Response to interpellation 2025/26:455 on the conditions for safeguarding movable cultural heritage
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that the movable cultural heritage is an important issue and that the government contributes to its preservation through state funding 1 2 3. 2 M argues that there is legislation in place and that the government focuses on improving cooperation between authorities and voluntary forces 2 3. 4 M is pleased with the great commitment from associations, encourages cooperation and emphasizes that cultural heritage is also about development and use 4. 5 SD argues that the current regulatory framework is not sufficient and that authorities often lack understanding of the cultural heritage's conditions 5 6. 7 SD considers that the government is not doing enough and that the need for reasonable rules and proportionality remains 7 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! Rashid Farivar has asked me if I intend to take measures to ensure that state and municipal authorities, in their activities, take into account the specific conditions of movable cultural heritage, including the need for proportionality in the application of regulations. The interpellor has also asked me if I consider that the current regulations provide sufficient conditions for preserving and using historical means of transport, or if I see a need for strengthened legal protection, for example in the form of a statutory rule of consideration. Finally, the interpellor has asked me if I intend to take any initiatives to further process the Swedish National Heritage Board's report, for example through a referral process.
Safeguarding and protecting cultural heritage is an important issue for the government – that is what we just heard, in the previous interpellation debate – and in the Cultural Environment Act (1988:950) there are fundamental provisions for the protection of cultural heritage and cultural environments. Through the state funding to the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Swedish History Museum for Maritime, Transport and Defence History, the government contributes to the preservation, use, and development of movable cultural heritage. Both of these agencies also have dialogue with other agencies and relevant actors regarding the specific conditions of movable cultural heritage and the application of regulatory frameworks within, among other things, the cultural environment, transport, and environmental sectors.
The Swedish National Heritage Board pointed out in its 2018 report that it is not certain what significance a generally applicable rule of consideration in the Cultural Environment Act would come to have. The Swedish National Heritage Board also highlighted that it is difficult to determine whether the purpose of protecting movable cultural heritage is best achieved by introducing such a rule. The preparation of the report was finalized with the budget bill for 2021.
The Government has so far not prioritized legislative work in this area but naturally continues to follow the work being carried out by authorities, interest organizations, and associations that work specifically with movable cultural heritage. The Government sees the importance of the movable cultural heritage continuing to be preserved, used, and developed, not least against the background of the widespread commitment to this cultural heritage that exists among so many people in our country.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand, for the answer!
The mobile cultural heritage on the road, at sea, on rails, and in the air constitutes a living and significant part of Sweden's cultural heritage. It is about historical vehicles – ships, aircraft, and railway vehicles – but also about the knowledge, the traditions, and the craftsmanship that are tied to them.
What makes movable cultural heritage unique is that, by far the largest part, is not managed by the state. Instead, it is primarily managed by voluntary forces – associations and individual committed people who, with their own resources, preserve, use, and develop historical means of transport and the knowledge that accompanies them. Only a smaller part of Sweden's movable cultural heritage is found within state collections, and then often as static objects in museums.
Mr. Speaker! Cultural heritage, however, does not become alive by standing behind a cordon or in a display case. It becomes alive when it is used. A steam locomotive must be able to roll, a vintage aircraft must be able to fly, and a historical ship must be able to go on the sea. The problem raised by many actors is that in today's agency application, there is often a lack of understanding for the specific conditions of cultural heritage. General rules are sometimes applied without proportionality and without the possibility of weighing the value of cultural heritage against other interests.
It is not about these people coming to the state and saying: "Give us grants!" It is not about them asking for more money, but they are saying: "Give us reasonable rules! Give us legislation that takes cultural heritage into account! Give us a protection that makes it possible to continue preserving and using it!"
