Cultural heritage and cultural environment

Runar Filper (SD)

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

Cultural heritage is central. It is the history of Sweden. In order for this valuable heritage to continue to be meaningful, a long-term policy is required that values and guards it. To strengthen preparedness within the cultural heritage area and ensure the protection of cultural heritage, archives, and socially important information during crisis and war, we in Sverigedemokraterna, together with the government, decided to make Riksarkivet and Riksantikvarieämbetet into preparedness authorities. This naturally involved new tasks that entail increased costs. Each respective authority has been allocated 6 million kronor in 2026 with successive increases in coming years.

Together with the government, we have tasked Statens fastighetsverk with designing a renovation of the Opera's building in Stockholm. To ensure that the Opera's participation in the design does not affect ordinary operations, the government's appropriation for the Opera has been increased during the renovation period. The Opera's operations need to be maintained even during the period when the building cannot be used, which entails costs for evacuation and relocation. The appropriation has been increased to cover these expenses. The government's proposal involved an increase of a total of 15 million kronor this year, around 25 million kronor next year, and 22.5 million kronor in 2028. The appropriation has therefore increased to cover these expenses.

In the budget proposal for 2026, the government proposed that 7 million kronor per year be allocated in 2026, 2027, and 2028 to ensure continued high-quality operations at the foundations Nordiska museet, Skansen, Tekniska museet, and Arbetets museum. The government allocated 3 million kronor to carry out a preliminary study on a national museum card. Such a card has been requested by the museums themselves, and our hope is that this can become a more impactful reform than the free-entry reform. This can provide more opportunities to visit some of our museums around the country. It has worked well in, for example, Holland and our neighboring country Finland, and could get more people to participate in and take an interest in our cultural heritage as displayed in our museums.

Giving more people access to culture and to Sweden's museums is an important deed. The museums ensure that the cultural heritage is preserved and brought to life. Initiatives are made so that they can continue to operate with high quality. Museums that are foundations have received grants so that their activities can be strengthened and more people can gain access to culture. For example, the Nordiska museet's role as a cultural bearer and preserver of cultural heritage is great and important. The museum preserves both tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

We Sweden Democrats have long pushed for the church antiquarian compensation to be increased. We continue to do so within the framework of the budget cooperation that we have together with the government. It is a necessity for the state, together with the Church of Sweden, to be able to manage the maintenance debt that exists.

I want to emphasize that our commitment to preserving the ecclesiastical cultural heritage is not only about saving buildings but also about preserving a living part of our history and culture, something that can continue to enrich our lives and societies for many generations to come. It would be a particularly difficult and harsh blow to the countryside if churches were closed or demolished because churches are not only an important part of the countryside's history but also serve as a gathering place for people in both joy and sorrow. The churches are often centers for social and cultural activities. Should churches be decommissioned, it would be a great loss for the local community.

A project where work is being done to make Värmland's, or rather Torsby's, Finnish forest a world heritage site was started several years ago by a number of county actors who want to take advantage of this unique cultural environment and give it the strongest protection against destruction and decay. From a regional perspective, it is important that the government contributes to a development that would promote the tourism industry and local business.

In an interpellation to Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand in the autumn, I stated that I was aware that there was no proposal for a World Heritage nomination from Riksantikvarieämbetet regarding Värmland's Finnish forest. But I also stated in the interpellation that a project to realize this was in the starting stages, and just days after my interpellation debate against Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand, the application arrived like a letter in the mail. Then, suddenly, the application, which had been planned for many years, was submitted to Riksantikvarieämbetet. I believe it happened a week after the debate.

What the approach will be remains to be seen, that is, whether this will come up on the government's table or not. I firmly invoke the unique cultural value. The government should take it into consideration and inform Unesco about the cultural value that this unique contiguous area, with the world's only remaining smoke huts in their original location, constitutes. Together with the folk belief and the customs that have been practiced through the centuries, this Finnish forest qualifies as both material and intangible world heritage.

Promoting reading and reading comprehension is a priority issue. During 2024, the Swedish National Agency for Education and the Swedish Arts Council were commissioned to produce reading lists with different types of literature. The lists are intended to be a support for preschool teachers and teachers. This initiative was further supplemented last year and applies for 2024–2026. In the budgets that have been presented, large investments have repeatedly been made in reading in various ways, not least when it comes to schools and students' opportunities for adequate reading and literature in the classrooms. The extension of the previously decided investment in public libraries' work to promote reading aimed at children and young people is good.

School is an important actor in giving all children and young people the opportunity to encounter cultural heritage at an early age. This gives students knowledge of and experiences of the past, which makes them better equipped to understand their present and shape their future.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for an interesting speech.

I have noted that the member, like me, values our Swedish world heritage very much and sees how much good can be achieved through them. I also heard the member speak about how he wishes that a new Swedish world heritage site be established.

It is the Swedish state that has signed the World Heritage Convention. It is the Swedish state that applies to Unesco, and it is the Swedish state's responsibility to communicate and manage the world heritage sites in Sweden. But no national funds are allocated for this, instead the responsibility is borne by project funds, regional funds and municipal funds, as well as a large amount of voluntary work. It is naturally a completely unsustainable situation, which the member is well aware of.

I would therefore like to ask the member how he and the Sverigedemokraterna view the conditions for our 15 Swedish world heritage sites.

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I have explained, there is a large number of county actors in Värmland who have worked with the issue for nearly ten years. It is, for example, Värmlandsakademin, Torsby kommun, Region Värmland, Länsstyrelsen Värmland and Värmlandsmuseet who are behind the application, and they have, of course, had their own funds to carry out that work.

After many ifs and buts, the application has now been submitted to the National Heritage Board; as I said, it happened a week after my interpellation debate with Parisa Liljestrand. We look forward with great confidence that the government will, despite everything, make an exception. It has been said that one should be restrictive in designating more World Heritage sites, and the last World Heritage site was added here in Sweden, I believe, in 2012. Perhaps the person from Hälsingland from the Social Democrats sitting here in the chamber knows. Was it 2012 when Hälsingegårdar was made a cultural heritage? The member nods, so that was an answer to that question.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It is somewhat that which is the problem I am trying to highlight, that is to say that there is no national economy – no state funds – for our world heritage sites. When it comes to Hälsingegårdar, it is the farm owners themselves who have to guide voluntarily. It becomes, like, a completely unreasonable situation. During the current government's years, that is to say during this mandate period, the resources for our Swedish world heritage sites have furthermore decreased.

My question therefore remains: How can the Swedish world heritage sites be able to communicate their value if the state, which actually has the responsibility, is not prepared to finance it?

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There will, of course, be a state responsibility, but at the same time, this is about local and regional initiatives that have a lot of voluntary work behind them.

