The National Audit Office's report on the establishment of authorities outside Stockholm
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the establishment of authorities outside of Stockholm. SD calls for approval of the committee's proposal and argues that there is political consensus on relocation for regional development 1, as well as that the government's answers are sufficient 1. SD emphasizes that relocation must occur with wisdom so as not to harm efficiency or increase costs 1 2 3. S argues that there is a lack of consensus since the government has stopped new service offices 4 5, that the government's savings affect regional development 5 and that the goal of 150 offices should apply 6. S wants to see a continued program for relocation 5. S is not per se against mergers 7. M argues that the government has tools for evaluations and that the goal is for authorities to operate throughout the country 8. M considers it a political responsibility to weigh long-term benefits against short-term costs 8. V believes that relocations from Stockholm should continue and that the government should implement a new unified program 9. KD believes that the state has a responsibility for basic community services and highlights the government's investment in more service offices 10. C believes that local dialogue is important and that the focus should be on job opportunities 11. L believes that localization is a blunt tool and that the authorities' main mission is to perform their tasks in the best and most efficient way 12.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Speakers (15)
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! I begin this speech by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in report NU6 Riksrevisionen's report on the establishment of agencies outside Stockholm.
Today's debate takes its starting point from the fact that there is actually a political consensus in the Riksdag, from right to left, that it is desirable to, when possible, establish or relocate state agencies to places other than the capital region. The grounds for this are several, but one of the stated objectives is that it should stimulate regional development. A not entirely insignificant number of agencies have therefore been located outside the Stockholm area, and now the Riksrevisionen has thus chosen to audit whether the government's actions in this regard have lived up to the Riksdag's intentions.
It is good that the Swedish National Audit Office has allowed this to be audited, and as usual, it is interesting to take part in the Swedish National Audit Office's conclusions and recommendations. Since this is an issue that, among others, we Sverigedemokrater have pushed for several years in our committee motions on regional development, it is pleasing to note that the localization of agencies outside Stockholm has resulted in a, as it is expressed, "small but significant contribution to regional development." This is something we shall take note of.
In the contacts I myself have had within the framework of my political work with representatives of authorities, it has also been put forward – to varying degrees depending on the authority, it should be added – that it is not entirely uncomplicated to move authorities. It can be a matter of cooperation between authorities suffering, or, which is more common, that one loses important competence that does not move with them and that recruitment of the right competences at the new location of establishment is more difficult than anticipated.
Just the issue of competence supply seems to be a very important nut to crack in this context. Here, the National Audit Office also argues that the agencies' needs must be better matched against the regional labor markets during continued relocation and relocation of agencies to locations outside Stockholm.
As I have previously mentioned, there is a political consensus on the issue. This is clearly evident from the committee report, as there is only one follow-up motion due to the government's response to the National Audit Office's report. It is a follow-up motion from the Social Democrats which can also be considered to be in the same direction as the policy the government pursues in the area. I have moved for its rejection as I largely consider it to be knocking on already open doors. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we stand fully behind the other Tidö parties' position - that the government's response to the National Audit Office and, furthermore, the government's ambition in the area are fully sufficient.
In this context, I nevertheless want to emphasize that even though I have moved for a rejection of the Social Democrats' follow-up motion, I can actually allow myself to sympathize with some of what the motioners highlight. Unlike how it may be in some other debates, where we stand in our respective speaking stands and like political pugilists in the best way try to knock down each other's arguments on the merits, I will content myself in today's debate, which perhaps will not become the week's most medially noticed, with noting that we, in different wording, express approximately the same will.
The will, Madam Speaker, is for the state to demonstrate presence throughout the country as far as possible and to contribute to stimulating regional development with the help of the toolbox that policy possesses. One of the tools in that toolbox is precisely the state authorities and how the government chooses to locate them. In the best of worlds it would simply be – if one allowed oneself to dream freely – to establish them where it feels most regionally appropriate, without thought for housing and competence supply. But reality is a bit more complicated than that, which the Swedish National Audit Office's review usefully highlights.
I may be the first to speak in this debate today, but based on my experience from the committee and from these types of issues, I would still like to believe that even the opposition parties have a relatively balanced view on what is reasonable to do in this context - at least if they, like I do, are of the opinion that the state's presence out in the country must not occur at the expense of the authorities' ability to act effectively. Ultimately, it is about making decisions that do not lead to worsened agency service or significantly higher costs for the taxpayers. For if the relocation of state agencies were to lead to significantly higher costs or reduced efficiency, this must be weighed against other regional development measures, and that is a completely different debate.
