(cont.) Response to interpellations 2024/25:688 and 2025/26:78 on the closure of service offices across Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S considers that the state's presence should be strengthened and that the closure of service offices undermines trust in the public sector 1 2. The party argues that the government prioritizes savings over people's security, which creates exclusion for the elderly and those without digital tools 3 4. S criticizes that the government does not take responsibility for on-site presence and argues that mobile solutions do not replace personal service 3 1 5. S considers that the closures hit the countryside hard 1 6 and questions the government's clarity 7. KD wants to work with mobile and flexible solutions to be more accessible, cheaper, and more efficient 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! As the Speaker sees, we have here in the chamber a whole row of Social Democrats who are engaged in the issue of the state's presence throughout the country.
Before the break for group meetings, Minister Erik Slottner reported what consequences he sees from what is happening. He reported that he had a meeting with the director-general, who has shown great commitment. The question is whether that commitment is linked to the fact that signs for state service are currently being turned off around the country. Those are the conditions. Statens servicecenter has also reported which offices have been closed and which will be closed.
The Minister reported that customer satisfaction has increased. We know that, because we have debated this issue with Minister Erik Slottner previously. But that actually builds on how it was before the cuts began. It is clear that many then thought it was starting to work. The reasons for the expansion and for the announced expansions that the Social Democratic government stated were namely that Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan disappeared from place to place but must be replaced. A new agency was to gather it in Statens servicecenter so that the agencies would be present on the spot.
The questions remain: Does State Secretary Erik Slottner think the cuts are going well? Are they going according to the government's plan? Is the State Secretary satisfied with the actions of the Statens servicecenter?
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Government seems to base its reasoning on the idea that even if they close some state service centers, there is still access to state services at Statens servicecenter. One can take the car, one can take the train, one can call, and one can start the computer. Now, a mobile solution is also being introduced.
What then becomes the problem for the government? I want to assert that an understanding is required, Mr. Speaker – an insight that it is not about whether Statens servicecenter as an organization should remain. It is about the presence on-site, about the proximity, about the accessibility and about shown respect. In that case, a mobile and flexible solution becomes completely irrelevant. What is happening now, with the closure of Statens servicecenter in a lot of places around our country, means that something else is being lost.
Mr. Speaker! I am of the opinion that if the state does not want to show its citizens respect, the state does not deserve any trust either. And a society without trust or with declining trust creates a societal development where some citizens become more worthy than others. It creates and reinforces exclusion. It divides the country.
If one does not have that understanding, one can try to answer the criticism that one is now subjected to by saying that the government cannot have an opinion on individual offices or where they should be located. But nothing can be more wrong.
The government governs the realm. And the government can speak about what mission the authorities have. If the government and Sweden as a state can be clear that every municipality shall have a systembolag, the government can also be clear that all or significantly more municipalities shall have a state service office.
Zara Leghissa (S)
Mr. Speaker! I want to thank the interpellants Peder Björk and Heléne Björklund for this very important debate and also the minister for the response to certain questions. But I must say that it is not enough. To refer to digitalization and efficiency is no answer to the retiree in Jokkmokk who now must travel significantly further and who incurs an additional cost. It is no answer to the single person who does not have a car or a computer.
The government says that it protects the countryside, but shows something completely different through its actions. It closes offices, withdraws resources, and leaves people behind. How does the government intend to secure and build bridges for people through personal assistance with questions about forms and support with digital services, guidance, and linguistic and digital support?
Statens servicekontor is of great importance for society. Democratic accessibility means that everyone can get in contact with the state. For regional development, they must be available in both cities and rural areas. Trust in the state and confidence in the authorities increase through personal and accessible service. When it comes to social benefit and security, people feel secure when they can receive correct help with important matters concerning economy, pension, tax, and social security.
The Social Democrats stand for a present state, equal service, and cohesion throughout all of Sweden. The state shall be present where people are, not only where it is most profitable.
