(cont. from § 19) Cultural heritage issues (cont. KrU6)

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for his speech. I have a few questions in this regard.

The Sweden Democrats have over the years claimed that they are the party that allocates the most money to cultural heritage in their budgets and that has the most developed policy within the cultural heritage area. The Sweden Democrats have promised a cultural heritage billion, an increase of the ecclesiastical antiquarian compensation, a cultural heritage fund and cultural heritage-root.

My question to the member is: Now that you are part of the government base - it is your budget that applies - where are all these promised investments?

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. Previously, as has been said, the Sweden Democrats have had the absolute largest investments within cultural policy. As Louise Thunström mentioned, it concerns a cultural heritage fund and cultural heritage-root in the cultural environment area and also in many other areas. It is important and correct. We had a large investment the year before the parliamentary election.

But this budget came with a very short timeframe after the election. We will still make cultural heritage investments to the highest degree in upcoming budget negotiations, and we will of course highlight investments in cultural heritage.

We have a broad cultural heritage policy, and all parties are free to join our proposals. And we will, of course, have a very robust and comprehensive cultural heritage policy in the future as well.

As we can see here, 10 of the 25 reservations are ours. 40-45 percent of all reservations come from us. So no one can say that we do not have an interest in and very many proposals in the cultural heritage policy.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Runar Filper for the answer. But when it comes down to it, the Sweden Democrats do not do what they promise year after year. In the election campaign, you promised lower prices for petrol and diesel as well as electricity support. And for eight years, you have promised a cultural policy with large economic investments in cultural heritage specifically. In the budget that currently applies, not even the Sweden Democrats' Skansen is allocated any funds.

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Promises regarding the price of gasoline and diesel are not in the culture budget. But we will see a change in the reduction obligation by January 1, 2024, at the latest. Then we will hopefully see a reduction of 4-5 kronor.

As said, we have made major investments in a cultural heritage fund, in cultural heritage-roots, in the cultural environment and other investments such as a Sweden Center and cultural pilots. These are very large investments. And not least within the cultural heritage area, we had investments of up to 1 billion if one counts over a period of a couple of years. These were large investments compared to other parties' investments.

However, the previous government had some initiatives at all the year before the election, but it was not the same level as the year before that. I think the messenger is shooting themselves in the foot here.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! Getting to know one's history can be an important building block in a person's development and identity formation. Seeing oneself as a continuation of previous generations' history can give us an anchoring and stable roots. It can be about one's own family's history or the place one lives. Who has gone before us? What thoughts did they have? How did they view their surroundings?

Preserving cultural environments and the collections in our archives and museums increases understanding between generations but can also provide us with important lessons for the future. With the help of researchers and experts, this cultural heritage is interpreted, and it becomes our collective memory and thus constitutes an important foundation for our perception of reality. It becomes a larger web that is no longer just about my family's or my home region's history, but about an entire country's or a people's origins.

That is why we also see that warring parties - these can be both states and other groups - have an interest in historiography and cultural heritage. Destroying buildings and archives and stealing or selling objects can become part of an attempt to erase an entire people. It is a weapon that not only kills today's people but targets their important roots.

Cultural heritage is therefore protected under international law. In the 1954 Hague Convention, it states: Damage to a people's cultural property, regardless of the country to which it belongs, is equivalent to damage to the entire human race's cultural heritage.

A clear example we received was in the cultural committee when we visited the National Archives a few weeks ago. Here in Sweden, a constitution from 1710 for a Ukrainian state has been preserved, and it naturally becomes an important piece of the puzzle in the Ukrainian historiography when Russia once again has great power ambitions. Through a collaboration between about thirty cultural institutions, a large exhibition was held in Ukraine just a few years ago with a number of objects that had not been there for 300 years but which had been preserved precisely in Sweden.

In addition to pure war situations, long-lasting colonial conditions have made it possible for many Western states to bring objects back to their museums. Even the oppression of minorities and indigenous peoples lies behind some of the collections. Demands for the return, so-called repatriation, of objects and remains have been raised among the world's indigenous peoples since the 1970s. Repatriation is about the right to the past and to one's ancestors. It is also about reconciliation between indigenous peoples and state powers.

