Response to interpellation 2022/23:188 on the maintenance and accessibility of state cultural properties

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Christofer Bergenblock has asked me what concrete measures I intend to take to stop the ongoing decay of state cultural properties, such as Varberg Fortress, what concrete measures I intend to take to make the state cultural properties, such as Halmstad Castle, accessible even for those who are wheelchair-bound, and what concrete measures I intend to take to secure the future financing of maintenance and accessibility adaptation of the state cultural properties.

The State has a responsibility for the holistic perspective in the preservation of cultural heritage and for creating good conditions for its management and development. The State Property Management shall promote a living cultural heritage that is preserved, used, and developed.

Statens fastighetsverk is responsible for managing a portion of the state's real estate, including many cultural properties. With that mandate comes also a responsibility to, based on the properties' specific conditions and applicable regulations in the area, meet the requirements for accessibility.

Varberg Fortress is a subsidy property managed by Statens fastighetsverk. Subsidy properties are properties characterized budgetarily by the fact that they lack the conditions to provide a long-term economic surplus. Statens fastighetsverk disposes of a special appropriation in the state budget to finance maintenance costs and ongoing operating deficits for such properties.

Statens fastighetsverk is responsible for continuously and collectively assessing large parts of the state's portfolio of cultural properties in order to maintain a well-balanced real estate portfolio with buildings throughout Sweden. Statens fastighetsverk shall, based on its mandate, weigh preservation ambitions against economic priorities and the economic scope.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer I have received, even though it leaves a great deal to be desired otherwise.

I asked the Minister three questions. After that, I requested concrete measures, which the Minister also repeated, regarding the maintenance of the state's cultural properties and the financing thereof. In response, I receive a concise and general description of the Swedish National Property Board's mandate. With all due respect to the Minister, I could have read this myself on the National Property Board's website. Judging by the detached answer I receive, perhaps there is not so much interest from the government regarding the state's cultural properties.

In Halland, where I come from, we have several cultural monuments that we are very proud of. In my interpellation, I highlight two of them as examples of cultural heritage that we have to manage and preserve even in 2023 - Varberg Fortress and Halmstad Castle. The first example concerns maintaining our cultural properties and the second concerns making them accessible.

Varberg Fortress began to be built as a medieval castle in the late 1200s. In the 1600s, it was designed into a defense facility with the expression the fortress has to this day. After 1822, a decay began as the defense forces abandoned the fortress and left it to its fate. Stone walls and ramparts collapsed during the 1800s, but in the beginning of the 1900s, action was taken on this and an extensive restoration was started. Had there not been wise politicians who took their responsibility a hundred years ago, we would have had nothing other than a ruin to look out over today.

Now it has shown that the maintenance of the fortress has not been handled in the manner required, and therefore there is once again a risk of collapses of walls and bastions. For several years, this has been noted by Statens fastighetsverk in their own inventory, and more funds have been requested from the government. Previously, it was the Social Democratic government that has not taken its responsibility. Now it is the right-conservative government that is not taking its responsibility. As a government, one can of course point fingers at Statens fastighetsverk, but ultimately it is actually the government itself that bears the full responsibility for how the state cultural properties are managed.

A few days ago, I spoke with my political colleagues in Kronoberg. There, the criticism is harsh regarding the fact that Kronoberg Castle ruin has been allowed to decay to the point that it is now completely closed to public visits. It is a development that we definitely do not want to see for the cultural properties in Halland, nor in any other part of the country either.

A hundred years ago, Sweden managed to take hold of the restoration and maintenance of Varberg Fortress and several other cultural properties. Does the Minister think it is worthy of Sweden 2023 that we do not manage the same thing, despite a vastly much better economic starting position?

Since I have not received any real answer from the Minister yet, I repeat my question: What concrete measures does the Minister intend to take to stop the ongoing decay of state-owned cultural properties such as Varberg Fortress?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for the question and the debate! It is obviously important.

I come from Kalmar myself, where we have Kalmar Castle. As a Kalmarite by origin, it naturally lies close to my heart. In Solna we have Hagaparken, and all around in the whole of Sweden there are properties, forests and land, ancient remains of various kinds and different types of culturally and historically important properties and areas. Not all, but very many of these are managed and owned by Statens fastighetsverk.

Statens fastighetsverk has very many different properties. One does not only have cultural monuments and things that are historically important, but one also has commercial properties and, for example, the government's properties. One has a very large portfolio where one has everything from the state as tenants to commercial actors and cultural actors.

It is an enormous operation that Statens fastighetsverk is responsible for. In Sweden, we have the principle that we are granted appropriations from the Riksdag. It is the Riksdag that decides in Sweden. If one wants other appropriations, Bergenblock and Centerpartiet can, of course, push that through in this chamber. That is how the democratic order looks.

