Response to interpellation 2023/24:224 on the consequences of the government's savings on agencies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government has confidence in the agencies' ability to develop their operations within the budget 1 and that it is up to each agency to decide on cost reductions 1. KD believes that efficiency through digitalization and AI can improve the service 2 and that it is unreasonable for the government to dictate exact savings 2. KD argues that the agency heads are best suited to answer how the efficiencies should be achieved 3. S argues that the savings will have consequences for staff and operations 4, that citizens will have to bear the consequences of reduced service 5 and that the government is giving a walkover to the agencies without steering 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Peder Björk has asked me if the government is prepared to consider changes in regulatory letters to direct which activities and in which parts of the country agencies make cuts as a consequence of the government's billion-dollar savings, if the government intends to follow up on the consequences of the cuts in the agencies' activities, and if I intend to take the initiative for a specific mapping of how the savings affect the state's presence and service throughout the country.
In the management of the state authorities, the Government assumes that delegation of decisions in employer matters and in matters concerning the internal organization promotes an efficient public administration. The Government has great confidence in the authorities' ability to develop their activities in accordance with the Government's priorities and the frameworks set in the budget.
Furthermore, the government has confidence that the authorities will continue to fulfill their duties and also continue to deliver a good service to the citizens. It is up to each individual authority to decide how the costs shall be reduced, and the government does not intend to decide on any specific reporting requirements regarding the general savings. I also want to point out in this context that notices are not the same as terminations.
State presence and service throughout the country is important. We have discussed this many times in this chamber. State presence and service contribute to maintaining legitimacy and trust for the state administration. I would therefore like to point out that the government, through various regulations, sets certain requirements on how the authorities shall handle decisions related to the issue of state presence. The authorities shall, among other things, when appropriate in their operations, take into account regional conditions to the greatest extent possible and consider the possibilities for decentralization when they plan their operations.
Furthermore, the government has a responsibility to oversee the consequences of the individual agencies' decisions for the public administration as a whole, and the government will monitor the agencies within the framework of regular governance through, among other things, annual reports, budget documents, and agency dialogues.
The government also monitors the distribution of state jobs in the country. This is done, among other things, through assignments to the county administrative boards to report on the state presence and state services in the counties. I assess that the government has sufficient tools to be able to make ongoing assessments and follow-ups of the state presence in the country in the future.
In this context, I also want to point out that regarding the state presence in the country, the Armed Forces' organization has been expanded in several places. The Police Authority and the Prison and Probation Service are also expanding their operations. Taken together, this will lead to new jobs that increase the state presence around the country.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! I am sincerely surprised by how carefree the Minister seems to be in his response to this interpellation, because the decision the SD government has taken to make large, general savings on the Swedish authorities obviously has consequences. The decision that has been taken means reduced frameworks of 1.1 billion kronor. It should be added in this context that it is in addition to the efficiencies of 1.5–2 percent that are normally the basis of the budget.
1.1 billion less in resources for Sweden's authorities - money that has primarily been used to employ staff to perform administrative actions and provide service to the citizens - naturally has consequences in the operations. Already now we see it when it comes to the number of employees at the authorities all around the country. Skatteverket has laid off 180 people. Statens servicecenter has additionally laid off 90 people. Jordbruksverket has laid off 39 people. It is reasonable to assume that more authorities will follow in their footsteps when the SD-government's budget is to be made into a reality.
In the answer, the Minister points out that the government has full confidence in the state agencies' ability to develop their activities in accordance with "the government's priorities and the frameworks set in the budget." Since the Minister points out that the government's priorities shall guide, I am a bit curious about what the government prioritizes when it comes to the activities that are to be conducted with less money and, as a consequence of that, with fewer staff.
I would therefore like to receive an answer from the Minister, Madam Speaker, regarding what currently applies concerning these savings. What is it that the authorities in Sweden are to stop doing or do less of as a result of the SD government's decided savings of 1.1 billion?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I want to start by being fact-based, as is my habit, and correct Peder Björk when he says "the SD government". This is not an SD government.
Sweden has a government consisting of three parties: the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals. This government has a parliamentary cooperation with the Sweden Democrats to gather a majority for its policies here in the chamber of the Riksdag. Seven policy areas are included in the agreement, and we also have a budget cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. Together we form a majority in Sweden's Riksdag, but the Sweden Democrats do not sit in the government. In the government sit the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals.
I know that "the SD government" is used as a rhetorical device, but I think it is important to speak the truth here in the chamber of the Riksdag, which is the heart of democracy. Many follow these debates, and I think it is important that what we say is correct. In that case, "the SD government" is an incorrect term because it leads people to think that the Sweden Democrats are leading and sitting in this government. They do not. During this mandate period, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Christian Democrats are in Sweden's government and have a parliamentary cooperation with the Sweden Democrats.
