Public administration

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on the Constitution's report KU29 on the public administration. It is a comprehensive report that spans several central areas such as anti-corruption, law enforcement, the role of authorities, digitalization, and civil servant responsibility. Behind this breadth, however, lies a common core: the question of trust in the state and how this trust is maintained in practice.

That there is trust in the public administration is not something that can be taken for granted. It is based on the citizens perceiving the state as fair and impartial. It is based on decisions being made on objective grounds and that power is exercised under accountability. When these principles are eroded, even in small ways, the consequences risk becoming large.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish administrative model is based on a clear division of roles: the Riksdag enacts laws, the government governs the realm, and the authorities execute. This order is not merely organizational; it is constitutional. It aims to ensure that power is exercised within clear frameworks and that political positions are decided by elected representatives and not by civil servants.

Against this background, it is problematic when authorities or individual employees who work with tasks where the importance of neutrality is great engage in opinion-forming activities or drive issues that are fundamentally political. Professionalism and neutrality must be guiding principles in a civil service.

One of the issues addressed in the report, which the Sweden Democrats particularly want to highlight, is the development of what is often referred to as agency activism. It concerns a gradual shift in the view of what agencies should do and what role they should play in the public debate.

The preparatory remarks state that the authorities' information activities shall be objective and impartial, and they shall be within the framework of the authority's mandate. It also appears clearly in previous administrative policy positions that it is not a task for an authority to conduct opinion-forming on party-politically controversial issues.

Despite this, Mr. Speaker, we see examples of how the boundaries are often expanded. Information efforts take on the character of campaigns, and cooperation with external actors leads to authorities being indirectly linked to ideologically colored activities. In some cases, situations arise where authorities do not only inform about applicable law or political decisions but also attempt to influence attitudes and values in a certain direction, for example in the form of petitions in workplaces.

Mr. Speaker! This is an issue that must be taken seriously – not because information activities in themselves are wrong, but because they must be strictly anchored in the mandate and characterized by impartiality. Unfortunately, a civil servant culture has emerged in certain environments that many times goes far beyond the powers granted.

When authorities are perceived as actors in the political debate, trust in them risks being undermined. Taxpayers must be able to count on a professional civil service that leaves their party cards at home. Civil servants' political convictions must never be reflected in the performance of their duties. We must ensure that we have civil servants who adapt to the elected government's guidelines and decisions. If one fails as a civil servant in this, it must of course not go unnoticed; if one commits acts of agency activism, it must of course have consequences.

Mr. Speaker! Another central issue in the report is improper influence and the risk of infiltration in the public administration. There is reason for concern here. As the underlying material shows, several cases have been highlighted where authorities have been subjected to influence, and audits show that the work to counter infiltration in some cases is not sufficiently effective. When a civil servant is subjected to threats, pressure, or conflicts of loyalty, it does not only affect the individual decision, but it affects the trust in our entire system.

We see today how organized crime is increasingly targeting the influence of public functions. This can involve gaining access to information, influencing decisions, or creating space for economic advantages. Often, this is directed at the public sector. The consequences can be serious: leaked information, incorrect decisions, and ultimately an erosion of the state's legitimacy.

Against this background, it is necessary to intensify the work against improper influence. Action plans and educational initiatives are not enough; clear structures for follow-up, control, and accountability are also required. It must be clear to every official which rules apply and what consequences follow if these are violated.

Mr. Speaker! This brings us to the question of official responsibility. Historically, we have had a stronger official responsibility, but over time this has been weakened. The result has in some cases become a situation where incorrect decisions do not have any clear consequences for the individual official. This is an issue that for a long time has been the subject of discussion in Sweden but which red-green governments have not wanted to touch. Why that is, I leave for others to speculate on, but the Tidö parties see the importance of a reform and have acted.

In the preamble, it is reported that the government has presented proposals for an expanded criminal liability, where a new crime – abuse of public office – is proposed to be introduced. It is an important step that marks that it is not acceptable to use one's position in public service to benefit oneself or others or to disadvantage someone in an improper manner.

The question of civil servant liability, however, is not only about criminal law, but it also concerns culture, governance, and clarity. There must be a clear connection between responsibility and authority. Those who have the power to make decisions that affect people's lives must also be able to be held accountable for those decisions.