The Sami Parliament decided in 2007 to demand a complete identification of all Sami skeletal material in all state collections. Progress on this issue has been very slow, but it is still moving forward.

I am pleased that we here in the Riksdag during the last parliamentary term managed to secure a notice that the government needed to speed up the process of returning objects. And from Vänsterpartiet, we are currently refraining from submitting new proposals in this area this year to see the outcome of the work that is currently ongoing at the government. On the other hand, we have budgeted 5 million kronor to provide lubrication in this process. It is important that the money is there.

Another very topical example is how the British looting of the African kingdom of Benin at the end of the 1800s spread the Edo people's cultural treasures across the world. It is believed that 5,000-10,000 objects are scattered. Our own world culture museum asked the government just a few weeks ago for permission to return 39 objects to present-day Nigeria, the so-called Benin Bronzes. It is a very important issue for the government to handle now.

There are today 1,644 museums in our elongated country, and together these collections have around 100 million objects. It is truly a staggering sum. To find out how all these objects have ended up there is an important but perhaps almost impossible task. It requires many resources and international cooperation. I have great respect for the fact that these are complex issues. That objects and thus stories from all over the world are scattered in museums in all parts of the world can also help to create knowledge and understanding of people we have never met, dead and living. It can lead to respect for other cultures today. But unfortunately, there are also examples of how deadlocks in these issues create new political conflicts, such as the one surrounding the Parthenon Marbles which the United Kingdom does not want to hand over to Greece.

Mr. Speaker! Just because cultural heritage is our common, collective memory, we in the Left Party believe that it should be accessible to everyone. Therefore, there needs to be free admission to the state museums and also to the county museums. It is clear that the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats do not believe that everyone should have access to the knowledge gathered in the museums, given that one cannot even allow 100 million to go towards free admission. At the same time, one could spare 13 billion in tax cuts for high-income earners.

In times of high inflation and high electricity prices, many unfortunately need to forgo leisure activities and now also museum visits. We think that it is with the museums just as with the libraries, that is to say that they are institutions of knowledge. In the Museum Act, it is established that the public museum system is intended to promote knowledge, cultural experiences, and free formation of opinion. I wonder how this decision aligns with, for example, the Liberals' view on knowledge. I unfortunately do not believe the Liberals are here and can answer that question, but perhaps one of the other government parties would like to explain how they have thought about this.

The digitalization of museums and archives also implies increased accessibility, and here the needs are enormous. The collections need to be documented digitally to be saved more securely for today's researchers and for posterity, but it is also about the development of digital viewing environments for visitors. Great efforts were made here during the pandemic, when people could not come to the museums, but the state needs to step in with substantial investments.

Some material risks being destroyed, and in some cases, it concerns formats that can no longer be read because the technology no longer exists – one cannot find spare parts for old machines and so on. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that it is urgent to get this done, and in our budget for this year, we propose a special investment in this of 65 million.

Unfortunately, it is the case that the entire cultural heritage sector has been somewhat set aside for several years. Sweden's museums attract a total of around 28 million visitors across the country in a normal year, and the museums are institutions that top the trust list when the Swedish people are asked to rate them. But they lack the economic resources required for them to be able to do their job. Now that we do not have a pandemic situation and people want to go full out with all these visitors, important measures must therefore be taken so that the museums can fulfill all parts of their mandate.

We in Vänsterpartiet are allocating around 300 million more to cultural heritage in our budget for this year than the government does. If one lacks ideas on how to work forward with strengthening cultural heritage work, there is inspiration to be found there.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for an enthusiastic contribution regarding cultural heritage, member!

The only reason I have objections is this matter of having to pay for culture. I can say that one of the member's party colleagues lectured me a number of years ago on why one should pay for culture - that it is about showing respect for our culture, that it is something that has a value and that it therefore should not be free for adults.

We have said that it is free admission up to the age of 20, but then we have said: No, one must pay regardless of whether one attends a symphonic concert, a museum, or something else.

