(cont.) Response to interpellation 2023/24:130 on state presence in Härnösand and in the rest of the country
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that it is incorrect to call the government an SD government since SD is not in the government 1 2. KD emphasizes that the government consists of M, KD and L 1 2. KD claims that the government has a pragmatic attitude towards localization policy where regional considerations, efficiency and competence supply are important 1. KD denies that the government is against relocation 1. KD argues that there will be more state jobs through investments in the justice system, defense and service offices 1. KD considers a 1 percent saving in state administration to be reasonable 2. KD argues that the government is working to streamline and reduce the agencies 3. S considers that the government lacks plan, ambition and will regarding state presence and service throughout the country. S argues that one must have an active policy for relocation and relocation of state activities.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! It was quite something how Peder Björk had loaded it here with "the SD government"! Three times, I believe, he used that expression in his contribution.
I just want to correct and say that this is not an SD government. The Sweden Democrats are not in Sweden's government. It is a government consisting of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals who have a parliamentary cooperation with the Sweden Democrats and who have a budget cooperation with the Sweden Democrats and who thereby gather a majority in the Riksdag. But it is no SD government, but it is actually a government where the Sweden Democrats are not included.
If one were to have this rhetoric, as Peder Björk and very many other Social Democrats do, we would also call the previous government either C-led or V-led because it too was dependent on parliamentary support – from Centerpartiet and/or Vänsterpartiet.
I think that is ugly rhetoric. I have said it before, and I will repeat it every time a social democrat says the SD government, because it is simply incorrect.
When it comes to the question itself regarding Sida and its educational activities in Härnösand with five employees, it is not strange that I answer as I do. A petition has been submitted from Sida. It is currently being prepared at the Government Offices, and thus we do not have an answer yet on how we will handle it. I am not standing here in the speaker's chair in an interpellation debate, guessing a bit at what the government will think or saying something spontaneous about what I myself think. The petition is under preparation, and it takes the time it takes. Then the government will eventually return regarding what happens with it.
Regarding the state's localization policy, I am not dogmatic on the issue. There are many parameters to consider when localizing agencies. Regional policy is one such parameter, which is also included in the agency ordinance we have. There, regional considerations must be taken into account. It does not always have to mean that one places the entire agency either in Stockholm or somewhere outside Stockholm; for example, one can also locate parts of the agency outside Stockholm if one has a certain core competence that one wants to keep in Stockholm or in another city.
But of course, questions about efficiency and competence supply must also be included when we locate agencies. It is a whole. One always gets scared when one starts being quoted with old things one said some years ago. I believe it was Peter Hedberg who quoted me now. But I can stand by that quote fully today as well: Agency placements and our agencies shall be purposeful. They should naturally be made based on where we get the best effect from the money we spend on agencies and where they do the most good. But in this, there are also regional political considerations to take into account.
Between the lines, it sometimes sounds as if I or the government were against the relocation of agencies and against agencies being located outside of Stockholm. That is absolutely not the case. We have plenty of agencies all around this country, and some have their headquarters in Stockholm but operations all over the country.
The government has, as said, a pragmatic attitude toward this where regional policy is a parameter when we place authorities. There will be more state jobs around the country in the coming years in light of the strong investment in the justice system and defense but also in a continued expansion of local service offices or the state service offices, which I think are very important.
Monica Haider said that the proportion of jobs at state agencies would have increased in Stockholm. The latest figure I have is that the proportion of state jobs in Stockholm has decreased by just over 1 percent and that there has also been a decrease in Västra Götaland and Skåne. But it is possible that Haider has other, more updated figures that I lack.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, from the Minister's answer, I can now state that it was as I initially feared in the debate. The SD government has no plan, no will, and no ambition to work with the relocation and new location of state activities throughout the country.
I can have the greatest respect for the fact that the Minister cannot give a concrete statement regarding Härnösand here and now, but what one can demand of a government is that it should nevertheless have a will, an ambition, and a plan. In this case, I can state that the government does not have it when it comes to state presence and state service throughout the country.
The Minister has now held his position for a year, and I think that during that time the Minister has had time to reflect on how he views these issues. The Minister himself pointed out in his response to the interpellation that there is a mandate that has been given to the Swedish Public Employment Service to conduct a mapping. This is a report that the Minister refers to and which was supposed to have been reported back to the government at the end of May.
My question to the Minister is quite simply: What conclusions does the Minister draw from what emerges in the report from Arbetsgivarverket?
Madam Speaker! Since one cannot present a plan and an ambition in this area from the SD government, I wonder if it is efficiency that is paramount above all else, even when it comes to presence and service from state authorities out in the country.
Madam Speaker! Much indicates that it is indeed in that way. It is efficiency that the government prioritizes, not least in the Minister's own response to the interpellation.