The Sweden Democrats argue that a strengthened civil servant responsibility is a central part of strengthening trust in the public administration. It is not about casting suspicion on civil servants. On the contrary, it is about protecting the large majority who perform their work correctly and professionally. Through clear rules and consequences, their position is also strengthened.

It is easy to see these issues as technical or administrative, but at their core, they are about something larger; they are about the functioning of democracy. A strong democracy presupposes a strong and credible administration. It presupposes that citizens can trust that decisions are made on the right grounds and that no one stands above accountability. It is therefore crucial that we take these issues most seriously. It is not just about managing individual problems, but about safeguarding the principles upon which our entire system of government rests.

There is a connection between the issues I have touched upon: agency activism, undue influence, and civil servant responsibility. Everything fundamentally concerns the core of the state – how power is exercised and under what conditions. If agencies are allowed to pursue their own agendas and if civil servants are influenced or work according to personal political convictions, we risk obtaining an administration that moves away from its fundamental principles. It is a dangerous development that must be broken.

Accountability must be able to be enforced. We want authorities that focus on their mandate and not on opinion-building. We want a system where undue influence is met with powerful countermeasures. We want a clear civil servant responsibility that ensures that power is always followed by accountability.

The Sweden Democrats' starting point is clear. We shall have an administration that is strictly anchored in the rule of law, characterized by objectivity and impartiality, and where a clear boundary between politics and administration is respected. Political decisions and directives shall be implemented and carried out – period. They shall not be delayed or obstructed by officials or other staff driven by a different political compass than that of the elected government. This, Mr. Speaker, applies naturally regardless of which government we have in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The public administration in Sweden shall be built on trust and confidence. It shall be accessible and oriented towards the citizen's perspective in society. This presupposes a well-developed local and regional presence of the state authorities. These are the starting points in the position that the Committee on the Constitution's report KU29 Public Administration is based on. The report deals with 53 motions from the general motion period. In this context, I wish to move for approval of the reservations we from the Social Democrats have submitted: number 2 regarding local state service under point 3, number 3 regarding the county administrative boards under point 5, and number 4 regarding digitalization under point 7.

From the Social Democrats' side, we want to convey in the position statement that there are today over 100 service offices operated within the framework of Statens servicecenter. They are located in metropolitan areas but also in smaller municipalities and in rural areas. They need to be developed, not decommissioned, which unfortunately has been the case due to the government's cuts in recent years.

At the service centers, individuals can receive guidance of a simpler nature from Försäkringskassan, Migrationsverket, Pensionsmyndigheten, Skattemyndigheten, and Arbetsförmedlingen. Kronofogdemyndigheten also shares premises in some cases. The service centers are highly appreciated, with over 2.8 million visits during 2024 and a customer satisfaction of around 95 percent.

Mr. Speaker! I have myself, both as a relative and in my role as a Member of Parliament, visited several service centers since they were introduced by the Social Democratic-led government, both in my hometown Ängelholm as well as in Klippan and Helsingborg. I have been able to observe the operations and can state that the offices are well-visited and that visitors receive good help and good support. For many, it means a great deal to be able to speak with a person and not solely be referred to digital aids and technology. At different stages of life, we may have different needs. The human contact can often make a difference and facilitate meetings with authorities. Therefore, the state presence is significant. As I see it, it must not be transformed into an exclusively digital phenomenon.

The government's reduction of the budget means that a number of service offices will be closed. It is spoken of up to 35 in number. As recently as last year, the offices in Trelleborg, Landskrona, and Simrishamn were closed. This year, I have been able to learn of additional closures being announced, among others in Nordstan in Gothenburg and in Karlshamn. These are measures that hit hard against the citizen service all around Sweden. Quite naturally, a number of protests have been voiced.

The expansion of the state presence and services needs to continue throughout the entire country. Through more service offices, relocation and newly established agencies, as well as the ongoing expansion of the Armed Forces, the Police Authority, and the Prison and Probation Service, there are conditions for thousands of new jobs all over the country. In that case, the service offices also need to continue to be developed. The offices that have been closed need to be reopened, and more activities should be able to be linked to them.

Through the offices, cooperation between authorities is promoted in a direct way. This can also be a strength when it comes to tackling organized crime. From the Social Democrats' side, I want to emphasize that we believe the regional perspective should be included in every decision on where state activities shall be located and that the establishment of new service offices shall continue.