In these parts, the idealism and the will to preserve the home region and the fantastic environment are great. This applies, for example, to the Finnish forest in Värmland, which I described here. It is a unique place where there are seven smokehuts preserved in their original location. There is nowhere else in the world; not even in Finland are there smokehuts anymore except on heritage farms. Here, they therefore remain in their original locations, where they were built in the 1600s. It is a very important initiative.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have previously proposed more money for the creation of cultural reserves. There are already several thousand different nature reserves, and now there is also the opportunity to create cultural reserves. But no money has been allocated for that previously, not even from the Social Democratic and Green Party government.

This is, therefore, something that we in the Sweden Democrats are trying to achieve, but at the same time we have a cooperation with three other parties. It is still the case that one has to both give and take. It is difficult to get your own policy through entirely when you are to cooperate with other parties; it is not an easy game. But we in the Sweden Democrats are, of course, working to ensure that the conditions for maintaining these areas and keeping their standard up will become better.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage is often defined as traces and remains from what previous generations have created and which we today place special value on. It is about how we today interpret the value of this heritage in the form of environments, objects, and phenomena. What constitutes cultural heritage is individual – each person may decide – but cultural heritage belongs, to some extent, to all of us.

In some cases we need to create protection for the cultural heritage, and then we must decide what should be protected and how it should be protected. The cultural heritage is given a special status. Miljöpartiet wants that regulatory framework to be expanded, for example with a consideration rule in the Cultural Environment Act in order to protect more of our modern cultural heritage. It concerns movable cultural heritage, certain industrial monuments and so on.

As was raised in the previous speech, the maintenance of the ecclesiastical cultural heritage has been neglected in many places. Here, the government has increased the budget slightly, but we in Miljöpartiet are adding further to the church antiquarian compensation in our shadow budget. That item also needs to increase progressively during the five-year period we have between the decisions.

Cultural heritage also lies hidden in the terrain – in the cultivated landscape and in our forests. The widespread clear-cutting is an enormous threat to cultural heritage, both to the cultural environments that we know today and, above all, to that which we have not yet discovered. It is estimated that 80 percent of the cultural heritage in our forests is still unknown. It concerns old graves, pit traps, hillforts, remains from older times' animal husbandry and forestry, charcoal pits, house foundations from croft sites, soldier and boatman crofts, and much more.

A more sustainable forestry, where instead of producing clear-cuts – with soil preparation as a consequence – one for example works more with selective logging, would together with more nature and cultural reserves entail better climate work, a stronger outdoor life, greater biodiversity and greater opportunities to preserve our cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! A large and important part of the cultural heritage is managed by, and preserved within, our memory institutions, for example museums, archives and libraries with different types of owners all over the country. It was during the Green Party's time at the Ministry of Culture, in 2017, that the Museum Act was introduced. This is the first unifying law for the museum area in Sweden. It has strengthened the public museums, not least the municipal museums, in the work with research, cooperation, accessibility and openness.

Arm's length distance and the freedom of museums are areas that can be difficult to manage at a local level. Public opinion can form for one thing or the other, and we have heard of pressure from politics on quite many occasions. Here, the laws have been an important support for the municipal officials and the politicians.

We need to continue to strengthen our museums. We do this through assignments to Kulturrådet and Riksantikvarieämbetet, but financial support is also needed. Here, the cultural cooperation model is perhaps the most important channel between the state and the regions. The model has been underfunded for a long time, actually since the start, and the government's further cuts in the expenditure area have particularly affected the county museums. Just the other day, a report arrived from the county institutions – Länsmuseernas samarbetsråd, Länsteatrarna and Regional Musik i Sverige – about exactly this. The report showed what we have actually seen in all reports of this type, namely that the government's cuts in the cultural area particularly affect small towns and rural areas.

Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen the funding of the cultural cooperation model and resume the index adjustments. It is absolutely necessary if we want the museums to fulfill their mission, for example towards the schools, as well as be able to produce and display both permanent and temporary exhibitions.

We want to see physical county museums in every region; we believe this should be written into the Museum Act. We also want to provide funding to renovate the premises. Many museums, such as village halls and local heritage centers, have old houses and buildings that require continuous maintenance. The status is quite uneven across the country, but many have an acute need for restoration and renovation. Here, the state must take responsibility, and that can be done through the grant to cultural heritage management and through the Swedish National Heritage Board and the National Board of Housing.

The report that I mentioned just now also shows that not least storage premises and warehouses at all the museums we have around the country are severely strained. In times of preparedness, we should keep in mind that these also need renovation. Armed attacks in war are a threat to our cultural heritage. Even weather and wind and climate changes are threats to the cultural heritage. This we must keep in mind. Naturally, resources are required here.

We have seen that lack of maintenance has caused roofs to collapse also at the large state institutions. The Government has announced a new rental model for the five large institutions in Stockholm where a modified market rent shall replace the cost-rental model. That can be good. I would have liked to see a model, which has been tested in some municipalities, where the costs and the responsibility are placed entirely on the real estate company. The company then becomes obliged to deliver suitable premises. I believe that would protect the culture in a clearer way. There are, however, pros and cons with all models.

The central point is that both the rent for and the maintenance of the properties are paid. Ultimately, it is the state, and ultimately politics, that has the responsibility. We need to take our responsibility. It is about budget priorities, not about models. We need to secure long-term financing of Sweden's cultural properties and properties with cultural activities.

Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage has been the subject of debate regarding preparedness work. The government has been forward-looking, allocated funds, and appointed a council for the protection of cultural heritage. That is good. We have seen how war and crises have affected cultural heritage through looting, targeted attacks, or deficiencies in maintenance.

According to what I believe is the latest report from the council, the work has been successful and important, but at the same time, problems are reported. Clearer roles and clearer responsibilities and mandates within this preparedness work are being requested. Cooperation needs to become better. The funding moving forward must also be secured so that this does not just become a project.

It is important that the work reaches out. Even local museums, county archives, folk movement archives, and libraries must be included in this work. The preparedness work must, however, reach further than just the protection of cultural heritage. In connection with the war in Ukraine, but also in connection with crisis situations, for example the pandemic, we have seen how important the living cultural life is. The absolute most important thing for our cultural heritage institutions is to maintain operations if we end up in war or in a crisis situation.

DIK-facket recently conducted a survey among museums and libraries. The result was enormously depressing: Only 4 percent of the employees believed that their workplace has sufficient resources for emergency work. Fewer than two out of ten libraries had an emergency plan for war. The government needs to take this seriously. Society needs these institutions in war and crisis.

The same applies to cultural life. It is absolutely crucial for the defense of Ukraine, which has now been ongoing for four years. A concept that has emerged in recent years is "soft power," where free culture is the foundation together with freedom of the press, independent media, universities, research, civil society, and not least aid. These are areas where Sweden's current government unfortunately follows a global trend and reduces support or abolishes it entirely.

