Response to interpellation 2024/25:388 on grants for public meeting venues
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns grants for public gathering places and the conditions for civil society. KD argues that gathering places are important and that there are good conditions for voluntary engagement 1. KD considers that the definition of public gathering places should not be narrowed too much as it limits civil society's opportunities 2. KD perceives that there are no obstacles to granting support to rural areas today 1. KD emphasizes that a new state grant of 25 million kronor annually has been allocated for rural development 1. KD argues that civil society is quick to find ways for new needs 2. KD highlights that the government has allocated an extra 130 million kronor to sports facilities 2.
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! Kristoffer Lindberg has asked me if the government intends to change the wording in Section 7 of the Ordinance on State Grants to Public Assembly Halls so that Boverket can grant business development grants also to assembly halls in Sweden's rural areas.
The distribution of the state support for public meeting premises is governed by the provisions in the Ordinance (2016:1367) on state grants to public meeting premises. The purpose of the state grant to public meeting premises is primarily to contribute to meeting the needs of association life for premises for its activities and to realize central democratic goals in society, the cultural life's needs for premises both for spreading culture and for creative activities and spontaneous needs for premises for debate and leisure activities outside of organized association life. State grants may be provided in the form of organizational grants, investment grants, and operational development grants.
According to the regulation, specific applications concerning general assembly premises in areas lacking proximity to public and commercial services may be prioritized. The regulation also states that applications concerning premises in areas with socioeconomic challenges shall be prioritized.
It is Boverket that examines questions and pays out the state grant according to the ordinance. The decisions are made by a specific decision-making body within the agency called Samlingslokaldelegationen.
The number of applications received by Boverket for state grants for public community centers increased from the year 2023 to the year 2024. During 2023, 58 of 244 applications for investment grants were granted, and 20 of 59 applications for operational development grants were granted.
Furthermore, organizational grants were granted to the three community center organizations Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, Folkets Hus och Parker, and the national organization Våra Gårdar. According to information from Boverket, the operational development and investment grant has had a high level of demand over the years.
Like the previous year, funds were sought to a greater extent from areas with socio-economic challenges, and this applied particularly to the operational development grant. The proportion of applicants who conduct youth activities has also been particularly high when it comes to the operational development grant. The amount sought amounted to approximately 73 million kronor, of which 19.7 million kronor were granted in grants. The operational development grant has primarily gone to project management, educational initiatives, travel, and the purchase of equipment but also to the adaptation of premises.
I share Kristoffer Lindberg's view that provisions on state grants to public meeting places should not be designed in such a way that they make it difficult for state support to be granted to meeting places in Swedish rural areas.
Within the Government Offices, a review is currently being conducted of the regulations governing state support to civil society organizations due to, among other things, the introduction of the new democracy requirement. The review also includes reviewing other provisions in the regulations. This may, among other things, concern the question of whether there are provisions in the current regulation that mean that community centers in Sweden's rural areas cannot be granted operational development grants.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Throughout our country, there is an impressive number of public meeting places owned and operated by the voluntary sector. Not infrequently, they have their origin in the Swedish popular movements.
The association-run community centers are a great asset across the entire country. Festivities, theater experiences, choir singing, dance performances, film and cinema nights, association meetings, concerts, and gatherings for motorized youth – in the community centers, truly everything happens.
In the government's budget bill, it appears that the state grants to public community centers shall be 52 million kronor per year. As the minister described, the 52 million kronor are then divided into three parts in the government's regulation letter to Boverket.
Approximately half consists of an investment grant, and just over a third consists of an operational development grant. A smaller part is set aside as an organizational grant to the three locally-based national organizations Folkets Hus och Parker, Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, and Våra Gårdar.
What is the problem then, Madam Speaker? Well, it is the current wording in the ordinance on grants for public gathering places. It states that Boverket shall specifically prioritize applications concerning public gathering places for youth and public gathering places in areas with socio-economic challenges. Boverket may also specifically prioritize applications concerning public gathering places in areas lacking proximity to public and commercial services.
The difference between the terms "shall" and "may" becomes clear when one looks at Boverket's application of the ordinance. The consequence has been that the business development grant is no longer granted to general meeting places in Sweden's rural areas, despite the changes that the previous government made to the ordinance in 2021 specifically to address the issues that were already seen at that time.
The current wording means that, in practice, only community centers in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas are allowed to share in the resources. Of course, resources are very much needed for the centers in these areas, but it should not occur at the expense of community centers in rural and sparsely populated areas.
As an example, it can be mentioned that community center associations, i.e., community halls that are members of Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, have not received any business development grants from Boverket since 2018.
To more clearly illustrate the issue I want to highlight: In 2024, 15 community centers were granted state support. These 15 were almost exclusively community centers in larger cities – only 1 community center in the countryside received the state support.
In many smaller towns, the community center is the only meeting place. The associations are primarily run on a voluntary basis, and in addition to the voluntary commitment, financial support is needed to be able to develop the activities. Rural areas often have limited municipal services and less developed infrastructure, and in that case, this local meeting place becomes crucial for a meaningful leisure time.