Mr. Speaker! The public administration has in many ways laid the foundation for the Swedish social model, I would like to assert with conviction. From the beginning, the purpose was perhaps largely to collect taxes and control the realm as such. Then central government agencies, colleges, were established to create a structure. When democracy gradually became a reality, after a long struggle and great hardships, the public administration expanded. The state took on a number of tasks that meant a presence in the local community.

It was not solely about the state church, which was a self-evident starting point in both the cities and the rural areas and which had managed the population registration for around 500 years. It was perhaps primarily about things such as post, telephony, schools, road administration, police, insurance fund and employment agency – natural elements in every municipality for a number of decades and during generations' upbringing in the country.

After that followed a series of cuts, societal changes, and also a fair amount of privatizations, which have changed the picture. Now we can visit municipalities where the only state institution is Systembolaget. With all respect for this well-reputed state company, I believe it is a deficiency if it is the entity that is to maintain the state presence. Therefore, an increased regional and local focus in the activities of public administrations was needed. Here, the state service centers again play an important role.

Mr. Speaker! I want to reflect somewhat on our reservation from the Social Democrats regarding the role of the county administrative boards. We have on several occasions emphasized the need for a strengthened administrative grant to the county administrative boards. We think it is important that the government utilizes the strength that exists in the form of 21 extremely competent authorities with strong local knowledge. This concerns, not least, the buildup of the total defense and the issues of preparedness. Many of the assignments that the government is now placing on its sector authorities would have been more efficient to place on the county administrative boards, as we see it. I mean that this is an issue that the government needs to review.

Mr. Speaker! I am also skeptical of the policy that involves the centralization of certain tasks to certain county administrative boards, for example in the matter of agricultural subsidies. It will lead to questions that are important to handle with geographical proximity being moved even further away from those who de facto carry out the activities. In order for the county administrative boards to be able to function as unifying forces in the counties, their mandate to coordinate the state's agencies needs to be supplemented with mandates for the relevant agencies to cooperate with the county administrative boards.

These are questions that have often been touched upon during visits I have made to the counties, both with and without the Committee on the Constitution, and the emphasis has been on crisis situations. It can involve forest fires, floods, and a number of other phenomena where this cooperation is often requested by the County Administrative Boards. Here, the government should act to improve the situation.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to mention something regarding our reservation on digitalization under point 7. We propose that the position should be based on the fact that people deserve and expect to receive public services adapted to their life situation. This means a more efficient and digitally well-functioning public sector. I want to emphasize that it is not in opposition to the investment that is necessary for Statens servicecenter; they are actually two interacting factors. The starting point is that all public services should be able to be handled digitally, but it also means that they must be accessible via telephone or direct contact.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the other motions, we support the motions for rejection. The motions individually address subject areas such as the fight against corruption and EU law issues, and there are positions in the committee report that we believe are well-founded based on the preparatory work.

When it comes to official responsibility, which Westmont touched upon just now, we can keep in mind that it already exists in current law as official misconduct, which can be adjudicated based on the Penal Code if the perpetrator has seriously abused their position or if the act from any individual or the public has resulted in serious harm or an undue benefit that is significant. This already exists, and it can be good to include in the reasoning.

I also want to highlight the political dimension. It is through legislation that we shape society, and it is the laws and regulations that are guiding for the officials and civil servants who work in the public administration. I have encountered nothing else when I have been out on visits and met these dedicated officials who work for the benefit of society and the state every day. This should also be emphasized in the debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report on public administration. It is a report that spans a broad field, from corruption and county administrative boards to digitalization and civil servant responsibility.

In my speech, I want to focus on an issue that I consider to be of fundamental constitutional importance, namely what we commonly call civil servant activism or agency activism.

Let me start from the basics. In Chapter 1, Section 1, third paragraph of the Instrument of Government, it is stated that public power is exercised under the law. It is not a technicality, but it is the foundation of the rule of law. According to Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government, it applies that courts as well as administrative authorities and others who perform public administrative tasks in their activities shall observe everyone's equality before the law and be objective and impartial.

These principles are not empty words, Mr. Speaker. They are the constitutional backbone of a democratic society. But, Mr. Speaker, they are not always respected.

Let me nevertheless begin by expressing both respect and confidence in the absolute majority of our civil servants. We meet employees in our assignments and in our private lives who truly work in the best spirit of the Swedish civil service tradition when it comes to the exercise of authority, that is to say, reason without passion.

