Response to interpellation 2024/25:362 on small rural municipalities in the interior of northern Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government has a clear rural focus and that the permanent increases of the general state grants strengthen the economy. 1 KD argues that they have a good rural policy that supports drivers through lower fuel prices and reinforced support for the agricultural sector 1. 2 KD advocates for support, fewer regulations and lower taxes rather than grants 2. 3 S argues that the government's priorities mean that the smallest municipalities will have to struggle more 3. 4 S argues that the government lacks a rural focus because targeted support is disappearing 4. 5 S argues that the government centralizes services and cuts back on support to small municipalities 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Isak From has asked me what comprehensive impact assessment I and the government have conducted in light of the fact that many grants and co-financing for small rural municipalities in the inland of northern Sweden are being reduced or completely disappearing. Furthermore, Isak From has asked whether I and the government intend to in some way support smaller municipalities and sparsely populated Sami administrative municipalities.
The government has a clear rural focus, and we are working purposefully to improve the conditions for all of Sweden's rural municipalities. That changes are occurring in how the policy is designed does not mean that the government is letting go of its focus on improving the conditions to be able to live, reside, and work in the entire country. The government believes that all of Sweden should function.
Now, the special and time-limited government grant that has focused on the business climate and industry in 39 municipalities in the inland of Norrland and certain municipalities in Dalarna and Värmland is being concluded. The assignment to these 39 municipalities has been extended several times, and after seven years, it is now being concluded as planned and according to the latest government decision.
The municipalities have, with the help of this time-limited grant, increased their long-term capacity to develop the business climate in collaboration with the business sector. The municipalities have also improved their cooperation with other municipalities and actors within the framework of regional development work. This was also the purpose of the state grant.
Despite the fact that the state budgets for 2023 and 2024 needed to be restrained in order to combat inflation, the government during these years has decided on reinforcements of the general state grants to the municipal sector with a total of 16 billion kronor. The reinforcements are permanent and thus continue to strengthen the municipal sector's economy from 2025 onwards. The Sámi administrative municipalities are covered by this reinforcement.
Following the government's proposal in the budget bill for 2025, funds have been allocated for an incentive for municipalities with wind power establishments. In its entirety, the compensation corresponds primarily to the property tax for wind power installations and will largely be paid out to rural municipalities. The detailed design of the incentive is currently being prepared within the Government Offices. The Sami administrative municipalities can, of course, also be included in this initiative.
I also want to mention that the parliamentary Equalization Committee 2022, in its final report *Nätt och jämnt – Likvärdighet och effektivitet i kommunsektorn* (SOU 2024:50), has submitted proposals that, among other things, take into account and protect rural and sparsely populated municipalities. The committee's proposals have been referred and are now being prepared within the Government Offices.
In conclusion, I would like to mention that the government has appointed an inquiry to review future regional development policy and rural policy (dir. 2024:69). Experiences from previous initiatives will be taken into account in the inquiry. A final report is to be submitted by June 1, 2026, at the latest.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister for Rural Affairs! We shall see how much my voice carries, but I have good support here. Even out in the countryside, quite a few people are now coming to realize what the SD-led government's priorities mean for ordinary people. The budget that this chamber decided on in the autumn has now hit home, in 2025. This means that all those municipalities out in the country that are struggling with their reality will have to struggle a bit more. And it is often the smallest municipalities that struggle even a bit more.
That is the starting point of my interpellation and the reason why I have posed these questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for actually answering the interpellation. In previous debates on similar issues, it has been Civil Minister Erik Slottner who has answered. I will return to what he has placed his emphasis on in those answers.
When we weigh the government's priorities, we see that it is the very smallest municipalities that are in the worst position, and there we can add the Sami administrative municipalities. That the government is now withdrawing just over 5 million from the administrative grant to Sami municipalities may seem like a little, but for a small municipality that has a small budget, the combined result is what one has to manage.
