Response to interpellation 2025/26:116 on equal welfare throughout the country
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers municipal economic equalization to be a prerequisite for equal welfare and that the system needs to be updated 1. KD wants to investigate whether support for sparseness can be increased by adjusting parameters for administrative supplements 2. KD argues that the equalization system compensates for sparseness and that municipalities benefit from merging 3, as well as that the government has done the right thing with the economic policy 4. S argues that the government is not taking responsibility for the welfare of rural areas and that the proposal entails hard hits for small municipalities 5 6. S considers that the equalization system must compensate for structural differences such as distance and sparseness 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me about the meaning of what is described in the budget regarding changes in the equalization system and whether a consolidated proposal for changes to the entire equalization system, or only parts of it, will be presented. She has also asked when the government will present a proposal on the equalization system to the Riksdag.
I share the view that all municipalities should be able to offer a good welfare, and municipal economic equalization is a prerequisite for an equal welfare throughout the country. It is important that the system is kept updated and that it is developed in step with societal development.
The Equalization Committee, which was a parliamentarilly composed committee, was tasked, among other things, with conducting a broad review of the equalization system and proposing measures. The committee submitted its proposals in July 2024. The proposals were then referred for four months to a broad consultation circle, including all municipalities and regions. The proposals are now being prepared within the Government Offices.
As appears from the budget bill for next year, the government intends to submit proposals to the Riksdag during the coming year regarding changes to the equalization system. I cannot anticipate that process by already explaining how different potential proposals shall be designed.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer!
I would like to say initially that since I submitted this interpellation one and a half months ago, some things have happened. This means that there will be some questions about what has happened. In a way, the Minister has already answered the question about a collective proposal. What is happening now is that one does not present a collective proposal, but rather extracts part of the proposal for a new equalization system and puts it on the table.
Mr. Speaker! Municipalities that are already today struggling with weak tax base, increasing needs and great difficulties in meeting the welfare's tasks risk now to lose significant resources, more than the resources that they have already lost because the SD-government has decided that one should remove the specifically targeted resources to smaller municipalities that the Social Democratic-led government developed precisely to achieve a more equal welfare throughout the country.
That one is now presenting such a proposal is serious. It risks hitting many of Sweden's smaller municipalities hard. What Sweden needs is a strong and fair equalization system – it is therefore about how we distribute resources to municipalities and regions. It is a fundamental pillar in our welfare model. It is a system that shall ensure that people get access to good welfare regardless of where in the country they live. Therefore, this investigation, the so-called Equalization Committee, was appointed. It did its work and delivered a thoroughly worked-out comprehensive proposal already at the beginning of the mandate period.
The government could have taken this proposal and presented a unified reform for increased equality across the entire country. Instead, they choose to pick out a small part, simplify it, and let the consequences land on the small municipalities. It is not responsible. It is not fair.
Small municipalities in many cases have higher costs per inhabitant. It is about geography, about demography, and about responsibility for welfare in areas where the distances are large and the population base is limited.
This is well known; we know this. That is precisely why we have an equalization system. Yet we now hear representatives, that is to say the Minister, speaking for the government about how certain municipalities shall be disadvantaged because more should want to be merged. Then one must ask: Is there a plan? Is there a list of municipalities that the government considers should cease to exist as independent?
This illustrates a larger problem. It is a government without cohesive accountability and without respect for the municipalities that uphold the welfare. This is not what Sweden needs. We need a policy that strengthens the entire country, not one that turns its back on the small municipalities.
The Minister speaks very often about efficiency and simplification. It is good to be careful with the money. But what the Minister is now proposing means in practice that small municipalities lose resources without the problems they struggle with disappearing.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Delivering high-quality public services in geographically large but sparsely populated municipalities and regions is expensive, and it can be complicated.
Mr. Speaker! I intended to start from my own constituency, Jämtland County, which is a telling example of this. I know that the Minister visited Östersund perhaps two months ago or something like that.
Jämtland County constitutes 12 percent of the country's area but houses only 1.3 percent of the country's population. A full 25 percent of the county's inhabitants have more than an hour's travel time to the nearest emergency department. This can be compared with 2 percent in the country as a whole.
Already there, I believe one understands that the conditions for achieving a safe, accessible, and local healthcare are very challenging.
To make this Jämtland equation work, we have, among other things, a fine-meshed network of about thirty health centers. We have ambulance stations across the entire area. We have an ambulance helicopter on constant standby. It is a large and expensive organization, clearly more expensive than the average. But it is vital.