One does not have to go that way. In Denmark, the government has very recently appointed a council that corresponds to ours but which has a focus on cultural resilience. They have the mandate to investigate how art and culture can contribute to building up cultural resilience and solving the great crises of our time. This is interesting, I think. Sweden should look less at the American example and a bit more closely at the Danish initiative. Above all, however, we must build up a strong cultural life in peacetime if we are to have a functioning cultural life and a functioning defense in times of crisis or war.

I see that I have exceeded the time, Mr. Speaker, but I shall speak a little more.

In the report, there are some motion proposals regarding indigenous peoples and minorities. It concerns the cultural institutions. It concerns Tornedalsteatern, Giron Sámi Teáhter, which we in Miljöpartiet want to make a national stage. It concerns the need for a permanent center for Tornedalen's history and culture, but also about the repatriation of remains and objects, as well as about reburials that have been put on hold due to the government's, as it appears, lack of interest. They choose to provide too little money and allocate it to the wrong actors and with short application periods. It is not about particularly large sums, Mr. Speaker, but it is about a lack of interest.

We have a truth and reconciliation commission for the Torneviens, Kvens, and Lantalaiset. We are in a reconciliation process. We will hopefully soon be finished with the truth commission for the Sámi people.

I have spoken about these issues at previous occasions. I think it is deplorable that the government cannot engage a bit more and take these issues a bit more seriously.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the Green Party's reservation 15, which concerns precisely the repatriation of Torne Valley and Sámi remains.

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Mats Berglund mentioned the church antiquarian compensation. It had not been increased for many years when the current government increased it from 460 million to 490 million per year. The Church of Sweden wants around 700 million.

My simple question is: Why is the Green Party talking about this now? You sat in government for eight years but then made no minimum effort to increase the church antiquarian compensation. Churches, including those in Skåne, have had to be closed due to insufficient maintenance and so that church towers could collapse with church bells and everything. Why did governments with the Social Democrats and the Green Party let church buildings fall into total decay during their years in power? Only now do you start talking about it. It is common for you to talk about things when you are not in power, but when you are in power, nothing is done.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Runar Filper for the question.

I really agree with Runar about the need for the churches and the churches' important contributions to cultural life. I believe that the Church of Sweden is the largest cultural organizer in our country, perhaps in hard competition with study associations and folk education. Not least, the church is important in small towns and in rural areas, where the government's savings have been most effective.

Runar Filper asks why the Green Party did not act more proactively during the eight years in government. I can agree that we should have done so. However, I was not myself in this position then and was working on cultural policy, so I do not remember the status reports from that period; they are issued at five-year intervals.

Let me pass the ball back. Runar Filper mentions that the Church of Sweden wanted 700 million kronor, i.e., an increase of 250–300 million, but the government is providing 30 million, which is a fraction. We in Miljöpartiet have provided more in our shadow budgets, and at least in our previous shadow budget, we had a ladder so that it reaches these sums.

I believe it is extremely important that we take these issues seriously together and meet the need for renovation and restoration of the churches.

But as I mentioned in my speech, it is not just about the churches. It is many buildings – community centers, museum warehouses and other – that need much more money.

My questions in return are therefore: Why did the government not allocate more money to the churches? And why is money not being allocated to other buildings that also need to be renovated?

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

Runar Filper (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Berglund for the answer.

It is also about the state-owned cultural properties. The Opera must close and be evacuated, and the plaster in the ceiling in large parts of the Swedish Museum of Natural History is falling down. During your eight years in power, nothing was done to strengthen the maintenance of these properties, which is appalling. How are you going to wiggle your way out of the fact that you didn't do a jot about this? Now you are getting all worked up about this, but for eight years you did nothing. Was it the Social Democrats who held you back, or did the Green Party not sit securely enough in their laps? One might wonder.

The Sweden Democrats are keen to talk about the church antiquarian compensation, which you have heard me do here several times. We are four parties in our coalition, and within the Tidö Government, internal negotiations are naturally taking place. We are, of course, pushing to see more money for the churches. But there is much that must be prioritized, so it is many times easier said than done. The Sweden Democrats are, however, fighting to ensure that the compensation is increased.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Runar again for the question.

I believe we should be able to join forces regarding the church antiquarian compensation and actually increase it. I hope that it will reach the levels that are truly needed. As mentioned, this also applies to other buildings in our country, as the need is acute in many places. In many places, it is not a state responsibility, but there are state expenditure areas where we can allocate money, for example to Boverket and Riksantikvarieämbetet.

Regarding the Opera, I do not agree that we have sat on our hands and done nothing. I know that Amanda Lind and other culture ministers have worked quite intensively on the issue over the years, and it has required a great deal of work. Miljöpartiet left the government quite abruptly just over half a year before the election, but I believe the issue would have been resolved. That is my guess, but I cannot know. As a historian, counterfactual history is not my strong suit.

Why it took two years before this government could resolve the issue regarding the Opera, we perhaps do not need to discuss further. The important thing is that there is now a roadmap. But money must be provided. It is very good that some millions have been injected for design and construction, but soon the rent will increase dramatically. It will become a budget problem, and money must be injected.

The same applies to the five state-owned cultural properties. Here, they have not injected particularly much money, but it is a new model. But here the money must be provided, and even here it has taken a very long time for this government.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am standing in front of the gate of Grönby church in Skåne. It is located just a few miles from the south coast and was built in the 1100s by Vikings who set out to plunder but were met by a God who urged them to love their neighbor and turn the other cheek. The 1100s was truly a revolutionary time.

Since the Moderate-led government took office in the autumn of 2022, great energy has been invested in the protection of Sweden's cultural heritage. The ecclesiastical antiquarian compensation has been increased for the first time since the church was separated from the state in 2000. And this autumn, a new translation of the New Testament will be released, entirely financed by collected funds.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of the cultural heritage, namely that which is preserved in museums, has received great recognition. When the SOM Institute measured citizens' trust in various phenomena, the museums shared a joint first place with the police. Pleasing there has been the increase in recent years to around 20 million annual museum visits, and the digital visits broke records last year and exceeded 32 million.

A priority area during the mandate period has been to plan for war and crisis. Blue Shield has since 1954 been a way to mark cultural heritage so that it is left in peace during an armed conflict. In Ukraine, we have seen how Russia instead regards it as a shopping list for what is to be looted when a place has been seized.

Now the museums are largely finished with plans for what should be moved, what should only go into a basement, and what must remain if war or crisis occurs. For the antiquarians, it has not always been easy to grade the individual objects given that each one has an associated history, the so-called provenance. An important security measure has been to photograph and classify all objects so that at least images remain if the objects were to be stolen. The more detailed the images are, the easier it is to assert ownership if the objects appear on an auction site or in someone's home. Immensely valuable objects from Egypt and Iraq have been sold without the museums being able to prove their ownership.

When classification and photography are completed, the next major task awaits. It awaits not only in Sweden but in large parts of the Western world. It is about complementing the collections so that they comprehensively cover the 1900s and 2000s.