When it comes to such properties as mentioned in the interpellation, so-called subsidy properties, they are part of the stock that is assessed as not having its own economic viability. One cannot sell entrance tickets or rent them out. In that case, the Riksdag grants a budget framework to Statens fastighetsverk for how these shall be managed. The Chamber has granted a framework of 290 million to manage all these properties in the entire country. In that case, Bergenblock's Center Party had no other proposal, but all parties had the same proposal.

If one wants to do more, the order is such that more money must be allocated to the operation. Alternatively, one must completely change the management model. That is obviously an alternative. I wonder what actually lies behind the question. Now we have the model with Statens fastighetsverk which has a mandate and a budget. Then the agency manages its area of responsibility as well as it can and as much as it can with the money it has been allocated. Statens fastighetsverk can, of course, do much more. Sweden is a country that has existed for a long time, and here there is much that one can spend money on to preserve, make accessible, adapt, and so on. That is a completely correct description.

However, we have not chosen an order in Sweden where we make decisions in the Riksdag to give a priority order to the National Property Board. These decisions have been delegated, just as in many other areas, to the authorities and professionals who are available to do the best with the situation given the money they receive.

I am a bit curious about whether the member Bergenblock thinks we should change the model. Should the Riksdag make decisions property by property on what should be done? Bergenblock does not want to give any more money. The Center Party has the same budget as all other parties. All left-wing parties have the same budget as the government. There is nothing that distinguishes them there.

I am still a bit curious as to what the alternative is to the order that already exists. If Bergenblock has views on the authority, he can discuss them with them, if he so wishes. I am a bit questioning as to what the member actually is looking for.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall return to the economy in the concluding part of our dialogue.

What I am looking for is, naturally, that the government takes responsibility for governing the state agencies and authorities that the government has under its purview. Under the Minister for Finance lies the National Property Board, and thus the responsibility for that agency lies with the Minister for Finance.

I first intended to address my second question in the interpellation, which concerned the accessibility adaptation of the state's cultural properties. My example in that context was Halmstad Castle, which is one of these cultural properties. It is a building that was erected in the 1600s by King Christian IV, who needed a residential home in the eastern parts of the Danish realm. He had such a building erected that is both beautiful and well-built because it still stands there. Just as with Varberg Fortress, it stands there thanks to previous politicians' wise decisions to maintain the facilities.

What neither Kristian in the 1600s nor politicians up until today have devoted so much time to is that even such a property needs to be accessible to as many as possible, for example, also for those who are wheelchair-bound. It is one thing if the building stands there just for viewing, but that is not the case. Halmstad Castle is to a great extent a living cultural property. It is the residence of the County Governor of Halland, and it is used as a residence for the County Governor, as a representation floor, and as office premises. It is naturally how it should be when it is possible, that is to say that our old cultural properties live on and are used where possible and do not just stand as monuments to bygone times.

The problem is accessibility. This was noted in connection with a visit that was to be made to the County Governor earlier this year but which could not be carried out because one of the participants was in a wheelchair. In that case, it was not possible to be in the representation floor of the castle and they were referred to other premises at the County Administrative Board.

It is naturally not reasonable that the person who is wheelchair-bound cannot participate in representation at the governor's residence, cannot work at Halmstad Castle, and also cannot become governor of Halland as long as the castle is the residence. Halmstad Castle is not the only state cultural property that lacks accessibility adaptations, but it is a good example because the property is actively used.

Adapting several hundred-year-old properties for accessibility is of course not easy, but there are plenty of examples of how it can be done in a respectful manner. One of those examples can also be found in Halland, namely at Varberg Fortress. The part of the fortress that is leased to Hallands kulturhistoriska museum, which among other things houses Bockstensmannen, was made accessible a few years ago.

What does the Minister answer to my question about the accessibility adaptation of the state cultural properties? In large part, nothing. It is remarkable that the person who is ultimately responsible for the state cultural properties does not make an effort to provide a more substantial answer on how they are nevertheless intended to be made accessible to a broader public.

Here I want to give the Minister a new chance. What concrete measures does the Minister intend to take to make the state cultural properties, for example Halmstad Castle, accessible even for those who use a wheelchair?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Christofer Bergenblock does not want to discuss whether he envisions a different model. I wonder if Christofer Bergenblock wants to change the model. I can only repeat the model that already exists. Statens fastighetsverk has many different types of properties. Some of them are the subsidized properties, and they are financed with appropriations from the Riksdag through the budget that is adopted. Then there are commercial properties that are rented out to tenants, and then there is the cost-rent model for a number of institutions.

This is regulated, with full commitment from the Riksdag, in regulatory letters to Fastighetsverket. There are laws and regulations, and Fastighetsverket has to follow them.

On the other hand, we do not have a model where we as politicians, regardless of whether one sits in the government or is a member of the Riksdag, make decisions regarding individual cases. Instead, it is left to Statens fastighetsverk to make prioritizations and assessments within the framework of the funds we allocate. Then the agency has a dialogue with its tenants regarding adaptations, rent setting, and so on.

