Response to interpellation 2024/25:752 on municipalities' work with civil defense and preparedness

Minister för civilt försvar CARL-OSKAR BOHLIN (M)

Madam Speaker! Patrik Lundqvist has asked me what reasons underlie my pointing out individual municipalities in a debate article. The background to Patrik Lundqvist's question is that in a debate article, I have highlighted the municipalities' responsibility in the work to strengthen the robustness of society.

Let me begin by saying that I understand that the tone in the debate article may appear quite harsh, and there may certainly be reason to calibrate the wording in a different way in the future. It is also important and worth emphasizing that many of the country's municipalities, which are governed by different political constellations, are struggling with a large maintenance debt in this area. There is much left to do to transition and step up from crisis preparedness to the demands of war, and in this work, different municipalities have reached different stages.

During my travels in Sweden, I have visited a number of municipalities that carry out forward-looking preparedness work. Västerås and Linköping can be mentioned as examples. Linköping Municipality has, among other things, started producing freeze-dried food within its own operations in order to eventually be able to withstand 100 days of societal disruptions. In Västerås, the municipality works in a comprehensive way with preparedness that spans across the different departments. In both municipalities, there are also a number of safety points and a close cooperation with voluntary resource groups.

We are in the midst of a paradigm shift as the focus has shifted from crisis preparedness to civil defense. In many municipalities, however, it is still societal disruptions and crises that lie at the outer end of the threat scale.

The municipalities also have a far-reaching, statutory responsibility regarding crisis preparedness, but the problem is that the crisis preparedness does not account for handling an antagonist who will take every opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities to create cascading effects. Therefore, the government is clear that it is the requirements of war that constitute the dimensioning threat, and by preparing ourselves for war, we can also manage societal disruptions and crises.

In order for the residents of a municipality to be able to feel secure in knowing what applies if war comes to their municipality, a good home preparedness and clear information are required to begin with. It is naturally not possible to speak openly about all the work being carried out within civil defense, but as a municipality resident, it is important to receive general information on how the municipality works with civil defense. If there is little or nothing on the municipality's website, it is very difficult to be able to seek out information.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for being here!

There is no doubt that there are a number of common important interests in these issues. Both the state, the municipalities, other public actors and even private ones have different responsibilities to take in the event of a crisis or, in the worst case, war. We should all be inspired to do this as well as possible together, support each other and act with trust in one another to ensure that we do not unnecessarily build in contradictions or create situations where prestige takes precedence over the goals.

Against that background, it is serious that one of the government's ministers publicly points out that certain municipalities are failing. Instead of leading, one chooses to point fingers.

When I first read the current debate article, I was convinced that it was a mistake to single out specific municipalities and make this a party-political issue instead of addressing the issues across party lines and collectively. Driving wedges between the different actors in this issue is not okay. It also becomes somewhat remarkable when, for example, Gävle is simultaneously praised for its work with flood preparedness, something that proves to be extremely important, for example, with what happened in Västernorrland just recently when a train with ammunition derailed due to flooding.

As the minister points out, this is a task that has been ongoing for a longer period, and we all know the background as to why it is so urgent and important today to raise the state of preparedness. We know how it looked 10–20 years ago, when cuts led to a moderate Minister of Defence who could not stand what was happening resigning, and when conscription was abolished by the bourgeois government despite warnings from both the Armed Forces and us Social Democrats. Thankfully, that decision was rolled back by the government that took office in 2014, and the work to once again raise the appropriations and strengthen both the defense and the civil preparedness properly came onto the agenda.

From there, what I can see, there has been a common insight that we must prioritize the issues of both military and civil preparedness. The government is doing many good things in this regard, which was also pointed out in the debate article and in the response here. The question here, however, is not about the measures but how, in the next breath, individual municipalities are accused—which, of course and precisely as others do, do as much as they can, and as the minister also touched upon, is not a question of who is in power.

Given that there are a couple of Hälsinge municipalities governed by Moderates as well, one cannot help but wonder why it was specifically the Gästrikeg municipalities that were used in a debate article in Gästrikland. It goes straight into at least Lars Beckman's modus operandi of pointing out, above all the Social Democrats, for all the faults that exist. It is not that simple, however, and as the minister also points out in the response, there are antagonists who will take every opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities in the Swedish preparedness and the work to increase it. Therefore, it is also extra serious when one makes oneself useful to these forces in their attempts at hybrid warfare.