Agneta Nilsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have not heard anything positive about this government downsizing when I have spoken with the residents of Eslöv. On the contrary, people express their dissatisfaction that government agencies are slowly but surely disappearing. People are worried about how they will resolve their affairs after January 2026. In Eslöv, it will be empty of government presence when the Statens servicecenter disappears. That is how it looks in many places where the offices have disappeared or are on their way out.
To hold a society together, a state presence is important. Functional state services make it possible to live and work in the entire country. But this cut will limit people living in Sweden, especially in smaller towns or in the countryside. I do not believe, however, that the new proposals for other types of presence will come to Eslöv.
What happens then? Is it the municipality that will face higher pressure and be forced to perform tasks that should belong to the state's responsibility? Mobile solutions, which is a proposal, could have become a development of state service to strengthen it and be present throughout the country, if it had been about an expansion of the number of offices. But now, instead, it is about dismantling state presence. More people will be worse off and others nothing at all.
Service centers are needed for people's everyday lives to be able to function. Everyone in our country has the right to the same access, regardless of where one lives.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that the state's presence should be strengthened, not weakened. When services disappear from the local community, trust in the public sector is eroded. It should be a self-evident matter for a government to safeguard people's right to receive help from the state as close to their residence as possible.
Closing offices in this way is actually nothing other than a death blow to the people of Östergötland, who no longer have offices in Motala and Norrköping city. The closure of the office in Tranås also affects many people in Östergötland in the southern parts. Now Finspång is also to be affected. I think it is a proposal that is both unprofessional and disrespectful.
The Minister says that we are using overtones. Then perhaps the Minister has not heard the people who are desperate that one can no longer go to a service office and get the help that one needs. Then perhaps the Minister has not met the anxiety that many feel over now not being able to do right.
I think it would be appropriate to give a respectful answer to these people, who may be sitting and listening today – not to me and the others here in the chamber, even though we are also affected – and a respectful acknowledgment that this affects people's everyday lives, trust in the state, and in the long run, even democracy.
Markus Kauppinen (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note the Minister's answer. But it is actually the government that has the political responsibility to guarantee a state service that is equal throughout the country. The Minister's actions show that one prioritizes calculated savings over people's security and service. It is a betrayal of all of Tranås. To force people in Tranås to travel long distances to receive basic service is not to build a secure Sweden but to increase exclusion. That is what I want to remind the Minister of.
Who then pays the price for the government's cuts? Yes, it is our elderly population, those who are dependent on personal service and those who are furthest away from the digital world. For them, the service office is not just a place where one can pick up a card, but a fundamental pillar in the social safety net and in the everyday economy.
The Minister has not been able to give a straight answer as to why the government is worsening the service for precisely these individuals in Tranås. You speak of exceptions in Karlshamn, but what do you say to the people in Jönköpings län who lost their service in October last year?
We need a state that takes responsibility, stands close to the citizens and builds security, not a state that flees from the countryside. I expect a clear answer on how the government intends to restore security for the citizens in Tranås and northern Jönköpings län.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I have several different objections to the arguments that have been put forward by the Minister and also by other representatives for the government.
I have objections to the government's principled stance regarding state presence. I have objections to the lack of understanding and the lack of interest in wanting to understand. One simply does not want to understand what it does to a society when the state is no longer present – or one is just completely uninterested. I do not know what it is, but I have objections to that stance.
I have objections to the government's management of state presence. We hear both here in the minister's response and in other contexts how the government shrugs off responsibility and says that this issue of state presence is not a matter for the government but a matter for the respective agency, a statement that should cause quite a few to react quite strongly. It must not be the case that the government points at the agency and says: "It is only you who are responsible for where you are – we do not care." What kind of view of the public administration and the state is this, really?
I also have objections to the government's handling of which service offices are being closed. We have had that question here many times. There is no clarity regarding which service offices are being closed. The Minister must at some point have asked the Director General what makes certain service offices closed but not others. The only conclusion one can come to is that it is the length of the lease agreement that determines which service offices are closed. In that case, I, as I said in my previous post, am concerned for the service office in my hometown.
