Response to interpellation 2024/25:297 on the right to burial
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the right to burial and the Swedish Church's status as the primary authority for public burial grounds. KD argues that the current arrangement works well and that the regulatory framework is not deficient 1 2 3. KD emphasizes that the church enjoys trust and that there are opportunities for religious communities to arrange their own sites 3 4. S argues that the church's status as the primary authority creates problems in conflict situations and that the public should manage the burial grounds to avoid discrimination 5 6. S believes that it is the state's task and that the church's role as the primary authority is no longer reasonable following the separation of church and state 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.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Ola Möller has asked me what measures I intend to take so that all residents shall have the right to a funeral on equal terms within the framework of their municipality.
I would like to begin by underlining that I share Ola Möller's view that it is important that the public cemeteries reflect today's society. It is important that the cemetery managers and the municipalities take this into account and are prepared for this when new cemeteries are planned.
According to the applicable provisions in the Burial Act (1990:1144), the Church of Sweden is the primary authority for the public cemeteries in Sweden, except in Tranås and Stockholm, where the municipality is the primary authority. The primary authority includes arranging and maintaining public cemeteries for those who are registered in a certain geographically delimited administrative area. The primary authority is further obliged to, within its own administrative area or within a nearby administrative area, provide special burial places for those who do not belong to any Christian religious community.
According to the provisions of the Burial Act, the County Administrative Board may also grant permission to a religious community or foundation to arrange individual burial sites. There are today in several municipalities, for example, specific Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim and Buddhist burial sites in addition to the public burial sites.
Persons who are registered as residents in Sweden thus have the right to receive a share of the services described in the Funeral Act. My opinion is that the current order largely works well and that some clarifications of the current regulatory framework are not needed.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I share the view that the funeral activities basically function very well within the framework of the Church of Sweden's responsibility. I also want to express my appreciation for the Church of Sweden as an organization and for their social work in helping people through tough times – both socially and economically. It is invaluable, especially now when the cost crisis is hitting Swedish households hard.
For the very poorest households, whose housing allowances are reduced by 775 kronor and who do not receive compensation for the cost increases because the child allowance is not increased as we Social Democrats propose, the church is sometimes the only safety net remaining in an otherwise completely impossible situation. Likewise, the Swedish Church's international work is extremely important to highlight. Even there, the church's work is unfortunately affected by the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy.
No organization is flawless, and within the Church of Sweden, there are forces acting with less noble purposes. There are priests and other individuals who oppose female priests, and there are priests who refuse to marry off homosexuals. Furthermore, in some places, the church is governed by darker forces that are not particularly inclusive and loving towards their neighbor or, for that matter, love their neighbor. People who are not members of the Church of Sweden – especially individuals from other religious communities – may experience that they do not receive the same treatment and rights as Christians in the matter of funerals.
In Helsingborg, a protracted issue regarding a new cemetery for Muslims is being handled. The overcrowded Muslim cemetery in a parish within the municipality needs to be replaced. For the minister and everyone else listening to this debate to understand how full it is there, I can say that family members are now being buried on top of each other in deeper excavated graves. It is very undignified and nothing that should need to occur.
The process regarding a new Muslim cemetery in another parish in the municipality has been stopped despite previous agreements that it would be built and despite all the paperwork being complete. It happened with justifications such as that Muslims have too much amalgam in their teeth and that solar panels would be built on that land. Therefore, the construction of the cemetery has suddenly been stopped. There have been very loud discussions in the village where it was to take place, and it has truly exposed many unpleasant opinions about other people.
I mean that such situations would never need to arise if the cemeteries had been managed by the public. Just the risk of one group distrusting another based on such a fundamental right as being buried in a dignified way in the municipality is problematic. The feeling of being a second-class citizen spreads quickly in such situations. Even though people have lived here all or large parts of their lives and paid the burial fee like everyone else, the final resting place becomes a matter of division and distrust instead of peace and dignity.
I wonder if the Minister sees the problem. I perceive his answer as him partially seeing it, but is he prepared to take some form of action to try to reduce this type of problem?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! I note Ola Möller's review of the Church of Sweden and can personally take the opportunity to express my appreciation for the Church of Sweden as well as for many other religious communities in Sweden that make significant contributions. I am also quite certain that the Church of Sweden shares Ola Möller's assessment that they too have shortcomings and can be imperfect.
It is difficult for me to immerse myself in the current case. I should not do that either. I do not have the full knowledge of what lies behind it, but I note Ola Möller's strong commitment so that all citizens in Sweden shall have the right to a funeral. That has actually been paid for. It is, of course, extremely important.
Persons who are registered as residents in Sweden have the right to receive a share of the services described in the Funeral Act. This leads me to the conclusion that it is not the regulatory framework that is lacking. Instead, one must try to resolve this and ensure that persons, regardless of faith and origin, have the same opportunities for a dignified funeral. It is a statement from my side that the regulatory framework stipulates this. Otherwise, I cannot engage in commenting on individual situations and what lies behind them.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! I naturally have respect for this. I am not looking for comments on the individual case.