Let me quote two passages from the response. The first is: "It is a matter of ensuring that consideration is taken of both efficiency as well as state presence and regional development." The second is: "In the governance of the state agencies, the Government proceeds from the premise that delegation of decisions in employer matters and in matters concerning the internal organization promotes an efficient state administration. The Government simultaneously has a responsibility to oversee the consequences of the individual agencies' decisions for the state administration as a whole."
Madam Speaker! This indicates that the government is adopting a very passive back-seat strategy, where the authorities can proceed however they wish - as long as they are efficient. Then this government will not interfere. That, Madam Speaker, is a worrying thought if the authorities do not see it as their mission to be available with state activity and state service throughout the country.
So, what is the message today from the Minister? Is it that efficiency is paramount over state service and state presence throughout the country and that what happens, happens? I would like to have an answer to that from the Minister.
Peter Hedberg (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister mentioned that he is not dogmatic in these matters, and neither am I. However, I want to point out once again that expediency often becomes synonymous with the Stockholm area when it comes to the localization of state jobs and agencies.
I also do not believe that the government is particularly much against relocation or relocation. But the problem is that one is not sufficiently prepared. The government is not active. Now, in this debate, we have started somewhat from Sida in Härnösand, but there are other operations in Västernorrland county that are also threatened. Folke Bernadotteakademin is an example, where there is now a great concern about what might happen. Both Sida in Härnösand and Folke Bernadotteakademin are also operations that in Västernorrland contribute to purposeful and efficient state education as well as peacebuilding and conflict resolution that benefit both Sweden and the rest of the world. Efficiency exists there as well, therefore.
It is telling, if we start from Västernorrland, that the government's party leader during the last election campaign traveled around, among other places, in Västernorrland. She stopped at a gas station at riksväg 90 in Kramfors and gave a good deal of different promises about everything that would come our way. Now, a year later, I note that it seems as if the Kristdemokraterna perhaps are not administering the cuts of state jobs, but in any case are not doing enough to stop them.
I would therefore like to say that the Minister and the party leader are warmly welcome back to this gas station at riksväg 90 in Kramfors. There, they can explain to the voters what kind of investments were actually intended to come. We are also not allowed to be part of the government's investment when it comes to the strategy for northern Sweden.
We may, therefore, have to venture to be a little disappointed by the lack of interest from the government and hope for some improvement. But since this is my final statement, I must say thank you for the debate so far. We will return to the question.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! I will begin by responding to the Minister's claim regarding Stockholm's share of the state jobs. What I said is in the Riksrevisionen's report on the establishment of agencies outside Stockholm. It is not called exactly that, but it is indeed the Riksrevisionen's report. In it, it states: "Despite this, Stockholm's share of the total number of state employees is growing."
However, that was not what I intended to say. What I intended to speak about now was that the government has commissioned an investigator to look into the merger of various agencies that have up to 100 employees. This concerns a number of agencies; I believe there are ten. In the committee directive, it states that the investigator shall address the consequences of proposals involving changed location.
It will be very interesting to see what happens during a merger of the Agency for Occupational Health Knowledge, which is located in Gävle, and the Swedish Work Environment Authority, which is located in Solna. One can read that the Agency for Occupational Health Knowledge is to be integrated into the Swedish Work Environment Authority, and the Swedish Work Environment Authority is located in Solna. Where will the new agency land - in Gävle or in Solna?
In Växjö, there is the Agency for Youth and Civil Society. The Social Democratic government decided to move that agency out into the country, to Växjö. Now it is relevant to merge it with the Agency for Support to Religious Communities, which is located in Bromma. I assume that MUCF will remain in Växjö, where the largest number of employees already are.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister Erik Slottner speaks of many parameters that must align for a localization to succeed, including the supply of skills. The supply of skills for the state sector on Gotland, which I represent, has functioned perfectly well, and so is it known to me to be in the vast majority of other places. I therefore oppose that just the supply of skills should be an objection in this context.
State presence throughout the country is, as we have also heard from my colleagues, a very clear prioritization of cohesion, of the common good, and of the trust that our society so much needs. State presence throughout the country also significantly facilitates, Madam Speaker, in the matter of effective crime fighting. This should also interest Minister Erik Slottner in these times, but I may be wrong.
In conclusion, I want to point out that I consider the term SD-government to be highly relevant because nothing – I repeat: nothing – happens in this government without the Sweden Democrats having given their approval. It may also be that, Madam Speaker, is the very reason for the flatness and lack of interest regarding state presence throughout the country.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I also want to state that I will continue to use the expression the SD-led government because that is actually what it is. According to the Tidö Agreement, everything is to go through the Sweden Democrats, and then one cannot say anything other than the SD-led government.
