Municipal and regional issues

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are today 290 municipalities and 20 regions – or 21 regions, if we include Gotland. Gotland has municipal and regional tasks that can be said to belong to both categories.

At the last turn of the year, Dorotea municipality in Lappland, with barely 2,300 inhabitants, was the country's smallest municipality in terms of the number of inhabitants. Over the last 50 years, that municipality has lost almost every other inhabitant. During the same period, the city of Stockholm, the country's largest municipality in terms of population, has increased its number of inhabitants by approximately 50 percent and is now approaching 1 million inhabitants. Despite the great differences, both municipalities have the same basic mandate. They shall offer their inhabitants good service in the form of school, elderly care, and social services. They shall manage the maintenance of streets, perform environmental supervision, and handle planning and building cases. For this, specialized competence is naturally needed in a number of areas.

The municipalities have the same mandate, but naturally completely different conditions. Everyone understands that Stockholm, with constant growth and larger volume, has better conditions to solve its tasks than a municipality with a constantly decreasing population. When one simultaneously knows that it is the country's municipalities and regions that are responsible for the majority of all welfare, it is easy to understand the commitment and interest in the country's municipalities and regions, their opportunities to carry out their mandate, and how they can organize themselves. This is what today's report is about. A number of motions from the general motion period concerning municipal and regional issues are included.

Mr. Speaker! Several of the motions concern municipal cooperation and in what forms it can be conducted. For the smaller municipalities, it is completely central to be able to cooperate across municipal boundaries in order to maintain a reasonable service in all parts.

On 1 July 2018, an amendment was made to the Local Government Act which gave municipalities and regions a general possibility to cooperate through agreements. The legislative change has recently been evaluated by Statskontoret, which has concluded that it has had the intended effect. There is thus a well-functioning, simple solution for municipalities that themselves lack sufficient capacity to manage certain tasks.

It can also be noted that the government has made investments regarding municipal cooperation. To analyze how the capacity of the smaller municipalities can be strengthened within certain areas of activity, the government has allocated 6 million kronor for 2025 and 2026 to two different cooperation projects, one in Dalsland and one in the inland of Norrland. The latter includes, among others, Sweden's smallest municipality, Dorotea. This pilot activity is a result of the proposals developed in the so-called Kommunperspektivutredningen, which was presented in 2024. The investigation notes, among other things, that there is no interest among the municipalities in voluntary municipal mergers, but rather in deepened cooperation.

The Government has allocated an additional 6 million for 2025 and 2026 for increased use of pilot projects at the state, regional, and municipal levels. Exactly how these funds are to be used is currently being prepared at the Government Offices.

The initiatives are in line with what the so-called Productivity Commission recommended to increase productivity in the public sector. In April 2024, the commission submitted its first partial report. There, it is mentioned, among other things, that it is central for municipalities and regions to carry out pilot projects and that this is done in a way that enables effective evaluations and knowledge dissemination. The commission also considers that the possibility of testing state regulatory changes at the municipal level should be used to a greater extent than today.

Overall, it can be stated that work is ongoing in the Government Offices regarding the municipalities' and regions' work to meet tomorrow's challenges, as well as how they should best be organized to fulfill the assignment.

Mr. Speaker! The other motions in the report concern municipal party support. There is a motion that wants to change the conditions for party support, while another motion wants to introduce a regulation in the Local Government Act regarding the level of party support. These issues border on the work of the ongoing parliamentarially composed committee known as the transparency committee. They have been tasked with reviewing the current regulation of transparency in the financing of political parties and considering whether clarifications or additions are needed. The transparency committee shall report its work by May 15 this year at the latest. There are reasons to await the committee's work before taking any new initiatives in the matter.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and the rejection of all motions.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was appropriate before my speech that Jan Riise from Miljöpartiet in the previous debate spoke about how it may be in the Committee on the Constitution that the fight against ageism begins. I would, however, initially like to move for approval of reservation 8, regarding pensioner councils.

In the second paragraph of the portal clause of the Instrument of Government, the following is stated:

”Swedish democracy 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.”

The latter gives our municipalities and regions a very clear role in how Swedish democracy is to be concretely expressed. The core of local democracy is the citizens and the elected representatives who represent them, as well as the exchange of views between them on the municipality's or region's important issues.

Mr. Speaker! As some have noted in previous debates, the Institute for Human Rights visited the Committee on the Constitution last week. They presented their annual report, and a significant part of both the presentation and the subsequent discussion concerned the rights and representation of the elderly in society.