The problem arises in conflict situations between different religious beliefs when one has the feeling of not being seen in terms of one's rights. There are more such examples. People have had to leave their municipalities to move into special housing and have been forced to settle far from the municipality where they were previously registered. They have had to register in the new municipality and then passed away. But if they wanted to be buried at home in the municipality where they previously lived, the parish can refuse because they are no longer registered there. If there are also differing opinions regarding faith, it easily happens that one experiences being discriminated against because of one's faith.
I have understood it as that within the Church of Sweden it is unusual to inter the whole body, while within religions that by tradition do so of course need more space to lie in - but I want to be clear that I am no funeral expert. The problem is more marginal within the framework of the Church of Sweden than within other religious beliefs, where one more often encounters it.
If the responsibility had rested with the public sector, the discussion would not have become as inflamed. I have perceived it as that the feeling of being denied because of one's faith would not have arisen as often. I accept the reasoning regarding the regulatory framework, but here it is actually about the responsibility and not about us needing to change the regulatory framework. It is, after all, the state's task.
Somewhere this follows the separation of church and state that took place a quarter of a century ago. That separation was important because the notion was removed that there should be any form of religiously based judgment in how the public carries out its activities.
The only example I can think of right now where religion is allowed to play a role in public practice is the monarchy. We have legislated that our head of state shall have a certain religion, which is completely absurd. It is just another reason why we should not have that institution remaining, but that is another interpellation.
Based on the separation of church and state and the fact that a quarter of a century has now passed since it occurred, does the Minister think it is reasonable that such a fundamental part of the public sphere as funeral services is still carried out by a religious principal?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! The short answer to the last question is yes. The Government has confidence in the Church of Sweden as the primary authority for the funeral services in Sweden, and we consider that it functions well in all essential respects. It will, of course, be noted when it does not function well, and I am glad that Ola Möller and others do so. I think that the primary authority is also glad when it is noted. It is important that this is maintained with confidence, and fundamentally, that confidence exists.
Then one must always be careful to distinguish between the roles. The Church of Sweden has a ceremonial and diaconal role in connection with many funerals that is completely separate from the funeral activities for which it is the primary operator. It is my opinion that one is good at distinguishing between those roles, but one must, of course, always work on being clear in those parts.
Regarding the monarchy, I have a different opinion than the interpellator. Even though the interpellation does not concern this, it may be worth mentioning in this context since the question came up in the debate. Burial issues sometimes lead thoughts in other directions.
It is extremely important that this works. I have also noted in my conversations with the Church of Sweden as the principal for funeral matters that a very active work is being carried out on a general level precisely to ensure that there is land and that there is a possibility to maintain the funeral services also in the future. It is, of course, also something that I point out in these discussions.
There is a great awareness of the preparedness issues, as they are also important in the event that Sweden, God forbid, were to be hit in a way that leads to fatalities that must be managed, for example within a short period of time. I know that a very active work is being carried out to ensure this precisely in its role as the primary authority for the funeral services.
But, again, I welcome the discussion. It is important, because these are issues that perhaps sometimes deserve a bit larger debate. Funerals, where we say farewell to those who go before us, change the tone of the room we live in. Therefore, it is important that it works and that people experience that it happens with dignity. Regardless of who one is, this process can take place with the dignity that this deserves and that the persons who have passed away and left us deserve. Therefore, I think it is an urgent discussion to have.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! I must truly thank the Minister for a debate that was both interesting and respectful. It is pleasing that there are ministers in our current government with whom one can have such constructive and objective discussions on extremely complex issues without accusations, shouting matches, and mud-slinging, which is what tends to happen in this room.
I would have been very surprised if the Minister held a different view than that the current order is sufficiently functional to endure. I would, however, like to raise a warning finger, and I believe I hear the Minister sharing my view. In line with an aging population and considering that the composition of our society looks significantly different now than it did a quarter of a century ago, these questions will become more and more noticed, and there will be more friction. I absolutely believe that the Church of Sweden on the principal level and the central level is well aware of this and is working very hard on this. But because it is also a very decentralized organization where there are local boards with local colors and local representatives, friction can also arise, which I truly hope we can help each other to alleviate and mitigate.
It is also part of the background to why I am raising this discussion. For me, just as for the minister, it is absolutely crucial that people are treated with dignity when they go to their final rest, regardless of the context and in what role. I hope that the minister continues to keep an eye on this.
I would like to thank you for a very good and productive discussion on an issue that we, just as the Minister says, perhaps should devote a little more time to.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thanks again to Ola Möller for the discussion!
I note that Ola Möller may very well be right in parts of his reasoning regarding population changes and such. But I also note that many of the minorities in Sweden and other religious communities have great confidence in the funeral services in Sweden. It is also important to emphasize.
I also want to point out the possibilities that exist in the funeral act today. County Administrative Boards can also grant permission to a religious community or a foundation to arrange individual burial sites alongside the public burial grounds. There are such sites already today, and I think it is good that that possibility exists as a small valve in this context to accommodate everyone's opportunities for funerals.
I also think the funeral representatives appointed by the public deserve to be highlighted. They also have to ensure that this functions in a good way, and they have oversight of this activity on behalf of the public. Ola Möller naturally knows this, but it may be important for the public to know that there are specifically appointed representatives to have oversight of this activity.
Once again, a thousand thanks for a rewarding discussion and a good conversation!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.