Response to interpellation 2024/25:208 on the closure of the Swedish Tax Agency's office in Lund
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 closure of the Swedish Tax Agency's office in Lund. M argues that the agencies themselves are responsible for their organization and geographical location based on the government's goals 1. M trusts the agency leadership and considers it not to be the Finance Minister's task to manage their specific location 2. S argues that the government has the ultimate responsibility to govern the realm and cannot dismiss decisions by claiming that the agencies took them 3 4. S believes that the government should intervene in centralization 3 4 and that local presence creates legitimacy 4. S argues that the government owns its agencies and can manage them by determining their location 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me how I view the fact that the Swedish Tax Agency plays a role in contributing to the creation of government jobs throughout the country. He has also asked whether I and the government are prepared to take measures in our governance of the agency to ensure that the Swedish Tax Agency has offices and workplaces all around Sweden.
I have recently answered a written question from the interpellor on the same subject.
The government's administrative policy is based on the authorities themselves, to a large extent, deciding how the operations shall be organized to best meet the collective needs of society, based on the goals and tasks for the operations that the Riksdag and the government establish. This means that it is largely the authorities themselves that are responsible for deciding on their organization and the geographical division of their operations. At the same time, it is important that our authorities are present in several places in Sweden, as state presence maintains the legitimacy and trust of the state administration.
According to its instructions, the Swedish Tax Agency shall conduct activities at locations where this is justified based on the agency's mandate. The Swedish Tax Agency is currently located in 47 places around Sweden, and the work with local supply is an important prerequisite for being able to create an efficient and purposeful operation. That is the reason why the Swedish Tax Agency is moving its operations from Lund to Malmö. It is the agency's management that is best positioned to determine how the organization should be designed and where it should be geographically placed to create an efficient and purposeful operation.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer to my interpellation. As the Minister for Finance very rightly mentioned, this subject has previously been addressed through a written question, but in debates with the Minister for Finance's government colleagues, I have learned that one can sometimes, via the interpellation tool, lay out the text a bit more, get slightly deeper explanations and have slightly deeper reasoning. That was why I chose to interpellate the Minister for Finance, and I think she developed the line of thought at least somewhat compared to the answer to my written question.
I must still say that I found the Finance Minister's answer somewhat surprising. There are a few things that I reacted to and that I would very much like to clear up here in the chamber today.
I am surprised, first and foremost, by the lack of clarity. The Minister for Finance states that it is important for agencies to be present in several places in Sweden, as a state presence maintains the legitimacy and trust of the state administration. At the same time, she seems to completely delegate this task to the agencies—in this case, to Skatteverket. As far as I have been able to discern, or hear here in the chamber today, there is no will from the government to actively steer the agencies in this matter.
The Finance Minister's and the government's position, as said, appears to be that the authorities themselves shall handle where the operations are to be located. This could, in its extreme, mean that the Swedish Tax Agency and other authorities can be centralized to a very large extent, for example to Malmö, Stockholm and Göteborg.
Mr. Speaker! It is not a God-given order that the question of the location of authorities should be handled in this way. It can be done in other ways. In 2015, Skatteverket was to close a number of local offices, including in Vetlanda, Simrishamn, Ängelholm, and Mariestad. The decision caused great upset, which was hardly surprising since the state jobs in these locations are vanishingly few - it is perhaps Skatteverket, Polismyndigheten, and Systembolaget that can come into question.
The then Minister for Civil Affairs, my comrade and colleague Ardalan Shekarabi, acted and tasked the National Economic Council with following up on state agencies' decisions regarding relocation. First, the plans for closure were paused, and finally, the plans to shut down the offices completely were scrapped.
Mr. Speaker! It is certainly possible to find arguments for why the Swedish Tax Agency's office in Lund should be closed and merged with another office, in this case the Malmö office. Personally, I think an agency should have a great interest in being located in one of the country's leading university cities, not least for the supply of competence. But if we look beyond Lund, we see that the Swedish Tax Agency and several other agencies have offices all over the country.
After hearing the Finance Minister's answer here in the chamber, one becomes somewhat curious about where the line is drawn for when the government is prepared to intervene. Is there any occasion when the government could say that the regional policy considerations or the trust and legitimacy of the state administration, which the Finance Minister himself mentioned, weigh more heavily and that the government needs to act when one sees tendencies that authorities make this type of decision and activities are centralized to an ever greater extent?
