Municipal and regional issues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S wants to reject all motions as the party has advocated for a holistic approach 1 2. S is hesitant about centralizing more power at the state level 2 and looks forward to the government's actions regarding recommendations from the Kommunperspektivutredningen 1 3. C wants to move for approval of a new free-municipality trial where the initiative comes from below 4. C argues that small municipalities in rural areas struggle with welfare and recruitment 4. C wants to open up for greater flexibility and differentiation 4 as well as expand opportunities for municipalities to jointly hand over responsibilities to the region 4 5. SD expresses concern that moving operations reduces citizens' opportunities for accountability 6 7. SD wants a restrictive stance on migration 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Peter Hedberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would first like to express my support for the committee's proposal in the report.
I have thought a great deal about where I should begin when it comes to debating this report. Now I didn't manage to do that first, but I intend to go back to yesterday, which some have touched upon.
Yesterday, a seminar was organized in the Riksdag's second chamber to mark the fact that the Instrument of Government from 1974 turns 50 years old. It was a seminar invited by the Speaker and KU. The King and the Crown Princess were present together with a large number of former prime ministers, former Speakers, Members of Parliament, and representatives of the public sector in Sweden.
It is worth noting that the King who was present yesterday to mark the first 50 years of the Instrument of Government is the same one who was there when the Instrument of Government came into being. But there were also others present yesterday who were there already at the time it happened. Time does not allow me to mention everyone, but there were Ingvar Carlsson, Lena Hjelm-Wallén, and the KU acquaintance Anders Björck. These are people and political representatives who are a link to history, and they could share their experiences with us.
In the form of government that these persons shaped and decided upon, there is the beautiful wording in Chapter 1, Section 1, second paragraph: "The Swedish people's rule is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. It is realized through a representative and parliamentary system of government and through local self-government."
These are important and binding words, which clarify that municipalities and regions are fundamental parts of the Swedish system of government. I know that many of us who have the honor of being members of parliament also have assignments in our home municipalities and sometimes also within the regions. I myself am the chairman of the municipal council at home in Kramfors municipality. I think that in this way I get a natural connection to what happens at home and can participate in the local democratic processes. It is of importance.
It is of great importance that we who sit in the Riksdag understand the different circumstances of the municipalities and that we understand the effects that the decisions we make in here have out in the country.
The Social Democrats, as stated, stand behind the committee's proposal in the report, which is to reject all motions. But I still think that the Centre Party's starting points regarding the asymmetrical distribution of responsibility are interesting and worth mentioning.
The municipalities have, as we know, different conditions to manage the tasks that have been imposed on them. In the report and in its reservations, the Center Party highlights difficulties regarding recruiting specialist competence. But the problems also concern basic functions such as, for example, rescue services or finding guardians. There are great needs, but the challenges are also great.
The Municipal Perspective Inquiry, which is referred to in the report, submitted its report on January 24 of this year, which relates to these questions. The special investigator Sven-Erik Österberg stated that there is a rather lukewarm or cool - choose the word yourself - interest regarding voluntary mergers in the country. But he also stated that this may come to change, perhaps even within a ten-year period.
The investigation also suggested that the government should investigate new legislation on geographical cooperation areas and systematic task distribution, something that is highlighted in the report.
The investigation suggests that this could be a way for the municipalities to cooperate more. Therefore, we Social Democrats look forward to how the government intends to act in the future regarding the recommendations. It is the case that we must think in terms of the long lines - something that was emphasized quite a bit during yesterday's seminar and something that I believe all parties and members of the Committee on the Constitution can be an important contributing force in.
I also want to bring up the security policy. It is a special day today, especially for those who have advocated for NATO membership. Security policy and civil preparedness have become highly topical areas, not only at the national level but also regionally and locally.
Based on what I just mentioned regarding the different conditions of the municipalities and regions, it naturally becomes necessary for the government, but also for all other parties in the Riksdag, to closely follow the work in the municipalities and regions. We also need to provide the funds that are necessary to ensure sufficiently good preparedness in accordance with the ambitions we now have.
Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: It is not only the relationship between the national and the regional and municipal levels that needs to be addressed. We in the Committee on the Constitution visited Brussels and various institutions within the European Union earlier this week. The EU influences municipalities and regions to the highest degree. And many municipalities and regions are active participants in various EU forums and collaborations.
As a conclusion to this speech, I would therefore like to say to everyone watching this debate and to the school classes that previously sat in the stands here and who now hopefully are walking around in the Riksdag to vote in the election to the European Parliament. It affects us all - the Riksdag, municipalities and regions. Vote!
