Response to interpellation 2023/24:236 on special statements in municipalities and regions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned special statements in municipalities and regions. KD considers that there are insufficient grounds for mandatory rules in the Local Government Act as it would mean a restriction of municipal self-government and an increased administrative burden 1. KD argues that it is more natural to legislate on reservations 2. KD wants to be as open and transparent as possible to strengthen democracy 3 and proposes handbooks or guidelines instead of legal regulation 4. SD considers that a lack of legislation is a deficiency that affects elected officials' opportunities to be heard 5. SD argues that regulation would ensure equal conditions and function as a minority protection 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Mattias Eriksson Falk has asked me if I share his view that it is important that the conditions for elected representatives in municipalities and regions are equivalent to those in the Riksdag regarding special statements and if I believe that a regulation of special statements in the Local Government Act (2017:725) would provide more equivalent conditions in the municipalities regarding minutes. He also wonders if I am prepared to conduct a review of the Local Government Act for the purpose of implementing a regulation of special statements to achieve equivalent conditions in municipalities and regions.
In the Local Government Act, there are provisions regarding what a protocol from a meeting of a municipal council, board, or committee shall contain. From these provisions, it follows that it shall, among other things, appear whether a member has reserved themselves against a decision. The chairman is responsible for the protocol. There is, however, as Mattias Eriksson Falk points out, no right to have a specific statement recorded in the protocol.
Municipal self-government means that the municipalities and regions themselves decide on and organize their activities according to what they find most appropriate. It is a fundamental principle in the public sector. A restriction of municipal self-government should not exceed what is necessary in view of the purposes that have prompted it. If, after a proportionality assessment, there are overriding reasons for the state to decide otherwise, this can be done through law or other regulation.
The amendment proposed by Mattias Eriksson Falk could to some extent increase the transparency of decision-making in municipalities and regions. At present, however, sufficient reasons have not emerged to introduce new mandatory rules in the Local Government Act. Such mandatory rules would mean a restriction of local self-government and entail an increased administrative burden for the municipalities and regions. It should therefore continue to be up to each municipality or region to decide for itself how it best handles minutes and special statements.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my interpellation, which concerns the political conditions for elected representatives in municipalities and regions!
I have previously had the opportunity to submit a written question to the Minister regarding exactly this. I received a similar answer from the Minister then as well, which is not so strange since the Minister surely remains at his view on the matter, according to what can be read from the answer.
I and the Minister share the view that the conditions for elected representatives in municipalities and regions are important. It is not particularly surprising in itself since we both come from previous municipal assignments. We are well aware of the political work that takes place beyond the Riksdag's framework and know how important this is for democracy at the local level and the decision-making municipal self-government. It is often said that the politics that is closest to people in their everyday lives in many cases is realized or driven there.
I chose to submit this interpellation to the Minister based on my own experiences at the municipal level and on the regulations in, among others, the Local Government Act which govern the political agenda and working methods, at least in some parts. It is precisely here that the difference arises to some extent at the municipal level and therefore affects the elected representatives' opportunity to make themselves heard.
As I mentioned, some things are regulated. This applies, for example, to the right to speak or to submit proposals. It is crucial for a democracy that a person is allowed to make their opinion known and that one is allowed to think differently. But, Madam Speaker, democracy and political work must also be able to be scrutinized, for example by citizens and the media. It is a guarantee that democracy functions and that the public feels trust in society's institutions.
When one disagrees, one can, for example, vote no to a proposal and then lodge a reservation. It is a way to clearly show in the minutes that one thought differently. In a reservation, one can also, if so desired, explain in writing how one reasoned and why one reserved oneself.
If, on the other hand, you are behind a proposal, you cannot reserve yourself. But you may still feel that you need to explain why you have voted as you have. In some municipalities and regions, one can then submit a so-called special statement or make a minute entry and thereby explain how one reasoned.
Here, written statements or protocol notes are not statutory, but it is then entirely up to the chairman, the board, or the committee to decide whether they shall be included in the minutes. It is something I consider to be a deficiency and something that contributes to us not receiving equal conditions at the municipal level. One gets approved by a majority only by the skin of one's teeth if one sits in the opposition.
Madam Speaker! I have personally experienced this issue in my home municipality, Gävle. There, the chairman of the municipal executive board says no to a specific statement if it practically contains any form of criticism of the proposal or the governing majority. It is obviously unreasonable in my eyes, as criticism is part of having different opinions.
I then chose to request a re-vote on the special statement. I lost this vote, and I then left the statement as a reservation at the vote even though I stood behind the proposal later. One can call it an innovative use of the Local Government Act, even if it looks strange.