With this said, we can also state that we have a growing problem in Sweden regarding agency activism. Above all, it is a growing democratic problem in its wake. For a long time, Mr. Speaker, we have seen how agencies in Sweden have drifted away from their core task. Instead of applying the law and serving the citizens, agencies in some cases have engaged in driving public opinion, lobbying for political positions, and acting as actors in the political debate.

It has also not just been a matter of often wanting to avoid implementing democratically decided policies, but one increasingly does everything one can to directly oppose the same – especially within certain sectors. This is what we call civil servant activism, and it is a problem that undermines trust in the entire public administration and, ultimately, for Swedish democracy and for Swedish popular rule.

That is exactly where the shoe pinches. Trust in the administration is not something abstract, but it is the glue that holds the relationship between citizens and the state together. When an agency begins to pursue political agendas instead of applying the law, the citizen no longer knows whether he or she is meeting an objective administration or an organization where employees act based on their own purposes or their own agenda. That uncertainty is dangerous because it erodes trust not only in the individual agency but also in the public democratic system. And when basic societal functions do not work as they should, citizens risk losing trust in society's institutions and in each other. That is why civil servant activism is not a harmless phenomenon, but in the long run, it is a threat to democracy.

In recent decades, we have seen how agency activism, and to some extent also judicial activism, has step by step eroded, for example, the right of ownership and created hopelessness, lawlessness, frustration, anger, and mistrust towards both the rule of law and the authorities and thereby towards democracy.

In Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is stated that an authority may only take measures that are supported by the legal system. In its activities, the authority shall be objective and impartial.

This is the principle of legality in practice, Mr. Speaker. In the preparatory works to the law, it is stated that the principle of legality is of central importance within administrative law because the requirement for statutory authority forms the starting point for the authorities' activities, both when it comes to processing and deciding on cases and in regard to other activities that an authority carries out.

Still – and it is remarkable – reviews of investigations have indicated that the authorities do not always sufficiently determine whether they have support in the legal order for their actions. It is a systemic error. And it is a systemic error that the Moderaterna and our Tidö colleagues have long wanted to rectify.

In a proposition 2009, the then-bourgeois government judged that it should not be a task for an agency to conduct opinion-building or represent special interests within its area of operation. It is a principle that we Moderates wholeheartedly share. The then-Alliance government considered that it is not a task for an agency to conduct opinion-building that involves the agency taking a stand for one side or the other in a politically controversial issue in order to influence the Riksdag or the government.

Still, we have seen it happen time and again: Authorities that run campaigns. Authorities that lobby against their own government, regardless of the government's color. Authorities that purchase ideological certifications and consultancy services from organizations whose purpose is political influence.

This is not the authorities' mandate, but rather a misuse of tax funds and of the trust that the citizens have given the public sector. And every time it happens, the trust is eroded a little more for that authority, for the administration as a whole, and ultimately for democracy as a whole. Authorities should be efficient and work in the service of the citizens – otherwise, people lose trust in politics and public institutions. We have seen it happen in large Western democracies, and we now see the consequences of that mistrust and that frustration. I do not need to mention any specific country, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are all thinking of the same one.

The Committee also emphasizes in the report we are debating today that the principle of legality is of central importance for the authorities' activities. The principle of legality means that the authorities' activities must be supported by one of the sources that together form the legal order. Furthermore, the authorities shall, in their activities, observe everyone's equality before the law as well as maintain objectivity and impartiality.

Mr. Speaker! Now clear changes are occurring in the right direction. Recently, the government submitted the referral *Ett utökat straffrättsligt tjänstemannaansvar* to the Council on Legislation. In the referral, there is a proposal to introduce a new crime in the Penal Code, with the designation abuse of public office.

This is a historical step, Mr. Speaker. Thereby, it is punishable to, in the performance of a public service or a public assignment, intentionally in conflict with law or other regulation, take or fail to take an action to obtain an improper advantage or for someone else to obtain such an advantage or to improperly disadvantage someone else.

In the referral to the Council on Legislation, it is argued that the public has a legitimate claim that public activities are conducted in a responsible and correct manner and that it is necessary for there to be an effective system for individual accountability when errors are committed. That is precisely the case, and it is exactly what we Moderates have advocated. It is fair and responsible politics. However, we shall not be satisfied with that, Mr. Speaker.

The question of civil servant activism is not just about individual civil servants acting incorrectly. It is about a culture in parts of the public administration where the line between the exercise of authority and political activism has become blurred. It is about agencies that have forgotten that they are there for the citizens, not to pursue their own agendas. As a public employee, one must not define one's own mandate. I cannot emphasize it enough: As a public employee, one must not define one's own mandate. That should be done by politics – or rather, by democracy.

