a call to include mental health on the agenda. These are heavy-weight institutions such as Unicef, which the member mentioned, but also professional associations, school health services, student organizations, Bris and RFSL, and a long line of civil society organizations who believe that this is a priority measure to promote mental health.

There seems to be quite good evidence that one can promote mental health by learning how mental health works.

I interpellated the Minister for Social Affairs on this quite exactly two years ago. On 18 December 2023, I asked the question whether the Minister for Social Affairs could consider investigating whether the possibility of mental health should be introduced into the school curriculum. The answer I received then was that the question is being prepared in the Government Offices. Now, from Mathias Bengtsson, it sounds as if the question is fully prepared and that we are ready to introduce mental health into the curriculum.

My first question to Mathias Bengtsson is: In what way will Mathias Bengtsson ensure that the new curriculum proposal leads to us getting mental health on the agenda?

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Linus Sköld, for the question!

It is very true that the Christian Democrats are driving this issue. The Christian Democrats have looked at the research. We have seen the problems out in the schools. And we see that by putting mental health on the schedule, one could probably address part of this problem. Just as the World Health Organization, for example, points out, this could help children and young people get tools to be able to manage their mental health.

The question regarding the curriculum is being prepared in the Government Offices, but not in the sense that it is lying in a drawer, but in the sense that it is not completely finished being negotiated. We will have to see, so to speak, what it lands in. But the Kristdemokraterna's message is that we are driving this issue.

I could also imagine several ways to get such work into the schools. The schools can do this already today within the existing curriculum. All Social Democratic municipalities can, for example, introduce local variants of this in all schools they are responsible for. Skolverket could produce national guidelines for it, even if it does not end up in just the new curriculum.

My counter-questions to the Social Democrats are why the Social Democrats did nothing when they themselves were in charge of the Ministry of Education and how it looks in the social democratic municipalities. Why do not all social democratic municipal politicians push this through in their municipal schools?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Earlier in this debate, the profits of the friskolor have been debated extensively. Mathias Bengtsson now has the same problem as Simona Mohamsson, namely that he says things that he has no basis for.

If one represents a government party, the listener will believe that one represents the government's policy. Simona Mohamsson says: We shall abolish limited companies in schools. We shall prohibit profits in schools. The Liberals' party leader, who is also the Minister for Education, says this publicly. But she cannot stand for it when we debate the matter here in the chamber because that policy is not covered by the Tidö Agreement.

Mathias Bengtsson has exactly the same problem. He stands in the rostrum and speaks passionately about including mental health on the agenda. But it is not covered by the Tidö Agreement, so he cannot make any promises that it will become a reality – even though he represents the party that holds the position of Minister for Social Affairs. It is unprofessional to behave in this way.

Mathias Bengtsson has another problem, namely that the Christian Democrats have for a long time also advocated for separating school health from the school. School health has a preventive and health-promoting mandate and should be deeply involved in the mental health education that would take place on the schedule, but Mathias Bengtsson wants to move that staff to the regions. Then he wants to abolish the regions and move healthcare to the state, so he probably wants to nationalize school nurses and counselors. It will not benefit mental health on the schedule. Nor will it benefit the students' mental health or the school's health-promoting mandate to do it in that way.

Fortunately, however, that point is also not covered by the Tidö Agreement, so that move will not happen.

This is Mathias Bengtsson's problem. He cannot make promises that he does not have the backing for in the government.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld's problem is that when the Social Democrats were responsible for the Swedish school, students fell through the cracks in the handover between student health services and the region's child and adolescent psychiatry – students who needed so much help that the student health services could not handle it and wanted to hand them over to the child and adolescent psychiatry. It was those students who needed the most help who fell through the cracks. Those who risked the most harm did not receive the help they needed because Linus Sköld and the Social Democrats could not handle the coordination issues that exist between the municipal schools and the region's child and adolescent psychiatry.

That is why the Christian Democrats argue that the same principal who is responsible for school health should also be responsible for child and adolescent psychiatry.

But Linus Sköld has one more problem. When the Social Democrats were responsible for the Ministry of Education, mental ill-health in schools increased. Insecurity in schools increased. Bullying in schools increased. The Social Democrats did not lift a finger to rectify that. The schools' safety work decreased, bullying increased, insecurity increased, and the knowledge results dropped. Unfortunately, there was peace of work at the Ministry of Education instead of peace of work in the Swedish classrooms that had needed it.

Now we finally have a government that is taking action on this. We finally have a government that is solving the school's problems. It is easy in opposition to criticize that things should be done differently and faster, but in that case, one should have delivered it when one had the opportunity to govern.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Being a teacher is every country's most important job. The political leadership at the national level needs to be focused on providing preschool teachers, primary school teachers, subject teachers, principals, adjuncts and professors at colleges and universities – in fact, everyone who works in the Swedish education system and in higher education – with really good conditions here and now. One needs to show a clear will for this in a budget debate. Then it is usually about putting money on the table.