There is much to reflect on in this debate and discussion, but also in other debates and discussions regarding state presence. Given what we see with Statens servicecenter but also with closed police stations and closed tax offices – perhaps soon also with other state agencies disappearing from the localities – I think unfortunately that we will have reason to return to these questions in the future.
Johanna Haraldsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister points out that the service centers are important and provide important service. But despite that, cuts are being made. You are erasing the entire Social Democratic expansion of state services across the entire country. This is something that hits the countryside hard, especially those people who are dependent on the personal meeting.
Now it seems the government has backed down a little bit. One reduces the cut to Statens servicecenter slightly. The Minister speaks of mobile and flexible solutions as a way out for the state service. That raises a number of questions from my side. What will this mean for the localities where Statens servicecenter has already been closed or is planned to be closed? Will these offices be replaced by mobile and flexible solutions? Will the residents in Tranås be able to expect that Statens servicecenter will return to the locality in some form?
The Minister seems to be very eager to save on government agencies and has been very proud of the savings being made in various places. In this regard, I wonder if more municipalities and citizens have reason to be concerned that even more service offices will be replaced by the flexible or mobile solutions.
Erik Slottner speaks about customer satisfaction. I can guarantee that those who have now lost their state service in their municipality are not satisfied.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I continue from where I was earlier. But just because there are 13 participants, the Minister does not get more time, I want to point out. That makes it a bit difficult to get through all the answers sometimes.
Niklas Karlsson began to speak about human value. That is when I think it becomes chest tones. He means that the government thinks that people are more worthy in municipalities where there are service offices than in other municipalities. Then I wonder: Since a majority of Sweden's municipalities lacked service offices during the last parliamentary term, did the Social Democrats then think that one was less worthy in those municipalities?
Agneta Nilsson said in her first post: Even Slottner's party comrades are critical all around the country. Yes, but I believe it was also one thing or another of the decisions made by the previous government – if we are now to call it the S-government, the V-government, the C-government or the MP-government – that local politicians were not entirely satisfied with. Sometimes there is conflict and friction between the state and local level. It is not in itself anything remarkable or very unusual.
I cannot comment on individual offices, Markus Kauppinen. I have already said that. Now the question about Tranås came up. Why is the office in Tranås being closed? That question can be asked of the authority, which can answer according to which criteria it closed it. I cannot answer the question and shall not answer it, because it is not a government decision.
Adrian Magnusson says that it is the length of the lease agreement that decides. I have heard that now and then, so I actually raised it with the board. I wanted to know if it was true or not. The answer is that it is not true. It is not the case that it is the only factor that influences. It can, however, be a parameter occasionally.
The government has provided principles for office closures going forward. What should be taken into account? Economic conditions are one of the principles, but also geographical location, number of visitors, and other factors. It is clear that the length of the lease can influence to some extent. But it is absolutely not the case that it is what one goes after and then proceeds from that.
Mobile solutions are mentioned here occasionally. It would be some Christmas present under Motala's Christmas tree, I think. It is no new announcement from the government. Quite early in the mandate period, I wanted the agency to work with more mobile and flexible solutions precisely in order to be more accessible, be able to work cheaper and more efficiently, and be able to be in places where situations sometimes arise where one may need extra strong state service. I have worked for that during pretty much the entire mandate period. Now the agency has started to get more concrete work in this. There are different types of mobile and flexible offices, some of which I accounted for in my previous post.
I thought I answered the question from Isak From in the previous post regarding whether I am satisfied with the authority. I believe that both the board and the director-general are committed and are fulfilling the government's mandate. There is a very serious plan forward for how they want to create a good network across all of Sweden with somewhat fewer resources and fewer offices.
I now have 20 seconds of speaking time left. When one reads the Social Democrats' shadow budget, one sees that you are adding 50 million more next year. But you are not restoring the 50 million that were removed this year. You have accepted minus 50 million and are only plugging the gap. There are also no new funds for 2027.