The state grant should give all public community centers the same opportunities to receive support, but that is not how it looks in practice today. This is an unreasonable injustice that needs to be corrected.
In view of this, I would like to ask a question to Social Minister Jakob Forssmed based on the review that the minister mentioned in his answer. Does the government intend to change the wording in Section 7 of the Ordinance on State Grants for Public Gathering Places so that Boverket can grant business development grants also to gathering places in Sweden's rural and remote areas?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! First, I want to begin by saying that it is truly important with community centers, village halls, Folkets Hus, sports facilities and other such things in Sweden. It is an important part of the infrastructure that we need for all human encounters and all activities that make life worth living and which are provided in a fantastic way by many voluntary organizations.
It is not difficult to say that one loves these premises when one knows what kind of activities they are filled with and how they enable the voluntary engagement, which is strong and flourishing in our country. Sometimes when one listens to the debate, one gets the impression that it hardly exists, but it exists in abundance and lives to the highest degree. It is an incredibly urgent matter to ensure that there are good conditions for this. That is why this support exists – to enable more of it.
In this context, I would like to say that I would like premises in general to be used a bit more as public meeting places. I think we have too many premises in Sweden that stand empty on evenings and weekends and which could be filled with life. It can be sports halls, dining halls and the type of premises that are found in school grounds and which I do not think are utilized in a sufficiently good way.
That is, among other things, why we have asked the Centre for Sports Research to look into whether we can find good examples of how more premises can be opened up in a safe, secure, and good way and spread those types of good examples across the country so that it can occur to a greater extent than today.
In addition, I would like to highlight that we have allocated a new state grant of 25 million kronor annually during the period 2025–2027 to civil society organizations to strengthen their conditions to operate and make efforts for sustainable regional development and rural development. It is thus a specifically targeted support just to civil society so that they can work on keeping the countryside alive in such a fantastic way.
It is also worth mentioning the annual contribution of 10 million kronor to non-governmental cultural venues, which is also managed by Boverket and decided by the Samlingslokaldelegationen, in addition to the support we are discussing right now.
Kristoffer Lindberg mentioned the change that was made in 2021. However, that part of the regulation was not changed then, and it has remained unchanged. It is not us who have changed this, but now we are conducting a review to see and identify things that can be hindering in different ways.
I have the same ambitions as Kristoffer Lindberg. Good applications for meeting venues can, of course, be considered for different actors, also those in the countryside. I perceive that there is no obstacle to this today, but it may nevertheless be the case that there are reasons to review different formulations.
Let us take this in a context when the regulations are being reviewed anyway, which we are doing now. There are many paragraphs there, and there are certainly reasons to discuss so that it works as well as possible. That is something we are always open to.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
For the community center movement, the development today looks like this: Community center associations have not received any operational development grants from Boverket since 2018. Community center associations testify that the investment support has also been negatively affected, albeit to a lesser extent. In addition to this, the central level, Bygdegårdarnas Riksförbund, had its central grant halved from 2017 to 2023.
Another aspect that I believe needs to be raised in this debate is Section 1 of the ordinance, which defines public assembly premises: "By public assembly premises, it is meant in this ordinance a premises that is kept open and accessible at a location for the meetings of association life, study activities, cultural activities, entertainment, leisure activities or any other similar activity."
It is a rather broad interpretation. Looking at the associations that have been granted state subsidies based on this very ordinance over the recent years, it is possible to make an argument and ask whether the concept is beginning to be interpreted a bit too broadly. There are several other initiatives and supports for civil society that are not regulated by this ordinance. The Minister is welcome to comment on that.
Meeting venues in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas are important in several aspects. Not least, they fulfill an important function in the cultural infrastructure, both as independent organizers and as arenas and enablers for those seeking places for public performances. They constitute a cornerstone of Swedish cultural life and contribute to making art and culture with both breadth and edge accessible throughout Sweden.
The importance of community centers in the building of democracy should also not be underestimated. Association life in Sweden creates trust and channels for people's engagement and interests. It plays a decisive role for the conditions of civil society to operate. Often, the community centers are the hub of the locality. Community is built and public health is strengthened through our public community centers. Many also function as polling stations during general elections, as vaccination centers during pandemics, and so on.
Madam Speaker! The function of community centers as meeting places throughout our country also makes them an important resource in society's crisis preparedness and our civil defense, which has been identified, not least in the Defense Preparedness Committee's report Kraftsamling. In cases of, for example, larger and longer power outages, forest fires, or searches for missing persons, it is often the public community centers that become the hub for society's collective efforts.
In addition to the problems that the limitations in the ordinance entail for meeting places in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, there is also the challenge of the level of the state grant in relation to the ambition that more should be able to participate in this grant. When the government now chooses to let the support for meeting places continue to remain at the same level, 52 million, it means in practice an erosion over time.