Furthermore, the member does not even address the completely illogical part that Vänsterpartiet thinks it should be free at the state museums, which we pump 1.5 billion tax kronor into, but has no views on that which is financed with municipal and regional tax. It is apparently self-evident that those who live in Örnsköldsvik or Trelleborg should pay when they go to museums. I cannot find the logic in Vänsterpartiet joining in on what, in my eyes, is a social democratic blunder.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Peter Ollén for the member wanting to enter into this discussion. It is a very important issue.

We can look at how the statistics have looked. Free admission to state museums is something that has been introduced, removed, and introduced again - and now again removed. Consequently, one has also been able to see clearly how the number of visitors fluctuates, and when this was introduced for the first time, the number of visitors increased very significantly. It is regrettable that we here in the Riksdag have not been able to agree on how we should have it, because it means much more work for the museums to constantly change systems. It is also very costly.

What I presented here is that we see the museums as knowledge institutions. I think that one should compare them with the libraries and with our general school system, which also do not cost [the individual] but are paid for via taxes and therefore become open and accessible to everyone, regardless of the thickness of their wallet. That is how we see this: It is a matter of principle that everyone should have access to the knowledge bank that our museums, archives, and libraries constitute.

I think it is very important that culture is allowed to cost and that cultural workers are paid well. The question is how we are to pay, and Vänsterpartiet thinks that we should pay together through taxes. In that way, we can offer free admission to the state museums.

In many regions, it has also been decided that the regional tax finances free admission to, for example, county museums. This is the case in my home county Västmanland, and also in my former home municipality Västerås, where I was previously a municipal politician, we have free admission to our art museum. This can, therefore, be decided at a local level, and Left Party members across the country are pushing for that issue.

We have also considered whether it would be possible to carry out a state reform and pay out money to regions and municipalities so that they can remove their entry fees. We have tried to do some calculations on this, as it is an interesting thought to step in from the state's side and help municipalities and regions.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the clarification.

Yes, we saw that the number of visitors to the state museums increased from just over 7 to 8 million when the fee was removed upon the Social Democratic government's accession. I must be clear and say that I would have gladly liked it to be 8, 9 or 10 million visitors; this really has nothing to do with me wishing to keep the number of visits down. I also see that in the times we have now, it is extremely important that we take part in the cultural heritage.

I mean, however, that one must instead work with the very thinking that this is something that is important and has a value. It is exactly as in our dialogue with the citizens where we say: It is important that you subscribe to a daily newspaper in digital or physical form. It is important that you take part in the society you are a part of.

The museums are a part that is very important, but I mean that it is about a fundamental stance. We go in and support – we have a media support so that newspapers shall exist throughout the country, and we have a support even for the museums. I mean, 1.5 billion is already financed through state funds – what we are arguing about is whether the last 100 million should also be paid by the taxpayers or if they should be paid by those who use the museums.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is precisely in the principled stance that we differ, and that it is a fundamental ideological question.

We see that that which has great value for people needs to be accessible to everyone. We see that access differs very greatly based on class differences, what one's income is, and what cultural habits one has in the home where one grows up. Not everyone has the same access to culture today. We must do something about this, and we see that free admission could be a way to truly lower the thresholds. Then people would know that everyone is welcome to the museums and that it is free to go there.

Then this is not enough. The evaluations have shown that many regular museum-goers go there very often, while others never go there. One must therefore work in other ways from the museums' side to reach out broader and reach new groups. It is about reaching those who are not used to museums. This is a large task.

We had a debate here earlier about the cultural habits of children and young people, and there we propose a cultural boost for the school. If one has been to a museum when one is young, one feels comfortable there even when one gets older. You can take your parents there on the weekend, and it can become like a second living room.

We see that museums are used very much, that is to say, that families with children go on an excursion on the weekend and can walk around for many hours. That is what I do with my children. They have seen the same basic exhibition at the county museum for surely five years, but they still want to go there. They know where everything is, and they really feel at home there. It is their environment. And it is also adapted for children.