The report states, among other things, that the elderly are often treated as a very homogeneous group, with the same needs and conditions. But in reality, Mr. Speaker, the elderly are a very heterogeneous group – not least as a consequence of improved health in our country, which enables a much more active life further up in age. The elderly have experiences and perspectives to contribute regarding social issues, in the social debate, and in various types of representative bodies. This applies both now and in the future.

One of the people who most clearly worked to demonstrate this, in both theory and practice, was naturally the liberal Member of Parliament Barbro Westerholm, who left the Riksdag in 2022 at the age of 89. She fought for a long time against ageism and to ensure that the rights and opportunities of the elderly would be realized in society.

Mr. Speaker! We who work in civil society and politics, also at the local level, know how important our elderly are for upholding many parts of democracy. It concerns both civil society and community life in the form of local heritage societies, sports, disability rights associations, religious communities, and much more. But the elderly also often hold political positions of trust in our municipalities and regions.

We Social Democrats believe that in order to further strengthen the elderly's participation in local democracy, every municipality and region should establish a pensioners' council. The overall purpose of such a council shall be to give pensioners and the elderly influence and insight into issues concerning their living conditions. The exact tasks for such a council may vary and are best handled at the municipal level. But we see regular deliberations and consultations between pensioners' organizations, the elderly, and municipal representatives as very important to safeguard the elderly's views in local democracy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have struck a blow for the fight against ageism. I thank you for the floor and move again for approval of reservation 8.

(Applause)

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the area of municipal and regional issues. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation number 7.

Within the Committee on the Constitution, we deal with various issues that govern the local work in our municipalities. It concerns 290 municipalities and 21 regions. It is 290 municipalities with different challenges and conditions to fulfill their obligations, such as good elderly care and functioning infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker! I shall read a passage from a poem by Gustaf Fröding, which partially describes the situation in many municipalities across Sweden:

Our time is wretched, I cannot see how things are miserably and backwardly arranged. I would rather swing myself from the present's dust toward the future's glorious, inviting light.

Mr. Speaker! This describes how many municipal and regional politicians view the mandate they have received from the voters. To see the problems that exist here and now and manage them is not always the most enjoyable part when governing a municipality – but it is so important.

Many times, governing politicians are more tempted to spend tax money on a spectacular building or on some costly work of art in a central location in the cityscape. One often does not want to acknowledge that the municipality is completely dependent on the municipal equalization system and that taxpayers, especially in Stockholm, are funding these priorities. Many times, the drive to get the building or the artwork in place is often perceived to be greater than the drive to tackle the problems within the core operations that exist here and now. Just look at how many municipalities do not have any action plan for how they will fund the renovation of the infrastructure that exists underground! That is not taking responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

I prefer to swing myself from the gravel of the present to the future's wonderful inviting light, as Fröding writes.

We from the Sweden Democrats want the citizens' voice to be a cornerstone in the democratic work. Politicians receive a mandate from their voters, and it is the politicians' task to honor that assignment. For us as a party, it is important that core activities are prioritized. Core activities such as school, preschool, elderly care and so on should come before expensive signature buildings. Do we say no to such projects? No, we do not, but the municipality must never compromise on the fundamental commitments.

Municipalities should, to the extent possible, avoid overly risky projects that could have devastating consequences for the municipality's ability to maintain the most basic commitments to the municipal residents, such as a functioning social service. In addition to the reception of migrants, which has burdened the core municipal activities in very many municipalities and contributed to cuts, we also see how, for example, Skellefteå will have to grapple with enormous problems for many years after the green collapse with Northvolt. We must have a policy that is anchored in reality and that takes responsibility for our common resources.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, a similar project is currently underway in Boden, and here politicians at both the municipal and national levels must take responsibility. The Sweden Democrats take responsibility at the national level, but local politicians must also conduct reality-based analyses and not just look towards the enticing light of the future.

What should we do to improve the impact of the people's will so that it becomes greater? One tool, Mr. Speaker, is that which the Sverigedemokraterna take up in one of its motions to increase local engagement and the opportunities for municipal residents to influence through more local referendums. There is a need for reforms to strengthen municipal democracy and get more municipal residents to feel a sense of participation and that they can influence the decisions made regionally. Referendums reinforce the fundamental foundations of democracy, and we know that this system works well in countries such as Switzerland.

How do we proceed to ensure that more referendums are held across our municipalities?

Firstly, the requirements for holding a referendum must be reviewed. The number of signatures that must be collected to initiate one should be lowered.

Secondly, we see how digitalization is rapidly making its way into our municipalities, in the same way as in our private lives. In Switzerland, a digital system for referendums works perfectly well, and a similar system would also work perfectly well in Sweden.

Thirdly, one should be able to sign a petition using BankID or similar. It is timely, and in cooperation with regions or other municipalities, the costs for purchasing such an IT system can also be justified.