The previous Social Democratic government had a lot of cooperation with the Left Party and the Center Party. I never went around saying "the C-government" or "the V-government." I never went around messing around in that way. I said "the government," and then one knew that the Social Democrats or the Social Democrats and the Green Party were in it. When you say "the SD-government," you are talking about a government that does not exist in this country. I become incredibly irritated and will every time this epithet is said in this chamber go up to the rostrum and correct it. I become irritated and think that it is to spread falsehoods before all those who are watching and listening to this debate.
There is a signal value in a 1 percent efficiency and savings requirement on authorities. We live in a time with high inflation and ever higher interest rates. Households are hit hard by this, and municipalities and regions often have difficulty balancing their finances because of it. Many companies are affected and are now forced to lay off staff due to the poorer economic situation. It is therefore reasonable that the state administration also feels the tough economic times we are in and helps with the financing when we are to maintain a good welfare in the country, strengthen the work line with an additional job tax deduction, and strengthen the most vulnerable households. I think that sometimes it is exaggerated what this percentage has for consequences and how large this reduction is. I have said that I believe that the vast majority of authorities will manage a 1 percent efficiency requirement without the violent consequences that are sometimes described when the Social Democrats paint their threat picture.
Since then, we have a delegated management. It is up to the directors-general to make decisions on this. Sometimes it is a director-general who leads the agency, sometimes it is a board; it looks a bit different. But it is the agencies that must take this responsibility. We cannot, from the government's side, say "do exactly this," but there is a delegated responsibility. The directors-general are primarily responsible for managing the finances and the appropriations that the agency has received and acting based on the regulation letters that the government and the Riksdag decide on.
I think it is interesting that the Social Democrats, in their budget alternative, have not increased the appropriations; this applies, for example, to the Swedish Tax Agency's administrative appropriations. One stands here and is very concerned about what is happening with the Swedish Tax Agency, but one does not give even a single krona more to the Swedish Tax Agency oneself. The question could therefore just as well be turned back to Peder Björk himself – how do the Social Democrats intend to handle this issue?
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! I intend to withhold my vote on the issue at hand.
The Minister does not really want to talk about what priorities the government believes should be made. I am still a bit surprised that the fact that 180 employees are being laid off at Skatteverket, according to the Minister, is not something dramatic that one needs to worry about.
I am also surprised, Madam Speaker, that the Minister says it is reasonable for the authorities to bear the general economic crisis. It is not the authorities who are bearing this. Ultimately, it is we citizens who have to bear it when we receive reduced service from the authorities. That is why I ask the Minister what the government believes should be prioritized in the savings. What is it that one should stop doing or do less of? I still think that the government needs to give us and the Swedish people a statement on that and be clear about what plan the government has with these savings, which will definitely have consequences.
But if it is the case that the Minister does not want to answer what it is that one should stop doing, it is possible to turn the reasoning around and imagine that the government should point out something that one should not stop doing. It is surprising that the Swedish Tax Agency is now laying off 180 people. 100 of the people being laid off would have worked on improving the population registration, something that the government has said is prioritized and which we from the Social Democrats agree is a prioritized task. But the government is obviously not clear that the task should be carried out, since the Swedish Tax Agency is now laying off 100 people within this area.
On the same track: Is it okay for the government that the processing times at Försäkringskassan are being extended, so that the sick have to wait longer for help? Is it okay for the government that Jordbruksverket, now that they are notifying people, extends their processing times, so that farmers in Sweden have to wait even longer for their money? Is it such that the minister and the government can accept that Statens servicecenter is notifying 90 people and closing service offices around the country? Is this what the government can imagine accepting?
Madam Speaker! I would very much like to get an answer from the Minister. If one cannot say what it is that one thinks it should be saved on, is it instead something that one cannot imagine it being saved on?
In addition to the fact that this will have consequences for individual agencies, there is also a great concern that it will have consequences for the state presence and the service throughout the entire country. The Swedish Tax Agency's cuts now affect 20 locations around the country. It is clear that, in the long run, it will also have consequences for the state's presence around the country. In the long run of that reasoning, I want to pose one further question to the Minister: Is the Minister in any way concerned that the state presence will decrease around the country?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! In the price and wage adjustment system, PLO, there is, just as Peder Björk very rightly said initially, a certain annual efficiency built in. It is a system that I believe all parties in the chamber, at least the Social Democrats and the government parties, agree is good. But it has never been the case that the Minister for Civil Affairs has gone out and stated what each agency should save on by reason of this built-in efficiency. No such requirements have ever been set. But when in a single year a 1 percent saving is made, suddenly the Minister for Civil Affairs is to go out and tell how all agencies shall retrieve it, apparently the Social Democrats believe. I think this is unreasonable given the governance model that we have for our agencies.
