sou · H6B310 · 2018-03-02 00:00:00 — Ett vik- tigt skäl är att landstingsindelningen är kopplat till länsindelningen och därmed också till statliga intressen av att organisera sin för- valtning. Vi föreslår att det införs en bestämmelse om att särskild hänsyn ska tas till önskemål och synpunkter från berörda landsting. Mer omfattande förändringar av landstingsindelningen innebär att många landsting berörs. Det är därmed troligt att det kan vara svårt att få till stånd en indelning som tillgodoser varje enskilt landstings respektive kommuns förstahandsval. Det är naturligtvis angeläget att en indelningsförändring har en så bred acceptans som möjligt. är det omöjligt att tillgodose samtliga aktörers olika in- tressen. En ny administrativ indelning blir med nödvändighet en avvägning utifrån en helhetsbedömning där vissa synpunkter och perspektiv kommer att behöva tillmätas större vikt än andra. I det läget är det svårt att se att man kan ge ett enskilt landsting möjlig- het att i praktiken blockera genomförandet av en väl avvägd reform. Det bör därför endast krävas särskilda skäl, inte synnerliga, för att besluta om en ändring mot ett berört landstings vilja. På motsvarande sätt föreslår vi att särskild hänsyn tas till önske- mål och synpunkter från den eller de kommuner som berörs av en ändring i landstingsindelningen, men att det inte införs någon be- stämmelse om krav på särskilda skäl för att beslut om en ändring i landstingsindelningen mot en berörd kommuns vilja. Det är ofrån- komligt att enstaka kommuner kan hamna i ett större landstings geografiska periferi. Det är också ofrånkomligt att till exempel färre landsting innebär färre residensstäder. Sådana och andra nack- delar för en enskild kommun bör inte, anser vi, läggas till grund för att enskilda kommuner ska kunna förhindra en i övrigt väl motive- rad förändring. Om det däremot handlar om önskemål från en kommun som vill ”byta landsting” bör kommunens önskemål till- mätas stor vikt När det gäller befolkningens synpunkter är indelningsfrågornas karaktär sådana att det är rimligt att besluten föregås av informa- tion och diskussion, samt att de är väl förankrade. Det finns därför anledning att särskilt reglera att hänsyn ska tas till befolkningens önskemål och synpunkter. Befolkningens inställning måste dock vägas mot andra intressen och faktorer, som till exempel berörda kommuners och landstings inställning, näringsgeografiska och eko- nomiska förhållanden samt statens behov av att göra förändringar i sin administrativa indelning. Den typ av avvägningar det är fråga om kräver en helhetsbedömning som i grunden vilar på politiska ställningstaganden och värderingar. Vi föreslår därför att regler- ingen när det gäller ändringar i landstingsindelningen bör utformas på så sätt att befolkningens önskemål och synpunkter ska beaktas. Vi anser att inhämtandet av befolkningens synpunkter bör ske som ett led i den representativa demokratins beredningsprocess och inte som en särskild undersökning utförd av en myndighet. På detta sätt kan synpunkterna vägas in som en del av ett allsidigt be- slutsunderlag såväl när fullmäktige ska ta ställning i frågan, som när regeringen ska fatta beslut om en eventuell ändring. Vårt förslag är därför att berörda landsting, som ett led i bered- ningen av ett yttrande eller en ansökan om ändrad landstingsindel- ning, ska inhämta synpunkter från sina medlemmar om det inte är uppenbart obehövligt. Synpunkterna ska inhämtas som ett led i den egna beredningen och som ett underlag för regeringens och riks- dagens ställningstagande i frågan. Vi har kartlagt landstingens samverkansmönster bland annat genom en enkät med frågor till samtliga landsting och i förekommande fall regionförbund. Av svaren framgår att det sker en omfattande samverkan mellan landstingen inom framför allt områdena hälso- och sjukvård, regional utveckling, infrastrukturplanering och kollek- tivtrafik, samt utbildning och kultur. Landstingen bedömer själva att denna utveckling kommer att öka inom samtliga verksamheter, bland annat därför att samhälls- utvecklingen är komplex och olika aktörer liksom olika verksam- hetsområden behöver samspela och samverka. Av svaren framgår att det inom hälso- och sjukvårdsområdet pågår en intensiv ut- veckling med bland annat kunskapsstyrning som kommer innebära ytterligare behov av samverkansstrukturer. Detsamma gäller ut- vecklingen av nivåstrukturering inom sjukvården. Framtida ekono- miska åtaganden och investeringsbehov behöver hanteras i samver- kan, så att resurser kan användas mer effektivt och så att olika specialiseringar kan förläggas på olika platser. Även framtida utma- ningar vad avser kompetensförsörjning leder till ökade behov av samverkan. På många håll ställs det nya krav på tillgänglighet och utbyggd infrastruktur, bland annat för att befolkningen ökar. När infra- strukturen finns på plats behövs en god samverkan kring kollektiv- trafiken för att kunna erbjuda en god trafikering med hög tillgäng- lighet, samordnade taxor- och biljettsystem och smidiga övergångar mellan trafikslag. För att staten på en översiktlig nivå ska kunna följa denna ut- veckling föreslår vi att får i uppdrag att löpande följa och lämna en rapport till regeringen som beskriver utvecklingen av landstingens samverkan. Finansiering av förvaltningsutgifter för det regionala utvecklingsansvaret Det regionala utvecklingsansvaret kommer att ligga hos landstingen i alla län utom , där kommunen har ansvaret, förutsatt att förslagen i Ett enhetligt regionalt utveck- lingsansvar (Ds 2017:61) genomförs. Förvaltningsutgifter inom det regionala utvecklingsansvaret finan- sieras genom länsstyrelsernas förvaltningsanslag (5:1 Länsstyrel- serna m.m.) under utgiftsområde 1. I län där landsting eller samver- kansorgan har det regionala utvecklingsansvaret ska länsstyrelserna i sin tur betala ett visst belopp månatligen till dessa. Denna finansier- ingsmodell i flera steg innebär en omständlig och otydlig finansiell styrning av verksamheten. Vi