As a Norrbotnian and Member of Parliament responsible for the policy area of regional development within my party, I welcome all proposals and measures aimed at providing a boost to Sweden's fantastic rural areas. In this specific issue, I feel secure in the government's stance. In fact, I can also find it satisfying that the opposition stands so close to us in substance. This at least guarantees a probable stability in this area moving forward in a political context where much else otherwise goes in very different directions and the wills diverge widely.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! That was an interesting contribution from Eric Palmqvist.
We have three reservations in the report, so we are not truly in agreement on the issue. When one looks at how the government acts and what one reads, there is not much that indicates that this government will continue to move agencies from Stockholm or from somewhere else in the country. For example, new service centers that were planned have been stopped. We had a plan that there would be 150 service centers by 2023. To date, there are 140, and now you have stated in the budget that no more should be established right now.
I would therefore like to assert that we do not share a common view on these issues, at least not if one reads what you in the SD-led government actually stand behind.
My question is: Do you really mean everything that Eric Palmqvist took up in his speech, and how will you implement it in that case? The answers from the government in the audit report are, in principle, the same as those from the previous, Social Democratic-led government.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Monica Haider, and thank you for the member finding my speech interesting!
Yes, it is true that the Social Democrats have three reservations that come from a supplementary motion to this statement. The three reservations are roughly in line with the ambitions that previous governments have had and which this government also has. In the response, the government also mentions that they already consider themselves to have the tools that you are requesting.
If the Swedish National Audit Office has expressed criticism regarding how some of the outsourcing has occurred and their efficiency, there is also a reason for the government to perhaps pull back a bit, analyze the points from the Swedish National Audit Office, and ensure that the outsourcing takes place in the best possible way. From the government's side, they have not said anywhere that this is not good or that they want to go in the opposite direction, but to take a pause and look at the actual circumstances and do it in a good way that does not create inefficiency regarding how we use tax funds should be a responsibility that every government has to take.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! Whatever we do at the state level, it is clear that we shall strive for efficiency. But the National Audit Office's report actually says that this has not been an obstacle to the agencies' efficiency in the slightly longer term. What the member says is therefore not quite true.
If we now think exactly the same, it is very strange that you do not vote for our follow-up motion, where we, among other things, request a continued program going forward for how we shall continue to localize authorities in the rest of the country and not just in Stockholm.
You have also proposed a number of mergers of agencies. It will be very interesting to see where the agencies will end up after the merger. Will it be in Stockholm, or will they end up where one part of the agency already exists?
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! It is not yet written in the stars where the merged agencies will end up. But some agencies have actually chosen to move back to Stockholm for one reason or another. It is not for all agencies that it is beneficial to be relocated out in the country. This is also what the National Audit Office has pointed out.
Then one must keep in mind that we have somewhere around 350 authorities in the country. The National Audit Office has audited about forty of these, three of which in depth. There is well a good reason for the government to look closely at the conclusions that have been drawn from the authorities that have been audited and any parallels to the authorities that might be next in line.
I hope that lessons will be learned from this. I maintain that it is good if authorities that are suitable are moved out into the country. This has been Sverigedemokratisk policy for a long time. I know that it has been the previous government's policy, and I perceive that it is also the current government's policy, but that it should happen with wisdom and forethought.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Enterprise's report 6, the National Audit Office's report on the establishment of authorities outside Stockholm, and I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 and 2.
Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office's report shows that the relocation of agencies has occurred in the areas that the Riksdag has prioritized, but it has not been sufficient to achieve a more even distribution between Stockholm and the rest of the country. More powerful measures were needed for the distribution to become more even.
The Swedish National Audit Office also makes the assessment that the relocation decisions have provided a small but significant contribution to regional development and that they have not been any obstacle to the agencies' efficiency in the long term. It also entails certain advantages to move out into the country, for example lower operating costs.
As a resident of Kronoberg – we have had the Agency for Youth and Civil Society Issues moved to Växjö – I also know that very valuable jobs are coming to the regions where the agencies are moved.
The National Audit Office's recommendations to the government are that, in continued new and relocation projects, the agencies should be matched with the regional labor market where there is a suitable supply of labor. One should also avoid placing operations that require specialist competence near the metropolitan areas if the purpose is to contribute to regional development, and that has been the case in most instances.