I have so far heard a lot about what could happen and what people want to happen in a future, but less about what conditions one is prepared to give the entire education sector here and now. It is next year's budget we are talking about.

Miljöpartiet wants to see a school that puts the students' learning first, where the students' influence is strong and where their right to express their opinion is respected. We want to see a school with more resources for more teachers and smaller classes where skilled teachers get enough time for their students. We do not want poorly thought-out proposals from tightly controlled investigations that have not yet led anywhere. The investigations are piling up, and the government's legislative proposals are delayed. At the same time, the concern for where Swedish schools are headed is growing among students, parents, and those who work in schools.

I think we should take with us that much in Swedish school is good. Swedish research is also good. When I meet the student movement and the student movement, I feel only hope for the future. But we still need to ensure that we give those who work with education better conditions. We want more with the school than what we see today. The school shall be a place where children grow up to be secure young adults who are well prepared for life here and now and the life they will then take on. The school shall be a place one wants to be at, a place to long for.

Estonia is seen by many as a role model due to its good results in Pisa. Estonia's Minister of Education Kristina Kallas participated in the School Parliament this spring with a speech permeated by confidence in the teachers. In an interview in connection with this, she told DN: "Much is about letting the teachers decide in the classroom" – that is, the teachers, not the politicians.

She also said: "I notice from your questions that you are very critical of your school system. Do not forget that you place among the top ten in Europe and have one of the world's best school systems."

We also need to talk about this in the debate.

In the autumn, the Education Committee went on a study trip to Estonia and met Kallas at a lunch. She was then asked whether it is possible to take out profit from publicly funded schools in Estonia. She shook her head, as did all her colleagues: No no no, we don't do that here, they said.

We also made visits to schools and universities. The trust for teachers and researchers was clear, especially in their initiatives on digitalization and AI, the so-called AI leap.

Fredrik Malm recently rejected Sweden's previous digitalization strategy quite strongly in our exchange of remarks. It is quite obvious that he does not know the content particularly well. Now we are left without both a digitalization strategy and an AI strategy for the school system because the Liberals are unable to do anything other than exclude the school system from the strategic AI work that is ongoing in all other sectors of society.

I do not understand how one can divest itself of strategic management and leave the school principals in the lurch in such a society-transforming development as the one we are currently in the middle of. The other Nordic and Baltic countries are running away from us, and Sweden remains at the starting line.

I think it is good that the government in the budget allocates money to what we in Miljöpartiet call the equity grant, which the red-green government introduced and which the current government maintains and invests in. Just as in previous years, however, the government allocates less than Miljöpartiet. Now that it is the fourth year of the mandate period, we understand that the schools have received significantly less money than they needed and what they could have received with a different prioritization. It is clear that more money during these years would have made a difference.

We are allocating 1.5 billion more than the government so that the state can continue to direct resources to increase equality in schools. For us, it is important that the contribution retains its focus on equality, even though the government a few years ago removed that word from the grant's title, which was originally State support for strengthened equality and knowledge development.

We are also making investments in the budget for preschool to reduce group sizes and increase equality, in komvux, in after-school care, on strengthened student health, and on more qualified teachers. This is part, but not all, of what Swedish schools need.

We want the state to take greater responsibility for the school's funding through the introduction of a sector grant. Municipalities across the country should not have to be experts at applying for various small state grants or wonder if they are entitled to them, but they should receive the money they need in a simple way. As it is now, there are actually municipalities that do not have enough resources to keep track of all the different small state grants that exist.

We also need a ban on profit extraction in schools, Madam Speaker. Independent schools have a smaller proportion of qualified teachers, lower wages, larger classes, grade inflation, and poorer results for students when they move on to higher studies and working life. It creates inequality, and money that should go to teaching, teachers, and students disappears instead as profit to shareholders. Every tax krona should go to the students, the teachers, and the teaching, not to archipelago plots, waffle huts, or hunting lodges. That is, in fact, how the market school looks in practice.

We stand ready to change this. A large part of Sweden's population stands ready to change it. We are waiting for the Liberals' total renovation, but it only seems to be a bit of broker-fix.

It is not magic that Swedish schools need for the knowledge results to increase. They need a better working environment for employees and students. School should become a workplace that more people dream of working at, and teachers should be allowed to be teachers. It is about making the investments that are required, and I do not see that the government has been prepared to prioritize that during the recent years or is prepared to do so during next year. It does not help that the Liberals have school as their first, second, and third priority when not the entire government has it. One can choose to invest more in education, as we in Miljöpartiet – and actually the entire opposition – do.

