Government administration and statistics issues

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! The state's governance of Sweden is one of the most fundamental areas we can discuss here in the chamber. How the state organizes itself, how authorities are governed, and how political decisions are implemented in practice largely determines how our society functions. Therefore, I am somewhat surprised that the interest in these issues is sometimes limited, which we can see, for example, in the short list of speakers for this debate. How we use the taxpayers' money in the best possible way is crucial for all parties. It is also the starting point for this committee report on state administration and statistics.

Madam Speaker! The state's management model for how one moves from political decisions to concrete change in operations is crucial for how we will in the future make the resources suffice for all the areas that we want to prioritize. In the budget bills for 2024 and 2025, the government has clearly established that citizen benefit, efficiency, and simplifications shall be the guiding principles for the state's operations. The state administration has also been open to reassessment and prioritization. These are important principles. Politics is ultimately about prioritizing, not just what we shall do but also what we shall not do, and about how we weigh all societal interests against one another.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time of rapid change. The world is changing at a pace that we perhaps have not truly experienced before. During recent years, not least the last months and the last days, we have seen how political, economic, and security policy changes have affected the conditions for our society. It also means that the state must become better at adapting. The only real constant in the future may very well be our ability to change ourselves. The society that manages this best is the society that adapts its institutions and governance fastest. That society will also be the one that succeeds best economically and socially in the future.

Madam Speaker! Today, the state's governance is largely organized around individual departments and agencies. Each agency has its mandate, area of responsibility, and sometimes its goals. It is fundamentally a functioning model, but it also entails certain limitations. Coordination between the different parts of the state is sometimes difficult to carry out. Decisions within one area can have major consequences within another. Therefore, we need to work to a greater extent with governance that ensures that the whole of society is preserved.

Madam Speaker! When one speaks of change work, it is sometimes said that there are two fundamental questions: to do things right and to do the right things. Let me begin with the first question: that we do things right.

State governance must be clear, goal-oriented, and focused on results. The authorities must have a clear mandate but also the conditions to work effectively. There is great potential here to develop processes and methods of work within the state. Digitalization is an important tool, and artificial intelligence will in a very short time have great significance for how we organize our work and how the processes will look in the future. It will be the foundation of the change work. Much of it will characterize the future of authorities and agencies.

We can see this transition in several countries in our global environment. Estonia and Singapore are brilliant examples of countries that are fundamentally changing their processes and creating more utility with fewer resources for their citizens. The government has therefore tasked Statskontoret and Ekonomistyrningsverket with developing methods to better be able to review the state's activities and expenditures. Riksrevisionen also performs so-called efficiency audits, which aim to assess whether resources are used effectively and whether decisions made lead to changes. This is an important step. Furthermore, there are plans to merge these agencies to further strengthen the work with follow-up, analysis, and efficiency in the state.

Madam Speaker! Another important part of doing things right concerns economic follow-up and cost control. The state must continuously follow up on how resources are used. Sometimes it can mean that operations need to be streamlined or reprioritized. A method that is sometimes used is to apply the so-called "cheese slicer principle," which means that all operations must contribute to savings. The method yields approximately 1.1 billion every year and is, in the long run, part of the continuous improvement work. However, it is not always the most efficient and accurate method. It hits just as hard at efficient as at less efficient operations. But in some situations, it can function as a starting point for a broader streamlining effort.

Madam Speaker! The Government has received the investigation report A more effective organization of smaller agencies. The investigation shows that the state's organization can be simplified in some parts. It proposes, among other things, that eleven smaller agencies be phased out, that nine agencies be integrated into others, and that tasks from seven agencies be moved to other parts of the state administration. It clearly illustrates that there is a potential to make the state's organization both simpler and more efficient.

Madam Speaker! The work of change is not just about doing things right. It is also about doing the right things. An agency usually has a clearly defined mandate, but decisions within one area have major consequences within other parts of society. This means that the state must become better at weighing different perspectives. Rules and decisions must be analyzed based on consequences for society as a whole, not just for an individual operation. This applies in particular to rules that affect companies, the labor market, and investments.

The government has therefore given a large number of agencies a mandate to work with changes for companies. The purpose is to reduce the regulatory burden and administrative costs and to improve the contact between companies and agencies. It is an important task to ensure Sweden's competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! We are facing a clear paradigm shift regarding how the state needs to work. The public administration of the future must be more flexible, more efficient, and more result-oriented. It must be better at reviewing activities, better at prioritizing, and better at using new technology that provides new opportunities. In short: We need a state organization that is constantly developing and adapting to the needs of society.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I think we debate far too little administrative policy, even in this chamber. It is quite strange actually, because administrative policy is about something as fundamental as how the state functions in practice. It is about how our agencies are to carry out their mandates, how the government governs the state, and how we ensure that our common resources are used in a wise manner.