I suspect from the answer that this way of expressing oneself perhaps was not so well-considered. I simply hope that it is not repeated and that the spirit of common efforts in the future is what is highlighted for the good of all of Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Minister för civilt försvar CARL-OSKAR BOHLIN (M)

Madam Speaker! I may not perceive any very clear question in the interpellant's contribution. But I shall take the opportunity to say a few words.

Let me return to what I began by saying: I am the first to agree that some of the formulations in these debate articles are unnecessarily harsh, and it is naturally a matter that we take with us back. We have, just as the interpellator says, a responsibility to carry out this work jointly.

With that said, one unfortunately has to say that the issue is not sufficiently prioritized at the municipal level in many parts of the country. I prefer to highlight good examples rather than pointing out less good examples, but with that said, one must state that very many municipalities – I believe that in this case it concerns three out of four municipalities in Gästrikland – were among those affected in the latest cyberattack that hit Miljödata, where data and personal information ended up in the wrong hands.

This highlights that we generally must raise our guard, and the day before yesterday the government also presented a historic initiative for the municipalities for the work with civil defense. We are moving forward with more money to the municipalities, and we have also presented a specific cybersecurity initiative that will give the municipalities better conditions to work with these issues.

This, however, requires political priorities at the local level. We have a very extensive municipal self-government in this country, and as I usually say, it places a high demand on municipal politicians to also prioritize this – sometimes in conflict with other legitimate interests.

That is exactly what the government is doing now at the national level: We are prioritizing defense and security and are naturally aware that there are other trade-offs that sometimes may have to take a backseat. The situation is such that these issues need to be prioritized, and they need to be held to a higher standard.

This is not just voluntary work, but the government will also move forward with tightened legislation where we set higher requirements for the municipalities when it comes to, for example, the work with cybersecurity. We provide more money, but we also set higher requirements. I believe that is how we must continue to work.

Together, we also need to shape public opinion within our respective parties towards municipal politicians and say that these issues must be prioritized – sometimes in conflict with other things.

It is very good, as the interpellator mentioned, that in Gävle the issue of flooding is taken very seriously. But it is not enough. One must also dimension for the requirements of war. If you do that, you will also be able to move backwards on the threat scale and handle peacetime crises in a different way.

Parallel to this, the state is trying to do its part when we activate, for example, the civil obligation within the rescue services. We are building a war organization for the rescue services that will become a supplement to the municipal rescue services in the event of heightened alert or, in the worst case, an armed attack. So we will, of course, continue.

I cannot help but note that the interpellator Patrik Lundqvist nevertheless chooses to engage in finger-pointing when he speaks about how history has looked in this area. Let me simply state that from 2015, when the civil defense was to be re-established, almost nothing happened until 2022. Now we see in just a few years how the appropriations to the civil defense are sextupled. It is naturally good at the national level, but it also gives the municipalities better conditions to work with these issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that this has been an underprioritized issue for far too long. Already during the war in Chechnya, many realized that there was a risk that we would end up in the situation we are in today, where Russia is conducting pure warfare in Ukraine. That is what they also did in Chechnya. Ever since then, there have been strong voices for strengthening both the defense and the civil preparedness and other important parts.

It is, of course, entirely correct that the municipalities have a far-reaching responsibility, but we see how the municipal economy is being eroded and the responsibility for all the different issues is becoming harder and harder to take. Therefore, it is good that funds are provided that the municipalities can use to step up in these issues. But that does not mean one can let everything else go.

The municipalities have, as said, been under severe pressure for a long time, and more resources were needed in all possible areas. One can mention healthcare, which has been on its knees for quite a long time. It is also a part of our preparedness organization. Those issues are admittedly outside the minister's area of responsibility, but the whole must be taken into account. That is why I think this debate is extremely important.

We cannot drive wedges between the different actors, point at each other and say: "What are you doing so poorly? We are certainly doing everything well." Furthermore, it is difficult for the municipalities that are singled out to understand what they should do. That dialogue naturally needs to take place in other ways than through debate articles.