Madam Speaker! The previous Social Democratic government had stated goals that no new agencies should be placed in Stockholm and that state agencies or parts of agencies should be actively relocated. The government made 21 decisions concerning 20 different agencies. But that is not enough, and that journey must continue. That is why we want to see a program for the relocation and relocation of agencies that can be implemented in the coming years. This was clear in the national strategy for sustainable development across the entire country that we developed during the last parliamentary term. We did that, among other things, to maintain the legitimacy of and trust in the public administration.
The previous government also tasked the Swedish Agency for Work Environment and Working Life (Arbetsgivarverket) to, for those agencies that have office premises in Stockholm but are headquartered in another county, report on changes regarding which counties the agencies' staff were located in during the period 2018-2022. The analysis actually shows that there are no signs of an increased localization of employees to Stockholm without them actually being located where the agency's headquarters were. The proportion of employees at the 31 agencies that were analyzed remained largely unchanged during these years, except in cases where a decision on relocation had actually been made.
We have previously agreed that we need to relocate state jobs and state services out into the country, but when one reads the budgets and so on now, it seems that the SD government does not want to continue with this. What we see is that agencies are instead being placed in Stockholm again: The new Payment Authority will be located in Hammarby sjöstad instead of in Södertälje, and the management of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority is to be moved from Katrineholm to Stockholm. We Social Democrats think that is bad.
The Social Democratic government began with a major expansion of service offices throughout Sweden. Up until 2022, there were 120 offices, and today there are 140. The latest was inaugurated in Sollentuna yesterday, and it was number 140. But then it stops – the government has decided to at least not now open more. The goal that the Social Democrats set was that we should have 150 offices at the end of 2023.
The question is what happens now regarding the localization of agencies given the budget that applies for the current year. There, we can read that Arbetsgivarverket assesses that the administrative cost for 2024 is 4 ½ percent higher than for 2023. The saving that the government places on all the state agencies means, however, that they only get 2.9 percent.
What consequences does this have then? Yes, for example, Statens servicecenter is to save 90 services. Försäkringskassan is to save 450 services, and we can now also read that Skatteverket is laying off 7 people in Sollefteå, 19 people in Växjö, 10 people in Jönköping and an additional 64 people in other places around Sweden. As I mentioned in the exchange of remarks earlier, one is also investigating mergers of ten agencies, and then the question is where the agencies will end up once they are merged.
Public service is very important for the countryside. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the government is saving and stopping the establishment of new service offices when we actually need more offices, not fewer. We can also see that the savings on our various agencies will affect regional development. It concerns county administrative boards, Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, Statens servicecenter, among others, where state jobs will disappear across the country due to savings.
Regional development policy is the entire political field. What is done in budgets affects regional development and state services throughout the country. Therefore, it is important to have a program for continued new and relocation of agencies in the coming years.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by apologizing for accidentally pressing the button for agreement before I requested the floor. Monica Haider cannot, unfortunately, take too much offense at my agreement with her speech, as it was not intentional.
Member Haider mentions, among other things, an agency in Södertälje and that it would be unfortunate if it moved to Stockholm. It is precisely that type of agency that the National Audit Office actually points out, as those agencies that have ended up near Stockholm have not at all had any favorable effect when it comes to attracting jobs in other places. In those cases, it is the commuting distance that, so to speak, is decisive. That agencies ending up near metropolitan regions is thus pointed out as a less successful form of relocation. That was the one thing I intended to ask how the member thinks about.
Then Statens servicecenter is also mentioned. Statens servicecenter is actually something very good, but if we have 140 offices and 290 municipalities, the country is still becoming quite well covered. In southern Sweden, where I have my origins, some municipalities are extremely small. One might live in Lomma but spend time in Lund, Malmö, or somewhere else during the day, and I see no added value in having service offices extremely close to each other. One perhaps still has to consider how densely they should be located. If it is the case that more are needed in rural areas, I am not opposed to that, and I do not believe the government is either.
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! Now, the thing is that the placement of the Swedish Payments Agency is not any relocation. It is because it is a new agency that is to be started. It does not exist today, and therefore it may be that the situation is a bit different. Then everyone is given the opportunity to apply for jobs, even those who are in Södertälje. Otherwise, the member is completely right regarding what the Swedish National Audit Office says about not placing agencies near the metropolitan regions, but this is a new establishment and no relocation.