We Social Democrats have proposed that an additional 50 million shall be allocated for the public meeting premises. It is a doubling compared to the current budget. It has been voted down here in the Riksdag, which I regret.
We see the need and the importance of the public meeting premises, and I believe the government does too. My follow-up questions are therefore: Is the minister prepared to increase the appropriation for the public meeting premises in upcoming budgets? And does the minister see any need to clarify the definition of public meeting premises in the first paragraph of the ordinance?
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kristoffer Lindberg, for this debate!
It is important, I think, that one highlights the significance of a good infrastructure for the conditions of civil society. I think it is excellent that one does that.
I can spontaneously think that one should not narrow the definition too much, because then one also limits what constitutes civil society and what the possibilities are in this. I feel a certain hesitation regarding that paragraph change. It is clear that one can say that the main purpose is not entertainment, as it stands now. But at the same time, it is also important that we have places where people can meet and hang out a bit more informally.
I view with concern a development where entertainment is offered by large tech companies and it is TikTok that provides entertainment for our children and young people, not the human encounter. That is where civil society plays a role when it offers these types of meeting places, which perhaps need to be facilitated to a greater extent. That is at least my impression when the competition from the algorithms is so great.
I think, however, that one should be a bit cautious about starting to narrow this down in this situation. The interpellor may be right that there may be reasons to do so, but I do not see that it is a major problem today that it is too broadly defined what is considered the purpose of public assembly premises. There is a risk that one limits civil society's opportunities to conduct activities that are needed right now.
I think that civil society is often phenomenally good at seeing what is needed for new interventions that the public sector has not seen. They are the quickest to act when it comes to finding ways forward for new needs in society as well as for those that already exist.
I also think it is good that Kristoffer Lindberg highlights the role of civil society when it comes to preparedness issues. Sometimes preparedness becomes very much a question of hard facts – how much we have in stock, what we can manage, how long we have that and that item for supply and such. Those are very important questions. But trust – knowing your neighbors, having a functioning community, having naturally developed contacts with your surroundings – is also incredibly important from a preparedness perspective. Therefore, it is good that that is also highlighted.
I just want to point out, since we are talking about resources for premises and facilities, that the government this year has allocated an extra 130 million kronor beyond the regular appropriations to, among other things, sports facilities, sports environments, and sports premises, which can sometimes also be used for other purposes, to prepare for the leisure card. These are extra funds that are coming out, which I have seen during visits to a long series of places. People have been able to move to larger premises, they have renovated, they have refurbished, and they have expanded. This has occurred during the current year, so it is an additional investment that I think there are reasons to highlight in this discussion.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for this debate!
I will begin by saying that 130 million for sports facilities, unfortunately, will not reach the village halls.
For those listening to this debate, it may perhaps appear somewhat detailed. It concerns both ordinances and regulatory letters, and it concerns budget items and expenditure areas. It is not possible for everyone to know all the details of how the ordinance is designed and how this looks. Therefore, it is fortunate that we can have this debate and shed light on the issue, because even if it is at a detailed level, this is extremely important.
What it actually concerns is that the current order is unreasonable and means that assembly premises outside the large cities are disadvantaged. This can be seen if one looks at what the approval rate looks like. Because it has been that way for several years, it also makes an impact on the search picture regarding which assembly premises one actually applies for at Boverket, because one knows that year after year one does not receive this grant.
Sometimes things do not turn out as intended, but in that case, it is no worse than having to do it again and see if one can do it in a better way. The Government is aware of this issue from this debate, and I know that you have been approached by civil society. I am glad that we can discuss the issue today and hope that one can see a solution ahead.
I want to emphasize that the reason why we Social Democrats want to increase just this appropriation by 50 million is that society has much to gain from such a reinforcement, but also that it is absolutely necessary for cultural and community life outside the major cities to be able to continue to be strong.
With a hope for an improvement, an increased appropriation for public meeting places and a change of the current regulation, I would like to thank the Minister for the debate.
Socialministern Jakob Forssmed (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kristoffer Lindberg, for this discussion and debate!
As I said in my opening response, we are currently conducting a review of the regulations governing state support to civil society organizations. I do not rule out that this too may become subject to a review. I thank you for the discussion and the debate on these issues. They are extremely important.
I also want to highlight in this context that this support remains unchanged, yes, but that we are injecting 25 million during the three-year period ahead of us in a special initiative for civil society organizations specifically in rural areas to carry out initiatives for rural development. We have also made initiatives during the year on premises – not specifically on the community centers, correct, but on premises all around Sweden that are used, not least for sports purposes, but which of course can also be used for other purposes.
I think that in general it is extremely important that there is a good infrastructure for civil society organizations, and I am glad that there is a great commitment to this. It is something that builds Sweden strong. It is something that creates the social cohesion that we so much need in these times.
It is not in the civil society organizations or in the community centers that the hatred and polarization that we sometimes see in society are born, but there something else grows: understanding, respect, the values that we want to see characterize our country and even something such as love.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.