Just as it is self-evident that people in Rätan, Funäsdalen, and Storlien should have access to safe and local care, it is also the case that a region such as Region Jämtland Härjedalen cannot bear these costs entirely on its own. That is where the equalization system comes into the picture.
We can get straight to the point, Mr. Speaker. It is very important that the Equalization Committee's proposal is put into practice. For Region Jämtland Härjedalen, it would mean 145 million in year one. Then the money would increase so that it would be 185 million in year three. We are therefore talking about large sums. In the interest of honesty, these funds become even more important given the budget that has been adopted in the chamber of the Riksdag, where the government chooses not to adjust the general state grants based on price and wage developments. In practice, we see an erosion of the state grants.
We can then return to the Equalization Committee's proposal, which has now been sitting in Erik Slottner's department for one and a half years. Those proposals are good in many parts, but it must be said honestly that they do not fully equalize for the structural additional costs. The new sparsity model, for example, does not replace the actual costs for medical travel and medical transport. One does not take into account that the greatest healthcare needs are in those parts of the county that are furthest from the county hospital, nor does one take into account the long distances to the university hospital in Umeå. At the same time, the small-scale operational disadvantages of having only one small county hospital risk being underestimated.
Mr. Speaker! Against this background, there is a concern that the government's upcoming proposals – if such proposals are to come – may deviate from the Equalization Committee's calculations regarding sparseness and small-scale operations in a way that would further disadvantage already strained rural regions, such as Region Jämtland Härjedalen.
More clear statements from the Minister were really needed here. Just as Eva Lindh asked, I wonder: Will the government fully implement the Equalization Committee's proposals – this particularly concerns the important parts regarding sparseness, long distances, and small-scale disadvantages – so that regions with only one hospital and large distances actually receive compensation for their structural additional costs?
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Eva Lindh for this very important interpellation.
The state needs to take a greater responsibility than today to achieve an equitable distribution of resources, meet the entire country's needs for welfare, and compensate to level regional differences. Here, the equalization system is very important.
Of course, there are improvements to be made in that system. But the proposal that the government has now presented represents a very hard blow to the municipalities here in Hälsingland and in my county, Gävleborg. Despite the fact that we are already struggling with challenges linked to sparse population, long distances, and limited resources, we are one of the counties affected by the very largest cuts with the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas proposal. Hälsingland and Gästrikland are not exactly known for their enormous population density, their large cities, and their short distances.
Ljusdal Municipality, the largest municipality by area in Gävleborg, is hit the hardest. There, the government cuts 14.2 million every year. For a municipality with an area equivalent to half of Skåne but a population of only 18,400 inhabitants, it is a very hard blow. Other municipalities losing a lot are Ockelbo, minus 10 million, Ovanåker, minus almost 9 million, and Nordanstig, minus 5.2 million. Does the minister know what these municipalities have in common? Yes, they have long distances between the towns and the villages and are the smallest municipalities by population in our county.
It is deeply problematic that the government chooses to let sparsely populated parts of Sweden finance an investment in other sparsely populated areas. Instead, the starting point should be that all of Sweden must cooperate to secure an equal welfare regardless of where one lives.
Sparseness costs, especially in a county with high unemployment and low education levels. Gävleborg is a county with municipalities that are already today struggling to make welfare suffice and that experience challenges in recruiting for welfare jobs. The Minister must surely realize for himself that something has gone wrong in the government's calculations when it is municipalities such as Ljusdal, Nordanstig, Ovanåker and Ockelbo that lose in a system that is supposed to compensate for more sparseness. Has the Minister visited these municipalities? Has the Minister traveled around Hälsingland? Our municipalities need more resources to fulfill their welfare mandate and deliver the welfare that the citizens can expect, not tens of millions less. Do not set rural areas against rural areas!
I want to urge the government to rethink. Sweden needs a cost equalization based on solidarity, justice, and an understanding of the real cost drivers, not a model that pits rural areas against rural areas. For Hälsingland and Gävleborg, it is a matter of justice. For Sweden, it is a matter of cohesion.
My question is therefore: Will the proposal that the government has sent out for consultation be the proposal that the government lays before the Riksdag, or has the minister realized the unreasonable nature of this proposal?