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Peter Hedberg! It feels good that you highlighted the parts of the Center Party's proposal that you think are good. It concerns the thoughts on differentiating the possibilities for different forms of activities in the municipalities or asymmetric responsibility, as it is called in the report.
Just as the member highlights, it looks very different in our municipalities. The member themselves comes from Kramfors, which has approximately 18,000 inhabitants. It ranges from 2,400 inhabitants in Sweden's smallest municipality up to almost 1 million in the largest. It is not strange that the conditions look very different between Dorotea, Kramfors, Varberg, and Stockholm.
Tonight, the Social Democrats choose to vote no to the proposals that the Center Party puts forward. I understand that some of it is linked to the Kommunperspektivutredningen, which covers parts of this. In the long run, it could mean the implementation of some of the proposals that the Center Party puts forward.
The members of the committee did not, however, take up one of the Center Party's proposals that is not mentioned by the Kommunperspektivutredningen: a new free municipality experiment. The Social Democrats supported the free municipality experiment that was carried out throughout the 80s and which resulted in the new Local Government Act of 1991.
My question to the Social Democrats and the member is therefore: Why do the Social Democrats not put forward today a corresponding and perhaps even more extensive free-municipality trial to give municipalities such as Kramfors the opportunity to find new ways in the management of their operations?
Peter Hedberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a retort in a KU debate! It is not among the usual things.
I want to return to what I said in my speech regarding the long lines. In the Committee on the Constitution, we often discuss the frustration we can feel that our political parties do not discuss to a sufficiently large extent beyond, perhaps, sometimes quarterly or at best per budget year.
Just as the member mentioned, I brought up the Municipal Perspective Inquiry. But I don't actually think the discussion needs to stop there. We have quite a lot to discuss, for example, the dimensioning of the upper secondary school, the costs and responsibility for highly specialized care, rescue services, and a number of other different areas.
The Social Democrats say no to the motions today, because we want to see a larger grip, a holistic approach, regarding the municipality and region issue. We are now waiting, for example, for the Equalization Committee's proposal. It is expected to come by the summer, if I remember correctly.
There are quite a few threads that we need to pick up. The Social Democrats have not actually excluded anything in the long run, except that we are very hesitant to centralize more power to Stockholm and this level.
I highlighted the Center Party's important discussion on the asymmetrical distribution of responsibility. But I am probably not willing to say yes to any of the specific motions right here and now. I assume that we can come back to that and discuss it further in investigations and debates.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the reply to the point. I sit as a regular member of the Committee on Social Affairs. There, we are accustomed to taking points with one another. I may be bringing this forward as a substitute in the Committee on the Constitution in this debate. It is often in these debates that one can feel and test each other's approaches.
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the Social Democrats are clear that they no longer want to centralize more power to the state level. That form of proposal we hear at regular intervals from Liberals, who want to centralize the entire school system to the state, and Christian Democrats, who want to centralize the entire healthcare system to the state level. It does not solve any kind of problem at all. Gigantic reorganizations are hardly good for society.
We must, however, be open and test new ideas and approaches and try to find ways forward regarding the great differences that exist between municipalities and regions today. For that very reason, we highlight the free municipality experiment which was carried out over a very long period, practically the entire 80s. It resulted in proposals and changes in the beginning of the 90s.
Even though the Social Democrats do not stand behind the motion in the chamber today, there may be reason to reflect on it and take that discussion back to the party. A new free municipality trial, where the initiative largely comes from below, I believe would benefit the development in our municipalities, which look so different.
Peter Hedberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! If we have learned anything over the last five to ten years, it is that we cannot afford to exclude anything when it comes to different forms of cooperation and collaboration between municipalities and regions. We have a shared responsibility for much—healthcare, schools, and other areas—between the state, the regions, and the municipalities. And we have 290 municipalities in the country. Just as the member pointed out in his first reply, they vary in terms of both geographical area and population size.
It is not I who decide the entire policy of the Social Democratic Party - thank goodness for that! - but that is done by the party congress. But we in KU work with the long lines, try to raise our gaze and look forward; we perhaps do not look back very much but look at what we can do better. I believe that discussion can become quite lively. If the government proceeds with the proposals from the Kommunperspektivutredningen, in whatever way it chooses to do so, the Social Democrats will naturally be a contributing party.
But I want to point out that all parties in the Riksdag have a responsibility to discuss the long-term conditions of municipalities and regions, more than what applies to just a spring adjustment budget or an autumn adjustment budget. The activities conducted there are far too important to be about only the current day's needs and crises.