I do not agree regarding the service centers. I naturally think it is important that one has close proximity to one's service center, and our plan was that we would have 150 offices at the end of 2023. We think that goal should still apply.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! The report that the government has responded to concerns the new establishment or relocation of authorities, so the criticism concerns precisely the same thing - just to make that matter clear.
Then, Member Haider also raises the issue of the merger of agencies, i.e., that a number of mergers of agencies are proposed. Unfortunately, I have forgotten the figures, but earlier today I looked on Google how many agencies Sweden has had. We have had an incredibly large number of agencies. Agencies are, therefore, something that over time have been merged; it is not that it started a few years ago, but I believe that it has occurred to a large extent even during the governments that Monica Haider herself has belonged to or sympathized with.
I wonder: Is it a problem in itself that one rationalizes and merges agencies if one perceives that the agencies have partially similar mandates and areas of responsibility, or is there perhaps a gain to be made in this? Every agency, after all, has its management and its structure which makes it cost money, and sometimes one can rationalize in a way that is good for – or at least does not disadvantage – the operations and which benefits the taxpayers by making it cheaper. Does Monica Haider have a principled opposition to merging agencies?
Monica Haider (S)
Madam Speaker! I believe that the greatest reduction in the number of authorities occurred when single authorities were established, for example, for Försäkringskassan and the police. There was an office in each county, and it was there that the largest merger of the authorities took place. In that way, you are therefore correct, Eric Palmqvist, but it did not mean that the authorities moved. They remained in their respective places.
We are not per se against the merging of agencies. There can absolutely be reasons for that. What I raised in my speech was that it will be interesting to see where they end up, for example when it concerns the Agency for Occupational Health Knowledge and the Swedish Work Environment Authority where one is to be integrated into the other. One agency is currently located in Gävle and the other in Solna.
It will be very interesting to see where the authorities will end up. There is a risk that they will end up in Stockholm again, and that is what we are worried about.
Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)
Madam Speaker! This debate concerns the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report on the relocation of state agencies between 2004 and 2020.
Before I go into that, I would like to start by thanking the Swedish National Audit Office for the reports they produce. These reports provide an important insight into and review of the status in the various areas where different issues and questions are examined.
Governments, regardless of color, usually respond that they fully or partially share what the Swedish National Audit Office concludes should be done based on the recommendations they provide. Sometimes the recommendations given are adopted fully, sometimes partially, and sometimes not at all. The Government then describes, based on how they view the matter, why it is not feasible or why they choose a different way forward.
In this report, the Swedish National Audit Office points out that it is a political question to determine whether the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. Therefore, those considerations must be included. Of course, it is a political responsibility, which will be evident in this motion.
For those of you following the debate, the process is that when the National Audit Office has submitted its report, the government submits its view on the aspects that have emerged and issues a communication. After that, the National Audit Office's report, with the government's response, becomes a committee report with the committee's aspects from the Riksdag. Then follows debate and decision, and that is where we are now.
Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office has reviewed the state's presence outside Stockholm during the years 2004 to 2020 and concludes that the Riksdag's expectations regarding the placement of agencies outside Stockholm have been partially met.
The National Audit Office also notes that the authorities that have been audited do not have any major long-term problems regarding where they are located, and it is argued that they are placed in regions that can meet their needs for labor. It also notes that authorities have been placed in locations that the Riksdag prioritizes and that the authorities' presence to some extent has contributed to the region's development, something we have also heard previously.
From the Swedish National Audit Office, it is said that the state jobs during the period under review, 2004 to 2020, have increased slightly in concentration to Stockholm, and it is said that the government's efforts have resulted in the development being slowed down.
The National Audit Office also says that the goal of a more even distribution of state jobs requires powerful measures. At the same time, the National Audit Office says that we have known since before that there are significant negative consequences in the short term of relocating agencies. In that context, just as I mentioned, it is pointed out that the benefits and costs in the short and long term are a political question.
The National Audit Office also says that if more agencies are to be relocated to locations outside of Stockholm, it is recommended that the government continues to match these with regional labor markets where there is a suitable supply of labor.
The Swedish National Audit Office has conducted three case studies where they reason what benefits and what disadvantages depending on location and opportunities. With the thought that it is not solely positive factors or factors that disadvantage, I want to highlight a reasoning put forward by the Swedish National Audit Office in the report.