förslår i stället att statsbidrag till landstingen och ska utgå från utgiftsområde 19 Regional tillväxt. Den myndighetsgemensamma indelningen föreslås träda i kraft . Den ändrade landstingsbeteckningen och ändring- arna i lagen (1979:411) om ändringar i indelning i kom- muner och landsting föreslås träda i kraft . Common regional boundaries for agencies The following agencies are of such importance to regional coopera- tion that they should have coordinated geographical boundaries: •The Swedish Armed Forces •The (for the national social fund pro- gramme) •The for Economic and Regional Growth (for the administration of the regional structural fund programmes) In turn, these agencies have strong links with additional agencies that have regional boundaries. Based on the objective to have co- hesive and effective state administration, we therefore propose that the following agencies also should have coordinated regional boundaries: •The Swedish Prison and •The Swedish Prosecution Authority. Advantages of coordinated boundaries The objective of Swedish administration policy is innovative and cohesive state administration that is legally secure and effective, has advanced quality, service and accessibility and hence contributes to the development of and effective EU work. A number of prior inquiries regarding administration policy have determined that a problem in terms of cohesive state admin- istration is that the regional boundaries vary between different agencies. We agree that this is not appropriate. In our view, co- ordinated regional boundaries could present –better clarity in state administration, and improved conditions for sector-wide cooperation, –facilitation of contacts between representatives of different operations, –simplification of priority coordination and cohesive action, –facilitation of contacts between county councils/municipalities and the state, and opportunities for reaching consensus between the state and municipal level, and –facilitation of the possibilities of the Government to govern and perform follow-up from an overarching and geographical per- spective. effective and cohesive state administration is beneficial to individual citizens, industry and civil society alike. At the same time, we wish to emphasise that the geographical asymmetry in state administration is only one of several obstacles to effective cooperation. Our opinion is however that coordinating regional boundaries is an initial step towards a more cohesive state at the regional level. It improves conditions for the right functions to find each other, and for decision-making levels to match each other. Furthermore, co- ordinated geographical boundaries create a clearer regional struc- ture within which tasks that require coordination between multiple entities can be managed, when the county level is not considered appropriate. Common regional boundaries also enable preparing, as part of a coordinated geographical structure, agency-wide status reports in various matters, which could provide a basis for deciding on joint strategic measures. In the selection of agencies that ought to have common boundaries, we have proceeded on the basis of national government agencies that already have operations that are fully or partially grouped into regio- nal areas, and which have not-insignificant cooperation either with other agencies or with county councils and municipalities. Furthermore, relevant agencies should have a strategic or pro- motive function that could be meaningful to planning capacity at the regional level, or have strong connections with other such agencies. For this reason, we have exempted agencies with purely controlling tasks. Finally, we have also exempted certain authorities with a regional organisation that is currently subject to a separate inquiry, such as a number of education agencies. In order to identify the agencies which, based on these funda- mentals, are relevant in terms of having coordinated boundaries, we have queried county councils, regional associations and county ad- ministrative boards, and also met with a great number of agencies, representatives of the municipal sector and representatives of civil society. We have identified certain operational sections where the need for coordinated regional boundaries is particularly strong; these being contingency planning and total defence, regional develop- ment work and reception of newly arrived immigrants. There are of course additional operational sections with a need for coordination, in which coordinated boundaries would facilitate the situation, for example physical planning, infrastructure, energy transition to fulfil the climate targets, work related to environmental targets, and the supply of skills. Contingency planning and total defence are activities that in- volve a great number of entities at the local and regional level, in- cluding government agencies as well as the municipal sector and other entities in society. It is crucial that the work is conducted in a coordinated and that there are developed structures in place that can be implemented quickly in a crisis situation. defence within total defence should, as far as possible, be based on the processes and structures used within contingency planning. Likewise, regional development is an area that involves numerous agencies, and in which there is a great need for the ability to meet a coordinated state at the regional level. Regional development re- sponsibility includes a responsibility for the county’s strategic de- velopment, and covers adopting a strategy for development in the county, deciding on funds for regional growth efforts, and establish- ing county plans for transportation infrastructure. It is also in- cumbent upon those responsible for regional development to prepare regional skills platforms. In addition to these duties, all county councils are responsible for a number of other tasks linked to re- gional development such as public