Most museums were formed during the decades before and after the year 1900. When they were formed, donated objects were gratefully accepted. Such items that have been donated can then not be sold – not even if one has 120 spinning wheels, as a frustrated museum director told me.

Today, many museums are careful to only accept donations where they have the right to sell duplicates or items that are otherwise not relevant to be included in the collections. Here, we must get legislation that exempts the museums from the donation conditions. I am thinking of Armémuseum, which has largely only had state objects and has therefore been able to cull up to half. In return, they now have the opportunity to, for example, display two Carl-Gustaf grenade launchers that blew up their respective Russian tanks in Ukraine.

How strongly it resonates when there is material from the 1900s and 2000s, I personally noticed during a visit to the Jamtli county museum in Östersund. There, they have moved a 1970s villa in mexite brick, with seagrass wallpaper in the hallway, film stars on the wall in the youth room, and a ping pong table in the party room in the basement. It was fascinating to be able to remember the cassette tapes, the Instamatic camera, and the bronze-colored fridge/freezer. My childhood was unrolled.

International museum laws prevent regimes from selling the parts of the collections that do not fit their own narrative. The problem is that the same laws prevent one from getting rid of 100 of the 120 spinning wheels or 9,000 of the 10,000 stone axes. The collections fill the warehouses and are never displayed. We would really need a parliamentary inquiry on weeding out in our cultural heritage so that we create space for material from the last 100 years. It is urgent now.

We must also solve another problem. This, moreover, concerns not only the museums but all public activities. It is about IT systems. At every museum, in every municipality and in every region, one freely chooses their IT system. Here, the state should step in, as has been done in Denmark and Norway, so that there becomes a system for cataloging cultural heritage, a system for tickets, a payroll system, a medical record system, and so on. Within IT, taxpayers' money is not being used in an efficient way.

The Swedish National Heritage Board is doing a great job of coordinating what has been created and entering it into various systems. In total, over 11 million objects are described, and it increases by a mere million per year. Naturally, the right thing would have been to have everyone work in the same system from the beginning.

In conclusion, I want to return to Grönby church, not because it ceased to be relevant in the 1100s, but because it reminds us that we have now entered the church year's period of fasting. This year, it coincides with the Muslims' month of fasting, Ramadan. Cultural heritage lives on, but it takes on new dimensions in today's Sweden. That is what I am grateful for, Mr. Speaker.

The cultural canon we received last year should, with its windows open, reveal history to us, but note that most of the canon's windows are empty. To fill them is a task for us, our children, and our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren.

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

(Applause)

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a very fine speech!

I will ask the same question to the member that I previously asked to the Sweden Democrats' member. It concerns our 15 world heritage sites.

It is the Swedish state that has signed the so-called World Heritage Convention, it is the Swedish state that applies to Unesco for something to be included on the World Heritage List, and it is the Swedish state that bears the responsibility for communicating and managing the value of the World Heritage sites.

In practice, no state resources are allocated for this. Instead, the responsibility is borne by project funds, regional funds, municipal funds, and a large extent of largely voluntary efforts. A clear example of this is the World Heritage site Hälsingegårdarna, where private farm owners themselves are responsible for guiding and telling about their world heritage.

This is a completely unreasonable situation. If one compares it with, for example, Norway, it becomes downright embarrassing. I know that the member well knows the differences that exist in the Nordic countries, and I therefore want to ask the member: How do he and the government view our 15 Swedish World Heritage sites and the conditions for these in the future?

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

When it comes to Norway, they start their budget every year with half of the entire Swedish state budget in the form of oil revenues. They can afford things that we cannot afford in Sweden.

Then it becomes very concrete. This summer, I personally had the privilege of being up at the Hälsingegårdar and meeting people there. It becomes completely unreasonable when one runs a farm and happens to have a Hälsingegård on their land. One supposedly receives support from the County Administrative Board if, for example, one is going to replace the roof and so on, but when it comes to electricity costs for dehumidification and insurance, which are very expensive for such farms, the state provides no support. It is one of the things that I hope we can solve during the next parliamentary term.

When it comes to privately owned cultural heritage, one must not be so stubborn that, in the worst case, it forces children not to want to take over their parents' inheritance because they cannot afford to continue running it. It is truly good that the member raises this.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Peter Ollén!

Unfortunately, the resources for our world heritage sites have decreased during this parliamentary term. Between 2021 and 2024, the Swedish National Heritage Board was at least able to provide 4–5 million to the world heritage sites for coordination and implementation of the action plan linked to the world heritage strategy. That possibility no longer exists, unfortunately.

The lack of resources has also led to the fact that the action plan and thus the strategy have not been able to be fulfilled. The ownership of our world heritage looks different, just as the member states. It is both state-owned, municipal, and private. For that very reason, a clear responsibility and a functioning national coordination are required.

I have had several debates with the Minister for Culture on this through written questions and interpellations, but I do not think I have received any clear answer on what the Moderates and the government want. Sweden has committed to not only preserving the world heritage sites but also communicating their value, and that requires funding.

We Social Democrats have, in our budget proposals over the recent years, allocated 5 million kronor to the world heritage sites. We believe that the Swedish National Heritage Board should continue to be able to distribute funds. It may not be enough, but it is a start. I am pleased that that budget item is finally in place, after approximately 40 years.

I heard what the member said, but he is welcome to repeat it. I ask the question again: Are the Moderaterna prepared to take a clearer state responsibility for Sweden's 15 world heritage sites and thereby ensure long-term funding and a national coordination?

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! When we took office in 2022, no one expected that we would have to handle a situation where all our museums had to plan for being able to remove and protect cultural heritage during a war. It was a completely unreasonable situation one ended up in. Many prioritizations have been made that one perhaps would not have chosen to make in peacetime.

I am thinking that quite large amounts have been spent on digitalization. Now there are 20 new million in the plans for the coming years. It would be desirable that one also looked at those parts.

Then it is difficult. I have spoken with the County Administrative Board, who say how much one can contribute and pay from the state side to something that is privately owned. It is much easier. One of the Hälsingegårdar is owned by a municipality and is managed very well. One is owned by one of our wealthy families, who have no problems whatsoever with keeping it in top condition. We have the same problem in the member's own county with the rock carvings in Tanum, which are located on private land. This is truly something that we must stick to and pursue.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Just like the member in the previous exchange, I would like to thank member Peter Ollén for a fine speech and for his great commitment to culture and, not least, cultural heritage, which we heard about here.

The government has taken a great responsibility for the protection of cultural heritage in the event of war and crisis. It is not just about war, but it is important to point out that it is other types of crises as well. It does not have to be armed attacks and so on.

An example I mentioned is the climate crisis, which affects large parts of our cultural heritage all over Sweden, for example buildings. This has not really been included in this council for the protection of cultural heritage and its work, which has also been part of the criticism.

What I think the government has not handled in a satisfactory manner is the living cultural heritage and, above all, what I mentioned in my speech: the continued operations of cultural heritage institutions and memorial institutions during war and crisis.