It has been and remains very clear what this chamber has considered. There has nevertheless been a strong, broad political consensus on strengthening the conditions for national minorities and that the state grant to municipalities and county councils shall be used for the additional costs that arise by them having to fulfill the minority rights that exist in the legislation. Therefore, it is strange – and one wonders about it time and again – that the state is now making such a reduction which, for the state as a whole, is small, but which in reality, for the administrative municipalities, becomes part of a large reduction.
We have previously debated how well the state grant to the 39 smallest municipalities in business funds has worked and the positive impact it has had for those municipalities. They have been able to design it based on their own reality. They have been able to have that extra meeting with the entrepreneur and have been able to coach on which other supports can be sought, and they have been able to help the entrepreneurs and guide them through both the state and municipal bureaucracy.
This, in total, and when the government also reduces the conditions in various ways by cutting back on state service centers, constitutes a double blow upon a double blow. I will return with further points in the next post.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Isak From for posing this important interpellation regarding the difficult conditions, but also the opportunities for development, of small rural and countryside municipalities in northern Sweden.
Madam Speaker! I live in a rural municipality in Norrland and am well aware that none of the cabinet ministers live north of Borlänge, in the area that constitutes approximately 60 percent of Sweden. I just read an article from Hela Sverige ska leva which shows that it is only one minister who lives in one of the 130 municipalities classified as rural municipalities. You can all Google who that might be.
It means that one might not meet residents in the grocery store, they travel the long distances to deliver goods and services, or they meet those who work at a municipal office with few colleagues and who all have difficult priorities to make when it comes to how the resources should be distributed.
It is among other things what this debate is about, Madam Speaker. How is a rural municipality, where the tax level is often much higher while the service level is lower, to manage and have the strength to focus on the important business development?
Madam Speaker! To help with this, the Social Democratic-led government introduced targeted support in 2018 to develop the business sector in 39 rural municipalities. Sweden's rural municipalities have poorer conditions for business development, and those municipalities received 1.76 million kronor annually to promote business and a better business climate. These 39 municipalities are often characterized by long distances to service and customers. The state grant has been important for them to be able to work with these issues, as resources are often insufficient for the rural municipalities.
In my home county of Jämtland, all municipalities have received the funds that have in various ways strengthened business development. For example, Bergs municipality has been able to invest in conditions for more housing and increased attractiveness. In Ragunda, funds have been used for recruitment-promoting initiatives for the business sector, projects for relocation, and the development of a new comprehensive plan.
In Åre and Bräcke municipalities, measures have been able to be made for community life and companies, in part thanks to the money being sufficient for a stronger business unit. In Härjedalen municipality, Madam Speaker, focus has been able to be placed on local food entrepreneurship and sustainable fishing, as well as co-financing various projects at companies and community life.
In the government's budget for 2025, this specific government grant for the business development of rural municipalities is no longer included. It is not a large sum, Madam Speaker. It concerns 70 million kronor. The government is investing a total of 60 billion kronor on new things in 2025. We know that the government has prioritized high-income earners in large cities and with surgical precision cut the appropriations specifically for the northern rural municipalities.
The Minister for Rural Affairs says in his response that the government ”has a clear rural focus” and ”is working purposefully to improve the conditions for all of Sweden's rural municipalities.” My question then becomes: What does the Minister for Rural Affairs mean that Ulf Kristersson's government has done during the more than two years that have passed since he took office to improve the conditions specifically for the sparsely populated municipalities in northern Sweden? By that, I mean existing decided policy, Madam Speaker, not future investigations.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Isak From for an incredibly important interpellation and thank the Minister for Rural Affairs for the response. I would, however, like to correct the Minister for Rural Affairs on a quite fundamental point in his reasoning in the interpellation response; that changes in how the policy is designed means, in plain language, that the government completely lacks a rural focus.
Let me explain! I was, in fact, extremely provoked by Rural Minister Kullgren's answer. According to his reasoning, the rural municipalities need no support for business development and less support for the work as administrative areas because they received a share of the increases in the general government grants in 2023 and 2024.