transport and regional cultural operations. In its proposal for an action plan, the Agenda 2030 delegation proposes that those responsible for regional develop- ment also be given responsibility for coordinating efforts at the regional level with global sustainable development targets. The refugee situation in 2015 clearly demonstrated a great need for advanced coordination, not least between the numerous state and municipal entities involved in the reception of asylum seekers and newly arrived immigrants. In recent decades, the responsibility for receiving asylum seekers and newly arrived immigrants has varied between different entities. One sign of the need for cooperation is that there is a specific coordination delegation consisting of a number of agencies that deal with national and strategic issues in the area. Based thereon, we have judged that the agencies we propose are of such importance to regional cooperation that they should have coordinated boundaries. In our view, the proposed agencies should follow common bound- aries in six geographic areas. We consider this to be the number that entails the least adjustment for most of the proposed agencies. Our proposal also implies a limited need in terms of changes to the location of sites of operation for regional offices. It is a matter of implementing boundaries which, although not optimal for all parties in every respect, can nevertheless function for as many as possible, and irrespective of the operational section. Another fundamental element consists of the conditions for well-functioning contingency planning and total defence, regional development and reception of newly arrived immigrants, since these areas affect a great number of agencies, municipalities and county councils, as well as business and industry and civil society. State coordination and boundaries cannot be seen in isolation from the municipal sector. Existing cooperation structures of municipal government have therefore also formed a premise of the inquiry. A new structure for coordinated state boundaries could create a new level at which the municipal sector could meet a coordinated state in a common geographical structure. In our view, boundaries that match as far as possible the geo- graphic boundaries decided for the six healthcare regions offer several advantages. First, in terms of number, they are consistent with the range that most government agencies with regional boundaries already apply and state are appropriate and resourceefficient. Also, the map of the healthcare regions has a lot in common in purely geographical terms with the existing boundaries of several agencies. It should also be added that the health and care of the county councils forms an important part of total defence. However, the geography of the healthcare regions cannot be applied without further formality to the regional breakdown of the state. A fundamental premise for our proposal is that county and county-council boundaries are not broken. county is split between two healthcare regions, so that boundary cannot be applied where our proposal is concerned. With that adjustment made, our proposal is that the suggested agencies follow common boundaries in six geographic areas that include the following counties: •Jämtland, , , •Dalarna, , , , , , An alternative to the regional boundaries we recommend could be that the proposed agencies apply geographical boundaries that correspond to the seven regions of the Swedish . An advan- tage of these boundaries is that they are already also applied by the and the Swedish Prosecution Authority. All three were organised into these areas relatively recently, and for the Swedish in particular, this involved extensive change. The regions also form the geographical structure used as part of the Government’s initiative for agency-wide cooperation against organised crime. A drawback in this alternative is that, purely in terms of resources, many of the agencies that we propose would have difficulty in bearing more than six regions. Also, such boundaries lack any equivalent in the municipal sector, which is an important premise in our main proposal. Terms and wording for names of county councils A growing number of county councils have started to use the term ‘region’ instead of ‘county council’ in line with them assuming regional development responsibility. In the counties of and , this has been the case since the end of the 20th century. Today, 13 out of the 20 county councils may decide that county council assemblies and county council boards may instead be called regional assemblies and regional boards, pursuant to the Act on regional development responsibility in certain counties (2010:630). The municipality of has also obtained a similar possibility. If the proposals in the ministerial memorandum ‘Uniform regional development responsibility’ (Ref. 2017:61) are implemented, all county councils will be able to use the terms ‘regional assembly’ or ‘regional board’. The official term is still ‘county council’ however. The current situation is not sustainable. It means that different terms are used in different parts of the country, and the term used on the ballot paper in general elections often differs from that used in com- munication with citizens. The same term should be used through- out and in all contexts. When the first county councils gained the possibility to use the terms ‘regional assembly’ and ‘regional board’, this was motivated by the fact that, for citizens, agencies and industry, it was to reflect the changed role of county councils in the county, in that they assumed regional development responsibility. the years, this change has become even clearer as the county councils’ work with regional development has increased. A lot speaks in favour of the term ‘county council’. It is an established term with an extensive cultural and linguistic his- tory, and for which there is no risk of mix-ups because it is not used in any other contexts. At