Regarding the Swedish Tax Agency, it is not correct that 180 people have been dismissed. It is 180 probationary employments that have now been terminated. Probationary employments are just probationary employments. It is not a question of dismissals. They are probationary employments that have not been extended. I think it gives a wrong impression even there if one says that it is dismissed staff, because that is actually not the case. If one wants to deepen the discussion regarding the Swedish Tax Agency specifically, one must still turn to the responsible minister. The Swedish Tax Agency does not fall under my responsibility, as Björk knows, but under the Minister for Finance's.
I do not believe that it is always the case that efficiency means worsened service. We can work more with, for example, the possibilities of digitalization. One of the agencies we are talking about, Skatteverket, is a fantastic pioneer, with new digital services that have made the service better and also made it cheaper for the agency. Now I really hope, not least in light of the arrival of much more advanced AI technology, that one will be able to reduce costs, improve service, and provide faster processing. It is very possible that such efficiency rather accelerates such transition work, which I would find very welcome.
We will soon be making decisions on the regulatory letters. That is when the answers regarding what we think the authorities should prioritize will come. It is the regulatory letters that will provide answers to this.
I still find it interesting, given the tone that Peder Björk has, that the Social Democrats themselves do not increase the appropriations to either Skatteverket or Jordbruksverket. For Statens servicecenter, it is an increase of 9 million in the Social Democrats' budget alternative, but for Skatteverket and Jordbruksverket, it remains at the same level as in the government's budget. Then the question must be asked back to the Social Democrats: How do the Social Democrats intend for this efficiency gain to be handled at the agencies? The Social Democrats are making exactly the same efficiency gain as the government proposes.
Peder Björk (S)
Madam Speaker! The decision that the SD government has made does not involve ordinary streamlining. It is a powerful saving beyond the basic streamlining requirements that have existed since before.
I note that the Minister is happy to pass the ball to the opposition. But the fact is that the opposition are not the ones who hold government power. It is the Minister who is obliged to provide an answer on how the government intends to implement these savings. I can state, Madam Speaker, that the Minister in this debate is very clear that the government has simply conceded that it is the agencies that are now running Sweden. The government sits in the back seat and lets the agencies carry this out – without steering, without any idea of how the savings should be implemented and, in that respect, without any thought about what one must not stop doing in the various agencies.
I think that is a boring development. With an offensive policy and an offensive management policy, one can make a difference with politics. But then it is a matter of having an idea of how one wants to develop the state administration. It is a matter of daring to use the steering instruments one has in the government. This government seems to be more interested in sitting in the back seat and watching rather than actively driving Swedish management policy.
Madam Speaker! It is the difference between the SD government's policy and a Social Democratic policy, which has previously been active when it comes to driving administrative policy and, not least, ensuring state presence and service throughout the country.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Again: This is not an SD government but a government consisting of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals.
We do, however, know that the government we had before was very dependent on Vänsterpartiet in its economic policy. That caused the state and the public sector to swell very much all the time. That is the view on economic policy that Vänsterpartiet has and that the Socialdemokrater were forced to follow.
The bloated state and the bloated public sector may need periods of some streamlining. I do not think at all that it is foolish to look into it and question it from time to time. Over the last ten years, the number of state employees has increased very significantly at the agencies.
Is there now an opportunity to brake and see if we can make some efficiencies? Have we piled a lot of assignments on top of each other where perhaps one assignment is not as justified because one is already working on it etcetera? I mean that those who are best suited to answer that are precisely the heads of the agencies and the agencies themselves.
It is not unique that the Social Democrats criticize bourgeois governments and then do not restore or match it at all in their policy. I am only mentioning the job tax credit. Every time it has been criticized very much, but they have chosen to keep every single job tax credit when they are then in government. We are, of course, very grateful for that.
Now it is the same thing here. People are incredibly critical of the streamlining of agencies. It will deplete the state presence and the service. It will lead to people being laid off, and the state will become much worse. Then, one does not put this back into the agencies when presenting one's own budget. Then I get criticized for asking that question back.
As a minister, I must be able to read shadow budgets and see: What does the opposition's alternative look like? In this case, the Social Democrats are not giving any money back to the Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Board of Agriculture. Then I must be able to ask the question back: How do the Social Democrats intend for the efficiency requirements to be worked on?
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.