We saw, for example, during the pandemic that the role of libraries is immensely important. It is important that the archives still remain open in some way and that the museums also become places for debate, knowledge acquisition, and all that.

We have a couple of reports that have shown how cultural life has been affected by the government's policy. We have the DIK report, which I mentioned, where only 4 percent of the employees believe that their workplace has sufficient resources to maintain operations in war and crisis. And we have the report from the county institutions, which points out much the same thing.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mats Berglund, for these important questions!

Living cultural heritage is also incredibly important to work with, and it is much more complicated to keep alive.

I have personally become quite involved when it has come to the minority languages and how to ensure that they live on. Often, the children are not motivated to learn as long as they are children, but the opportunity must exist. When, in adulthood, one feels that one does not want this language to be lost, the offer from society must remain so that one can then pick up one's cultural heritage. Now, the member is a PhD in history and has lived with this throughout their entire life, but I believe we are many who recognize this—that it is only in one's 40s or 50s that a very strong focus on our cultural heritage and our roots develops.

When it comes to the libraries, I think that if there is anywhere we have pumped in money during this mandate period, it is in reading, reading comprehension and all that with 850 million new to physical textbooks in school, 460 million to staffed school libraries and several hundred million to supplement the school libraries with books. The more libraries we have and the more spread out they are, the safer we also are in the event of war or crisis.

Then I want to say that when it has concerned, for example, moisture damage in museums, we cannot refer to war but precisely to crisis when there are larger amounts of water and when objects are destroyed in basements and such. There we have a great task ahead of us.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer, which I consider forward-looking.

The Speaker mentions this regarding climate change and what it means for our cultural heritage. I come from the City of Stockholm and that cultural policy, and there we have for quite a long time worked with air pollution and with attacks on our cultural heritage in many different ways but also with the changed climate, which we see affecting our cultural heritage quite rapidly.

I also mentioned forestry, which clears away our cultural heritage before we even know that there is a cultural heritage and what kind of remains we have there. I would like the member to comment on that a bit.

It is about building in peacetime to manage to maintain the operations of our museums and libraries but also cultural life in general in times of war and crisis. This government has unfortunately reduced and stopped the index adjustments of, for example, the cultural cooperation model, and it is mentioned in the report from the county institutions how this has affected the cultural heritage and the cultural heritage institutions.

I also wanted to ask about the Danish Council for Cultural Resilience. I don't know if the member is familiar with it – it is quite new, as I understand it. Could it be an interesting object to look at for the Swedish government in order to strengthen cultural life as a protection? We are talking about this with soft power and all that.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must unfortunately admit that I am just as much of a history buff as the member is, so I am familiar with the Danish model. There were also a few of us who met in Denmark to talk about this.

There are things that I find very exciting in the Danish model, including among other things how one should handle that which is hidden. As the member mentioned, it is 80 percent or more. We do not know what is hidden, but there is much in Sweden that is undiscovered.

I come from Skåne. One can directly compare Skåne with Zealand, where there is probably about as much available.

In Denmark, there is a philosophy that the county museums let metal detector clubs go out and search areas. We do not allow that in Sweden, and I hear strong arguments from the archaeologists in Sweden against doing so. But there is a dimension of democratization in the Danish thinking, that we all have the right to search our cultural heritage, and I would gladly see a discussion about the Danish model in Sweden.

I would like to return to one thing regarding the climate part that I did not have time for earlier. When I visited Hälsingegårdarna, I was informed that with the climate as it is now, the temperature fluctuates above and below zero degrees, which is extremely damaging to the cultural heritage compared to it being cold and then staying cold until it becomes warm again. It also means that the burden increases further.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! Since war begins in the minds of men, it is also in the minds of men that the defense for peace must be built – so begins UNESCO's constitution from 1945. War does not start with weapons but with ideas, with notions of "us and them" and with fear, suspicion, propaganda and dehumanization. If war is born in thought, in our languages and in the stories we tell about each other, peace must also be built there – through education, culture, knowledge of our history, understanding of other people's experiences and respect for what is commonly human.

It was from this insight that the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage, the so-called World Heritage Convention, was adopted in 1972. With it, the underlying idea was also adopted that certain places on earth have such outstanding value that they are an asset for all of humanity.

Sweden signed this convention in 1985, and our first World Heritage site was designated in 1991. It was the Drottningholm Palace area. Since then, an additional 14 have been added, and by this point, this chamber knows that the latest, from 2012, was the Hälsingegårdarna. We have mentioned it a few times during this debate.

Sweden's 15 World Heritage sites constitute a unique part of both our national heritage and the world's common cultural and natural heritage. All countries that have signed the convention can nominate natural and cultural environments to UNESCO's World Heritage List. With that signature also follows a responsibility to protect and preserve the sites and to actively communicate their value.

Mr. Speaker! It has now been over 40 years since Sweden joined the convention, and a long-term sustainable management and financing is still lacking. The Swedish world heritage sites have repeatedly fallen between the cracks and, because of that, have become everyone's and no one's responsibility.

If we compare with our neighboring country Norway, these differences emerge very clearly. The Norwegian state gives its eight World Heritage sites – that is, barely half as many as in Sweden – approximately 100 million kroner per year. In addition, a World Heritage center is funded at each World Heritage site, as well as a full-time national coordinator. If we look at the Icelandic World Heritage site Vatnajökull, we see that it has 40 full-time employed guides, and during the summer there are even more. This can again be compared with the Hälsingegårdarna, where the private farm owners themselves have to guide.

This is naturally not reasonable. It is the state that applies for an area to become a world heritage site, and it is the state that has the responsibility. Nevertheless, one of the most central tasks – to convey and bring to life the value of the world heritage – is placed in the hands of voluntary forces and perhaps on individual property owners.

The differences in resources between a farm owner in Hälsingland or a small association that organizes hikes among the petroglyphs in Tanum and Statens fastighetsverk, which is responsible for Drottningholm, are naturally obvious. Despite many in this chamber speaking passionately about the world heritage sites, the resources for the world heritage sites have actually decreased during this parliamentary term, as Riksantikvarieämbetet can no longer allocate funds via the 7:2 grant. We have an ambitious world heritage strategy in place from the previous government's time. We have an action plan in place, but it is an action plan that in several parts could not be implemented as resources are lacking.

We Social Democrats have, in our latest budget proposal, proposed an investment in the world heritage sites. In addition, we believe that the Swedish National Heritage Board should continue to be able to allocate funds. In this way, the world heritage sites can be given a necessary and requested supplement.

We mean that it is actually both regrettable and strange that the government does not see that one could make a big difference with relatively small means. With the right conditions, the world heritage sites contribute to knowledge, cooperation, tourism, regional development and tax revenues – and not least to pride and joy.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties need to lift their eyes and see the culture also outside of Stockholm. The power of cultural heritage does not exist solely in the large national institutions. It exists throughout the country: in the world heritage sites, in the association life, in the local history museums, and at the study associations, the county museums, and the industrial museums.