I thank you for the remarks. KU is also quite funny, isn't it?
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2 under point 2 regarding a new free municipality trial.
In Sweden, we have 290 municipalities with completely different conditions. They are municipalities in our densely populated large cities and most sparsely populated rural areas, coastal municipalities and forest municipalities, municipalities with vast plain landscapes and municipalities with more watercourses than inhabitants, growth municipalities with many small businesses and struggling small-town municipalities. They are also municipalities where this year's first rhubarb is soon ready to be harvested and municipalities where the rhubarb is still hidden under a deep snow cover.
In our largest municipality, almost 1,000,000 people live, and in our smallest, only 2,400. Sweden has 19 municipalities with a population of more than 100,000 inhabitants and 72 municipalities with a population of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. But regardless of whether 2,400 people live in the municipality, as in Dorotea, or 989,000, as in Stockholms stad, one has exactly the same mission.
Mr. Speaker! From the perspective of the Centre Party, we see that many small municipalities in Sweden's rural areas are struggling hard. Despite the fact that taxes are often high, it is difficult to deliver the welfare that the citizens can expect. Often, it is difficult to recruit staff, whether it concerns environmental protection officers, staff for a nursing home, or a new municipal manager.
In several of our Norrland municipalities, one also competes with large employers who have the possibility to offer completely different wages and conditions than the public sector. In this situation, the government chooses to make things even more difficult through wage floors for labor immigration. We all heard the reported unit manager at a nursing home in Harads in Norrbotten who would be forced to terminate eleven employments because of the wage floor the government implemented in the autumn. She had no other applicants for these positions, and she was not comforted by the Minister for Employment's arrogant and out-of-touch response on TV4 that she could instead recruit unemployed people from Alingsås or Askersund when the government forces out her current staff.
It is not only staff for the operations that can be difficult to recruit, but it is often also a challenge to appoint the political positions of trust that follow from running a municipality – especially if one feels that there is a lack of support from the central level.
What then is the solution to these challenges? We hear at regular intervals that the answer is supposed to be municipal mergers, large regions, or centralization. That is making it very easy for oneself. If municipalities and regions want to merge, they should of course be allowed to do so, but for the state to force that form of merger does not lead to anything good.
Centralizing operations is also a popular political solution that rarely leads forward. A gigantic reorganization of Swedish school or Swedish healthcare is the last thing these operations need. What they need instead are resources, and there we see that the government is unable to deliver.
Mr. Speaker! What the Centre Party wants to open up for is that in the same way as our municipalities look completely different, the solutions must also look different. We therefore want to open up for greater flexibility and differentiation between municipalities depending on their great differences. Already today, there are opportunities for municipalities to cooperate through municipal associations, joint boards, and some form of contractual cooperation.
Centerpartiet simply proposes that one looks at how the possibilities can be expanded further to give small municipalities better conditions to distribute responsibilities among themselves and also enable municipalities to jointly hand over responsibilities from the municipal level to the region. This could, for example, concern the municipal responsibility for environmental and health supervision. Exactly how these possibilities are to be designed is partly linked to Centerpartiet's other proposal.
During the 1980s, a large so-called free municipality experiment was carried out ahead of the 1991 revision of the Local Government Act. The purpose was to make it possible for municipalities and county councils to be exempted from specific state rules on an experimental basis. The Centre Party now wants to open this door again and carry out a new, more far-reaching free municipality experiment in order to test the thoughts and ideas that exist regarding development at the municipal and regional level. The purpose of the experimental activities shall be to strengthen the municipal sector's capacity, competence, and autonomy.
One of the things we would like to see tested is the possibility of simplified decision-making processes in small municipalities. For example, it could involve directly elected municipal boards, where one simply has the municipal board and the municipal council combined into one. There are also many other ideas that may be worth testing. The most important thing in this context is that the initiative comes from below.
Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has a long series of proposals on how we can create better conditions in the countryside. Sweden is a vast country with different climates, environments, population densities, and conditions. In the Centre Party, we see this diversity as a great asset and not as an obstacle. For that reason, we also want to give municipalities and regions greater opportunity to find new solutions for the public mandates through greater differentiation and an extensive free municipality trial. This can create more equal conditions to manage the municipal mandate regardless of whether one lives in Dorotea or in the city of Stockholm.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Member for the speech! I listened particularly attentively to the part concerning what is called asymmetrical distribution of responsibility. It was a somewhat special way to describe it, but it is interesting to read what it means.