In my opinion, which history also shows, it is fully possible for the government to act in these types of issues and ensure that authorities are present throughout the country and in different places in the country. I have mentioned a historical example from 2015, but there are more. The question that in some way remains hanging in the air is: When is the government prepared to intervene regarding the eagerness of the management of Skatteverket or other authorities to centralize the operations? Is there at all any such limit, or do Skatteverket's employees at smaller offices, such as in Vetlanda, Simrishamn, Ängelholm and Mariestad, have reason for concern here at this time of year?
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had a governance model with independent agencies. In many respects, it has served Sweden well. What one cannot escape, as is clearly expressed in Chapter 1, Section 6 of the Instrument of Government, is that it is the government that governs the realm. Therefore, one cannot simply dismiss a decision by saying that it is the agencies that have made it, because the government always has the possibility of having a different opinion on how the agencies' activities should be conducted.
Whoever reads the authority's decision can see that it is purely economic reasons that lie behind this. But it is also the case that the state presence throughout our entire country must be built on more than economically rational principles. The large-scale operations that are being developed - far from people, locked away in bureaucratic castles - also have a price.
I believe it is important that we ensure state presence throughout the entire country. It creates local knowledge and strengthens the legitimacy and trust in the state and for the authorities in society. Above all, state presence around the whole country shows respect for the people who today may experience a world that is changing totally and who may feel that no one cares about those who do not live inside Stockholm's city limits, in western Skåne or in the Gothenburg region.
It is possible to steer if one only wants to. As a former defense politician, I had to learn this question quite early: Who carries what in which hand? The answer is: The boss always carries the responsibility first and foremost. The same principle can be applied in these arguments. If the government has the view that the state presence must become better, one can steer through regulatory letters and ordinances. Ultimately, one can go to the Swedish Riksdag and demand that we legislate on how we want it to look in our country.
This is nothing that is foreign to us, because one clearly points out a state activity that is to exist in primary municipalities. I am talking about Systembolaget's activity. I think this is good, but I think such decisions should also be made in other respects to strengthen local knowledge, increase legitimacy, show respect for people, and show that the state exists in the whole country and is for all people.
Adrian Magnusson's question to the Minister for Finance is actually justified on a larger scale. This is not just about the Swedish Tax Agency's office in Lund, but it is about how we want our country to look and how the government chooses to manage its operations and its agencies.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the interpellation. I shall answer some parts of what was said.
The government governs the country's authorities, among other things through instructions. To those watching the debate who are not aware of this, I can say that the instruction is the foundation for every authority. There is an instruction that says what is most important for an authority to do.
When it comes to the Swedish Tax Agency, one of these parts, as I said, is that one shall conduct activities at the locations where this is justified based on the agency's mandate. So, it is in the instruction. That was the first.
So to the second point. When it comes to legitimacy, there is hardly any agency in Sweden that has as high a level of trust as the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket). I believe it is because they have worked with service and digitalization over the years. The vast majority of us contact the Swedish Tax Agency via telephone or digitally, but of course, they must also have offices. They have them in 47 locations. I think that is quite good, considering that the agency has digitized so much of its operations.
It is, of course, always a trade-off when it comes to exactly where one should be and should not be. I will be completely honest now, and I might provoke the people from Lund: 22 kilometers to Skatteverket is not that long when you come from Lycksele, as I do. However, I have full understanding that the people from Lund may find it problematic, so I will not ironize over it. My point is what both Niklas Karlsson and the interpellor Adrian Magnusson were touching upon: One can absolutely steer through regulatory letters, and one can have another type of steering. We also have a dialogue all the time with the authorities. Just regarding this, I do not think it is my task to steer. The authority management must do that, and I trust it. I actually believe that even Niklas Karlsson trusts it very much, because he meets them often.
With that said: They decide this themselves. One can always wish that all authorities should be in more places, but the interpellation is about this authority, which I am responsible for. I do not intend to go into all other authorities that other ministers are responsible for.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! For the sake of order, I want to say that I am from Ystad and that Niklas Karlsson is from Landskrona, so that no one stands in other contexts and calls us people from Lund. I just want that to be recorded in the minutes.
What can one say? When it comes to this matter of the state having to be present throughout the entire country, as Member Karlsson pointed out, it is not a matter of charity. There are other aspects than having trust and legitimacy, which are also important.