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Kristoffer Lindberg says that sparseness costs. Yes, exactly! That was why we wanted to move forward with this memorandum, which differs somewhat from the committee's proposal. We want to see if one can change the parameter for additional costs for administrative additions, which is one of very many parameters in one of the twelve sub-models in the equalization system, so that it compensates more for just sparseness. It is about municipalities receiving compensation for being sparsely populated because distances cost. We have a feeling that the equalization system does not compensate sufficiently for just sparseness. Many say this, but it is difficult to prove exactly. Probably, sparseness is still a little more expensive than what these parameters express.
We want to compensate for sparseness because it is an uninfluenceable factor, unlike smallness. Smallness is influenceable. A number of municipalities can join together and grow in size or body to become more robust. That is influenceable, but sparseness is not. Therefore, we have moved forward with this. It is not a proposal but a memorandum. We want to look at what would happen if we increase the support for sparseness and reduce slightly on smallness as a parameter. Very often, smallness and sparseness are closely linked. Most small municipalities are sparse, but there are quite a few municipalities in Sweden with relatively small populations that do not belong to the rural areas at all and who do not suffer from the same problems as many rural municipalities do. Therefore, we want to check if this can be done.
This is a zero-sum game. People talk about how much money Jämtland would earn, but it happens at the expense of others. It is not the case that all municipalities and regions become winners if the committee's proposal goes through. There are winners and losers in this zero-sum game. We must remember that several municipalities and at least one region are hit quite hard by the committee's proposal. It is clear that we must analyze this and find out what the referral bodies say before we submit such an extensive proposal. It is not something one does lightly; it needs to be analyzed.
That we broke out the parameter concerning compensation for administrative costs is due to the fact that we need a preparatory basis in order to be able to proceed. It is not that this is the only thing we will proceed with. So it should not be interpreted that way. We need a preparatory basis in order to be able to increase the support to sparse municipalities. That is why this model was chosen, which is now out for consultation. We will see if we do anything with this; I do not know that yet.
For natural reasons, very many views have been received on the committee's proposal. That is usually the case, not least because all municipalities and regions are recipients.
The matter is still being prepared. Therefore, I cannot give any answer today as to whether a proposal will be submitted, when it would be submitted in that case, and what it would look like. The members know this, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know which parts we will proceed with, as the matter is still being prepared. The only thing I know is that a proposition on this issue is announced in the budget bill. This does not mean that any date has been set or that it is 100 percent certain that it will happen. I cannot answer today what a proposal will look like. I will have to get back to that.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! It honors the Minister that he quite often tries to answer the questions that he can answer. I think that is good. It is appreciated by us Members of Parliament.
It is tough for the welfare in Sweden. Many municipalities are struggling extremely hard to manage school, elderly care, and healthcare. They long to receive more resources to be able to do what they are tasked to do: provide good service and welfare to their citizens.
The smaller municipalities in the sparsely populated areas are struggling extra hard. We know that is the case. We have worked for a long time and submitted a proposal that takes into account not only exactly how many people live in an area but also what the municipalities look like. It is not as expensive to deliver good welfare in a municipality that is compact and round and where the center is in the middle. It is a bit more expensive to do it when the municipality is elongated and the distances are long. The investigation took that into account. But now none of that remains in the memorandum that the government is submitting. This means hard hits, which both of my colleagues have given examples of in the debate.
I can give an example from my own county. One of the smallest municipalities in Sweden, Ydre, is located in Östergötland. It has approximately 3,600 inhabitants, and with the proposal in the memorandum that the government is now presenting, the municipality loses 6.5 million. That is an extremely large amount of money for a small municipality. The government must therefore take responsibility here.
The question is what will become of this, for judge at least my surprise when, during a question period, I asked a question about this to the Minister for Finance and it emerged that she did not even know about the memorandum, even though the proposal comes from her own department. At the same time, she could state that municipal mergers lack popular support and would hardly gain traction in the Riksdag. I share that assessment, and I will return to it.
When we had a debate here yesterday, I asked the Sweden Democrats how they stand on the proposal. The representative for the Sweden Democrats first said that he had no idea what I was talking about and then that the party does not stand behind the proposal.
Therefore, I ask: Is this something specific from the Christian Democrats, who think it is incredibly important to make it harder for smaller municipalities? This is being done, however, at the expense of other smaller municipalities in rural areas. You are distributing from one small municipality in a rural area to another – because the Minister for Civil Affairs seems completely obsessed with municipal mergers. I apologize, but he seems to be. He appointed an inquiry into an issue that I already from the beginning could calculate would be answered with a no. There are simply no municipalities that want to be merged, because there is great resistance among the inhabitants.
