Ability for municipalities to transfer service areas to another municipality or the regional level
What's at stake: The decision particularly affects the ability of small municipalities to manage service areas where it is difficult or expensive to recruit specialist expertise, for example in health and environmental protection or financial assistance. It concerns whether municipalities should themselves be able to choose to transfer responsibility to another municipality or the region, as a complement to existing forms of cooperation.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether municipalities should be given a statutory option to voluntarily transfer heavily state-regulated service areas to another municipality or to the regional level, or whether the current arrangement without such an explicit option should remain.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee maintains its previous positions and sees no reason to support a call for giving municipalities the ability to transfer service areas to another municipality or to the regional level. The committee is also not prepared to advocate a review of the rules on the localisation principle. The motions are rejected.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 1 (C)
The reservation (C) wants to enable a differentiated allocation of responsibilities at municipal level: municipalities should, on a voluntary basis, be able to transfer service areas that are in practice heavily regulated by the state, such as health and environmental protection or financial assistance, to another municipality if both agree, or from the municipal to the regional level. The aim is to give small municipalities in particular, which often find it difficult or expensive to recruit specialist expertise, an additional tool for delivering good public services, as a complement to existing forms of cooperation such as joint committees and municipal associations.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 1 by C.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Yes 18/0/0/4
S
–
Yes 91/1/0/14
MP
–
Yes 16/0/0/2
Cown reservation
–
No 0/21/0/3
L
–
Yes 13/0/0/3
KD
–
Yes 17/0/0/2
M
–
Yes 60/0/0/8
SD
–
Yes 62/0/0/9
Broke with the party line
STomas Kronståhl(S, Kalmar län)
No — party line: Yes
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motions
2025/26:3130 by Kristina Axén Olin (M) and
2025/26:3185 by Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist et al. (C) demand 44.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna
2025/26:3130 av Kristina Axén Olin (M) och
2025/26:3185 av Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist m.fl. (C) yrkande 44.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected 29 proposals in motions on municipal and regional matters, submitted during the general motion period 2025. The proposals concerned, among other things, questions about municipal cooperation, a new free municipality trial, municipal competence, municipal party support, conditions for elected representatives, representation and minority protection, audit and accountability review, and municipal referendums. The Riksdag refers, among other things, to previous positions and ongoing work.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to enable differentiated responsibility distribution so that municipalities can voluntarily transfer service areas. (C) — Reservation 1
Motion 2025/26:1302 — Krav på förtjänst och skicklighet vid kommunala och regionala anställningar av Dzenan Cisija (S)
Motion 2025/26:1388 — Stärkta regioner för stärkt regional utvecklingspolitik av Karin Sundin m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:148 — Regelverk för kommunala konkurser av Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Motion 2025/26:1717 — Möjliggörande av fler folkinitiativ av Jonas Andersson (SD)
Motion 2025/26:1760 — Avpolitisering av den kommunala revisionen av Boriana Åberg (M)
Motion 2025/26:2536 — Krav på folkomröstning vid förslag om sammanslagning av kommuner och regioner av Mattias Eriksson Falk och Roger Hedlund (båda SD)
Motion 2025/26:2552 — Möjlighet för domstol att återkalla uppdrag som ledamot eller ersättare i kommun- och regionfullmäktige vid allvarlig brottslighet av Mattias Eriksson Falk och Roger Hedlund (båda SD)
Motion 2025/26:2594 — Reglering av utskott i kommunallagen av Mattias Eriksson Falk och Roger Hedlund (båda SD)
Motion 2025/26:2968 — Kommunanställda som förebilder i egen beredskap av Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)
Motion 2025/26:3086 — Förtroendevaldas rätt och möjlighet till närvaro av Markus Wiechel och Alexander Christiansson (båda SD)
Motion 2025/26:3119 — Inrättande av en revision för kommunal verksamhet av Hans Eklind och Larry Söder (båda KD)
Motion 2025/26:3130 — Modernisering av lokaliseringsprincipen för att möjliggöra regional verksamhet av Kristina Axén Olin (M)
Motion 2025/26:3185 — Livskraft och framtidstro på Sveriges landsbygder av Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist m.fl. (C)
Motion 2025/26:3440 — Israels ockupation av Palestina av Håkan Svenneling m.fl. (V)
Motion 2025/26:3645 — Utgiftsområde 9 Hälsovård, sjukvård och social omsorg av Fredrik Lundh Sammeli m.fl. (S)
Motion 2025/26:436 — Öka kommuners möjlighet att använda demokrativillkor av Kristina Axén Olin m.fl. (M)
Motion 2025/26:446 — Rätt att vara föräldraledig och fritidspolitiker av Serkan Köse (S)
Motion 2025/26:550 — Tomma stolar i kommunfullmäktige av Johan Andersson (S)
Motion 2025/26:85 — Kommunjurist som lyder under oppositionen av Josef Fransson (SD)
Motion 2025/26:86 — Sänkta partistöd för en stärkt demokrati av Josef Fransson (SD)