When looking at examples where one wants to achieve a benefit by adding activities, for instance when something else has been removed from the area or when one is to establish or partially relocate an activity, it turns out to be concerning as the labor market region concerned has relatively poor economic, geographical and demographic conditions. So it says in one of the examples that is raised, and it is compared with other regions that have received agencies during the same period, i.e. 2004 to 2020.
Government localization decisions can have relatively great significance for a region, as I have mentioned. At the same time, it states in the report that the recruitment situation will likely be made more difficult. This means that the agency's ability is affected such that they cannot conduct their operations effectively.
I think it is good that these different parameters and the complexity of what one wants to achieve are described so that one understands the parts we are discussing here, i.e., what it is that makes one sometimes choose not to locate agencies outside of Stockholm. Based on previous audits, the Swedish National Audit Office assumes that it takes five years for an agency to establish itself in a new location.
Madam Speaker! The Government submits that there are different aspects to consider when it comes to decisions regarding the location of state agencies. We share the view that several parameters play a role in the individual cases of location.
The time we live in now sheds light on our world and thus on how we build up resilience as well as efficiency and competence with state presence and regional development. There is no self-purpose for agencies to be located in Stockholm - on the contrary. This shall be tested all the time, and the government also says that it is doing so.
The Government has answered the Swedish National Audit Office that they currently have the tools they consider necessary to conduct ongoing evaluations and follow-ups. Therefore, we do not see that the Riksdag should review this.
We have seen that the government itself agrees with the National Audit Office that the measures and localization decisions that have been implemented so far have not been sufficient. The answer is that this is being followed. No other direction will be taken than what has been presented here today. It is not about any centralization, but rather that the government wants authorities to operate throughout the country.
With this, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.
Birger Lahti (V)
Madam Speaker! We are discussing the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the establishment of authorities outside of Stockholm.
The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the government's localization of agencies in locations outside of Stockholm has lived up to the Riksdag's intentions. The audit covers 46 agencies that were fully or partially localized outside of Stockholm between 2004 and 2020. Of these, three agencies have primarily been examined to answer the question of whether the agencies, after having had time to establish themselves, have any significant problems performing their tasks because they are located outside of Stockholm. The three agencies are Arbetsförmedlingen, Elsäkerhetsverket, and Naturvårdsverket.
The National Audit Office notes that the government has located agencies in the geographical areas that, according to the Riksdag, should be prioritized, but that the measures have not been sufficient to achieve a more even distribution of state jobs.
Madam Speaker! According to the Swedish National Audit Office, more powerful measures are required if the government is to achieve a more even distribution of state jobs between Stockholm and other parts of the country. Previous audits have shown that relocations are often costly in the short term, which, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, means that the long-term benefit of relocation decisions must be weighed against the short-term negative consequences.
In this context, the Swedish National Audit Office highlights that the trend of increased remote work opens up more opportunities for the government and the authorities to handle the localization issue, something that became very relevant during the pandemic – it worked. The possibility of remote work can, for example, make it easier for certain authorities to recruit in more locations than in the regions where they have workplaces.
The National Audit Office assesses that the localization decisions have made a small but significant contribution to regional development. The National Audit Office assesses, however, that agencies that have been placed in regions near major cities and which have a high proportion of employees living in the major cities contribute relatively little to regional development, something we heard in a previous exchange of remarks.
Furthermore, the Swedish National Audit Office assesses that it does not constitute an obstacle to the agencies' efficiency in the long term that they are located outside of Stockholm.
The National Audit Office also highlights that the localization of agencies outside Stockholm can entail certain advantages, for example regarding operating costs.
The legitimacy of the state is strengthened if authorities have regional distribution and local presence. It is, of course, what is expected of state authorities – that they are respected. The state service is also important for local and regional development as well as when it comes to enabling people to live and work in the whole country. The presence does not only have a symbolic value. It also contributes to job opportunities, growth, confidence in the future and development.
There has previously been an ambition for change, and a great effort has been made to decentralize state agencies. As part of countering centralization and instead ensuring a state presence throughout the country, the previous government pushed for the relocation and relocation of agencies. The current government, however, lacks the will for change that I believe is required. Instead of continuing with a policy that has been successful, the government chooses to centralize functions and workplaces.
But before I continue to praise the previous government, I must also be honest. We have seen the same tendency regardless of the color of the governments. Stockholm has often been the winner when it comes to the locations of state agencies. Vänsterpartiet considers it remarkable that the government chooses an opposite strategy. We heard which agencies have gone the wrong way, as the Social Democrat Monica Haider pointed out.