Let me take a concrete example, Mr. Speaker. In 2017, a German private individual purchased a 1982 Volkswagen van at an auction in Sweden. The County Administrative Board classified the vehicle as hazardous waste. The reasons cited included, among others, defective wiper blades, a cracked indicator glass, a loose radio antenna, and that there was a car battery in the car. The buyer was also asked to provide pictures of previous renovations, prove their membership in motor historical associations, and present vehicle register extracts.
This was further developed in a legal process. Four years and one day later, the export ban was overturned – four years later! During that time, resources had been consumed on legal processes and administration instead of being used for what was actually the purpose, namely to preserve a historical vehicle. This raises questions about proportionality and legal certainty.
My question to the Minister for Culture is therefore once again: What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that state and municipal authorities, in their activities, actually take into account the specific conditions of the movable cultural heritage and apply proportionality in their decisions?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I must return to the fact that it is a priority for the government to safeguard and protect the cultural heritage. Then, it is clear that there are always things that we can do more of and that we can do better, and I believe, of course, that will also result from increased cooperation.
Just as the member described, this is largely about voluntary work. It is civil society – associations and voluntary forces – that step up and make it possible for our mobile cultural heritage to continue rolling or exist for people to experience, feel, and even ride on in various ways. This, however, does not happen by itself, but it must both follow legislation and occur through good cooperation.
I naturally believe that cooperation between the relevant authorities, interest organizations, and non-profit organizations working with this can always be improved. Within the framework of what we do, we have annual authority dialogues. There is, of course, also an opportunity there to raise how the forms of cooperation should look and how one can ensure that we cooperate in order to best take care of our common cultural heritage.
This is, therefore, an important issue, and it is undoubtedly so that the preservation of movable cultural heritage must, to a very large extent, take into account that these objects and things in the future shall be able to be used in the way that they were actually used when they were created a long time ago. This shall be possible without techniques and executions being lost along the way, for otherwise, some of the point is lost.
This is, of course, a question that is important and always relevant to follow. As I touched upon in my answer, the government has not prioritized legislative work in this area, but that does not mean that there is no interest. We continue to closely follow the work that takes place within the framework of our authorities, interest organizations, and associations, and we look at how they conduct this work today when it comes to our movable cultural heritage.
There is, of course, always the possibility for improvements. However, I am not sure that they always need to occur through legislation; one can also look at how to improve dialogue and cooperation to enable the parties to reach the common goal to a greater extent, which is to jointly safeguard our movable cultural heritage.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand for the answer.
It is absolutely important with cooperation between the authorities, the state and the organizations. I have received this question from the organizations. This is what they want to see.
The Minister says that the government has so far not prioritized any legislative work in this area. At the same time, she refers to what was presented in the budget bill for 2021, i.e., a bill from the then red-green government that we replaced together. I think that is remarkable. This must be prioritized, because the need exists. In practice, the government is saying that it does not intend to do anything new. It leans on conclusions and assessments from previous governments, but the problems remain.
Let me take another example, Mr. Speaker. DC3 Daisy participated during D-Day 1944. After that, she helped build up SAS and served within Linjeflyg and the Swedish Air Force. Since 1984, she has flown for Flygande Veteraner. This is not just an airplane but also a piece of living history.
Daisy could no longer base her operations at Bromma Airport, which had been her natural cultural environment, because modern noise certification requirements could not be met. The problem is that the aircraft manufacturer no longer exists and therefore there is no possibility for type follow-up. The result was that Flygande Veteraner were forced to move their operations to Västerås.
This is not about anyone opposing noise requirements or safety requirements, Mr. Speaker. The question is whether rules are truly designed with proportionality. When modern requirements are applied to historical objects without the possibility of reasonable trade-offs, the risk is that the consequence will be that the cultural heritage disappears.
Similar problems exist within shipping. Historical ships are subject to the same requirements for life-saving equipment and safety devices as modern ships. In some cases, conversions are required that change the ship's historical character.
Similar problems also exist within the railway, where voluntary associations are affected by high administrative costs and lost revenues. At the same time, there are examples where consideration has actually been taken. When introducing the European Train Control System, ETCS, special funds were allocated for historical railway vehicles. It shows that solutions are possible when the will exists.