We are not against mergers, but what needs to be done in that case is to create incentives and ensure that it becomes better if municipalities are merged – not force municipalities to merge the long way around by making it harder for them and ensuring that they fare worse financially.
Kalle Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I naturally thank Eva Lindh for an important interpellation. As can be heard here, we have somewhat different approaches to the issue, and I believe it is quite natural that it is that way.
I intended to continue on the theme of funding healthcare in rural areas. It is no one's fault that one has a long way to the emergency room, and it is no one's fault that one is old and ill. Instead, it is about factors such as demographics, distance, and sparseness, and that is what the equalization system aims at. It is about compensating for structural differences across the country.
It should actually be a self-evident matter that we have a solidarity-based funding of healthcare – that it is equally secure and accessible in a county like Jämtland as it is here in the capital. One should actually not have to stand here in the chamber of the Riksdag and argue for that matter; it should be as self-evident as, for example, that we agree that we shall have a strong defense. But the fact is that the conditions are not equal. They would not become equal even if we fully implemented the Equalization Committee's proposals, but they would become more equal.
When we listen to politicians on the right, not least politicians from this region, it can sometimes sound as if resources are not everything. If one just works a little smarter and a little more efficiently, it will solve things, that is what it sounds like. It is indeed catchy, but it has nothing to do with reality. Distance and sparseness are not things that can simply be conjured away. It is nothing we want to conjure away either, but it is part of what is unique about Sweden.
We have now reached a point where many rural municipalities and rural regions are at a breaking point regarding what is reasonable and sustainable. It is a point where one simply cannot cut more – where further reductions risk driving away staff, driving up waiting times and, in the worst case, jeopardizing patient safety.
I think it is deeply problematic that one and a half years after the Equalization Committee's report, we are still standing here and have no decision from the government on how we are to ensure that we have a secure and accessible healthcare in our rural regions.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
It is the case that another aspect in this debate is the size of the municipalities. Accordingly, the question follows: Is the government's memorandum an attempt to starve out municipalities to force through municipal mergers? One can then also ask whether municipalities such as, for example, Ljusdal, with an area that already today corresponds to half of Skåne, are really the municipalities that should lose in the system so that the incentives to merge with neighboring municipalities should increase. I am not so sure about that.
There are great differences in conditions between municipalities, and when job opportunities are concentrated in the larger cities, the gaps between different parts of our country also widen. Not infrequently, the need for welfare is greater in the municipalities where the tax base is lower, partly as a result of relocation for jobs and studies. This leads to great challenges because, with an ever-lower tax base, one must manage ever-higher costs to deliver on the residents' rightful expectations for healthcare, school, and care.
This is not a question that can be brushed aside by pointing to individual municipalities around the country, Mr. Speaker. The question is larger than that. In a previous debate here in the chamber, I have compared municipal self-government to dancing hambo in a wardrobe. At home in Hälsingland, the World Championships in hambo are held every year, Mr. Speaker, and I can state that the conditions for dalsteg – especially deep ones – are extremely limited.
The role of politics must be to create equal conditions for living and working in the entire country in this chamber. It is crucial in a country that is increasingly characterized by polarization and contradictions. It is fundamentally about nation-building and about the fact that the whole country must be able to feel hope for the future. Do not pit rural areas against rural areas!
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I suppose I will have to let the hambo-in-the-wardrobe analogy marinate a bit, so we can possibly return to it in the next debate – let's see how it goes!
First, I just want to say that I think Kalle Olsson, in his post, somewhat insinuates that the government does not want any equalization system or that we are in the process of removing the equalization system. We are absolutely not doing that, but rather we agree that there should be an income and cost equalization system that compensates our municipalities and regions for non-controllable differences and factors. One such factor is definitely sparseness, and therefore Jämtland is entitled to receive a lot through these systems. This is due, among other things, to the fact that Jämtland is sparsely populated.
Then come the individual calculation examples. I have heard very many, and sometimes one can wonder a bit where the calculations come from. It is, after all, difficult to calculate this. But since Ljusdal is taken up as an example, I can only say that I, actually in real time here, found out that Ljusdal is a municipality that wins on the proposal in the memorandum. It lost according to the committee's proposal, but compared to that proposal, it actually wins 400 kronor per inhabitant.