Madam Speaker! In this speech, I will also very briefly touch upon the Green Party's budget regarding higher education and research. At a quick glance at the appropriation tables, the differences are quite clear: It is primarily the Green Party that provides the universities with more money both for education at the undergraduate and advanced levels and for doctoral training and research.

For several decades, the budgets of higher education institutions have been slashed through the so-called productivity deduction. One consequence is that Swedish higher education institutions are closer to the bottom when comparing teaching time with other countries in Europe. What we want with higher education is that students should meet skilled teachers and researchers during their period of study.

I also want to emphasize here the importance of the student unions' tasks at the educational institutions and question why the government is lowering their grants. We are not doing that. The student unions have a statutory mandate that is important for the quality of higher education and which is underfunded.

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 3.3 billion more to education and research than the government does. I therefore refer to my special statement. 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! We are debating higher education and research, and I begin by moving to approve the government's proposition regarding this part of the budget.

The total sum for universities and colleges under expenditure area 16 is almost 57 billion kronor. The total sum for our education system is at about 8 percent of GDP. It is a fairly high figure, but it has actually decreased in recent years – in 2020 it was at 8.4 percent. It is important to remember that the figure is directly dependent on our total GDP.

I also went a bit outside the budget tables and saw that the appropriation to FOI has practically doubled since the year 2000. I obtained the figure 48 billion kronor for 2025.

According to ChatGPT, which has waded through all the tables and added up the sums, the money for research increases by a total of 627 million kronor compared to the previous year. It is not a quality-assured figure, Madam Speaker, but I sat and played around a bit.

As usual, we have never allocated as much money to the purposes of education and research. I cannot see any direct reduction of any item except when it concerns the Swedish Research Council, which received a small reduction of its budget because the government, due to inflation and the decreased value of the krona, must spend more on international commitments. The value of the krona has, however, gone up again.

On page 141 of the budget, Madam Speaker, the government writes that it shall reward excellence. It is about time. Governments of all colors have focused too much on only money and the size of the appropriations; what we get the money for, one has not always been particularly interested in.

On page 135 of the budget, the government describes how it has made investments by increasing compensations for several educations and thereby creating room for more teacher-led time. This is something we in SD have long nagged about, and it is a very good and much-needed investment.

I saw in a TV segment last month that some who have attended university are further educating themselves within the vocational colleges. If anything, that is a signal that we need to sharpen our educations and at the same time not let it go into inflation in theoretical educations.

We also have the question of the universities' independence, which is connected to this. We politicians shall safeguard the universities' independence. It is an immensely important task. But it is not unconditional; it has never been and will never be. All governments have always interfered in what the universities do with their money. We have spending caps and targeted grants, we have special initiatives etcetera.

It has been completely correct of all governments, because it is tax money at stake. How is the government, for example, supposed to be able to invest in excellence, as it states in the budget, if it has no influence at all? This also applies to all other goals that we all like to hear about – we just do not want to link it with the independence of the educational institutions.

We also want Sweden to assert itself internationally. On page 232 of the budget, the government writes: "Sweden shall continue to be a leading research nation." Yes, but we also want our business sector to grow and develop with new innovations, just to take an example, and here the government must, of course, drive its ambition.

Within the framework, however, the universities are obviously self-governing. They have always been and will always be, regardless of the government. Everyone knows that.

Then we must distinguish between the independence of the educational institutions and the independence of the individual employees. I am thinking of both researchers, teachers, and students. I have noticed a tendency, Madam Speaker, that we Sweden Democrats think more about the freedom of the individual employees while other parties more prioritize the power of the boards. Again: It is not the same thing.

In this context, I also want to mention that Migration Minister Johan Forssell tasked Stockholm University with designing a citizenship test. The university refused, at least last I heard anything about it. Forssell replied that the university is actually a state authority and should carry out the assignment, but the university continues to refuse. We therefore have an educational institution, for the vast majority tax-funded, that is simply sitting in the sandbox.

To be clear here: It is carpenters, plumbers and asphalt layers who pay the tax that goes towards running these educational institutions, for the good of the whole society. But the institutions want to sit in their sandbox and say: "No, decide for yourself! Can do it yourself!" Get out of the sandbox, please! And to change the operating model to foundations is, as said, not relevant and will also never become so.

In all other respects, our universities shall, of course, be autonomous and self-governing – unless otherwise understood.

Unfortunately, I saw no appropriation for a new research icebreaker in this year's budget. There were a few lines about the need for a new research icebreaker, but no decision with accompanying appropriation was made. The Polar Research Secretariat therefore had to cancel its procurement. This is not good. Other countries can allocate all available shipyard capacity for this type of enormous icebreaker, Madam Speaker, and then we will be last in the queue. One might think this is a special interest, but research icebreakers have given us in Sweden a reputation worldwide that far exceeds what the so-called green transition has given us.