My follow-up question is therefore: If the government has already shown that adaptations are possible in certain areas, why is there not the same ambition for movable cultural heritage as a whole? And if the government does not see a need for new legislation, what concrete measures does it intend to take to avoid more Daisyfall cases? The problem still remains.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! We can talk for a long time about DC3 Daisy. As a resident of Vallentuna, one is an enthusiast when it comes to Daisy. Daisy stood at the airfield in Vallentuna for many years and was kept running by enthusiasts in the municipality. All residents of Vallentuna have very fond memories of this, so it was nice that Daisy came up here today.
To go back to the member's question, I would like to clarify a few things. Now, it sounded as if there is no legislation at all, but there is. We do, after all, have cultural heritage legislation, and in that, there are basic provisions concerning the protection of cultural heritage and cultural environments. In that legislation, there are also provisions concerning movable cultural heritage, for example, provisions on the export of older means of transport. There are also building preservation declarations, which can also include transport-historical environments. This is therefore in place.
I also think it is important to say that there is state funding for the Swedish National Heritage Board and the Swedish History of the Built Environment. Through these grants, the government contributes to the fact that the movable cultural heritage is preserved, used and developed.
I must correct the picture the member gives that nothing is happening at all. It is happening. We have legislation in place. That legislation includes parts that deal with movable cultural heritage. There are also state funds that go towards the preservation of movable cultural heritage.
One can always discuss whether the levels are too low or too high, or whether there is enough legislation. In the current situation, the government intends to continue in accordance with the legislation that exists and instead work to ensure that cooperation between the parties responsible for the movable cultural heritage is developed and contributes to us being able to manage our common heritage in an even better way.
Rashid Farivar (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Culture Parisa Liljestrand for the debate and the answers.
I mean, however, that nothing is happening. There is legislation, but nothing happens. The problem remains, according to many organizations.
Ultimately, today's debate is not about vintage vehicles or old machines, but about how we view Sweden's cultural heritage. It is about people who, in their spare time and with their own resources, spend thousands of hours keeping Sweden's history alive.
I have today highlighted several examples that show that there are opportunities to do something, for example with ETCS, if one has ambitions.
The core of my interpellation is these three questions: How is it ensured that authorities take into account the specific conditions of the movable cultural heritage? Does the government consider the current regulatory framework to be sufficient? I do not think so. And does the government intend to take the initiative to further prepare the issue?
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister once again for the answers. In conclusion, I would like to particularly thank the representatives from Motorhistoriska Riksförbundet who have been present in the gallery during the debate. They represent a great voluntary commitment all over Sweden and possess a very large knowledge in these matters. I also know that they are happy to stand up for continued talks with the Minister regarding the questions that have been raised here today. It is through dialogue, understanding, and reasonable considerations that we can ensure that Sweden's mobile cultural heritage also becomes a living part of the future, as the Minister mentioned.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to thank Rashid Farivar for the interpellation and, above all, for his commitment to movable cultural heritage. I share his commitment. I think it feels very good that we now have a government and four coalition parties that safeguard Swedish cultural heritage and that do the work of taking care of it.
As I have said before, this is an issue that is important for the government. It is prioritized. We are moving in the right direction when it comes to safeguarding Sweden's common cultural heritage. We are taking care of the maintenance debt that has built up. We ensure that we invest in the preservation of cultural heritage. We ensure that we once again make cultural heritage an issue on the agenda instead of something that lies forgotten and is not taken care of for future generations.
The committee members feel this commitment, and so do I. I am also glad that this engages many people and associations across the country. It bodes well for the future of our common cultural heritage. I am happy to continue discussing this with our authorities and urge cooperation between authorities and civil organizations and associations, which do a fantastic job from a preservation perspective and from the perspective that cultural heritage is not just about preservation but also about development and use in our time.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.