Of the total 150 million, you have accepted 100 million. The question should perhaps be asked to the Social Democrats: Where do the Social Democrats think offices should be closed in the future?
Peder Björk (S)
Mr. Speaker! I will first comment on the budget issue. If we, in our Social Democratic shadow budget, were to restore all the nonsense that this government has been engaged in, our entire space would be used just to do that. We naturally stand up for the offices, and we have naturally budgeted for this.
Mr. Speaker! It is evident in this debate and in previous debates that the Minister expresses that he is both proud of and satisfied with the closures that are now occurring of 25 percent of the service offices around the country. The debate on the closures of service offices is fundamentally about what kind of Sweden we want, a country where the state is close to the citizens or a country where the service disappears and trust erodes.
The Minister speaks at length and gladly about efficiency. In practice, it means that one chooses to opt out of local state services for people who live in places that are not important for the SD government.
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe, on the contrary, in a strong state presence throughout the country and a state service that functions and is there for everyone. Sweden shall hold together. The state shall be there where the people are. There, the state service centers are an important piece of the puzzle.
The piece that the SD government now chooses to throw away. Consequently, the social construction of Sweden will be left with a hole in it. That, Mr. Speaker, weakens trust and social cohesion. It will also be Minister Slottner's legacy after his years in the SD government.
Heléne Björklund (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Civil Affairs speaks of how there have certainly been Social Democratic local politicians who have fought for local services against a Social Democratic government. Yes, that is true. I was one of them.
I struggled to explain exactly what I explained to the Minister for Civil Affairs in my previous post. It is about how it feels when one does not have state services. I am not sure if that was exactly why, but a state service office was established in my home municipality during the previous S-led government. I plead that they should be allowed to remain, because they mean so much.
Now 50 million is disappearing every year. We are only talking about this year. But 50 million is disappearing every year in your budget. Even if one office or another seems to have been saved now, the question is: What happens in the long term? The minister has not answered that here.
I experience that the minister answers our questions as seriously as he can and also wants it to turn out well. But it is not turning out that way. Erik Slottner must also see to the cut that exists in the budget.
There is certainly room for streamlining. I do not have that insight. But it is not streamlining to remove services for the citizens. That can be done in another way. It is really bad. I believe Erik Slottner agrees with that, but he cannot say it here.
We need these activities. We need state services throughout our country, for the reasons I have given before. It is not only for reasons of service but also for democratic reasons.
Civilministern Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I have understood during the debate that the members think it is bad. It has emerged very clearly. But I still want to make the matter clearer.
If the Social Democrats' shadow budget were to pass in the Riksdag, it would not save all offices. Some offices would be saved by it, but not those that were closed last year. It increases by 50 million against minus 100 million. That is actually the case.
Peder Björk has a habit of sitting here and nodding and rolling his eyes. But if one were to restore the level that applied in 2024, one would need to add 100 million. I can possibly forgive that one does not add the 27 million. I remember myself when I worked with the shadow budgets. My party set up detailed budgets for year two and three.
Then I get the question: What happens moving forward? We can look at the budget. The one we submitted now for 2026 also extends over 2028. There is no reduction in service centers there. Now there is a stop in light of the 2027 reduction of the appropriations. It will be a total of 150 million. We compensated now with plus 10 million which over three years becomes plus 30 million. Thus, it will be minus 120 million.
I can understand that the Social Democrats cannot undo all bad decisions in their budgets. They never dare to withdraw tax cut proposals. It was very pompous here in the speaker's chair with speeches about how the gaps are widening and welfare is being destroyed. But when income tax cuts are introduced, they are allowed to remain in their shadow budgets. If you do that, you also cannot restore all the cuts you make. It is perfectly understandable.
Finally, I want to say that we in the government are making a historic investment in state jobs across the country within the justice system, defense and infrastructure, which will be noticed in the country. I think we are forgetting that in this debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.