Above all, we live in an uneasy world where the great powers are trying to grab everything they can, also in the polar regions. In this situation, we must have politicians who have a holistic view and who show backbone and courage. We cannot leave decisions like this to anxious technocrats.

I would also have liked to see an extra targeted grant for defense research, preferably in the research bill. There are few areas where we are among the best in the world. Why not invest in those areas?

The vocational training programs have received an extra appropriation of 117 million kronor. They are reportedly to increase by 10 percent over three years, which is good. More people need to attend vocational training, and somewhat fewer should probably study at universities – for the good of society and the needs of the business sector.

I want to make a humble appeal: We should all help each other to re-evaluate practical professions and take collective responsibility. Feel free to call it a ten-year pact.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I think it can be mentioned here that Konstfack, according to the audit, has been negligent regarding efforts for participation in Horizon Europe. How difficult can it be to draw up a plan for participation in Horizon Europe? We pay enormous sums to that program. Make a plan for Horizon Europe instead of repainting the White Sea room, is my humble suggestion.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Knowledge is what builds Sweden's prosperity. That people can educate themselves throughout their lives is important both for society and for each individual.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that Sweden's competitiveness is built on knowledge and not on poor working conditions. People's opportunity to grow and develop throughout life should also not be forgotten when talking about opportunities for education for adults.

The labor market situation is as if there were a crisis in Sweden. The recession is prolonged, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent of the workforce. Consequently, the interest in studying is higher than it has been for a very long time. People are smart – those who become unemployed naturally use the time of unemployment to strengthen their position on the labor market so that the opportunities to get a job, and furthermore a more advanced job than the one they had when the unemployment started, increase. In this situation, the government is cutting back on educational places for adults.

The year the Tidö Agreement was signed, the state cut 5.5 billion in support for municipal adult education. The proposal that the government has now placed before the Riksdag is to allocate 3.7 billion next year. There are also plans for continued cuts in the subsequent years. This concerns regional vocational adult education, meaning vocational training at the upper secondary level for professions such as assistant nurse, cook, carpenter, or process operator. It also concerns combined courses in SFI, meaning the possibility for adults to combine work or internship with studies in the Swedish language.

Madam Speaker! This is in a way the final account for this government, for this is the last budget that this government lays.

So, what does the year-end look like? For the fourth budget in a row, you are reducing the funds for adult education. You are not reducing them quite as much as you planned to do in the previous year's budget, and you therefore call it an investment. Like an onion on that salmon, you have every year happened to reduce the appropriation more than what you decided was appropriate half a year later, and therefore added a little bit in the supplementary budget.

In this way, we have had a constantly shrinking and incredibly erratic funding of municipal adult education during this parliamentary term. Now, the government is admittedly implementing some benevolent changes to this support so that the municipalities get better conditions to use it. That is good, but there will be fewer places in adult education again next year. It is unwise.

A new development regarding the shrinking number of places is that the government, for the first time during the mandate period, admits that there will be fewer places as a result of the pursued policy. I dislike the factual situation that [the number of places] is shrinking, but I appreciate the honesty.

This is for higher education, Madam Speaker. The government's changes to the funding of higher education resemble the changes being made to the funding of adult education. They are lowering the amount and thus the number of possible study places, but raising the price tag a little bit. This started already in the budget for the current year, and we can already see the consequences of it.

The number of places is decreasing at the same time as the number of applicants to higher education is hitting record highs. The demand for courses starting in the spring is higher than at any time since 2009, that is, during the height of the financial crisis. At the same time, the government's policy has led to thousands fewer being admitted to higher education in the spring. The government continues in that direction in next year's budget, which we are now debating.

The government launched this direction for the higher education budget policy in 2024. At that time, it was stated that the government would shift the focus of the education policy. There were to be fewer courses of a hobbyist nature and more educations that lead to jobs.

We see the result now. It did not turn out that way. There were simply fewer educational places, regardless of whether they lead to jobs or not. As an example, it can be mentioned that three nursing programs are being abolished by the spring, even though the number of first-hand applicants to the nursing program has increased by 18 percent since last year. It is well difficult to claim that the nursing program would be an education of a hobbyist nature.

We Social Democrats believe that it is important that people have the opportunity to educate themselves, both for their own sake and for the sake of skills supply. This is also the reason why we want higher education to be available throughout the country. Ideally, you should be able to study where you live. That is why we invest money in both higher education and learning centers throughout the country. People live all over the country, and thus highly educated labor is needed all over the country.

We also want strong research environments throughout the country, partly because higher education in the whole country requires research in the whole country, and partly because research interacts with the surrounding society and builds growth clusters together with companies and people nearby.

The government's ambition, however, is to concentrate both research and higher education into a few locations in the country and make it possible for fewer and fewer people to educate themselves. It is a kind of reverse economic policy that will be bad both for individuals, for companies and other employers, and for research and the quality of research.