The industrial museums are Sweden's largest museum group. They have over 1,500 museums, and even there, the majority are driven by voluntary forces. They preserve and bring to life the industrial society's cultural heritage in authentic environments and often with functioning machines and living workshops. Together, they have approximately 10 million visitors annually and engage around 170,000 people during more than 2 million voluntary work hours every year.

The state support is, however, also marginal there. The appropriations have not kept pace with the cost developments, and this erodes the long-term conditions for the operations. A reinforced and more predictable funding is needed to strengthen the future of the labor life museums.

Most labor life museums also lack resources and access to modern collection management systems despite managing millions of objects and photographs. If our common cultural heritage is to be digitized and preserved, a long-term state investment in a coordinated system that is open to museums regardless of ownership is required. We Social Democrats therefore urge the government to take the initiative for a review of the conditions for labor life museums.

Mr. Speaker! In a restless time, the insights into the importance of cultural heritage have become even clearer. In the shadow of war, where people suffer unimaginably, there is also a systematic destruction of cultural heritage taking place. War is not only about territory but also about identity.

Russia is at war against a country that it claims does not exist. Therefore, the destruction of Ukrainian culture is so central to the Russian warfare. Museums are looted, archives are destroyed, and history is rewritten. Cultural heritage becomes both a target and a weapon in the struggle over ideas.

Not least, the experiences from Ukraine have made the protection of cultural heritage a pressing issue also for us here at home in Sweden. We Social Democrats stand behind the government in several respects in its ambitions regarding the protection of cultural heritage, even though much remains regarding, for example, archives, digitalization, and not least funding.

Our cultural heritage, however, cannot be seen in isolation from other cultural policy. Crucial to strengthening both our cultural heritage and our preparedness is therefore to ensure a living and active culture for everyone throughout the entire country. The importance of this, my colleagues will elaborate on further in the next debate here in the chamber today.

Finally, Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but I choose to move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Louise Thunström, for an interesting and engaged contribution! I am thinking particularly about the parts regarding Unesco and the world heritage sites.

One of the forms of financing that we brought back concerned the entrance fees to the state museums. You were critical there, but then you changed your minds and now support the idea that a fee is charged. When I was up at Jamtli, which in itself is not a state museum but charges 300 kronor for admission, I actually asked specifically if people turn back at the entrance. But they do not. For that money, one gets a holistic experience. If you are in a 17th-century house, someone is standing there baking bread in a 17th-century fashion and so on, so you get these additional experiences for the money.

One can compare it to a concert that can cost 2,000 kronor, and the tickets still sell out in a flash. I therefore naturally think that it is good, but it would be interesting to hear the member's reflections regarding precisely charging for taking part in the cultural heritage.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Peter Ollén for the question.

I have always been attracted to the free admission reform to our state museums, and I have stood up for it in previous exchanges with the member. Free admission signals that the cultural heritage belongs to us all and that our jointly owned knowledge institutions should be open and welcoming to all people in the entire population regardless of the size of their wallet. They should be part of a democratic infrastructure. As a Social Democrat, I see culture as a part of our welfare.

But we Social Democrats must also be honest. The development of inequality in Sweden has increased dramatically in recent times. We see that it is not enough to offer free admission for participation to be broadened. The thresholds can be economic, but they can also be social, geographical and cultural.

With that insight and background, we chose instead to reprioritize in our budget and allocate the money to a cultural guarantee instead of free admission. We want to guarantee that every child, at least once per term during their school years, will be able to visit a concert, a theater performance, or a museum. It is a reform that reaches all children regardless of background. We hope that the cultural guarantee can help broaden participation more than what we actually saw the free admission reform succeeded in.

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

Peter Ollén (M)

Mr. Speaker! Neither of our two parties has access to infinite money; it is always a matter of a choice. We have chosen to prioritize that all schools have staffed school libraries and that there are books in the school libraries. One chooses how one wants to use the money.

It is interesting that when the Agency for Cultural Analysis looked at the question of free admission, they pointed out precisely that it did not have the effect that those who were socially or economically weaker visited museums more. On the contrary, it was those who were economically stronger who visited more often. Therefore, it was reasonable to receive the supplement.

A valuable thing I see with taking payment is that when one takes payment, one is forced to do something that is relevant. It becomes clear whether the museum director is lazy or if the museum director works on making the collections accessible and attractive for the visitors. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on the connection between taking payment and being forced to deliver quality.

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

Louise Thunström (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the question.

I have visited many museums over the years and discussed the free admission reform. Some museums take up what the member points out, namely that one is forced to do something more. Others say that the introduction of an admission fee caused them to lose many visitors. They have on their own initiative chosen to introduce free admission again. My assessment is that it looks different.

I want to raise another aspect of the free admission debate. When the focus lies unilaterally on visitor numbers, as it often does when we debate, the museums risk being forced to chase an audience, which does not fully reflect their mission. The museums' mission is much broader than showing themselves to the public – with or without an entrance fee. The museums shall also care for and conserve collections, conduct research and contribute to research, document and preserve for the future.

Preserving objects or cataloging a collection may not generate any quick clicks on a website or as many visits, but it is what ensures that our cultural heritage can be preserved for the future and shown to more people. We have understood that it takes time to broaden participation. It requires long-term commitment, relationships, and pedagogical work. Therefore, there is a problem with focusing unilaterally on counting visitors.

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, and what thoughts did they have? How did they view their surrounding world?

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

That is why we see that warring parties, both states and other groups that have an interest in historiography and cultural heritage, make great efforts to destroy. The most well-known is perhaps the Nazis' attempts to reshape history, but we see the same pattern repeated time and again. We saw it during the war in the Balkans in the 90s and the terror group IS's rampage, and we see it in today's actions of Russia in Ukraine, which have been mentioned earlier in the debate.

Destroying buildings and archives and stealing or selling objects can become part of trying to erase another people – 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 which country it belongs to, is equivalent to damage to the entire humanity's cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! Just because cultural heritage is our collective memory, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that it should be accessible to everyone. We heard a previous exchange regarding the issue of free admission, and we also believe it is a matter of principle that the state museums, including the county museums and the municipalities' museums, are free for all residents to visit. They are, just like the libraries, also institutions of knowledge.

In the Museum Act, it is established that the public museum system has the task of promoting knowledge, cultural experiences, and free formation of opinion. Unfortunately, it is clear that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats do not consider that everyone should have free access to the knowledge gathered in museums and archives. Just the removal of free admission is a sign of that. The reform costs around 90–100 million, and it has been removed every time the bourgeois parties have had a chance. At the same time, 34 billion could be allocated in tax cuts during 2025 – to compare that with the 100 million a free admission reform would have cost.