There are clear goals for the state administration. It shall be efficient, legally secure, and accessible. Ultimately, it is about trust: When people in Sweden pay taxes, they should know that the money is being used in the right way – that every tax krona goes towards welfare and towards solving the problems that exist in society.

Ultimately, this is therefore a question of trust in the state. But for that very reason, it also becomes serious when the state does not live up to expectations.

Madam Speaker! During the autumn of 2025, the SD government decided to stop the Swedish Payments Authority's work on a system for transaction accounts, that is to say, that they would handle the payments for other authorities. According to the authority itself, that work has cost 200 million kronor – 200 million tax kronor. Those are funds that now, in practice, risk being wasted.

The most remarkable thing about this is that it was the SD government itself that gave the assignment to the agency from the beginning. At the same time, there were already warnings about the risks of such a system in the budget proposal that the government received before 2023. But the SD government still chose to proceed, and two years later, they overturned their own decision.

When the state first ordered a system and then stopped after 200 million had already been spent, it is difficult to call it anything other than a lack of governance – or more bluntly: a very expensive mistake. The least one can demand is that the government can clearly explain why. But so far, we have not received such an answer.

The government refers to new security information. But at the same time, media reports show that the same concerns were raised as early as 2022. When 200 million kronor of the taxpayers' money has been spent, the government must nevertheless be able to account for what has happened.

The consequence of this failure is also that the Swedish Pensions Agency now receives a more limited mandate. Despite several opportunities, both in the Committee on Finance and in interpellation debates, the SD government has also been unable to provide any sensible answer as to why this new limited mandate was given to the Swedish Pensions Agency.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, one thing is perfectly clear: the fight against economic crime must continue, and it must be intensified. Recently, the Expert Group for Studies in Public Finance presented a report with new and very alarming figures. The criminal economy in Sweden is now estimated to turn over 352 billion kronor.

The profits from this activity are estimated at 185 billion kronor. This is far more than the previous estimates of around 100 billion that have been reported. These are funds that in many cases are taken from our common systems – from welfare, from the safety systems, and from the state. These are funds that should go to school, healthcare, and elderly care, but instead end up in criminal networks.

Against that background, it is good that the Swedish Payments Agency is now in place. It was the Social Democratic government that took the initiative for the agency and the current government that completed the work.

Since 2024, the Disbursement Authority (Utbetalningsmyndigheten) has been in operation. It has already shown results. Recoveries of over 100 million kronor have been made. This shows that the competence exists and that coordination between authorities can make a real difference.

That is precisely why the government's erratic governance is so regrettable. When one first pushes forward a system and then stops it after 200 million has been spent, it sends completely wrong signals.

Madam Speaker! Now the government says that the Swedish Pensions Agency's mandate shall be purified to detect and stop incorrect payments. That is important. But the question is: Is it enough?

We Social Democrats believe that the authority should be given a clearer mandate in the fight against the criminal economy. We want to give the authority a tool to pinpoint the gang criminals. By mapping and following money flows, one can actually ensure that the financing of criminal activities is choked off.

It is not only the Social Democrats who are saying this. The Swedish Payments Authority itself is requesting such a mandate. It is supported by both the Police Authority and the Swedish Economic Crime Authority.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that efficient state administration is fundamentally about three things: accountability, clear governance, and respect for the taxpayers' money. When 200 million kronor risk being wasted, it is reasonable to demand answers. When the criminal economy grows, the state must use all available tools to stop it. It is precisely that direction that we Social Democrats want to see. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Peder Björk, for a lively debate and discussion on an area that we both consider immensely important! I think the Member's contribution testifies to a knowledge of how to handle money. But if one initiates and carries out a process concerning technology, for example a system for payment, the outside world can influence the goal during the course of the process, and the goal can shift gradually.

I am quite sure that the cost of programming and the cost of setting up systems will be halved. In the near future, it will not cost much at all to program the largest types of data management. The cost going forward will therefore decrease drastically if one chooses to do this.

The second is, of course, a security issue. Is it good to have a single system where one collects all payments? There may be security and redundancy issues that have changed during the course of the period. They certainly have.