Madam Speaker! This is a way for Kullgren to try to trick the audience. He is simply trying to mix the cards. But as the saying goes: That man won't go.
In 2025, the support for business development disappears. In 2025, the support for the Sami management areas is reduced. In 2025, the support for municipalities with socio-economic challenges disappears. And in 2025, the government increases the general state grants to the municipalities by exactly 0 kronor.
Madam Speaker! This means that the value of the support coming from the state decreases by a corresponding 6 billion between 2024 and 2025. To claim that inadequate calculations from 2023 and 2024 would make up for the loss of these targeted supports is to try to shuffle the cards. Kullgren knows this. Kullgren knows how state budgeting works. This is just a way to try to trick whoever might be listening to the debate. That guy doesn't fly.
The overall effect of the government's policy is that life in rural areas will become poorer, quieter, and worse. Let me explain! We know that adult education is living a declining existence. Adult education is, along with Systembolaget, the only publicly funded activity that exists in all of the country's 290 municipalities. So it does not seem like it can continue. We know that every fourth service office will close. We know that the grant for regional development is decreasing, that municipalities with socio-economic challenges receive less money, that the grant for business development in rural areas disappears, that there will be less money for the Sami administrative municipalities, that the support for public transport where people live in sparsely populated areas will become worse, and that the grant for regional culture is reduced.
I think Anna-Caren Sätherberg's question is important: In what way has the sitting government improved life for people in municipalities in the inland of northern Sweden?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! To say that it is an SD-led government is as logical as saying that the previous government was MP-led. I think we can stick to what Anna-Caren Sätherberg says: the government that Ulf Kristersson leads. It is in accordance with reality – instead of talk about placing men here and there.
I have a few questions in return regarding this grant to 39 municipalities. Why did the Social Democrats never make it permanent, if it is absolutely crucial for the survival of the Swedish countryside? Why did you continue to make it temporary, temporary, and temporary? Why did one have such a project? Should all temporary money just continue and be extended for all eternity? Or is this a project to build up capacity in the long term, which the Social Democrat-led government actually pointed out? I would very much like to have answers to this. I have asked it in previous interpellation debates but never received any proper answer. I think it is quite relevant.
Yes, it is of course true that I am aware of how budgeting works. But I think the words are being twisted a bit too much. As I state in my answer, the increased support to the municipal sector is not temporary. We have increased the support to the municipal sector by 16 billion. It is not something that is being withdrawn. That is what I am saying, and we can also see it in writing. We managed to do this despite having an incredibly strained situation in the Swedish economy.
Speaking of strained finances – now everyone participating in the debate has the opportunity to reply to this – it is an unambiguous fact that among the most important things that have happened for the municipal sector regarding finances in recent years is that we have braked and curbed inflation. We have conducted a responsible financial policy, so that the pressure has not increased. It has been very important. Inflation has hit municipalities inexorably hard, not least on the pension side.
Then we are different. The Social Democrats and the government do not stand for the same politics. We may not have exactly the same solutions. I believe in this case that we have quite similar goals. We want all of Sweden to function better and that it should be possible to live even in remote areas and the countryside. But I believe more in people's own drive. I believe that we have done right in ensuring that we do this.
When the reduction obligation was introduced and there were significantly higher fuel prices than we have today, there wasn't much talk about the countryside. But it hit the countryside extra hard, because there, one often has no alternative to the car. Today we see a price per liter of diesel that is 10 kronor lower compared to when the Social Democrats were in power. In the upcoming budget, we have also ensured to strengthen the so incredibly important agricultural sector for the countryside with 746 million kronor through the common agricultural policy.
I think those are some examples of good rural policy that takes action and supports the drivers of people and companies.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Kullgren!
It is a question of timing in relation to the outside world. When should one change, and can it be done in dialogue with those concerned? Or are people informed on a blank piece of paper that the support is being removed? That is what the government has done with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna.
I can say a lot about the Sweden Democrats, but they stand by their policy. They have been very clear that they want to see a centralization. That is something we have not really heard from the Christian Democrats.