Mr. Speaker! When decisions have great significance for the citizens, we should allow them the opportunity for greater participation in the decision-making process. It would increase trust in democracy and the political system we have in Sweden. It is one of several arguments for us in the Sverigedemokraterna to advocate for more local referendums throughout the municipalities.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Martin Westmont for the presentation!

It was a remarkable speech. I have rarely heard such a scathing critique of our local politicians across all of Sweden and in our municipalities. The member believes that they are mismanaging their assignments, spending money on the wrong things, and are unable to make the right decisions.

The conditions look very different out in the country, which we heard from the Moderate member earlier. I perceived that Martin Westmont also highlighted that. We have municipalities with fewer than 4,000 inhabitants and municipalities with up to 1 million inhabitants, and then it is clear that the conditions become very different to be able to carry out the mandate one has received and the welfare activities one is to have.

The problem is not that one puts up artistic decorations in, for example, Dorotea or Degerfors, but it is about the structures and also about which decisions we make in Sweden's Riksdag. There, the Sverigedemokraterna are the highest contributors to creating unsustainable structures for the municipalities.

That Degerfors has a municipal tax more than 6 kronor higher than Österåker in the Stockholm area is due to the micro-management, the centralization, and the bureaucratization that the Riksdag is responsible for, something that the Sverigedemokraterna contribute to.

My question to the Sweden Democrats, Mr. Speaker, is: Why do the Sweden Democrats want to make it more difficult for municipalities in rural areas to provide welfare services through new targeted state grants, new micro-management, and new regulations, instead of helping them?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for your contribution to this debate!

It is important that every municipality has a plan for how they will manage the municipal operations. I believe we will end up on a slippery slope if municipalities expect the state to constantly come and rescue them when they cannot make the finances work. I know that Christofer Bergenblock is fully aware that there is a future need to renovate infrastructure. I mentioned, for example, the underground infrastructure.

I can, however, agree that we obviously need good structures to manage the challenges that we see all around in our municipalities. It can be about seeing the opportunities that still exist with increased cooperation between municipalities and between different regions.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, increased cooperation is good. We have heard about attempts at cooperation between municipalities, something that is also supported by the state, but there is much more to be done.

Centerpartiet has submitted a proposal to initiate a new free municipality trial, which is included in the report. Asymmetrical conditions can be created in the municipalities, so that they can have different mandates depending on size and hand over certain parts of their operations.

When the member spoke here, I perceived rather that he wanted to move towards mandatory municipal mergers because the conditions to manage the operations do not exist in the smaller municipalities – in any case, he did not seem to have any confidence that the politicians in the smaller municipalities can manage to carry out their assignments.

What I am calling for, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to see what we in the Riksdag and you from the government side actually do and what could be done. When we introduce new targeted government grants to the municipalities, we might think we are helping them, but very many of the smaller municipalities do not even have the time, resources, and strength to apply for these grants and thus never receive a share of the money. When we introduce new detailed regulations such as requirements for staffed school libraries, it hits hard against small units in small municipalities in our rural areas.

The cost equalization system is a very important prerequisite for the small municipalities. The problem today is that we are shoveling the money between the metropolitan areas – between Stockholm and Malmö – when money should instead be regionalized and to a large extent go to our smaller municipalities. But none of those issues are taken up by the Sverigedemokraterna, but instead they say that they will increase the possibility for local referendums – as if that would solve any of the structural problems that exist today.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say this: We in the Sweden Democrats have been very clear that we want a living countryside. Then one must also facilitate for people to live in the countryside, and I would like to say that we have largely driven that work forward. We have been the leading force in bringing down fuel prices so that people can live in houses and have a car so that everyday life works out. They should be able to take the car to work, drop off their children at practices and so on.

Then we have other proposals. We are now introducing something that we call Sverigehus, which is intended to make it easier for people to build their own house. It will also make it more attractive to live in the countryside. In my speech, I also raised some proposals on how one can improve the opportunities and conditions for the citizens in our municipalities to be involved and have an influence, but it is clear that there is a huge amount of work to do.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to add that it is not the Sweden Democrats who have been involved in governing in the municipalities where the problems are greatest.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2 under point 2 regarding the new free municipality trial.

There is today a great inequality between Sweden's municipalities regarding the possibility of providing welfare on equal terms. Providing school, healthcare, and elderly care places completely different demands on a small municipality in the countryside than on densely populated municipalities in metropolitan areas. The highest tax is paid in municipalities in our rural areas, but despite that, one does not receive the best welfare.