Madam Speaker! I cannot conclude this speech without mentioning the slaughter of the student organizations' funds. The government is cutting the student organizations' grants by more than one third. The student organizations, i.e., the student unions, organize students, arrange study-social activities, and monitor and participate in the development of education and students' conditions for studying. The government proposes that the grant, which was introduced when the mandatory union membership was abolished, be reduced from 55 million to 35 million. We Social Democrats strongly reject this cut.

Madam Speaker! Time for the final account. In every budget throughout the entire mandate period, we have allocated more than the Sweden Democrats and the government to academy, vocational college, and adult education – this is because we believe it is important that people can educate, form, and improve themselves, because we understand how to meet economic cycles with budget proposals, and because we believe it is important not to build the country's competitiveness on low wages and poor working conditions but on knowledge and competence.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Linus Sköld's speech and noted the Social Democrats' position on a central issue, namely how our educational institutions should be run. Ever since the days of the Folkpartiet, we liberals, together with the other bourgeois parties, have pushed to review whether the authority form is suitable for our educational institutions because we see the necessity of a free academy in Sweden. This has become increasingly acute, not least considering what we see from the Trump administration in the USA. If the Ivy League institutions in the USA were authorities, I guess they would not have remained given what the current presidential administration could have done in that case.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has freedom of research enshrined in its constitution, and an investigation is currently underway on how academic freedom should be strengthened; the report will be submitted this summer. If we truly intend to strengthen academic freedom and the free academies, it is absolutely necessary to also review the institutions' forms of operation.

Finland took this path 15 years ago, and there one clearly sees that when the majority of the educational institutions are their own legally public-law entities, they have a stronger autonomy. They can decide on their own academic structures, enter into agreements, own property more freely, and so on.

Now it is the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats who are blocking this in Sweden's Riksdag. Why, Linus Sköld?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the question. It will be my pleasure to clarify why the foundation form for the country's educational institutions is not the answer to the question the educational institutions pose.

That Chalmers was a foundation did not protect them from political attacks when they established DEI offices this spring, as Patrick Reslow and Richard Jomshof went to the press and said that Chalmers should not receive state funding. What leads to academic unfreedom is politicians who do not respect the boundary between the political level and the freedom of science and education. Patrick Reslow has demonstrated to everyone that the foundation form does not protect Chalmers.

The foundation form also does not protect Chalmers or Jönköping University from the much more tightly bound research funds the government is guilty of. Every additional krona in the research proposition is either allocated to politically prioritized assignments or is put out for competition between the universities. This is, therefore, Fredrik Malm's way of circumventing the academic freedom of the universities, and it will be so as long as Fredrik Malm and Patrick Reslow are allowed to decide.

As long as it is the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats who get to decide, it is under these conditions that the country's educational institutions operate, and then it doesn't matter what form of association it is.

I am not saying that Sweden has the perfect organization of the educational institutions. If there are problems that need to be solved, we can do that. But it will not be a protection against political steering as long as the funds are public.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The educational institutions themselves want this. It becomes very clear when one speaks with principals of educational institutions in Sweden. Not least the principal at Stockholm University has written that he welcomes this and believes that it is very important for the educational institutions to be guaranteed autonomy both in the short and long term. We do not know how the political winds will blow.

It is easy to stand in the parliamentary rostrum and refer to a single member's X-feed, and it does not matter whether Chalmers is an authority or a foundation if a member of Parliament writes something on X. But had Harvard, Brown, Princeton and Yale been authorities, an American president could have shut down these authorities through a simple order and a Senate resolution. They would not have existed at all today. The reason they remain is that they have alternative funding.

The importance of free universities is that they can, in different ways, build up a robustness in their organizations and that the autonomy makes them free from the different political winds that may blow.

The Social Democrats' view is that the best way to safeguard academic freedom is to politicize our universities, to lay a wet blanket over them in the way that is happening now and not let them enter into agreements more freely, invest in for example real estate, build up other capital and take in private capital. But other countries are going in that direction or did so several hundred years ago. Sweden's model is quite unique.

It is problematic that the Social Democrats take academic freedom so lightly.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Fredrik Malm misses in his reasoning that it was not the foundation form that protected Harvard in the USA. Trump did exactly what Fredrik Malm said, that is, ensured that no public funds could be paid out to Harvard by giving an order to the payment authority, despite there being a budget decided by Congress. He used his power to bypass Congress. But what gave Harvard resilience was its funding.

If we in Sweden are to follow this financing model, we will become dependent on philanthropists and tuition fees. That is not what I want, and I do not believe that Fredrik Malm wants it either. Fredrik Malm does not want to finance higher education with tuition fees.

That comparison is, therefore, seriously flawed.