Now we see a centralization in area after area. Whether it is state agencies or state services, we see that it is being centralized.
In my interpellation, I requested a consequence analysis. The consequence analysis that we have received implies that the rural affairs minister Peter Kullgren refers to it as something temporary that was removed. They do not report the effects of the change out in the municipalities.
One also does not report the effects of removing a very small but important amount of money for Sami administrative municipalities. It happens to be almost the same municipalities that are losing the business support.
How then should one support smaller municipalities? That is my second question. There, the Minister for Rural Affairs refers to the tax equalization investigation that has been submitted and is lying on the table.
We think it is good. But when we have had debates here with Civil Minister Erik Slottner, it is referred to as being prepared and that we do not know when it will arrive.
One might perhaps compensate for the cuts one makes in 2025 in 2029 or later. That is not known. In the budget, reference is made to wind power money that was supposed to go out to many municipalities.
Piteå, for example, which got rid of its service office, may perhaps receive 43 million. They have many wind farms. It is very important if they were to be paid out. Malå, which is an administrative municipality, may perhaps receive 3.2 million. Lycksele is zeroed in the proposal, as many other municipalities are.
There are new costs in the municipal sector. The Government refers to something that might become a reality and which is now being prepared in the Government Offices. It was not clear.
There are somewhat different views on whether the money should go to projects that are already completed and where agreements have been signed, or if it only applies to entirely new wind farms.
It only applies to completely new [projects]; the situation becomes completely different. Then perhaps Piteå, which was supposed to receive 43 million, gets zero kronor, and Malå perhaps gets zero kronor. Lycksele, which was supposed to get zero kronor now, might perhaps get something more if some wind farm is built. It is extremely uncertain.
It is being prepared in the Government Offices. We do not know when it might eventually appear. We have requested it. We think it is good. But we were really quite significantly surprised when the government presented a major news item. Then it was stated: We have not finished preparing it. It might come a bit later. We will have to see.
Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Kristersson's government has now governed for 854 days, just over two years. The government and the Minister for Rural Affairs have clearly shown what they prioritize and what they choose to leave out.
The government has, as I said in my previous post, removed the initiative for business development in the rural municipalities in northern Sweden.
I shall answer the Minister for Rural Affairs' perhaps somewhat odd question about whether it is permanent or not.
In my opinion, it has never been permanent that the government chooses to lower taxes for high-income earners. It has not been permanent that one does not add enough resources to healthcare and inflation protections.
Madam Speaker! A budget is not permanent, it is about the government's priorities. That can be the answer to the question.
The government is also cutting support for regional development by 100 million. It is the support that goes to grocery stores so that we can buy food and pharmacy products in the countryside.
The government chooses to turn off the sign for several of the State Service Centers. It is a hard blow to the rural municipalities that finally saw the state return to the municipality. The government chooses to remove a grant of 300 million kronor to the smallest municipalities that are having a tough time.
The government is also not investing, as we Social Democrats want to do, in the farmers of Norrland with a compensation grant and increasing it by 60 million. It is also not financing the support that Trafikverket wants at 195 million kronor to establish basic safety and accessibility throughout the country.
Madam Speaker! Not even basic accessibility is important. For me, it is incomprehensible that the government chooses to prioritize cutting service in Sweden's sparsely populated areas and rural areas while the government burns billions on the richest in the big cities.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I note that the S-led government introduced the support for business development in small rural municipalities in the inland of Norrland. I note that the SD-government is abolishing the same.
I note that Kullgren continues to try to mix up the cards and claim that 16 billion in increased general government grants during 2023 and 2024 should cover reduced targeted government grants during 2025.
The 16 billion during 2023 and 2024 were not even compensation money. They did not even cover the inflation that prevailed at that time. That the government has fought inflation is also just nonsense.
Those who have taken responsibility and fought inflation are Sweden's wage earners, who have had real wage reductions because the government fails to manage to prioritize inflation-fighting measures.