Then it may be that a municipality loses compared to how it is today. I don't know – I don't have the figures for all 290 municipalities – but sometimes when someone calculates this and says that a municipality loses so and so much, I wonder: Is it compared to how it is today, or is it compared to the committee's proposal? What is it being compared with?
If one is a big winner on the committee's proposal, perhaps one loses a little on the memorandum's proposal. Is one then a loser in the system? No, one is probably not; one is still a winner even if someone else wins even more. Vindeln Municipality in Västerbotten would lose on the committee's proposal but wins on the memorandum's. One might wonder why Kristoffer Lindberg defends that Vindeln Municipality should receive less money in the future cost-equalization system.
So we can continue like this and divide up individual municipalities, but we still have to stick to principles. I really wanted to see if we can compensate for sparseness more, because I consider it to be less influenceable than smallness here.
Furthermore, to get to Eva Lindh's reasoning, there are municipalities that have told me that the tax equalization system would disadvantage a municipal merger, meaning that they would lose money in the cost equalization if they merged with neighboring municipalities and became larger entities. I mean that this is wrong. I think rather that it is good if municipalities win financially by merging.
We have said that from a state level we will not redraw the map and force through municipal mergers, but we must indeed be careful not to create incentives that counteract them. I am saying, and still stand by, that I believe Swedish welfare would benefit from fewer and larger municipalities. I believe we would get more power in our municipalities if the units became larger, and I would say that view is shared by very many who are initiated in this subject.
Regarding municipal finances, the absolutely most important question is not whether we add 5 billion more or less in general state grants, but the most important thing is growth, hours worked, and activity in the economy. According to forecasts from among others the Landsorganisationen itself, growth now looks set to pick up with significantly increased activity in the economy next year. Now we are even starting to do very well also measured by EU standards. This is the single most important factor for the municipal economy moving forward.
It feels very good that we have laid a budget for 2026 that can give momentum to the economy, that strengthens households, that increases activity in the economy and that will contribute to increased growth and thus also to brighter economic conditions for our municipalities and regions.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Minister for Civil Affairs prioritizes municipal mergers; this seems to be very important. He also says that better growth would be good for Sweden.
I can only state that the Swedish welfare system would be better off if a new government were formed. This applies particularly to the Swedish welfare in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside.
At its core, this is actually about the view of Sweden. Either you see the whole country or you do not. The Minister has received some invitations to Jämtland Härjedalen and to Hälsingland to see what it looks like in reality. There are many municipalities there that are struggling to manage the Swedish welfare. The Minister is also welcome to Ydre, and to all of Östergötland, to see how it really is in the municipalities we are talking about.
This equalization system is not a special interest, but it is an expression of solidarity between municipalities and between people. When the government chooses simplification over justice, it is the small municipalities in sparsely populated areas and in rural areas that pay the price.
We Social Democrats stand up for a cohesive Sweden, for a welfare state that holds – regardless of postcode – and for municipalities that are given reasonable conditions to fulfill their mission. The government's path is heading in the wrong direction. Sweden does not need less justice, rather Sweden needs more justice. That is why Swedish welfare and municipalities in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside need a new government – a Social Democrat-led government.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! In my previous contribution, I forgot to thank Eva Lindh for thanking me for trying to answer the questions that the opposition has posed. I notice that the level of expectation is quite low regarding the government's representatives. I hope, however, that we truly contribute to answering the questions that are asked; I think that is important.
I know that municipalities are struggling to fulfill their mandate, not least the important welfare mandate. During the 20s, the municipalities have been heavily burdened first by the corona pandemic and then by high inflation. The inflation was double-digit and put real economic pressure on the municipalities.
Now the economy in the municipalities is starting to look better. I am not saying that it is rosy in all municipalities, but the municipalities are actually forecasting a surplus now and look set to manage a good economic household. That is something I am very happy about.
That was also why the government, during the first half of the mandate period, allocated such a large part of the reform space to the municipalities in the form of increased general state grants as well as many targeted state grants to increase accessibility in healthcare and shorten healthcare queues, but also to invest in preschool and school. During the second half of the mandate period, we can now primarily focus on household finances to get the economy moving without risking higher inflation. This, in turn, will be extremely significant, if we succeed with it, for strengthening the finances of municipalities and regions.
I have no bad conscience about how this government has handled municipal finances and the economic policy as a whole. I think we have done completely right, which I also think we show with the forecasts that are now available.
We will have reason to return to this debate during next year. Before that, I wish you a very pleasant Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.