This is not about individual members' posts on X. Earlier in today's debate, we heard the Sweden Democrat member claim to be better at assessing researchers' methods and results than the Nobel Committee is. The Sweden Democrats never hesitate to say which research is good or bad, and letting Fredrik Malm turn the higher education sector into the next market failure will not save the higher education sector from that.

(Applause)

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating how Sweden should prepare for the future. The most important preparation project is in the schools, in the universities and in adult education.

Right now, more and more people are left without work. We have a record-high unemployment. Many who have long struggled to support themselves fall into unemployment when the economy slows down. At the same time, young people leave primary school with incomplete grades or with only primary or secondary education and face a labor market where they do not get jobs, and they cannot move out of home or begin an independent adult life.

At the same time, the welfare sector is screaming for labor – in healthcare, in schools, in elderly care, and in social work. An enormous gap has emerged between people who want to work and workplaces that desperately need staff. As the gap grows, social vulnerability also grows. Long-term unemployment risks becoming entrenched. Companies and welfare operations find it difficult to recruit. The regions and municipalities are forced to patch and repair. It is a development that Sweden cannot afford.

Madam Speaker! It is time to use the education system as the bridge that unites these two worlds: the competence needs in welfare and people's right to education and self-sufficiency.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see a Sweden where education carries welfare. People should be able to go from unemployment to education and all the way to secure jobs. Every region and municipality should be able to staff its healthcare, its schools, and its care services. Politics should not leave people to fend for themselves but build paths into the labor market. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet invest in education as the solution. We do not see it as a cost or a burden.

Sweden will lack thousands of healthcare workers within just a few years. To secure the healthcare sector's competence supply, we are expanding the medical education with 500 places and the nursing education with 1,000 places by 2030. For this, we allocate 208 million kronor in 2026.

To ensure that more people can afford to study, we are investing 300 million kronor in course literature for adult students. That is 300 million more than the government. It is a crucial equality reform. No one should be forced to refrain from studying to become a nursing assistant, childcare worker, or teaching assistant because they cannot afford the books.

In order for higher education to be accessible to everyone, we are investing 10 million kronor to make the higher education entrance exam accessible for persons with disabilities and an additional 10 million to avoid fee increases. It will be a total of 20 million kronor to ensure broadened recruitment in practice, not just in theory.

Madam Speaker! People who are outside the labor market need a secure and clear path into education. In the Left Party's budget, this is a priority. We want to see a system that truly matches the unemployed with the professions where the shortages are greatest: in welfare in the countryside and in municipalities and regions that year after year cry out for staff.

We know that education works. We know that when people are given the opportunity to educate themselves, they take it. We also know that every invested krona in education pays off many times over by people gaining their own livelihood and by health centers, schools, and elderly care homes finally being able to be staffed.

Madam Speaker! Finally: These are not expenditures. They are investments in Sweden's future – in Kiruna, in Ånge, in Olofström and in our major cities, suburbs and rural areas. They are investments in young people who need a second chance, in adults who want to change paths and in the heroes of the welfare system, both of today and tomorrow. We invest in people. We educate for the future and for the welfare across the entire country.

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now considering the government's budget proposal for school, higher education and research. I move for approval of the proposal in the committee report and rejection of all motions.

For me, for the Christian Democrats and for the government, knowledge, education and skills supply are not just technical issues. They are the foundations for a strong society where every human being is given the opportunity to grow, contribute and take responsibility.

Madam Speaker! I want to particularly emphasize that the knowledge at the educational institutions builds Sweden's future competitiveness. Education and research shall maintain high quality, rest on a scientific or artistic foundation, and promote academic freedom. It is a prerequisite for education, trust, and excellence. The focus shall be on quality, not quantity.

The Government's proposal for appropriations for 2026 within expenditure area 16 amounts to approximately 107 billion kronor. More than half of these funds, around 56.3 billion kronor, go to universities and colleges. It is a clear expression of the prioritization we Christian Democrats give to knowledge, quality, and long-term competitiveness when we sit in the government.

For us Christian Democrats, education and research are more than a means for economic growth. It is a foundation for a society where people's abilities are utilized and where responsibility is taken for future generations.

Madam Speaker! I personally do not come from an academic background. For me, it also took some time into adulthood before I took the step into higher education. But when I finally did, it gave me new perspectives and a competence that has carried me through my entire working life. That experience has strengthened my conviction about the importance of education and that this opportunity should be available to everyone, regardless of background or life stage.

Sweden faces a decisive task today: to reverse a worrying knowledge curve and restore the ambition to be a leading knowledge and research nation. All forms of education are needed, Madam Speaker, and they must maintain high quality.

We know that large student groups and reduced teacher contact risk eroding the quality. We must reverse that development. To raise the quality in higher education, the right conditions are needed: more teacher-led time, better support for students, and greater opportunities for deepening.