Last year's tax cuts also primarily went to high-income earners. That it would mean that ordinary people got more in their wallets so that they could go to museums and theaters, as the Minister for Culture claims, is wishful thinking. For the vast majority of households, the cuts were not even enough to keep up with the price increases for food. This year, when it is an election year, taxes have been lowered a bit more broadly so that people can be kept in a good mood until September. Even though average households have received a bit more in their wallets, the costs for electricity have shot up significantly, and even the rents have soared. I believe few feel that they are living in some kind of abundance today.

Statistics Sweden, SCB, estimates that 840,000 Swedes cannot make ends meet. 1.9 million cannot afford unforeseen expenses, and around 400,000 Swedes cannot afford to heat their homes. That is the reality many people live in.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties' speeches on investments in children and education therefore leave much to be desired when it comes to cultural heritage. Children still have free admission to museums, but few children can visit museums without their parents.

Vänsterpartiet also has criticism regarding the third area that the Tidö parties usually bring up. In addition to children and education, people usually talk about preparedness. There is a lot of focus on the war situations that previous speakers have also raised today. But we cannot just focus on the fact that the Russians might come, as is often heard, but must also consider if the rain comes. We have archives that could withstand bombs. They are substantial buildings that were built decades ago. But they cannot withstand raised water levels.

Resources are needed here and now to manage the climate changes that affect all our institutions today. The green transition needs to receive resources. This will, in fact, affect our societies to a great extent in the future. I heard this morning that Ekot reported on the enormous costs Europe had last year after storms, heavy rainfall, and fires all over Europe. In that situation, not pursuing a policy to reduce our climate emissions is truly a threat to the living conditions of future generations. It is time to put an end to the fossil-dependent societal culture that we have cultivated over the last decades and let it become a historical parenthesis, Mr. Speaker.

Sweden's museums have a typical year of around 20 million visits across the country. The digital visits are even more numerous. These institutions top the Swedish people's trust list, but today they lack the economic resources for the most fundamental.

The cultural cooperation model, which implies that the state should support the regions, is undermined when the state no longer compensates for price and wage increases. All cost increases fall on the regions' expenditure accounts. I think it is unfair and unreasonable. The regions also bear the responsibility for large, expensive and important areas such as healthcare and public transport.

Mr. Speaker! Digitization is a part of the increased accessibility of cultural heritage. Resources are needed for both museums and other types of archives. There are enormous needs in this area. Some material actually risks being destroyed. In some cases, it is about formats that can no longer be read because there are no machines and spare parts. It is urgent to achieve that digitization. The Government has actually allocated some resources here. But it is not enough. More needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, there are no motions from Vänsterpartiet. But we clearly show in our budget proposal for 2026 that we prioritize the cultural heritage institutions and the cultural environments. We have approximately 305 million more in our budget than the government and Sverigedemokraterna have. I regret that cultural heritage does not stand higher on their agenda. I thought, perhaps, that it would be one of the few areas on the cultural side that they would nevertheless prioritize.

The big issue this parliamentary term has been the cultural canon, which highlights specific places and buildings. But at the same time, we now see a decay across the entire country, for example when it comes to cultural environments. Previously, we also heard a contribution from the Social Democrats regarding our world heritage sites.

It is largely voluntary efforts that keep many places, buildings, and environments running. I want to take the opportunity to extend a big thank you and a greeting to all voluntary associations and individuals across our country who ensure that places are made accessible and kept open, and who maintain these important places and buildings for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say something about the cultural heritage of national minorities. I agree with much of what Mats Berglund from Miljöpartiet mentioned earlier. We have a slightly different focus in our proposals. Therefore, there are no common reservations today. But we share the same basic view.

Before Christmas, I visited the Tornedalsteaterns production Ummikkos, which is on tour. Ummikko is meänkieli for a person who does not speak the surrounding language. It was a beautiful, bilingual play, which was subtitled. It gave a picture of the struggle that one has fought to reclaim one's culture and roots when one has been subjected to assimilation policies for generations.

Even for those of us who do not speak Meänkieli, it was a fine message that all of us with a multicultural or multilingual background could identify with. I gladly recommend more people go and see it now that it is out on tour. It can be thanks to Riksteatern. Vänsterpartiet thinks that even Tornedalsteatern and the Sámi theatre, Giron Sámi Teáhter, should receive proper support in order to be able to constitute national stages. Our population that speaks the national minority languages is actually spread across the entire country. One must be able to have proper tours.

Culture and language are carriers of our cultural heritage. But some of the measures for the national minorities do not land specifically with us in the Cultural Affairs Committee. Many of our proposals and our resources are with the Committee on the Constitution. I just want to mention that for those who look at the documents in today's report.

A few years ago, Vänsterpartiet was involved in pushing forward a notification to the government regarding the repatriation of Sámi remains. I want to mention specifically that work has nevertheless been initiated after we here in the Riksdag were able to agree that it needs to be prioritized. But it could go faster. That is because this entire area, the culture and language of national minorities, is very neglected, and this government and Sverigedemokraterna have unfortunately cut back even in that area.

In conclusion, I would like to express a hopeful thought that we can get a different government after the autumn election and that we can then get a cultural heritage policy that is worthy of the name.

(Applause)

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

Catarina Deremar (C)

Mr. Speaker! 103 motions concerning what we are debating today, cultural heritage and cultural environments, have been submitted during the general motion period from individual members or colleagues together. Some examples have been heard from the rostrum earlier. I nevertheless want to mention the fäbod farming, the Hälsingegårdar, Uppåkra, ecclesiastical antiquarian compensations and the work against antisemitism. All these areas point to the importance of and the commitment to cultural heritage – that which makes us who we are, the history we carry and that which we want to pass on.

Our cultural heritage and our cultural environment are not too often accessible thanks to an active and engaged civil society. It is the association life that gathers and creates local cohesion and passes on traditions. Knowledge is built together, not least in the local heritage movement. We in Centerpartiet see the value of strengthening civil society even in this area.

Mr. Speaker! In the restless times and world we find ourselves in, we also see it as positive that the Swedish National Heritage Board, in the regulatory letter for 2025, was tasked to take special measures to strengthen the protection of cultural heritage through preparedness planning regarding evacuation warehouses and secure transports.

Mr. Speaker! On UNESCO's World Heritage List, there are 15 World Heritage sites in Sweden. Here we find Birka and Hovgården, Gammelstads kyrkstad and Hälsingegårdar, which I also want to mention – it is a bingo on that today in any case. All 15 World Heritage sites are unique cultural and natural-historical environments located in different places in the country and are of national interest. The responsibility for the work with the World Heritage sites is local, regional, and national. The owners and managers of the World Heritage sites can be both private and public.

The work with the World Heritage sites is financed with private, municipal, regional, and state funds. There are earmarked funds for World Heritage sites that are natural heritage but not for World Heritage sites that are cultural heritage. However, non-profit organizations can apply for other grants within the cultural heritage area. There may also be opportunities for local and regional funding through the cultural cooperation model. Sweden has a national cultural heritage strategy, but the national work regarding the World Heritage sites can be strengthened. There should be opportunities for further cooperation between these different levels for interventions for the World Heritage sites.