I am elected to the Committee on Finance, where we have the economic responsibility for how municipalities and regions can cooperate and support each other, for example through the municipal economic equalization system, which is about creating equal conditions in our country and which we in the Riksdag do support. The member said that it should be easier to cooperate and to move different areas between municipalities, which this could mean.
I think that municipalities and regions do cooperate in somewhat different ways today. The member touched upon that. It concerns, among other things, what costs one has to recruit top competence, and there we are fundamentally in agreement. I can take an example from my home county, where Ockelbo municipality, which is the smallest in the county with just over 6,000 inhabitants, purchases services in, for example, law and IT from Gävle municipality, which is the largest in the county. It is probably in order to be able to lower the costs for these parts. I think it is good that one can work with that, but what I am somewhat against is what the member's party wants, namely that one should be able to move operations from one municipality to another.
The municipalities can cooperate today in municipal associations and joint committees, which the member also touched upon. What worries me about the Center Party's proposal is that the possibility of accountability is moved from the municipal council, i.e., the citizens, in one municipality to another where the activity has been moved. How does the Center Party view the municipal council's and the citizens' opportunities for accountability if activity is moved from one municipality to another?
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mattias Eriksson Falk! What we in the Center Party are pointing out here is not the complete solution, of course, but our intention is that it should become easier to function as a small municipality in Sweden today.
The member highlighted some of the problems that exist with recruiting top-tier competence. I notice very clearly, however, that the member does not highlight the problem of recruiting basic competence as well, as in the example of Harads, where the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have made it extremely difficult for several public employers – not to mention all the private employers who are turning against this. It is possibly a small side issue in the discussion, but it is one of the challenges the municipalities face.
The distribution of costs and responsibilities in these matters is, of course, something that needs to be looked at more closely. There is a problem already today regarding which of the municipal councils holds the political responsibility when one has an agreement between two or more municipalities. It is clear that it is something that must be managed today. There are, of course, risks when moving an area of responsibility from a municipality to, for example, a region, but nevertheless, it is the case that we must look at all the possibilities.
Just moving responsibility from municipalities to regions, I think, is a pretty good example. We currently hold the animal welfare responsibility at the regional level, but we could just as well hold health protection responsibility and environmental responsibility, provided that the operations could be moved over. It would not be done in all municipalities, but only in those where it is needed. Then it might have been possible to hold the regions accountable in the end. But these are issues that must be looked at more closely, and that must be respected.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Mr. Speaker! There are two different issues that the member is touching upon. One is what responsibility the municipalities would have versus the regions if responsibility were to be moved there. The other, which the Center Party is also involved in in its proposal, concerns moving operations from one municipality to another. If I remember correctly, the preschool was mentioned in the text as an example of this. But if one moves the possibility to govern an operation from one municipality to another, the municipal council and indirectly the citizens also lose the possibility of the accountability that is so important in a democracy, especially of course for the citizens through the general elections.
In a municipal federation or a joint committee, it is required that the respective municipal councils are present many times to confirm that the decisions are correct. If major changes are to be made, every municipality involved must confirm that it is the right way forward. In the operations, this becomes a brake that prevents all-too-extensive changes, while at the same time, the respective municipal councils and indirectly the citizens receive this accountability. That is what I am worried about regarding moving away from this model, where, for example, the operations are completely moved from one municipality to another.
But I absolutely think that cooperation between municipalities is possible. In my home county of Gävleborg, the municipalities and the region cooperate on, for example, occupational health care. It is naturally an excellent example of how one can manage an operation in a joint committee, find the specialized expertise, and then use it strategically in the county to cover as large a part of the operation as possible. So I believe that more can do that.
Then we will, of course, return to issues such as long distances and poor infrastructure. Regarding those parts, which will always be present, and how one can improve the economic opportunities, we have, for example, the Equalization Committee, which will present proposals later this autumn. We also, of course, look forward to that.
But my concern regarding the voters' accountability if operations were to be moved remains. That is what makes me worried, and that is why I cannot stand behind the Centerpartiet's proposal, at least not at this moment.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Mr. Speaker! I understand the member's concern, but if one stops at the concern and does not dare to test new models because one believes that they might lead to problems in the end, it is clear that development will come to a standstill.
We already have several different ways of cooperating between municipalities today. We have joint municipal associations and joint committees between municipalities. We also have contract writing, for example regarding joint services, just as the member says. What we want to test from the Center Party's side is to expand these possibilities further.