Here, the member himself mentions examples of how this works. There are tenants and Statens fastighetsverk, and they have agreed on different types of solutions. It is also the model used if one wants to do something with the castle in Halmstad. Until now, these issues have not been subjects of political decision-making. It does not depend on whether one has commitment to the issue or not, but it is about having respect for the model we have chosen in Sweden. Does Christofer Bergenblock want a different model? In that case, I am of course open to discussing and considering, but then the proposal must be presented so that one can gain knowledge of what it looks like.

It is not in the toolbox at the present time for the Riksdag or the government to point at an individual property and say that Fastighetsverket should do this or that. Instead, this is based on the fact that there is a budget appropriation from the Riksdag, and then the agency makes assessments regarding what should be done. If there are tenants, an adaptation occurs together with the tenants according to requests—with consequences for the rent. That is the model we have chosen in Sweden. It does not depend on a lack of commitment from either previous governments or this government, but it depends on the fact that we have collectively made the assessment that we best protect Sweden's interests in that way. In that way, we best preserve cultural-historical memories and the state property portfolio. In that way, we do not engage in local political decision-making here or interfere in an individual matter. The Riksdag guarantees budget frameworks, and there are regulation letters to the agencies.

I still ask myself what the member is after. I can, of course, muster a great personal commitment for many different types of properties all over Sweden, but we have the model precisely so that the personal commitment should not be governing. It should not be the case that just because I am from Kalmar, there is a huge commitment for Kalmar Castle or something equivalent, or that just because I live in Solna, there is an extra commitment for Hagaparken. It is precisely so that we do not have it that way that we have the model we have, where we have a professional authority and professional people who are to make assessments based on a whole and the entire country, and where this type of local political activism should not be decisive, but it should be a professional overall assessment for all of Sweden.

Christofer Bergenblock's criticism would be more justified if the Center Party had large investments in this area. But now, the same budget framework exists. I do not know if Christofer Bergenblock thinks that Fastighetsverket is mismanaging itself within the framework that exists or if he thinks that less money should go to Umeå and more to Halmstad or so. In that case, it would truly be a departure from the model we have.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall now return to the matter of economy and governance.

I can feel that the Minister is slipping a bit on what is the Riksdag's mandate and the government's mandate. Of course, one receives the funding from the Riksdag, but the regulatory letters are written, as far as I know, by the government. And it is the government that governs the state authorities with the help of these regulatory letters and which has the possibility to investigate and look at their operations.

Now, it is the Minister for Finance who is speaking and not the Minister for Culture, but with a little goodwill, one could imagine that the perceived lack of interest in cultural heritage does not reflect the entire government but rather depends on where the National Property Board has stumbled into something.

On the other hand, one could expect a bit more interest in the economic management. There is reason to look at what the management of Statens fastighetsverk looks like and which financing models are used. If measures are taken in time and the ongoing maintenance is handled, it also becomes cheaper over time; every person in this country who owns a villa or a summer cottage knows that.

Another question one can ask is that of subsidized versus market properties. Varberg Fortress is today largely rented out but is still regarded as a subsidized property. Why is it that way? One could perhaps differentiate these properties in order to provide better opportunity for the maintenance and upkeep of the properties.

There may be further opportunities to find new financing models that would provide slightly better efficiency in the funds that are already being provided. See that as a possible assignment for the Minister for Finance to undertake to get a bit more bang for the buck!

What I finally ask is this: Is Sweden's government prepared to take the responsibility required to secure the maintenance and accessibility adjustments of the state-owned cultural properties?

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Christofer Bergenblock for bringing these properties up for discussion! It is, of course, important.

Sweden is a country with a long history. We shall take care of and preserve the cultural heritage we have while simultaneously having a professional management of all our state properties of various kinds, regardless of whether they are used as a government building, are rented out commercially, are some of our large institutions or are important in the local community. It is quite obvious.

I would, however, like to make an objection to Bergenblock's description that there would be great inefficiency. There are certainly decisions in Statens fastighetsverk that could be different, and there are certainly local expressions of opinion where people would want it in a different way and so on. I would still like to say that Statens fastighetsverk overall delivers a lot back to us citizens for the 290 million kronor that one has.

I do not share Christofer Bergenblock's optimism that one could get much more for this money if one did it in a different way. My assessment is that Swedish authorities generally, and the National Property Board in particular, have an efficient management. There are certainly things in the margins that could be done better. There are such things everywhere, there is no doubt about that, and it is certainly so here as well. But that one could in some magical way get much more out of these 290 million, I do not make that assessment.

However, if there were a political will - now it is not from the Centerpartiet, but if it were - to significantly increase these 290 million, yes, then one could obviously do more. But I do not think one should point at Statens fastighetsverk and say that they are not doing a good job with the 290 million they have. My assessment is that they do.

Then one might wonder if the commitment is measured in kronor. In that case, one can state that Christofer Bergenblock and I have the same commitment, because it is the same budget. If one wants to get out very much more, one probably needs to increase the appropriations, but that is something none of the parliamentary parties want - neither the government parties nor the left-wing parties that Christofer Bergenblock represents.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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