I return to the government's response. The government considers that a potential legislative regulation would restrict municipal self-government. Why does the government consider that a reservation is okay to regulate by law, which is done today, but not specific statements or minutes?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Just as Eriksson Falk says, I myself have a municipal political background in the city of Stockholm. There, this works perfectly. I have submitted many special statements, both as a substitute and as a regular member. I therefore recognize the issue well.
I must say – if I am allowed to be so broad in my comments as a Minister – that I think it is a good order. I think it is good that there is as much freedom as possible to have one's opinions and views expressed. I think one should avoid trying to complicate things for the opposition when it wants to make its views visible. I do not think it is a good way to act as Chairman. I can actually dare to say that.
I still hope that this can be resolved at the local level and that we will not have to change the Local Government Act in this regard. It is one thing that one can reserve oneself. If one were unable to do so, it would be very bad, because then one could only vote for a single opinion.
I therefore think it feels more natural and more correct that one legislates on reservations rather than on the specific expressions, which would be a greater intrusion into local self-government. We can, of course, sometimes make exceptions to that, but it must be based on a proportionality assessment. In this case, we have so far made the distinction that, based on a proportionality assessment, we do not want to regulate this by law.
But I, as a civil minister responsible for the relationship with municipalities and regions and for the Local Government Act, nevertheless dare to say that I would like chairpersons in committees and boards and municipal councils to have an attitude that is as generous as possible towards the opposition. This also applies to representatives in committees who are substitutes and lack a regular seat.
It is not only in the minutes that we can present our positions. Today, there are quite a few other ways to make one's positions known. Perhaps it is not that many who go in and read the minutes, and today we have greater opportunities—not least due to the increased prevalence of social media—than we had before to publicize our views. One can, of course, also make use of these.
We have not received any proposals from Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. I have a regular dialogue with them, and the issue has not come up so far during my nearly 14 months as Minister. It is interesting. But if SKR were to actually ask the government to change the law and bring up the issue, perhaps we will have to rethink. If there is a clear request from the collective Municipality and Region Sweden to make changes, we will absolutely listen to it.
I always find it difficult with this type of interpellation debate. It is not that Eriksson Falk comes up with some crazy idea that is completely absurd and makes one wonder how he can think this way. I have great understanding for what the interpellor presents in his interpellation, and as I have said, I have myself worked in a municipality where it has worked perfectly well. I can understand the feeling if one is in a municipality where one feels that the chairman is trying to reduce one's opportunities to make their views visible.
Until now, the government has not made the assessment that we need to change the Local Government Act, but I am not closing any doors on this. And I could absolutely open such a door even further, not least if SKR were to come forward with a collective proposal.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Minister, for the answer! I do not share the view that this is a restriction of the local self-government that the Minister mentions in his answer. It is about ensuring equal conditions in municipalities and regions for elected representatives – and primarily an opposition – to make themselves heard without having to be granted this at the mercy of a majority.
One can, if one wishes, see it as a form of minority protection. It is something that also exists in other parts, for example regarding the tabling or re-referral of a matter. It is, therefore, a protection so that a minority and an opposition can make themselves heard.
I will give the Minister an example where a special statement or a minute entry may be applicable. It can be when the council has adopted a budget and the frameworks for each committee are then to be distributed internally within the committee. It is not entirely uncommon for the opposition to then abstain from participating in the decision or to stand behind it and then want to be able to explain why they have done so. One does not vote no for the reason that the council has decided which budget shall apply, and one does not reserve oneself, for that part.
This is in accordance with how it is done in the Riksdag in many cases. When decisions on the expenditure area frameworks have been made, the opposition usually chooses to submit specific statements instead of proceeding with their own proposals regarding the appropriation distribution for each area.
If we can submit special statements in the Riksdag, this should also be the established procedure in municipalities and regions. We have our elections at the same time, and all three levels are directly elected by the people. We should therefore, as far as possible, enjoy equal conditions to make ourselves heard. At the same time, this gives citizens and the media a better opportunity to scrutinize.
Madam Speaker! I interpret the Minister's statement as that there is no need to review the Local Government Act at the present time and that the Minister will therefore not take the initiative to do so. But one never knows, and I therefore send these perspectives to the Minister. When any work with the Local Government Act takes place, the Minister has the opportunity to take into account the parts that I raise here today.
The Minister also took the opportunity to speak a little about how he urges the chairpersons of all committees and boards to enable the opposition to make themselves heard. I share this view. I think it is very important that one - regardless of where one is in the country and regardless of who is in power and who sits in opposition - has conditions that enable one to make oneself heard in the political debate.
It must be possible for citizens and the media to scrutinize the initiatives one has taken and the proposals one puts forward. They must also be able to follow how one has reasoned when arriving at which decisions one chooses to support or reserve oneself against. It is part of the fundamental work in a democracy that one can put forward proposals and that they can be scrutinized.