Increased compensation amounts for several educational areas are central to this. We are now giving universities and colleges the conditions to organize and develop education and educational offerings with a focus on quality. This is achieved by using public resources responsibly and effectively. It is a responsibility that is in line with Christian Democratic core values.

Madam Speaker! Research and education shall be free from pressures, short-term trends, and ideological fluctuations. We welcome the government's inquiry on how academic freedom can be further strengthened. Academic freedom is a fundamental part of a democratic society and must be actively promoted and protected in a time when it is challenged both nationally and internationally.

Madam Speaker! The research and innovation policy proposition from 2024 provides a clear direction. Research shall be characterized by quality, excellence, and internationalization and be long-term, relevant, and useful for both society and the business sector. In a time of intensifying international competition for talent, we profile Sweden as an open, attractive, and secure research country. Internationalization strengthens Sweden's competitiveness and makes our country attractive for foreign researchers and doctoral students.

The government implements this through new quality indicators and strategic initiatives. Increased research grants are distributed with a clear focus on quality, and resources are directed to those areas and institutions that can best contribute to fulfilling the national goals.

Madam Speaker! The goal is clear: Sweden shall continue to be a leading research and education nation where high quality in both education and research, scientific excellence and internationalization are fundamental principles.

I move again for approval of the committee's proposal regarding expenditure area 16.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is falling behind as a research nation, and the now-presented research and innovation bill will not change that because it contains no reforms.

Centerpartiet notes that we have locked ourselves into a state-funded financing system that inhibits creativity and curiosity. In order for Sweden to once again become a leading research nation, new capital and new circumstances are required.

We in the Center Party want to shift power and resources from the state to the educational institutions, both to the leadership of the educational institutions and to the researchers. Swedish educational institutions are unusually dependent on external grants, not least through high requirements for co-financing.

Madam Speaker! We want to see two major changes aimed at giving the educational institutions greater own strategic space. On the one hand, we want the private sector to be able to provide tax-deductible gifts and contributions to universities and colleges, and on the other hand, we want to abolish co-financing requirements on state funding.

The global competition for research investments is increasing, and technological advances are occurring at a rapid pace. Internationally, donations have played a crucial role in building world-leading universities and attracting investments and talent. Sweden has not yet seized this opportunity, which we now see weakening our competitiveness.

The Center Party wants to see more sources of funding by allowing deduction rights for unconditional donations to our educational institutions. Universities without their own capital cannot act particularly strategically. It is a serious deficiency in the Swedish system. Swedish educational institutions are, as mentioned, unusually dependent on external grants, not least through high requirements for co-financing. These requirements risk pushing out smaller research areas and tying up the universities' resources while successful researchers are financially disadvantaged. This thus creates a paradoxical situation where the universities become dependent on state funding while the universities' state grants are forced to go towards the state's requirements for co-financing.

Madam Speaker! The bridge between universities and the business sector needs to be strengthened. With today's tax rules, companies are prevented from donating to Swedish universities.

Sweden lags far behind comparable OECD countries when it comes to tax incentives for donations to research. In the USA, donations are fully deductible, which has made it possible for universities such as Harvard and Stanford to build up enormous private funding bases. These internal economic muscles create a significant independence from the oddballs in the White House. The United Kingdom has the Gift Aid system, which makes donations tax-advantageous, and the Netherlands even offer extra deductions for donations to research. The result in these countries is strong research environments and a vibrant donation culture. Sweden, on the other hand, has a weak donation culture and small private research funds. It is a direct consequence of our restrictive tax rules.

Madam Speaker! The universities' universal strength lies in their ability to conduct long-term free research, independent research, free from political and other governance. This requires both institutional and financial independence. We just heard the combatants from the Social Democrats and the Liberals in an exchange where one claimed financial freedom and the other claimed organizational freedom. The Centre Party claims both. In any case, this requires a large capital that the universities themselves can control, and we believe that donations can give the universities the opportunity to take strategic steps forward.

The institutional capital, the surplus that arises when universities do not manage to use their allocated funds, would only last a few months if the state's money tap were to be choked off. The economic independence for Swedish higher education institutions is almost non-existent. It is alarming, not least when political winds of various kinds increasingly both want to and can steer the universities. Higher education institutions are not just the starter motor of the modern economy but also the hub of critical thinking and a fundamental pillar in our democracy.

Madam Speaker! The investigation SOU 2024:90 proposed a tax reduction but with low caps and limited recipient categories. Several referral bodies, including the Karolinska Institute, have criticized this proposal and pointed out that a deduction right is significantly more effective for attracting larger donations. If Sweden wants to attract significant contributions from companies and private individuals, a powerful and predictable incentive is required.

The current political focus lies on stimulating companies' own research and development. It is a strength for Sweden with the companies' strong own research and development, but it is also a one-sided strategy that misses the potential in strengthening what can happen at free universities with external donations.