In our purely rural municipalities, unfortunately, fewer students meet the requirements to start upper secondary school. Fewer people survive a life-threatening but treatable condition in our sparsely populated regions, and there are fewer people with adequate education in elderly care in our smaller municipalities. There are three clear reasons why it looks like this, and they are economy, bureaucracy, and skills supply. In this debate, I shall focus on the bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker.

Bureaucracy is growing, and it actually happens regardless of who sits in government – that is, whether the Prime Minister is Moderate or Social Democrat – because the desire to micro-manage, over-regulate, and centralize often becomes dominant. The Centre Party stands for a different line in this debate. We believe that it is now time to reverse the trend.

Access to a good welfare must be the same across the entire country. On the other hand, the solutions and operations must not look the same, simply because different parts of our country look different. It is not the same thing to run a health center in Vittangi in Norrland as it is to do so in Södermalm in Stockholm. It is not the same thing to run a school with 37 students in Spannarp in Halland as it is to run a school with 600 students in Bräcke in Gothenburg. Nevertheless, legislation and regulations set up rules of the game that constantly are based on large units in densely populated areas. Let me take a couple of examples from the school area.

I visited Sollefteå municipality in the autumn and met the school principal there. He told me that they were currently applying for over 40 targeted state grants. These grants were to be applied for, administered, and reported back on. The most recently added grant was for purchasing fiction. It is of course very good with fiction; we just heard a fictional quote in the speaker's chair, and I am myself a Swedish teacher and have read a great deal of fiction with my students. Does it mean that a specially designated state grant for the purchase of fiction is needed alongside the state grant for the purchase of teaching materials that already exists? No, absolutely not.

This is an example of political clumsiness that complicates life for our smaller municipalities and our smaller units. It leads to bureaucracy and administration. From the Center Party's side, we want the targeted state grants to be converted into general state grants for municipalities with fewer than 30,000 inhabitants. It is time to reduce both the administration and the micro-management from the Riksdag's side.

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that the Riksdag in the autumn decided on staffed school libraries – again a decision based on large units in densely populated areas. To take an example from my home region in Halland: A staffed school library is naturally no problem for Ankarskolan in Träslövsläge, where I myself live, which has 600 students. But it is a complete utopia for Sibbarps skola, with 60 students, in the inland of Halland. Certainly, the legislation allows for some flexibility, but where the boundaries lie is not yet clarified. Again, political micro-management creates problems for our smaller units in our municipalities.

From the Center Party's side, we therefore want to reintroduce a rural safeguard for political decisions. We have chosen to call it the Ramvik Model. It is based on how our former Center leader Thorbjörn Fälldin, before he made a decision, used to weigh proposals based on how they would affect his neighbors back home in Ramvik. In the same way, today we need to set up a barrier for national politics so that we weigh proposals based on how they would affect municipalities and citizens even outside the gates of Stockholm.

We do not either, Mr. Speaker, believe that either businesses or citizens benefit from the centralization advocated by several parties in the Riksdag. In some cases, more national governance may naturally be needed to achieve equality, but we do not believe for a second that schools or healthcare would become better by being governed by a director-general in Stockholm. We in the Centerpartiet have always had confidence that many issues are best solved by local politicians at the local level, where they have close proximity to their voters and their operations.

We want to see an equal welfare across the whole country, but that does not mean it must look the same everywhere. It does not mean either that the municipalities' mandates must look the same everywhere. That is why we in this debate and in this report again want to highlight the need for asymmetrical solutions in the municipal and regional mandates.

Municipal and regional issues

We mean that municipalities must have the possibility to voluntarily move areas of activity to another municipality or to the regional level. It is not about all activities being moved, but about a possibility to move activities where the political influence is limited, for example, environmental and health protection activities or financial assistance.

Furthermore, we want to see a new free municipality trial where municipalities and regions can apply to carry out pilot projects to develop democratic processes and fulfill their public mandates. The previous large free municipality trial was carried out during the 80s, before the revision of the Local Government Act in 1991, so there is no doubt that it is high time to once again carry out a more extensive free municipality trial.

From the Center Party's side, we do not believe that the municipal mandate must look the same everywhere. Norrland's Dorotea had 2,294 inhabitants at the turn of the year last year, while the city of Stockholm had almost 1 million inhabitants. Everyone probably understands that the conditions are different, but nevertheless, the municipal mandate looks exactly the same. It is not reasonable.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the micro-management, centralization, and bureaucratization that both the sitting government and previous governments have advocated for need to be broken. It is not reasonable that the model for welfare activities is large units in densely populated areas. This trend, which unfortunately accelerates under the sitting government, needs to be broken. The municipal mandate must be allowed to look different, and the municipal activities must be allowed to look different. On the other hand, all citizens should be able to expect a welfare of good quality wherever they live in the country.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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