As I mentioned, it is possible to be a bit innovative with the Local Government Act if one so wishes. But it becomes a bit like we are moving in parts in a way that perhaps was not intended, but which is nevertheless possible in the Local Government Act today. Therefore, in order to achieve a clear order, one could regulate this. Then the problem would be solved in the whole country for all municipalities and regions at the same time.
The Minister mentioned that there are more opportunities to make oneself heard today. Social media came up as an alternative. It is an alternative today, and we can make ourselves heard by a broader audience in a different way than one could as recently as 15-30 years ago. But we also do not want all our elected representatives to be dependent on technological developments. Some want to be able to write on their paper, submit it, and have it included in municipal minutes. Then the media can see that way how one has reasoned if one does not work with social media. It is an important perspective to keep in mind.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the latter. I do not mean that one should be referred to social media in order to be able to have one's views heard or made visible. I only added this to say that today one is not just locked to the protocol. If one reaches out to other media, one probably gets more readers than if one only sticks to the protocol. It was more to be seen as a side note or a tip to our elected representatives around the country, which most probably already know.
There will be some repetition here of what I said in my previous post: I am not closing the door on this, and I do not think it is any crazy idea that Member of Parliament Eriksson Falk is proposing. But I must also be honest and say that no work is being carried out. The issue has not been raised during my first year as Civil Minister. It is actually the first time I encounter the issue at a political level in the form of this interpellation. I thank you for that, as I take it as a message and a suggestion.
As I said, my personal experience from municipal politics is that it works very well. But I have also heard about other municipalities where I know it does not work as well. I am happy to take this further in a dialogue with SKR to hear what their views are and to gather more arguments for myself.
I am in no way closing any door, but until now this issue has not been prioritized. So I can say that. I think that in my contribution I have been clear about what I think and how I think one should act as chairperson.
I think that one should be as open, generous, and transparent as possible. I believe that our democracy benefits from it. Everything else creates suspicions that one is trying to silence certain people and obscure and complicate things for democratically elected parties. I dislike that behavior. Transparency and openness benefit our democracy, and I also believe that it strengthens it.
Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers that have been given to my interpellation here today! I believe that we fundamentally share the view that the democratic conditions are extremely important for our elected representatives in municipalities and regions across the country.
Even though it looks a bit different regarding how one works with, for example, specific statements in minutes or other things in the municipalities and regions, it is an important perspective to carry with you in the democratic work that one should be as open and transparent as possible. It is, above all, about giving an opposition an opportunity to make itself heard.
I perceive that this problem exists today. I have experienced it myself. I have also tried to get an idea of how widespread it is in the country. What I have been able to gather is that it exists in some places while in other places it works well, such as in the city of Stockholm. This can naturally be due to the fact that one has more developed working methods in these parts.
I will remain in my opinion that in the long run it would be best to have a statutory regulation of this to ensure that one acts in the same way in municipalities and regions. I do not see it as a restriction of local self-government but instead as a way to give our democratically elected politicians a better opportunity to act and make themselves heard.
I understand exactly what the Minister means by social media. One is not referred solely there, but it is an excellent example of how one can work in a broader political spectrum today than before. These are important parts to take with you even forward, while at the same time we must ensure that one has good opportunities to make oneself heard in the political work.
It may also be the case that not everyone reads the minutes at once and checks everything that has been said, but the minutes are also a way for citizens and the media to be able to go back and check what politicians in opposition said at one time or another. When they are in power, they may act differently, and that can then be followed up. It can be a very specific question, and then it is important that there is a reasoning that citizens and the media can hold the politicians to if the politicians have provided such a reasoning.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I also want to thank Mattias Eriksson Falk for a good debate and an interpellation that raises a question that I still think is interesting. Then we will see how we proceed with it, whether we want to regulate this or whether we can manage without regulation. Not everything one wants to achieve needs to be legally regulated; there are often different ways to move forward. One could also imagine a handbook or different guidelines to achieve a common perspective without having to lock in exactly how it should proceed in the legislation. Let us look at that.
I will most likely take up the issue with SKR to further the discussion. I think it is an interesting question.
I also share the view that minutes are not always intended for those who want to go in and eagerly read the minutes when committee and board meetings are over. They also have a historical and an archiving purpose: that one should be able to go back and look. There, minutes are naturally of greater value than various social media, which are more fleeting. That is absolutely the case.
A big thank you to Mattias Eriksson Falk for raising the question! Then we will see how we choose to proceed with this. But openness and transparency is truly an appeal to everyone who follows this debate and who leads a committee or a board. I really think that one should work in that way.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.