Response to interpellation 2024/25:444 on the conditions for the country's mountain rescue services
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the economic conditions for mountain rescuers, particularly the right to deduct expensive equipment. M argues that tax rules should be general and clear, and that special rules risk complicating the tax system 1 2. M emphasizes that the mountain rescuers' work is important and that conditions are regulated in agreements between the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Mountain Rescue Organization 1 2. S argues that the state should contribute since the mountain rescuers operate in a state context and bear large costs for equipment specified by the police 3. S suggests that voluntary groups with expensive equipment requirements should be considered in a collective tax review 3. S argues that the current model risks turning away suitable candidates who cannot afford the equipment 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Kalle Olsson has asked me if I am prepared to review the right to deduct costs for expensive but necessary equipment for those who wish to be able to act as mountain rescuers. He has also asked me if I am prepared to consider other measures, for example, investment support for such equipment.
The voluntary efforts of the mountain rescue teams are incredibly important. Their work saves human lives in many of Sweden's most inaccessible places. Their mission must be protected and supported.
It is the Swedish Police Authority that is responsible for rescue operations in the mountain areas and for creating the right conditions for mountain rescue activities. For example, the Swedish Police Authority has a responsibility to compensate mountain rescuers when they use their equipment for the mission. The compensation that mountain rescuers receive for mountain rescue missions, training, and readiness is regulated in agreements between the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Mountain Rescue Association (Svenska Fjällräddares Riksorganisation). The agreements are reviewed regularly, and any adjustments to the terms should be made in that process.
When it comes to the right to deduction, I understand that Swedish mountain rescuers want to be able to make deductions for their equipment purchases. This must be weighed against the fact that tax rules should be general and clear. Introducing specific rules regarding the right to deduction for certain groups risks complicating the tax system and creating tax legislation that is difficult to oversee and manage. The more specific conditions for mountain rescue are instead a matter for the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Mountain Rescue Organization to regulate.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.
I am pleased by the opportunity for this debate. I do not know how many times the Minister for Finance has stood here in the chamber and debated the financial conditions of the mountain rescuers – perhaps not so many. On the other hand, I know that this is an issue that has engaged, and continues to engage, not least members in this chamber since quite a few years back. One only has to go back and read, for example, the motions.
Then it also tends to be precisely the members who for the moment belong to the opposition side who raise and try to achieve change in this issue, while from the government side one is perhaps not always fully as inclined to see the possibilities for change. I will not speculate further on what that might be due to.
I note, however, that the Minister for Finance, in his response, does not slam the door shut but perhaps closes it a little carefully. That makes it still feel justified to spend a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, trying to describe why it is reasonable to review the conditions for the country's mountain rescuers.
We are now heading out of the peak season for mountain tourism. We shall see if we have any snow left until Easter. During the last few months, hundreds of thousands of Swedes and foreign visitors have come to our mountain world. Soon a somewhat calmer period awaits before the bare ground season kicks off with hiking, cycling, hunting, and other activities.
Regardless of where in the year we find ourselves, however, the mountain rescuers are a constant in our mountain world. They are there year-round, around the clock, ready to help. They are a resource, just as the Finance Minister said, who operate under the Swedish Police Authority's mandate. It is important to remember that one operates precisely in a state context. The State is highly involved in mountain rescue.
The environment in which the mountain rescuers operate places great demands on adequate equipment, and it is therefore equipment that is specified by the police. The equipment is funded to a large extent by the mountain rescuers themselves. It involves large expenses, primarily the purchase of snowmobiles, trailers, and other such equipment. This brings us to the core of the interpellation, namely whether it is right and reasonable that individual mountain rescuers should have to bear these very large costs entirely themselves or if the state can contribute in some way.
First, perhaps one must ask the question: Is this important? Yes, I believe we all agree that the work the mountain rescuers perform is indeed an important activity. The second question is: What is the alternative to the model we have today with volunteers who step up when an alarm is received? That would be a significantly more expensive solution for the state.
The Minister for Finance answers that it is important that the tax legislation is kept as general as possible and that we should avoid too many exceptions. It is naturally easy to agree with that. If we start making exceptions for every group with heartfelt reasons, what will be left? That is how one can reason.