I will honestly say that I first suspected that it was fundamentally a debate article about what the government is doing, which was then sent out in the country, and that Lars Beckman had added the part about the Gästrikeg municipalities entirely by himself. But that turned out not to be the case, and I think that is regrettable. I hear that the minister agrees with that, and for that, I am grateful.

I really hope that in the future we can work hand in hand, work together on this and make each other better instead of acting in that way. I therefore thank you again for the answer and for the opportunity to speak about these issues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Minister för civilt försvar CARL-OSKAR BOHLIN (M)

Madam Speaker! We shall not prolong the debate unnecessarily. I believe that the member and I are fundamentally in agreement on a number of points. Let me just say that even though the state naturally should do a significant part of the work with civil defense, it also requires that municipal representatives prioritize those issues. If, for example, one does not even have citizen information about civil defense and the work involved on their website, it naturally signals something – namely that these issues perhaps do not have high priority at the local level.

I believe that we all have a responsibility to take those questions home to our respective municipal representatives, regardless of what party political designation they have, and emphasize that a very extensive responsibility also rests on the municipalities. This presupposes that political priorities are made.

It is nice that Patrik Lundqvist wants to go hand in hand, but I can state that it is still good that the government has taken the stride in these issues. The walking pace was not particularly convincing during the period 2015–2022.

When the Riksdag said in the 2015 defense decision that it was time to re-establish the total defense – the civil defense was then completely dismantled – zero kronor were added so that the civil defense could be re-established. It was defined as a task to be solved within the framework of the existing agency mandate. If you provide no money and no governance, unfortunately, not much happens. Then it continued that way.

In 2018, some money started coming in, about 400 million kronor annually, for the work across all of Sweden. When we took over government power, that level was up to 2.7 billion. In just a few years now, we are septupling the appropriation to almost 20 billion. I want to assert that it is a consequence of the government making the issue of the reconstruction of the civil defense a strategic priority. It has its own ministerial responsibility that did not exist before. A lot is happening in this area, and the municipalities must keep up.

We can absolutely go hand in hand. But it is going to be a brisk walk, so I hope you can keep up with the pace.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Lundqvist (S)

Madam Speaker! We naturally do that. I am extremely pleased that we managed to ensure that the 300 billion that are now to be borrowed for defense are also used for civil defense, for example, to talk about something in the near term. I am very happy about that, and it was a clear requirement from our side in that negotiation.

There is an enormous debt, but it did not come in 2014 but began to build up much earlier. Several governments share responsibility for that. But one can also observe that these issues have become more and more acute for pretty much everyone over time. Even though many already saw, around 2000 and up until 2009, when the war in Chechnya was ongoing, where it could lead, there were very many who did not take it to heart. This applies as much to citizens as to municipal politicians and politicians who were here in this chamber at that time.

I am very pleased that we have come here and that when we initiated the NATO process we were able to manifest the common strategy and direction by Magdalena Andersson inviting Ulf Kristersson to many meetings and providing opportunities to show unity. I hope that we will be able to continue to show that unity, regardless of which actors we are talking about when it comes to these issues in the future.

Thank you for this debate, the conversation hour, or whatever you want to call it!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Minister för civilt försvar CARL-OSKAR BOHLIN (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Lundqvist, for the contribution!

It is naturally a strength for Sweden that we have been able to gather very broad support for the Swedish membership during the NATO accession process. Then one might think it is a pity that the broad support did not happen to exist in the government base that was governing Sweden at the time, but I am glad that the government that is in power now could take over the baton and bring Sweden into NATO membership in a stable and secure way.

Let me finally return to the municipalities, which this discussion was about at the beginning. The municipalities that feel they do not know what to do – sometimes you do hear that, and I no longer think that is a valid reason to refrain from acting, since the debate has been ongoing for quite a long time – can contact MSB or the county administrative boards. They have manuals for almost everything.

Yesterday, the Armed Forces and MSB jointly presented planning assumptions and what is called the starting points for the total defense. It is about how all agencies and all actors in the total defense shall translate the relevant defense decision into practice in their operations. What are the planning assumptions? What are the dimensioning bases? What are the type-case situations? Read the manuals, all you municipalities out there, if you feel that you do not know what to do! There are plenty of such.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)