These are institutions that can teach us very much. That is why we want them to be as accessible as possible.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I became involved in the exchange of remarks, because these are interesting questions. We differ, but we well mean. We so dearly want that we should all take part in our cultural heritage.

I intend to sweep over metal detectors, digitalization, and Forum för levande historia during these few minutes.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish cultural heritage is a matter for all of us. Protection of cultural heritage, including ancient remains, should not entail more requirements. When it comes to metal detectors, we should not have more requirements than what is required to achieve this protection. Metal detectors can be used, for example, when one has lost metal objects, such as keys and jewelry or the like. But to enable such use without risking the protection of the cultural heritage, we believe that there should be a license system for metal detectors. Then they can be used more freely and openly and one does not need to seek permission for every location and for every occasion. A license system could be the right way. But one obviously has a reporting obligation if one finds ancient remains. The Government should appoint an inquiry to review the conditions for introducing a license system for the use of metal detectors.

Then there is the matter of digitalization. A digitalization of the cultural heritage contributes to preserving it for the future and to making it accessible to more people. The preparedness regarding the Swedish cultural heritage is not sufficiently high today. Preparedness plans need to be developed and updated, and the digitalization of the cultural heritage needs to occur at a higher tempo to secure our cultural heritage against risks of various kinds.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a little bit about the Forum for Living History. I and the Center Party consider that the Forum for Living History should be tasked with describing and informing about how Sweden has treated our minorities with, among other things, racial biology, skull measurements, forced relocations, nomad schools, work camps, and assimilation. The mandate should be included in the agency's regulatory letter but should be designed and carried out in close cooperation with the Sami population and the populations of other minorities.

One way to heal the wounds that state measures have caused is to carry out the repatriation of Sámi remains. Repatriation is a process for returning objects or remains to their original or rightful places. The concept also encompasses a reconciliation work: to settle a painful past and recreate trust between the one who took and the one who was affected.

The Sámi have for many years requested that the Swedish state return the human remains that are in the state's custody, such as in our museums or in other collections. Despite this, it is only a few remains that have been repatriated and been able to be buried. Naturally, this is also about money. I believe that the state must take a great responsibility here for this to be possible. That this shall be done is stated in various conventions, so it should really also be something we in Sweden can manage.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Deremar, for the interesting aspects that came up! Now the heart of the matter regarding metal detecting also came up. I can only say that I had the opportunity to see how they worked with this in Denmark. We were some members from here who were invited there. They have an app that is used for all metal detectors. There you can see which areas you are not allowed to search in - otherwise, you can search anywhere. They said that this was developed by the Danish state, and they would very much like for Sweden to be able to use it freely and that it could also be set up in Sweden. It will be exciting to see how this with metal detecting can be developed in Sweden, so that more can take a democratic part in creating our cultural heritage and searching for it.

When it comes to digitalization, there was only one point that I missed and which I think is incredibly important. It is the standardization. In Sweden, we have not standardized how we digitize our cultural heritage, but instead, every museum buys its own software and so on. One does not therefore get a database where one can get an overview of everything that exists in Sweden. I think that is one thing that we in the committee really must work for: that this is standardized so that regardless of which museum things are at, they should be searchable with the same search terms.

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for this reply. I listened to Peter Ollén's contribution regarding the metal detector, so I understand that we could find each other here in a much better way, so that there will also be some workshop of this. I appreciate that. Naturally, we shall look around and see what good ideas exist. We do not need to reinvent the wheel ourselves. If it is the case that Denmark has come far with this, I absolutely think we should look at that.

When it comes to digitalization, it is well a bit of a dilemma, even though I believe we both truly appreciate when one gets to decide over one's own county, so to speak. We have seen within healthcare that it has become a huge problem when all regions have their own systems for medical records and everything that it is. Here we must naturally tighten up, and we do not need to make the same mistakes when it comes to this. It is very positive if some kind of standardization could emerge for this, so that one does not work in different directions and make it difficult.

Mr. Speaker! I wish to move for the approval of reservation 24.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage is a public resource that has the potential to be a matter of concern for all people. I personally often think of it as traces or expressions from the past that acquire a value, but it can also be comments from artists concerning my own time that make it useful for me in my everyday life, even under the name heritage.