We mean that Sweden instead needs to continue to be tied together, with equal conditions and new job opportunities throughout the country. All around the country, regions stand ready to join forces with the state to offer the establishment of new or relocated agencies.
The National Audit Office's report provides support that the previously pursued policy has contributed positively to the development, and it is therefore important to establish that relocations from Stockholm should continue. The Riksdag should therefore demand that the government develops and implements a new comprehensive program for the relocation and relocation of agencies that can be carried out during the coming years.
I cannot help but mention that this obviously is connected to state-owned companies. And I am glad that these debates follow one another.
I am thinking, for example, of Övertorneå municipality, which is losing Postnord. I do not know if they have anything left at all that could be called a state presence. It is the same thing with the vehicle inspection. We have heard examples of that the mobile vehicle inspection has been discontinued. I agree that the market handles this. But how expensive does a vehicle inspection become for people who live in peripheral parts of the country? The way to inspect the car might be 20 mil or more. The state presence has been withdrawn for a long time, and that worries me.
When one begins to relocate government agencies, it is clear that there is a difference if, for example, one says: In four years, we will move parts of this operation to Jokkmokk. Then it will probably work. But one must have long-term perspective when talking about such things.
Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1, which I have together with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna.
Cecilia Engström (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the Committee on Industry's report regarding the National Audit Office's report on the establishment of authorities outside of Stockholm.
For the Christian Democrats, it is fundamental that all of Sweden shall live and that one shall be able to have a strong society regardless of where in the country one lives. We politicians shall not tell people where it is best for them to live or live, or where they should move. But we shall create the conditions so that the individual can fulfill their dreams of a good life, regardless of whether one wants to move to the big city or away from it.
Mr. Speaker! According to the National Audit Office's assessment, the government is working continuously on the issue of state presence throughout the country, even if the efforts have not been sufficient. The state has a responsibility to ensure that basic public services are available where they are needed and when they are needed. For this, there are many different tools, and what we have to focus on here today is in what way the establishment of agencies outside Stockholm functions and in what way we best achieve the goal of a cohesive Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! We particularly want to highlight this government's initiative for more service centers. It is a form of one-stop-shop from the individual's perspective. There, residents can meet several important state agencies - Arbetsförmedlingen, Skatteverket, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Försäkringskassan - in one and the same place.
Our Minister for Civil Affairs, the Christian Democrat Erik Slottner, is inaugurating new service offices for the smooth life, I was about to say, among other places in Järfälla and in Solna. The question is whether Stockholmers need more. The state is indeed very present in Stockholm with very many headquarters for agencies and state works. But the answer is as simple as it is obvious. From the individual resident's perspective, it is completely uninteresting whether the Försäkringskassan headquarters is in Stockholm, Karlstad, Eslöv, or Vilhelmina. But the services that, among others, Försäkringskassan offers must be there where people are, regardless of where in the country they live.
Mr. Speaker! There may be occasions when it is wise for an agency to be located far from Stockholm. These are decisions that must be made in a specific order. Every decision must be weighed both in the short term and the long term, and it must stand on its own merits. But for the Christian Democrats, it is important that the state services that the individual needs are available where they live and reside. That work is already underway, and I am pleased that the government has indicated that it intends to continue in that direction.
Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all motions.
Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)
Mr. Speaker! That all of Sweden shall live is an incredibly important part of the Centre Party's policy. The review that we are debating today covers 46 agencies out of the 350 agencies that exist. Among these are three agencies that have been investigated to answer the question: Is there any problem when agencies are established outside of Stockholm, and if so, have those problems been solved?
The three authorities are Arbetsförmedlingen, Elsäkerhetsverket and Naturvårdsverket. I think that limits the conclusions a little bit.
Previous reviews have shown that relocations are often costly in the short term, which, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, means that the long-term benefit of relocation decisions must be weighed against the short-term negative consequences.
It is not very clear what the short and the long term actually are for something.
But here, the Swedish National Audit Office points out in any case that the trend of remote work opens up more opportunities for the government and the authorities to handle the localization issue. It is good that the Swedish National Audit Office and also the government have understood that remote work has actually completely overturned previous ways of thinking about where the state's work should be located.