The authorities' information activities must fall within the framework of their instructions-based tasks or special government mandates. It is a principle that must be upheld not only in words but in practice, through clear regulatory letters, clear instructions and a sharpened accountability.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by stating the following: It has been jokingly said that success within the public administration can only be measured through the agencies' appropriations and the number of employees – that increasing appropriations and a growing number of employees would be the primary sign of successful agency work. It is, of course, an exaggeration, but it unfortunately does not completely lack grounding in reality. There are, in fact, many forces arguing that agencies of all kinds need to grow in order to be able to handle the bureaucracy that these forces themselves have been involved in and contributed to.

We Moderates want to see an administration that is efficient, legally secure, and stands on the side of the citizens. It is a classic Moderate position: the State shall do what only the State can do – and do it well. The State shall not engage in political activism at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Speaker! I look forward to the bill that the government has announced. I look forward to the Riksdag being able to take a stand on a stricter official responsibility. I also look forward to an administration that the citizens can trust – an administration that applies the law, does not drive politics. That is what the rule of law requires, and that is what the Moderaterna advocate.

Mr. Speaker! The greatest threat to Swedish democracy comes from Russia, and the second greatest threat to Swedish democracy comes from crime. But the third greatest threat to Swedish democracy comes from agency and court activism.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and apologize for the slight overrun of the speaking time, Mr. Speaker. It shall never happen again.

In this speech, Mauricio Rojas (L) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting to listen to some of the previous speeches, which simply showed that this report spans a wide range of issues. I had intended to concentrate on some other issues than those that previous speakers took up.

First and foremost, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

Just as previous speakers have said, this report deals with issues concerning public administration. It is a term that may sound a bit technical, but which fundamentally concerns how the state transforms political decisions, such as those made by us in this chamber, into reality in people's everyday lives. It is about the work of authorities, about the relationship between citizens and the state, and ultimately about the trust in our democratic system.

The administration rests on the basic principles of the state's values: democracy, legality, objectivity, free formation of opinion – which perhaps is worth underlining in this context, given what previous speakers have said – respect, efficiency, and service. This means that power is exercised under the laws, that everyone is treated equally, and that the state shall be accessible and provide good service to the citizens. This foundation aims to create an administration that is efficient, legally secure, and free from corruption and abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of this is, of course, access to state services. It is not just an administrative detail but a question of equality, democracy, and trust. When people need help with their pension, sickness benefit, or tax return, the state should be there, accessible, understandable, and nearby. The reality, however, looks different for many.

For a long time, we have seen how the state presence has diminished and how service offices have disappeared from smaller localities. What remains are longer distances, poorer accessibility, and an increased dependence on digital solutions that do not work for everyone. Older people, people with disabilities, or those who lack digital habits risk being left behind in our society.

Mr. Speaker! This is not an inevitable development but a result of political priorities. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that the state must take a much greater responsibility to ensure equal service throughout the country than what is being done today. It is about strengthening and expanding the service centers – not phasing them out, which is what is happening now. It is about ensuring that people can receive personal help, ask questions, and receive support in their contacts with authorities.

For us, the service centers are a key in this work. They bring several authorities under one and the same roof and make the state more manageable and accessible. Today's more than one hundred service centers are highly appreciated and, during 2024, had over 2.8 million visits as well as a satisfaction rate of 95 percent.

That is why it is so unfortunate that the government has chosen to cut significantly on the appropriation intended for the Statens servicecenter, with the justification that the agency has the "freedom" to choose for itself which service offices should be closed. Through this, one is supposed to be able to save 150 million. The government's reduction of the budget means that every fourth service office has been closed or will be closed, and it hits the citizen service all around Sweden at least hard. It has also been strongly criticized by both the affected municipalities and regions as well as SKR.

To weaken this presence is to accept increased gaps between city and country and between those who manage on their own digitally and those who do not. But it also risks weakening trust in the public sector, and without trust, public administration does not function.