With that, I want to say that a responsible management of the economy is not only about what has happened previously but also about what will happen moving forward. If one sees that a system that was started several years ago does not meet today's requirements for economy and administration, and also on security, if one sees that it is a completely different situation now, it is irresponsible not to proceed with that type of change.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not actually perceive any question from the member, but I interpret the member's contribution as a defense speech for the government – a defense speech for having wasted 200 million tax kronor. It is 200 million kronor that could have been used for so much else and for so much more.

The issue of the Payment Authority's scrapping of the transaction account is not something that has arisen in the last year, the last two years, or even the last three years. In fact, several authorities warned about this already in connection with the authority's establishment. In connection with the organizing committee carrying out its work, several authorities stated that one should not proceed with a transaction account.

Still, this government and its coalition partners chose to include this in their agreement, in the Tidö Agreement. They chose to push through a change that several agencies and an organizational committee had been against from the start and continued to oppose. Still, they let it go so far that they wasted 200 million kronor.

Since the member does not have a question for me, I will take the opportunity to ask a question to the member. If we share the view that it is important to have a payment authority, does the member share the view that the authority should be given a much more pointed mandate to pinpoint the gang criminals in order to access their economic resources?

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

Adam Reuterskiöld (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Peder Björk for the debate here!

I hear what the member thinks. A sunk cost is, of course, also a cost, but it does not get any better because one puts more resources into it. It is often what we hear from parties on the left wing – that more resources is the answer to all questions. But to put more resources into a system that perhaps does not correspond to the needs we have in the future is not a good way to work.

What we have instead devoted ourselves to and what the government has implemented during the recent years is what has been desperately needed for many years, especially in previous years: to remove secrecy rules and ensure that every agency can exchange information. That one does not collect everything in one agency but distributes the responsibility across several, I believe, is crucial for combating welfare crime.

That was somewhat what I spoke about in my speech, Madam Speaker. The important thing here is to initiate a change process within agencies and authorities – not to build large, complex systems but rather to cooperate, be more flexible and be able to adapt better to the needs that arise and adapt to new technology.

It is also a matter that we within politics see that we must begin to work with all the 367 agencies we have. We must work much more efficiently and much more broadly with them and ensure that they cooperate with one another. It is precisely such changes that we have implemented during the last parliamentary term.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! What I and the Social Democrats want to convey is precisely the opposite of what the member claims we want.

These 200 million should never have been wasted at all. It is not about that more money should have been spent on this. It is about that one should have put a stop to it much earlier.

And we still have not received any explanation from the SD government as to why this stop was made. But it can be stated that at least 200 million kronor are wasted because one had an image and an ideologically driven perception that this would be carried out instead of taking in the warning signals that came from the authorities and instead of looking at the possibilities to develop the Swedish Payments Authority in a different way. Therefore, this government has now wasted 200 million kronor that could definitely have been used in a better way – not least to go after gang crime and economic crime.

I also think it is unfortunate that the Moderaterna do not see the need to give a much clearer and more pointed mandate to the Swedish Tax Agency, which would involve pinpointing the gang criminals and going after them when they evade taxes or, for that matter, exploit our common welfare and the money that we collectively put in there and which is now being used to feed the criminal economy. That is where the Moderaterna and this government should focus instead of burning 200 million kronor on a transaction account that everyone warned about before proceeding with it.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker and honorable members! Hello to everyone listening and watching from home! I am here today as a defense policy spokesperson and am making a contribution to the Finance Committee's debate on the subject of state administration and statistical issues.

It may seem strange – why bring defense policy into the budget debate when it is not about the budget? One could ask that. Yes, it is a bit strange. I am going to talk about one of the defense sector's most important agencies: Fortifikationsverket. It is the agency responsible for all construction, all property management, and all training grounds for the Armed Forces. It is no small task, as you understand. It is absolutely crucial for the expansion and the growth that all parties agree needs to occur within the entire total defense to actually be able to happen. Without garages, offices, laundry halls, hangars, piers, runways, and training grounds, there is no military defense.

What does the Fortifikationsverket have to do here in this finance debate? Why am I not standing here with my defense policy colleagues discussing this important issue? Well, because Fortifikationsverket is a finance agency. The agency is not considered to belong to the defense area but falls under the Ministry of Finance and thus also the Committee on Finance – perhaps quite far down on the long priority list of finance. This must be rectified.

Madam Speaker! We defense politicians are now receiving very many important messages and requests from the total defense sector regarding what is needed moving forward and what needs to be prioritized so that the growth we have decided upon can take place. This comes, among other things, to those of us who now sit in the Defense Preparation Board.