But one can also reason that we have a number of groups in society – part-time firefighters, voluntary resource groups, search parties and mountain rescue teams, to name a few examples – who step up in wet and dry so that we others can feel safe. They do not do it to earn a lot of money but to do good deeds. Therefore, I still think that the Finance Minister should consider taking into account precisely these voluntary groups in a collective tax review. In that case, the mountain rescue teams are the group that stands out because they have such expensive equipment.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the interpellor for the questions.
Even though I may not have lived as many years in Jämtland as the interpellor has, I have still spent some years of my life there. Many of us, but also people from all over Sweden, often visit the mountain world. The demand and interest have increased after the pandemic, and it is pleasing that many more can enjoy the beautiful mountain world we have in Sweden.
Here, the mountain rescuers do an incredibly important work, which the interpellor also highlights. That they are there creates security for those who travel to the mountains. They save human lives in some of the places in Sweden that are absolutely hardest to reach. It is truly a risk that mountain rescuers expose themselves to, and we should be very grateful for that.
When it comes to the right of deduction itself, it is complicated, as I said in the answer, to have certain deductions for certain groups. The tax system should and must be as simple and transparent as possible. Since the tax reform of the 90s, it has changed I don't know how many times, maybe between 500 and 600, so it doesn't really hold together in the same way anymore.
I understand that the mountain rescuers in particular consider this to be a complicated issue. But I also want to point out that there is no prohibition for mountain rescuers to deduct costs. As long as one can show that an income from service has been received from the use of the equipment and the equipment has not only been used privately and been a private living expense, one can, just like other groups, apply for and receive a deduction.
As I also said earlier, all of this is regulated in an agreement between the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Mountain Rescue Organization – so not just the tax but all other parts. It is probably also there that the question regarding the mountain rescuers' conditions should be posed so that a discussion can be had with the Swedish Police Authority about this.
Finally, according to the agreement that exists between the police and the mountain rescue, one has the right to compensation for operational interventions, training, and other things. The question of the right to deduction is, however, complex. Even though one always wants people who do good things and work voluntarily in different ways to also have good conditions, this requires amended and even more specifically regulated legislation that is not self-evident. Previous governments have also had that attitude.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
One should also keep in mind that not just anyone can become a mountain rescuer. A first prerequisite is that one actually is located in the mountain area, that is to say, that one is a permanent resident in one of the locations from which the mountain rescue units are based so that, upon an alarm, one can be on-site at short notice. This in turn implies that there must be an understanding employer, just as when we talk about the part-time firefighters. To be relevant at all, one should also have good mountain and snowmobile experience.
We are not talking about any major cities, and there is therefore a limited recruitment base for the mountain rescue. Therefore, there must be a reasonable offer for potential mountain rescuers. We simply need to ensure what the conditions look like for those who volunteer so that more people will want to become mountain rescuers.
To create a picture for us, we can imagine a person in Ljungdalen in western Bergs municipality. There are perhaps 150 permanent residents in the village. The person is tailor-made for the role of a mountain rescuer – lives and works in the mountain environment and knows it like the back of their hand – and is urged to apply to the mountain rescue service. But the person is faced with the question of whether it is worth taking on the cost of a new, more expensive snowmobile, trailer, and other expensive equipment. Here, an opportunity to deduct part of the cost would have been reasonable. As it is today, one can say that the mountain rescuers provide expensive equipment to the state.
Another perspective in this is that there are different circumstances within the group of mountain rescuers. While some mountain rescuers have companies in which snowmobiles are a work tool that can be written off, another mountain rescuer may have to bear the entire cost themselves. Here, it is about the fact that we all have an interest in that the activity remains and is developed. The alternative is that the police, together with the municipal rescue service, have to bear the costs and the responsibility themselves. It would not be cheap.
In my interpellation, I have mentioned several different approaches if one wants to improve the financial situation for the mountain rescuers. What is the best solution here, the most feasible path, can be discussed. Deduction possibilities or cash grants in connection with making the larger purchases is not what is important right here. It is better that something is done than that nothing is done. It would be unfortunate if the best becomes the good's enemy.
Mr. Speaker! It is important to bear in mind that it is not obvious for everyone to become a mountain rescuer, even if the mission itself can be appealing. With today's order, we risk pushing away individuals for whom it is not an option to buy a new snowmobile and other equipment for hundreds of thousands of kronor, even though it might be just that individual who is best suited for the task.
TALMANNEN
The Minister for Finance waives further remarks.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.