Mr. Speaker! A strong public administration is not only efficient; it is also present. It is there where people need it. Therefore, I stand behind the reservation in the report that has united the entire opposition. It is pleasing that we collectively want to see an ambitious policy that strengthens local services, secures service offices throughout the country, and builds a society that holds together. It is welcome, and I look forward to our parties during the next parliamentary term jointly ensuring that more agency signs are screwed up, not down, around the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Public administration is the subject of this debate. What associations does the word pair public administration give you who are listening? For many, it might sound like something heavy, shapeless, stiff and square – like something immense.

For me, public administration is people – many, many people – who every day go to work and, based on their own circumstances, serve other people and this country in different ways. Closer to 1.5 million people in Sweden work today within public administration. It is everyone from police officers in field service and social workers in our municipalities to lecturers who teach at universities and officials within the Government Offices.

It is thus many who have a public employment, and it is we in this chamber – just like those who sit in municipal and regional assemblies – who provide the conditions for their jobs. It is also we who shall be held accountable if the conditions provided are not the right ones.

Mr. Speaker! What conditions do we politicians provide for these people, who work hard in many different professions? Sometimes they are anything but good, I unfortunately have to state. I intended to highlight this with a fresh example from the reality that I know well after my 14 years as a lawyer in state service.

I have been on leave from my job as a prosecutor for a few years now. This week I visited the prosecutor's office here in town, which is my regular workplace. It was, as always, very nice to meet my prosecutor colleagues there. They have, like others in public employment, to comply with the laws that we enact in this assembly. In recent years, some new legislation has been introduced that prosecutors have to follow. It is a lot to keep track of to ensure that everything is done correctly.

Mr. Speaker! Absolute reporting obligation was a novelty that I heard quite a bit about during my visit this week. It concerns the obligation to report to social services when children are harmed. Of course, that sounds good. The problem is only that prosecutors, who have quite a lot on their plates, very rarely are the ones who have direct contact with social services. That contact is instead handled by the police. It is the police who carry out what the prosecutor gives directives on, for example, to conduct interrogations.

The police have a duty to report to social services when children are mistreated. This legislation, which has been developed in great haste, unfortunately, in like much other legislation recently, gives prosecutors no exceptions whatsoever from this reporting obligation – not under any circumstances. Even if the police have made a report of concern to social services in the same case – regarding exactly the same matter – the prosecutor is therefore also obliged to perform this task.

I heard that this legislation was never sent out for consultation to operational prosecutor chambers. They had no opportunity to speak about how it looks in reality. It probably didn't happen; it is such a hurry.

Mr. Speaker! What do I want to say with the just-mentioned example? Hasty legislation imposes completely unnecessary extra work on hard-working people, which of course takes time and energy away from more pressing work tasks. It creates obvious frustration in the organization; I saw that among several prosecutor colleagues whom I met.

It does not stop there. The consequences of a completely different piece of legislation, for which the government will soon submit a proposition, have been touched upon by several previous speakers. A prosecutor who chooses not to make a report of concern will be prosecuted for the crime of official misconduct.

As several speakers have pointed out, it has been a big deal for the Tidö parties to push this through. I want to use my example to speak about the fact that there are people who will be affected by this in a way that I do not believe was intended. I sometimes get a bit tired when, in the debate, I hear politicians stating certain results of something, perhaps without they truly having contact with reality.

Mr. Speaker! For several years in a row, Sweden has shown a downward trend when Transparency International has released its corruption indices. It is a development that is worrying, to say the least. We simultaneously see how organized crime places people on the inside or bribes its way to various advantages. This is directly dangerous.

When organized crime seriously manages to eat its way into the body of society, we are dealing with pure and simple mafia. Our municipalities and regions are particularly vulnerable to such attacks. Representatives state that corruption has become increasingly common. Therefore, the Center Party considers it urgent to provide better support and better guidance to municipalities and regions. We know that Sweden has many small municipalities with rather limited resources. It is important to give them support so that they can notice such attacks and prevent them in time.

The work against corruption and infiltration must take place in a coordinated and synchronized manner to be successful. Knowledge needs to be spread so that we can counter a dangerous development. I therefore want to move for approval of reservation 1.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the Statens servicecenter. Regardless of where in the country you live, you have the right to service from our authorities. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we have a number of service offices around the country where several authorities in cooperation offer service to the office's visitors in order to meet the citizens' legitimate expectations.

What is happening right now is that many service offices are being closed. This does not align at all with the state's mission to provide the same service to all citizens, regardless of where in the country they live. This will have major consequences for both private individuals and companies that currently visit the service offices.