Cultural heritage can contribute to community and create an understanding of society's development, our culture and our history, but as has been said, it can also be a starting point for criticism of various social events.

How cultural heritage is defined is not a political question. It is instead defined by how it is perceived and used. It is the institutions' collections, our common cultural treasures, individuals' languages and ways of life, our civil society, our traditions and much more that together constitute the cultural heritage. To the extent that it needs to be defined and delimited, this shall be done by the profession and research.

Politics shall create the organizational frameworks and finance the cultural heritage institutions, while the expertise is responsible for the management of the cultural heritage. The museum institutions shall be free from political influence on content. Arm's length distance is a completely central concept here.

The new Museum Act, which was decided during the Green Party's time in government, establishes the museums' independence from politics and formalizes the principle of arm's length distance. The status of museums as knowledge institutions is also strengthened in the law. This was an important reform. A first follow-up was conducted in 2019. At that time, among other things, the need for increased knowledge and education regarding the law was pointed out as an area for development. How the Museum Act has been applied and complied with since then should, during this parliamentary term, be the subject of a new review, including an assessment of whether further measures are required to secure the museums' independence in the future.

Mr. Speaker! What is being done today can be cultural heritage tomorrow. Therefore, the culture that is created today must be managed carefully, so that it can be shared with new generations. The collections that the state museums manage should be shared with as many people as possible.

The reform on free admission to state museums has enabled new groups to participate in the activities and collections of the state museums. Now the reform has been rolled back, which has made it more difficult for people to participate in our common cultural heritage. Miljöpartiet thinks that this is the wrong way to go. The reform should instead be made permanent.

Cultural heritage is and remains a matter that should be made accessible to all people, no matter where we live. The opportunity that digitalization opens and which creates conditions for more people to take part in the museums' collections without physically visiting the museums shall be taken into account and developed.

I want to make a small addition here and highlight the museums' role as neutral meeting places for citizens, politics, research, business, and others who want and can participate in our society's transformation. Few places are better suited than museums to host such important meetings. This is also completely in line with how the international museum world through ICOM, which is the name of the UNESCO-related organization, views the whole matter.

We in Miljöpartiet want to carry out a cultural heritage boost to increase accessibility to cultural heritage, both through the renovation of physical environments and through a digitalization initiative. In the budget for 2022, Miljöpartiet secured a starting sum. Now, funds need to be added to give the operations the opportunity to plan and carry out large-scale work.

Archives play an immensely important role for information management and the preservation of cultural heritage and thus also for our democracy. In 2019, the Archive Inquiry submitted its report *From Here to Eternity*. The report has since been out for consultation. Digital preservation is a major issue, as is the design of a new archive act. Some steps have been taken, for example in the form of increased appropriations to the National Archives, but more steps need to be taken. We in Miljöpartiet are eager that the work with the archive inquiry moves forward.

Mr. Speaker! Museums and cultural heritage institutions should be spread across the country. Sweden's county museums play an important role, among other things, in highlighting regional and local cultural heritage, caring for and making collections accessible, contributing expertise regarding cultural environments, as well as serving as open meeting places for culture and education.

There is currently no law that protects the regional museums, while their work is often taken for granted. We believe it is important that the long-term possibility for the county museums to fulfill their broad mandate for both current and future generations is secured, and we argue that the possibility of including the county museums in the Museum Act should be examined.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that civil society's efforts for cultural heritage are extraordinarily important. People's commitment to these issues shall be taken into account and encouraged. This applies to both the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. We in Miljöpartiet contributed during our time in government to strengthening the grants to non-profit cultural heritage actors and would like to continue to do so.

The cultural heritage of the national minorities must also be highlighted - not least the Sámi cultural heritage needs to take up a bit more space in our public sphere. Our cultural heritage shall be free and accessible to all.

I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of reservation 8 on museum issues. It is there that we speak about the museums' independence from politics, about arm's length distance, and about the museums' role as knowledge institutions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 9.)

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