Alongside the investigations that have already been conducted and are on site and being handled in the Government Offices, we see that it would also be good to conduct a larger free-municipality trial in the same way as was done in the 1980s. This means giving the municipalities the opportunity to come up with proposals and ideas themselves within the frameworks that the state has set to test how it could look and then drawing conclusions from that to see if changes should be made to the legislation in the end. We believe this is a very good way forward to test the possibilities that exist.
I believe that one should think more about the long-term lines, as the Social Democrat pointed out earlier – how do we create long-term rules of the game for our municipalities and regions to function despite their very different sizes and conditions? Then we must not get stuck in worry and anxiety over these changes but must dare to open our minds and see the opportunities that exist.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on the Constitution's report number 15 Municipal and Regional Issues.
Municipal and regional issues are a rather broad concept that encompasses quite a lot. Issues concerning the activities of municipalities and regions are included, even in proposals from the general motion period, all with their perspectives on things that can be changed and improved. It does not mean that I or my party agree with all the proposals that exist and say that it is the right way. But I have full respect for the proposals that others put forward and their desire to highlight these. It is a democracy we live in. Some of these proposals end up in the Committee on Finance, others in the Committee on the Constitution, and it is the latter that are being debated today. That it differs slightly as to where the proposals end up depends on how they are written and what impact they would primarily have out in society for the individual citizens, companies, or municipalities and regions.
What the proposals largely have in common is that, to varying degrees, they would have an economic impact out in the municipalities and regions. It may not be entirely clear, but if one starts to look closer, one sees a certain economic impact in the proposals. With that, I am not saying that it must be a cost-driving effect; it is clear that with a proposal, one can also have an ambition to reduce costs in the long run for a municipality or region with a reform or change.
It is always a bit special when we debate issues such as these, especially when it concerns economics. In many cases, but not all, we have fundamentally similar thoughts on how municipal and regional activities should be conducted. We all want, for example, good schools, good elderly care, and good health and medical care. But within that, there are different pictures of what is good and what is less good, of whether the resources are sufficient or insufficient, and of whether the resources we have are used correctly or incorrectly. It will always be discussed whether we chose the right path before, whether we are doing so now, and whether we are doing so for the future.
Mr. Speaker! Revenues and costs, policy and priorities - these are fundamental parts of how a municipality or region can be governed. Within that lies an incredible amount of work, planning, structures and documents. But ultimately, it is the politicians who ask the voters for accountability. Then one receives the responsibility and must thereby realize their policy, which is what we try to do in municipalities and regions and here in the Riksdag with the political proposals we present concerning exactly their work. Everyone has a picture of what needs to be prioritized and what needs to be changed and improved so that municipalities and regions will have good conditions to fulfill their mission.
While we here in the Committee on the Constitution perhaps primarily have proposals concerning structures for how we should carry out the work, partly with the Local Government Act as a basis, the Committee on Finance's debate has recently pointed towards the economic direction: With what means, taxes, and fees can we manage the operations? These are two debates that belong together but have slightly different perspectives.
Mr. Speaker! As an elected representative with experience from municipal councils, regional councils, and now the Riksdag, I have had time to accumulate a considerable amount of experience and perceptions regarding the management of municipal and regional operations, whether it concerns the economic or the structural part. I am, of course, not alone in this. Just as I myself have identified things I want to change, others with similar experience have done so. It can concern small details in the Local Government Act or large legislative paragraphs. It can concern the citizens' insight into processes regarding elected officials or how elected officials, for example, get better insight into municipal operations so that all elected officials can better take responsibility for their voters' voices and perform good political work. These are important parts that I agree with. Ultimately, it is about showing that the voters' voices and participation in democratic work were actually worth something. That is something we do here in the Riksdag, among other things.
Mr. Speaker! I believe that all of us here in the chamber are incredibly grateful for the support we have received from the citizens of Sweden and for the fact that our parties and we personally have been given a responsibility to be able to pursue the proposals we want and which the voters have given us support to pursue. As I mentioned earlier, we have different views on many issues, on the path there and on what makes Sweden better.
To mention an example, the Sweden Democrats have long pursued issues linked to migration, where we stand for a restrictive stance. In the same way, other parties have also pursued the issue of migration, but then for us to get more migration. Even though we work with the same issues, we have different approaches.
I am proud of the Sweden Democrats' position that we should have a restrictive migration and stricter rules for a person to be able to obtain Swedish citizenship. Even such proposals would have an impact in our municipalities and regions both structurally and economically. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, already stated at the end of 2023 that less migration to Sweden would mean lower costs for our municipalities and regions in the long run.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and thank you for the floor.
In this speech, Lars Andersson and Victoria Tiblom (both SD) concurred.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.