We in the Center Party consider state presence and service throughout the country to be absolutely necessary, and we want this service to be expanded instead. For us, it is clear that all citizens have the right to the same service, regardless of where in the country they live and regardless of what conditions they have to access the service.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I intended primarily to speak about the state service offices, but I must nevertheless reflect a little on what has been said here.

What I take away from the discussion is the clear and rather powerful approach of broadly attacking state and other public sector officials for being either irresponsible or activists. I may think it is a bit ungentlemanly to go that hard when it is not more specifically specified with either examples or locations. It means that a large number of people today may feel that they have been somewhat attacked without any reason whatsoever.

We have reason to return to this. I also naturally take with me that I must go home and sharpen my arguments in this context so that we can have productive debates on the matter moving forward. I think these are very important issues.

We have previously in the debate heard about the state service offices, and I am no better than to also want to say something about them.

In recent decades, the state's presence in regions and municipalities has been noted in various ways. Those of us who have been around for a while remember the large state investments in cities and municipalities to help counteract out-migration and unemployment. There were regional support areas, mainly in northern Sweden, to encourage companies to start or continue operations there through various forms of support. In the 80s, regional development funds were established to contribute to regional development through favorable loans and other support to small and medium-sized local companies.

Discussions also began regarding the relocation of state agencies to regional centers such as Karlstad, Borlänge, and Norrköping in order to thereby create jobs in locations judged to have both potential for and a need for development.

At that time, the number of educational institutions in the country was also expanded with colleges in cities such as Skövde, Halmstad, Östersund, and Kristianstad. This is no longer particularly controversial. Previous opponents of new colleges have seen them grow, conduct important research, and educate more and more people, to everyone's delight.

An important point is that the presence of state activities appears to have a positive impact on equality between men and women in the regional labor market. Wage differences across the country co-vary with the proportion of state employees; the state is assumed to have a more equal wage structure, while it may be somewhat less equal in private enterprises. Municipalities and regions lie in between.

It has also been shown that the regions with the smallest proportions of state employees, and thus also the largest differences, consist of a belt across southern Sweden, from Halland via Jönköping and Kronoberg to Kalmar county. It is one of several reasons why the state service offices are so important.

The state service centers, which are operations shared by Skatteverket, Arbetsförmedlingen, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Försäkringskassan, and sometimes also Migrationsverket, have been built up over the recent years. The intention was to maintain a presence in locations with smaller foundations through cooperation between several agencies in order to thus be able to remain and contribute to making it easier for people to live and work where they want.

Unfortunately, several of them have been closed during the current government. A return to a larger number of locations with service offices is desirable for several reasons, primarily as support for regional and local development but also to contribute to increased equality in regions and municipalities.

The Green Party's motion regarding the state service centers was prepared and debated in the Committee on Industry. I have no objections to that, but I naturally take the opportunity to also raise the matter here.

Mr. Speaker! The step from the Statens servicecenter to the county administrative boards is not so large, at least not in principle. The county administrative boards ensure a state and regional involvement in the county's development and can represent the state in important areas. We see this in many places in Sweden, and as I said earlier, the state presence in itself is significant. This means that proposals and motions to eventually phase out the county administrative boards should be rejected or argued against, depending on the situation.

It is important that the county administrative boards' role as coordinators and regional hubs for development issues is taken into account and developed. From what I understand from meetings at home with "my" county administrative board in Halland, there are areas that can be developed, both administratively and operationally. In this context, the funding of both core mandates and extra mandates also plays an important role, of course.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I intended to bring up digitalization and AI. They are, in and of themselves, two different areas, but they have clear points of contact.

I note that the government decided on a digitalization strategy during 2025, and a little later an AI strategy also arrived. The portal paragraph in both strategies is simple: Sweden shall be a world leader in both digitalization and AI. These are obviously laudable ambitions. Why should one not be the best?

But still, there are many initiatives to put effort and resources into in order to get closer to a podium position in the global digitalization and AI race. One large area is, of course, the citizen's communication and contacts with administrations, authorities, and "the public" in a broad sense.

There is something to be gained from Denmark, which has developed systems that are common to several agencies and departments. The recognition factor is high between different contact points, and not least the fact that one only needs to provide their details once feels like something desirable.

The committee proposes to reject the motions that have been raised, among other things with reference to ongoing work – which, one could say, is always the case – but there will certainly be more and very good proposals from members already this autumn again. In that case, it is important that there is an openness for this.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 2 under point 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)