Regarding the question of state presence that we are now debating, I also want to emphasize that it is actually not just about not being against it, but also about actively pursuing a policy for state presence throughout the entire country. I think it is very much about whether one sees that there is competence even outside of Stockholm or if one does not. We are convinced that there is. Surveys also show that in many ways it has become better and more efficient to place and locate state tasks and state presence out in the country.
Briefly also regarding the service offices, which I raised earlier: I wish to receive an answer from the Minister of State on how the savings in the government administration will affect the service offices and their operations.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I truly regret that the participants in the debate are immersing themselves in the lie being spread about the "SD government". I therefore find it completely necessary to devote time to this. It will then mean less time for debate on the actual issue. I regret it, but it is the interpellator and the other debaters who put us in that situation.
It is therefore factually incorrect that this government is SD-led. With that rhetoric, one could just as well say that it is KD-led, that it is L-led, or that it is M-led. We need the support of all those parties to push through our policies. Nor is it the case that everything the government does needs to go through SD. The Tidö Agreement regulates a number of areas where we are to negotiate and reach an agreement with SD, but far from everything the government decides lies within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. I even believe that there is one question or another where the government parties have joined forces with the Social Democrats to get their policies through in the Riksdag.
This is, therefore, a pure factual error. This is being done to smear the government, and I think it is reprehensible. That is why I am reacting so much. I am also afraid that those who follow the debate – perhaps not that many this Tuesday evening – might believe that this government is led by SD. But it is not SD-led. It consists of the Moderaterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna. With your reasoning, the Social Democratic government was, in that case, C-led or V-led, but I never said that when I reviewed it.
Hanna Westerén said in her first post that trust in the authorities is decreasing. I do not really know if that is true. It would be interesting to see those figures – I mean that completely honestly and not ironically. I would gladly receive those figures. My impression is that Swedish authorities generally have very high status. I often boast about this when I speak internationally and meet heads of authorities. We must truly safeguard and be careful with the high trust that Swedish authorities enjoy among the Swedish people. If there are figures showing that trust in authorities is decreasing, I will, of course, take that very seriously.
Eva Lindh asked about service and financing in view of the general savings that the state administration is making. I do not intend to say how each agency shall fulfill that requirement or those savings. We are making a 1 percent saving because it is reasonable that state administration also contributes to the financing of the increased resources needed for the rule of law, for defense, to strengthen welfare, and to strengthen vulnerable households in a very tough time. State administration must also have that responsibility. It cannot be only individual households, companies, and hard-pressed municipalities and regions that take it. There is a great signaling value in this, but it is also needed to finance other necessary policies.
It is now up to the directors-general at each agency to see how they shall handle that percentage. I believe that it will go very well in the vast majority of cases.
Then one wonders if the government has any plan for the relocation of agencies. No, the government has no grandiose plan for this, but we take it agency by agency. We have a pragmatic attitude toward this and say that they should be purposeful placements.
Regional policy is part of that, just as the agency ordinance regulates. It is a consideration that must be taken. But of course, we must also ensure that the agency is placed in a way that one can perform efficient, high-quality work and can retain expertise. It is always easier to place entirely new agencies in a location outside of Stockholm than, for example, to relocate. The risk otherwise is that one loses expertise along the way.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! I am truly concerned about how little interest the SD government and the Minister show for this issue. The debate shows it. The Minister spends more time discussing how the government is named than actually presenting what plan and idea the government has regarding state presence and state service throughout the country.
Unfortunately, the news is the opposite of what we had hoped for. The SD government has no plan, no ambition, no will. The Minister himself says that they do not have a plan in the area. Then we wonder how anything is to happen in the area at all.
The Minister also gives no concrete information on what will happen with the jobs in Härnösand. Based on the Minister's reasoning, efficiency seems to be paramount above all else. That makes me concerned. We need a state presence and state services throughout the country. With a government that has no idea how to ensure that this happens, there is a great risk that it will not only result in a dismantling of what currently exists, but that furthermore no development at all will occur in the area.
Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that based on the audit report from the Swedish National Audit Office which several have mentioned in the debate, it can be stated that the relocation and new location of state agencies contribute to both regional development and efficiency in the long term. This makes us Social Democrats convinced that there must be an active policy for the relocation and new location of state activities throughout the country. We Social Democrats will continue to drive this.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to comment on Monica Haider's interpellation regarding that it was the Swedish National Audit Office's report that had shown an increase in the proportion of state jobs in Stockholm. What I referred to was the county administrative board's compilation. They obviously show different results. But now we know at least where our sources come from.
The government is working, on the whole, on many assignments to streamline and reduce the agencies. This will naturally have consequences even for the localization of the agencies themselves. That is also why it is included in the committee directives.
It will be exciting to receive the investigation - even if it takes a while before it arrives - partly to see how it is envisioned that the localization issue should be handled. But we can debate that at a later time.
Otherwise, I intend, since the interpellor continues to refer to a government that I am not a part of, not to further comment on what was recently said.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.