Very high up on those lists is infrastructure. More must be built so that all employees can have space and so that all materiel can be kept under cover. Quays and runways are needed so that ships and aircraft can be used even more. All of this is the responsibility of Fortifikationsverket.

One can, of course, laugh a little at this matter of departmental boundaries. But it matters, because it results in different budgets, different responsible ministers, different priorities, and a ton of different types of coordination meetings.

Madam Speaker! We must therefore, in light of the very serious security policy situation in the world and the very great needs we see in Sweden's military defense, review the Fortifikationsverket's organizational affiliation and governance. Such an investigation needs, for example, to examine whether the Fortifikationsverket should rather be placed under the Försvarsdepartementet and whether the return requirements on the paid rents are really the best way to strengthen the defense's capability and meet the requirements we have set for more and better operations.

Madam Speaker! I will not delve into the history of the Fortification Agency, but the agency has its roots in the Thirty Years' War and was formed in 1635. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then, and our country's borders have changed several times – but now there is war in Europe again.

The war in Ukraine has led to a unique consensus between the parties in the Riksdag on strengthening and expanding the Swedish total defense. It is an enormous change, and we have had to rethink a great deal of the structures we have. We have moved from a part – perhaps expressed a bit sloppily – 90s constructions that come from another time to building a war organization and employing more than anyone within these agencies had ever imagined.

A sign of the change was when the Coast Guard and the then MSB were moved to the Ministry of Defence and when MSB changed its name at the turn of the year. The next agency to be reviewed must be Fortifikationsverket, I believe. We need to move Fortifikationsverket to the Ministry of Defence in line with the agencies that the agency cooperates with daily. In that way, we achieve a wholeness and an efficiency in the reconstruction of the military defence. It is extremely important right now.

In addition to this, the profit requirement for Fortifikationsverket must be abolished. The agency's role is to develop and manage Sweden's defense properties and training areas, but despite that, the agency is still managed, as I said, as a financial authority with the task of generating profit for the state. Instead, the effort and money received in the defense budget should be spent on strengthening Sweden's military and civil defense capabilities.

Money is now being moved in practice from the defense budget back to the finance budget, instead of allowing the entire budget that the Armed Forces receive in appropriations to go towards defense capability. For 2025, the profit requirement meant that the rental costs for the Armed Forces increased by 225 million kronor. These are funds that instead could have gone towards strengthened defense capability, higher wages, more materiel, and more exercises.

Madam Speaker! That we have a purposeful and modern structure in the state real estate management is, of course, crucial for the core operations to function. We have heard this also earlier in the debate. In this speech, I focus on Fortifikationsverket, for which I have written a motion, but similar reasoning applies, of course, to Akademiska Hus, for universities and colleges, and for Specialfastigheter, which manages quite many court buildings, police stations, and prisons.

Properties must be for the needs of core activities. When it concerns socially important activities, they shall be publicly owned, and they shall not be burdened by profit requirements. It is extremely important that the government addresses these issues as soon as possible.

I vote in favor of reservation 6.

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

David Perez (SD)

Madam Speaker! I had not originally intended to take the floor in this debate, but I believe it is appropriate to provide some factual information regarding what we have heard high-toned remarks about from the opposition on this issue.

We have talked about the Swedish Payments Authority many times in this chamber. In fact, Member of Parliament Mikael Damberg submitted an interpellation on the issue as recently as February 20, and he actually received answers to these questions. We all already know the answer as to why it was decided to shut down the transaction account that the Swedish Payments Authority was going to proceed with.

Allow me to quote: ”The initiative to phase out the system with transaction accounts is a result of the government having listened to the objections that came from the relevant authorities. Försäkringskassan and Pensionsmyndigheten protested in August 2025 against legislative changes that mean that Utbetalningsmyndigheten shall not mediate any payments in the system with transaction accounts. They pointed to significant risks with the introduction of a transaction account in the form of impaired efficiency, higher costs and increased vulnerability.”

Madam Speaker! One could almost say that it is a dereliction of duty not to take these warning signals seriously and to discontinue the work of introducing a transaction account. Against that background, I thought it was appropriate to provide a factual briefing on why the so-called SD government decided to discontinue the work with a transaction account.

When the tones are so high regarding the enormous waste of resources that it entails to waste 200 million of the state's money, one can question why the red-green government in Västra Götalandsregionen has, among other things, wasted 3.7 billion kronor on the development of Millennium. I hope that Member Peder Björk is also upset regarding those issues.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 March.)

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