The Centre Party knows that Swedish innovation needs clear incentives, which are created through new tax rules that are favorable so that the business sector dares to invest in research and development.

Madam Speaker! Donations to the universities need to be tax-deductible, and they need to be unconditional. Greater financial autonomy for the universities is the foundation for free thought and for innovation and entrepreneurship with a global edge. Sweden needs a new way to finance and organize our institutions of higher education in order to develop as a welfare nation. An important step, we believe, is to create strong incentives for donations and a financing model that rewards successful research instead of locking it into directed channels.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am reflecting a bit on what Anders Ådahl said. The thoughts seemed very familiar. I believe I have read a book by Erik Ringmar where he outlines roughly these thoughts and has the same opinions as Ådahl.

Erik Ringmar thinks, just like Ådahl, that if we only build up a very strong capital at the universities, they can become foundations and much freer. They are, in some sense, in the USA; that must be said. It is only that it is based on the fact that the USA is a completely different society. They have much lower taxes. They have, as Ådahl pointed out, a donation culture. Disgustingly rich people in the USA engage in donations and the like, because that is their culture. This is something we cannot change in Sweden, Madam Speaker. Yes, perhaps in 100 years or 50 years or something like that.

I read a bit about Harvard University. It has a capital stock that is completely incredible. Trump can skip the grants to Harvard, but they can live on the interest. They can run their operations on the interest, which I believe is at 8 percent of their capital. Just getting up to that is difficult.

Does Anders Ådahl believe that Sweden can change this entire system within the span of 10 or 20 years? Well, I do not believe that.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to be a somewhat unpolished politician and say: No, I do not believe that we can do that.

The point I am putting forward here is that we want to see more independent educational institutions. By that, we mean that there are two things that make the institutions dependent. One is how money is obtained. The other is how free one stands from politics and actually also from the business sector, purely organizationally. We want to assert that we must work with both of those two instruments.

When it comes to funding, Swedish higher education institutions are incredibly dependent on state funding. We believe that the bill which formed the basis for the decision in the research and innovation bill has missed how money dictates what the institutions should devote themselves to.

I have some experience from one of these two foundation universities. There, one has its own capital that was received at the time of the foundation's establishment. The own capital means that the management of that specific institution has an opportunity to act strategically in a completely different way than the state universities do.

We mean that if one enabled both an increased donation possibility, so that one can build up an own internal capital, and furthermore abolished this co-financing requirement, it would be possible even with today's organizational form for our government agencies – that is, all other colleges and universities – to act more strategically and invest in certain specific research areas more than others.

That is not possible today. There is no possibility for the heads of any administrative authority to act strategically. That is what we want to change.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! The tax rules regarding donations are not set in stone. It should be possible to discuss them in different ways in the future. But when it comes to the state, this is currently financed to a very high extent through state funds. I mean that the taxpayers can demand something. As I said in my speech, it is construction workers and sheet metal workers who pay into this. It should not just be a playground, I would argue.

The university managements should govern this themselves. I don't know exactly how it works, but it is their responsibility. If they take their responsibility, the state does not need to intervene at all.

When it comes to academic freedom, it is, as I said in my speech, the difference between the freedom of the universities' and colleges' boards and the freedom of the individual researchers, individual teachers, and students. I also read in Erik Ringmars' book that it was the university itself that had set limitations. They imposed a reading list on him, and he was forced to include Judith Butler in the reading list. It was not the state that imposed it on him. It was the university management, or some council there.

This is not so simple. I think that the freedom of teachers and researchers is more important than the freedom of just the university managers.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe Stenkvist is touching upon an extremely essential issue, because this is not simple. Let us make it perfectly clear that universities and colleges are not to be a playground at all. It shall be a completely serious and result-oriented activity.

Experience shows that the universities that are the very best in the entire world are also the universities that have the most freedom. It is there that the university managements get the chance to drive strategic areas – whether it is quantum computers or life science research.

When they have the chance to act strategically themselves, they can attract the best researchers to be in freer environments where one is allowed to freely test ideas, rather than having politicians like Robert Stenkvist or Anders Ådahl standing there and deciding that researchers should now work on just this, and that we are now investing money in this. It is simply the case that with this freedom one gives the educational institutions, it will be at least like a playground.

I completely agree with Stenkvist that we politicians must ensure, for the sake of all our taxpayers, that the freedom we in that case grant is met by an equally large dose of responsibility. It is actually not particularly simple to do that. We are accountable to the taxpayers. I completely agree with Stenkvist on that.

It will be a major task to find a model where the freedom that is given to the educational institutions is met by an equally large responsibility and that there is some form of follow-up where this actually happens. I can say quite frankly that it is not a simple task, but if we manage it, Sweden's research results will skyrocket, and that is what we want to achieve.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 December.)

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