I would like to conclude by pointing out the great responsibility that the farm owners take so that we and future generations can visit, for example, the Hälsingegårdarna. It is worth noting that it is a particular challenge to take responsibility for this cultural heritage as entrepreneurs and farm owners.

I move for approval of reservation 12 under point 9 on UNESCO's World Heritage.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage is not only the traces of generations before us – what people have built, created, and believed. It is also an active part of our present and something we manage for future generations.

In this time, which is characterized by anxiety in our global environment, war in Europe and increased threats against democratic values, the importance of cultural heritage becomes even clearer. We have seen how cultural heritage is deliberately attacked in war and how buildings, archives and identity are destroyed. Protecting cultural heritage is therefore not just a matter of history. It is a matter of resilience, identity and cohesion.

Mr. Speaker! The report states that there is legislation, agency mandates, and ongoing work that form the basis for the protection of our cultural heritage. This is important. Cultural heritage policy requires long-term thinking, not erratic shifts. At the same time, we know that the responsibility expressed by the legislation must also be matched by practical and economic conditions. We can take the museums as an example. Sweden has state and regional museums that manage invaluable collections. But many museums struggle with challenges regarding premises and storage. When rental costs crowd out activities and storage facilities do not fully meet modern requirements for climate and security, it is not just about operational economics. It is about how well we are able to protect our cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a responsibility resting on us when it comes to the ecclesiastical cultural heritage. Church buildings are not just places of worship or landmarks. They are carriers of local history. They house art, furnishings, and environments that reflect centuries of Swedish history. For many people, the church is also a place for life's major events – baptisms, weddings, funerals – and a place for gathering in times of crisis.

For a long time, the compensation for the care and maintenance of the ecclesiastical cultural heritage has been eroded. The Government has implemented a first increase. It is not huge, but it is an important step towards the continuation. The Christian Democrats want to continue that direction and see a need to further strengthen the conditions for caring for churches and ecclesiastical cultural environments, not least in rural areas, where the church is often completely decisive for the area's identity.

Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage is not only material. It is also about democratic awareness. In a time when antisemitism, extremism, and the distortion of history are spreading once again, knowledge of history is a democratic protective factor.

Christian Democratic culture policy is based on a simple principle: We do not own the cultural heritage – we manage it. We have received it as an inheritance from previous generations and have a duty to pass it on completely, alive and accessible. Therefore, cultural heritage policy, the Christian Democrats argue, needs to be characterized by long-term funding, respect for the institutions' independence, and an understanding of the cultural heritage's importance for cohesion and identity.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report. We Christian Democrats will continue to work to ensure that the practical and economic conditions for safeguarding our cultural heritage and our cultural environments are strengthened over time.

(Applause)

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Our cultural heritage and our cultural environment are the story of Sweden – of who we are and who we have been. It is our historical city centers, our industrial towns, our churches, our museums, our industrial landscapes, the cultural environments of our national minorities, and much, much more. It is the voices of those who built the country and the responsibility we bear for those who come after us.

We Liberals have repeatedly emphasized in this chamber that cultural heritage belongs to us all. It is not the state's, the market's, or individual interests' – it belongs to the citizens. Therefore, it is also the responsibility of politics to create long-term, stable, and legally secure conditions to care for and develop our cultural environments and our cultural heritage.

Authorities such as the Swedish National Heritage Board and the National Property Board of Sweden bear a great responsibility, but the responsibility does not stop there. The municipalities play a major role when it comes to physical planning and building permit processes. Civil society plays an invaluable role through the local history movement, voluntary forces, and local associations that make our cultural heritage accessible and preserve it every day.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, cultural heritage issues have taken up an increasingly large place in the debate – unfortunately for a grim reason. Today, it is almost impossible to talk about cultural heritage issues without thoughts turning to the cultural murder that Russia is trying to carry out in Ukraine. During the war, over 300 important cultural sites have been destroyed in Ukraine: churches, libraries, museums, and monuments, all of which are parts of Ukraine's cultural heritage.

At the beginning of the invasion four years ago, horrific scenes unfolded in Mariupol when Donetsk's regional drama theater was bombed by Russia. On the facade and on the ground outside, the Russian word for children had been painted large and clearly to inform Russian military aircraft that children and civilians were hiding there. In the attack, an estimated 600 people were killed out of the 1,000–1,200 who had sought shelter in the building. It was a building that one believed would remain standing because it is a cultural heritage site and that one believed one would be safe in.

That Russia lacks respect for international law is nothing new. Russian history is a history of imperialism. The Russian tsardom, the Russian Soviet regime, and today's Russian Federation have oppressed their neighbors and pursued Russification policies. The invasion of Ukraine aims not only to take away from Ukraine its territory and its freedom but also to rob the country and its people of their identity. At this moment, Russia is attempting to erase Ukraine's cultural identity and language and falsify its history.

It is against this background that the protection of our own cultural heritage has become even more urgent. It is also why culture has been incorporated into the national security strategy for the first time and the government has established a council for the protection of cultural heritage. The Swedish National Heritage Board has been tasked with strengthening the protection with the help of evacuation warehouses and secure transports and has been allocated increased funds. We have also here in the Riksdag decided on increased funds for the digitalization of the cultural heritage. The work has begun, but there is much left to do to ensure the protection of our cultural heritage for future generations.

Mr. Speaker! Another pressing area where we are now finally taking major steps forward concerns the problematic model of cost-based rents for some of our large institutions, which we have endured for far too long. The National Property Board of Sweden has now, on behalf of the government, completed renegotiations of the lease agreements for the Royal Swedish Opera, the Royal Dramatic Theatre, the Nationalmuseum, the Swedish Museum of Natural History, and the Swedish History Museum. This means that the current model with cost-based rent will be phased out. The idea is that it should provide better conditions for maintenance in the future so that we will not again be left with collapsing roofs, a work environment that is under heavy criticism, and other problems due to neglected maintenance.

This is being done at the same time as we are now carrying out the largest single initiative on state-owned historical buildings through the grant properties with almost a doubling of the appropriation, a comprehensive renovation of the Royal Opera, and a substantial increase of the ecclesiastical antiquarian compensation. This means that we are improving the conditions for the survival of our cultural heritage in several areas.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall say a few words about museums. There are many fantastic museums and world heritage sites, which we have spoken much about here today. They give us good insight into how different eras and phenomena have influenced our country's development. Many are run by passionate individuals who keep traditions alive, but sometimes national museums are also needed. Therefore, I look forward a little extra to taking part in the Swedish Film Institute's mission to submit a cost-estimated proposal for a national film heritage museum. We must also take new phenomena with us into the future as part of our cultural heritage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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