The overall conclusion is, in any case, that the localization of agencies in locations outside Stockholm has partially lived up to the Riksdag's intentions. The National Audit Office assesses that the localization decisions have provided a small but positive contribution to regional development, while at the same time the government's localization decisions have not compromised the agencies' ability to conduct their activities effectively in the long term.
The National Audit Office recommends that the government in the future consider matching agencies with regional labor markets where there is a suitable supply of labor in order to avoid problems for the agencies' operations in the long term.
It is a good conclusion. But I have read the government's response many times and tried to understand it. It says as follows:
"The Government emphasizes that it is important to have a state presence throughout the country, including to contribute to fulfilling the goal of the regional development policy. At the same time, it is important that authorities conduct their activities efficiently, regardless of where in the country they are located."
It sounds like the government thinks this is good, but that there is some hesitation as to whether it can really be carried out in a good way. It is truly difficult to discern what is effective.
I, who grew up – and now live part-time – in Jämtland, know how important these job opportunities are. They enable more people to move there together, because there are different types of job opportunities locally, and they build networks and knowledge locally. They build a web of knowledge between startup companies and established companies. They also build a trust that authorities exist locally and that authority figures are not always far away – you can actually meet them at Ica.
For me, efficiency is about reaching one's goals in a cost-effective way. Certain agencies, for example those dealing with finance, should of course be located in Stockholm - it is nearest there. Many other agencies, however, have a much better home outside of Stockholm. Very few agencies need to sit in Stockholm's inner city, even if it happens to be my constituency. It is the most expensive there, and it is not always the most efficient.
Something that is not touched upon at all by either the Swedish National Audit Office or the government is the need for local dialogue before establishments outside of Stockholm. It is something that the Center Party considers to be completely necessary. This dialogue should be long-term in order to identify what types of agency tasks should and can be performed outside of Stockholm. Job opportunities and competence are more important than the number of agencies in themselves. It is therefore not about moving as many agencies as possible, but it is about job opportunities.
The government could, for example, task the County Administrative Board with identifying which types of agency tasks could be assigned to the respective counties. Then, the political program statements regarding the establishment of agencies would not be so important, but instead, a continuous dialogue would be held about where the work is best performed. We believe this is good for both local and national efficiency.
Louise Eklund (L)
Mr. Speaker! We are currently debating the Swedish National Audit Office's review of what the relocation of state agencies outside of Stockholm has entailed. I believe that based on this review, we can conclude that the localization of agencies is a rather blunt tool for achieving regional development and growth.
The Riksrevision's overall conclusion is that the government's placement of agencies in locations outside of Stockholm has partially lived up to the Riksdag's intentions, which is good. It is also good that the geographical areas that the government's localization decisions have been directed towards align well with the priority order that the Riksdag has expressed.
At the same time, it is very clear that the government's localization decisions have not been sufficient to strengthen the state presence outside of Stockholm. We see how other policies and other factors have a significantly greater impact on the distribution of state jobs between Stockholm and other parts of the country. This, in turn, has led to an increased concentration of state jobs in the Stockholm region – hence my observation that just the localization of agencies seems to be a somewhat blunt tool. Other factors have more influence.
With that said, as has been established here in the chamber, we can see that the localization decisions have brought a small positive contribution to regional development for the regions where authorities have been placed, and this is not at all unimportant.
Mr. Speaker! It is important to state, just as the Swedish National Audit Office does, that the issue of location must never overshadow the primary mission, namely that authorities should be able to carry out their mandate in the best possible way. The Swedish National Audit Office states that the government's location decisions have not compromised the authorities' opportunities to conduct their activities in an efficient and productive manner, and that is good. Now, it is true that only three authorities have been examined in depth, but these have not had any significant problems performing their tasks because they are located in places outside Stockholm. If one, like I, comes from the provinces, it is pleasant to be able to state that even we who do not live in Stockholm can do sensible things.
The sample is perhaps too small for us to be able to say anything general, but a conclusion that seems to be able to be drawn from this is that one, if one is to outsource in the way that has been intended, must have thought through what is the best matching with the local labor market and the labor market region.
Mr. Speaker! I perceive that an important conclusion can be drawn from the National Audit Office's report, namely that the primary mandate for agencies must be that they should perform their mission in the best and most efficient way. Using the placement of agencies as a tool for regional development has limited benefits, both for the regions themselves and, perhaps especially, for the agencies. As the National Audit Office states: The agencies' benefit of being located in places outside Stockholm is limited.
I vote in favor of the Committee on Industry's proposal for a decision.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.