I have spent the last few weeks visiting a number of rural municipalities in Norrbotten where I live and work. In Övertorneå and Arjeplog, they have essentially had the opportunity to have a business office as a direct consequence of the support having been provided.
In Överkalix, the state has closed all the doors to the Public Employment Service, the Social Insurance Agency, and the post terminal that have been located there. We counted together with the municipal councilor how many state jobs remain. There are two at the State Service Center and approximately two positions at Systembolaget locally.
Can Kullgren imagine what will happen to the trust and legitimacy for the state in Överkalix if the two services that exist at the service center there also disappear?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I am pleased that there is such a great commitment to rural municipalities and rural policy. I hope that it will come from more parties in the Riksdag so that perhaps we can do something really good.
I want to repeat that there is not just one type of rural policy. There is not just social democratic rural policy which consists of giving grants to municipalities and organizations.
There is an ideological difference here where one can also look at other drivers in the countryside. For me, it is quite obvious that entrepreneurship is central for a region to live.
It is about the fact that we have farmers who are able to continue to deliver and produce food for us. Therefore, we are making a prioritization with 746 million additional for Sweden's farmers so that food production can be maintained, open landscapes can be kept, and they can contribute with jobs and livelihoods and ensure that perhaps more can live in the countryside.
There must be a livelihood in living in the countryside. That ensures there is a basis for the school. That, in turn, can lead to there being a basis for service.
There is not just one form of rural policy, and it is perfectly fine that there are different approaches. But I believe more in support, fewer regulations, and lower taxes than in grants in order to make communities flourish.
Obviously, the Social Democrats did not believe either that this would be a permanent contribution – a support – to the municipalities, as it was designed in project form. It had been announced when it was to be concluded. The municipalities received temporary funds to build up a capacity.
I do not think I have received any answer from the Social Democrats here as to why the support was not made permanent. You had many opportunities to do so.
Isak From (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister for Rural Affairs! Has the government conducted a consequence analysis of the changes? Peter Kullgren refers to the fact that it was a temporary support. This is an important support that the entrepreneurs and the municipalities – even Svenskt Näringsliv and SKR – have assessed as one of the most functional. Would it then not have been reasonable to consult with the affected municipalities to discuss how to proceed, how far they have come, and what needs to be done?
Now, various cuts are being made simultaneously. Regarding the administrative grant to the Sami municipalities, there is also legislation behind it. It states that one should do this, and for that, there is a financing principle. A Social Democratic government should probably have increased the grant a little bit. That can be stated. But now money is being taken away at the same time as we have had cost increases, and despite the fact that we have as a basis a handshake on the financing principle, which means that what the state obliges the municipalities to do, it also finances.
Peter Kullgren also previously referred to the fact that the world market price of oil has changed. Otherwise, you usually refer to the fact that you have lowered the price by 10 kronor. But it is the world market price that has fallen by 7–8 kronor. That is the reality.
We note that the Social Democratic proposal for a thought support is needed extra much now, because now the rural inhabitants need to take the car just to be able to participate in state services at all. That is the reality.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to show Isak From a picture of the sign from my local gas station from when I drove to the New Year's celebration last year and then home from the New Year's celebration. Then he would see the price difference. It sounds exactly as if the reduction of the reduction obligation and other fuel taxes would not have had any effect. So that is hardly the case.
However, I would like to believe that Isak From and I share a common view regarding the goal that all of Sweden should function a little better and that different kinds of measures are needed to improve the conditions for those who live, work, and operate in rural municipalities.
In my department, we collect many issues that are of great importance for rural areas in a decisive way. It concerns rural development, regional development, infrastructure, housing and community planning issues, forestry, agriculture and fishing. These areas are interconnected and affect each other in a decisive way.
The conditions and opportunities of rural areas differ significantly. The inland municipalities in Norrland have their own specific challenges and opportunities. It is therefore a breadth of measures within many different policy areas that is needed. But the government has a unified focus, and that is that the conditions for living, residing, and working in all of Sweden shall be strengthened. Thank you for a good debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.