the same time, in our opinion an important change has taken place in that the county councils now bear responsibility for many more issues that affect inhabitants directly, besides health and care. In our view, a change has occurred that is so fundamental as to merit a change of name. However, the term ‘region’ presents a number of issues. We have therefore carefully considered the alternative ‘regional municipality’ in order to have a more distinct term. The most important advantage in this alternative is of course that the term ‘regional municipality’ would reduce the risk of confusion and misunderstanding. It might also be an advantage to make clear that it is a matter of a municipal body. The strongest reason against ‘regional municipality’ in our view, however, is that the current problem of the use of different terms in different contexts would partly persist. This is because the formal name would not match that used in the media and in com- munication with citizens. If the term is to be changed partly to attain uniformity and greater clarity, it would be beneficial to also formally use a term that is used, and that will be used, in everyday contexts. Despite the drawbacks, our overall assessment is therefore that the term ‘county council’ should be changed to the term ‘region’. The change entails that a great number of consequent amendments must be made to regulations. For , however, we propose that the municipality be called ‘the municipality of ’. When devising names for the individual regions, we propose that they be worded such that the word ‘Region’ comes before the name of the county concerned, and that the word ‘county’ be in- cluded in the end of the name. Viewpoints of the county councils, municipalities and population when changing county-council boundaries The rules that apply to changes to municipal boundaries, and to county-council boundaries, respectively, are largely similar. How- ever, there are some differences. When making changes to municipal boundaries, particular consideration must be given to the wishes and viewpoints of the affected municipalities. If a municipality opposes the change, such a decision can only be made if compelling grounds exist. Furthermore, particular consideration shall be given to the wishes and viewpoints of the population. Where such grounds exist, a specific investigation shall be carried out to determine the popula- tion’s standpoint. Such an investigation can be conducted by means of a vote, survey, etc. There are no equivalent provisions in terms of changes to county- council boundaries. In our view, great importance should be attributed to the standpoint of the county councils concerned when changing boundaries. There is therefore reason to introduce a provision setting out that particular consideration shall be given to the wishes and viewpoints of the closest affected county council. exten- sive changes to county-council boundaries entail that many county councils are affected. It is therefore likely that it would be difficult to put boundaries in place that satisfy the first choice of each in- dividual county council or municipality. It is of course crucial that a change in boundaries is as widely accepted as possible. At the same time, it is impossible to satisfy the different interests of all entities. New administrative boundaries are, by necessity, a trade- off based on an overall assessment, in which certain viewpoints and perspectives will need to be attributed greater importance than others. In that situation, it is difficult to envisage the possibility of enabling an individual county council – and even less an individual municipality – to block the implementation of a carefully considered reform. In light thereof, compelling grounds should not be needed – but rather only special grounds – to carry out a boundary change against the will of an individual county council. The municipalities work closely with the county councils and have a strong interest in how the latter work. It is therefore reason- able to give special consideration also to the viewpoints of other municipalities concerned. However, no provision should be intro- duced regarding a need for special grounds in order to circumvent such viewpoints. In terms of the viewpoints of the population, the nature of the question of boundaries is such that it is reasonable that the decisions be preceded by information and discussions, and that they are broadly supported. There is therefore reason to specifically regulate that consideration shall be given to the wishes and viewpoints of the population. However, the population’s standpoint must be weighed against other interests and factors, such as the standpoint of the municipalities and county councils concerned, geographical aspects of business and industry, economic conditions and the need of the state to make changes to its administrative boundaries. Yet, the type of consideration in question requires an overall assessment that fundamentally rests on political positions and values. We therefore propose that the regulation, in terms of changes to county-council boundaries, should be devised such that account shall be taken of the wishes and viewpoints of the population, and not that special con- sideration shall be given to such viewpoints. In our view, gathering the viewpoints of the population should be carried out as part of the preparatory process of regional representa- tive democracy, and not as a separate inquiry carried out by an agency. That way, the viewpoints can be weighed in as part of a compre- hensive decision-making basis, both when the assembly is to decide on the matter, and when the Government is to decide on any change. We therefore propose that the county councils concerned obtain the viewpoints of their members unless that is clearly not necessary, as part of the preparation of a statement on or application for changed county-council boundaries. The cooperation pattern of the county councils