Something I think is talked about far too little about in the state administration in general is local knowledge. If the state activity is spread across large parts of society and in many locations, it also gains much better local knowledge than if the activity is centralized to Stockholm, Gothenburg, or Malmö. I believe there are great gains to be had from having a state administration that is very present all around the country.
I understand that the Minister for Finance wants to make this about the distance between Lund and Malmö, which is not that great. It is perhaps not actually the tax office in Lund that is the big issue here, but this causes concern to spread that more offices around the country will be closed. In Skåne, in addition to Malmö and Lund, there are also tax offices in Helsingborg, Kristianstad, Ängelholm, and Simrishamn. Two of these locations were, as I mentioned earlier, threatened with closure in 2015. In conversations with employees, especially in Simrishamn, I have truly received the impression that the concern has now been awakened as a result of the decision regarding Lund. Furthermore, the decision came quite hastily and was implemented quite quickly.
When this happened in 2015, the government acted. If such threats of closure were to become relevant again, I truly hope that the government acts, because it is the government that governs the realm - not directors-general. The government needs to act when this type of events occur and can escalate.
There was a rather large debate in 2015 about these offices. This morning, I sat and read through old interpellation protocols and written questions. For example, the chairman of the Finance Committee submitted a written question at that time regarding the tax office in Lycksele. It was actually a very large debate with many participants. These questions evoke great engagement.
Many people think it is obvious that there should be state jobs in their locality, even if it is not about service offices specifically. They are often few, and it is the Swedish Tax Agency - which has a high level of trust, as the Finance Minister said - that is present in these localities. I believe it is extremely important that the Swedish Tax Agency works hard to maintain that trust, because trust takes a long time to build but is very quick to destroy. The Swedish Tax Agency needs to take its responsibility. If the Swedish Tax Agency does not manage that, if one puts it that way, the government needs to act.
As an example of how the government can act, I have with me a quote of something Ardalan Shekarabi said in connection with the decision on an investigation regarding where authorities should be located. The Government Offices conducted the investigation, and it led, as I said before, to that this was paused. Shekarabi said: "The authorities have a grip on their own activities, it is the government's responsibility to have the overall picture. I believe that the state cannot abdicate from its responsibility to be present throughout the entire country. The state shall hold our country together, not contribute to splitting it."
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I also want it recorded in the minutes that although I have spent a couple of years in Lund, I am fundamentally a Landskrona resident, just as Member Magnusson is from Ystad.
It is still the case that Sweden's authorities act based on the so-called instructions, as the Minister for Finance expressed it, that the government has given them. The responsibility, therefore, always comes back to the government. Even though we have independent and autonomous authorities, it is the government that owns its authorities and can direct them. The government can speak about what the mandate is, where the authority should be located, and how it should conduct its operations.
The Minister for Finance also included in his previous post the perception that the government can govern its agencies, and perhaps we can even agree that one should govern its agencies. The question remains why one allows things to develop as they do now.
Previously, the government has been able to step in and change decisions, such as in Adrian Magnusson's example from 2015 or when it was chosen to manage Systembolaget and dictate how the presence should look across the entire country. We could have done the same with Skatteverket, Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen, and all other agencies we have. We believe, in fact, that it is important that there is a local presence throughout the country to show people the respect they deserve. It is important to show that we exist for everyone and do not build bureaucratic castles that are only built on principles of economic and rational arguments or economies of scale.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Very briefly: As I said, the government obviously governs the realm, and we have authorities that do what they have been tasked to do. In this case, there is an instruction to be present throughout the country where it is seen to be needed.
Just Skatteverket is one of the agencies that has a very high level of trust, as I said. They have a high degree of digitalization, and yet they are present in 47 locations. One can absolutely have the view that they should be present in more locations, but it is also about using every tax krona in the best way and as efficiently as possible. When it comes to just Skatteverket's management, I want to say that I have very great confidence that they do exactly what is best.
Generally, I of course agree that one should be able to live and work in the entire country. I want to mention that the government is doing several things in the budget regarding this. For example, in our first budget, we invested over half a billion kronor to support the broadband expansion in the whole country so that one can actually run businesses, have contact with authorities, and much more. Next year, we are also investing money to strengthen civil society's conditions to work for sustainable regional development and rural development. All of this is intended to increase the possibilities to live everywhere.
I know that we have a Lundensare in the chamber in any case, but I will not take a debate or ask the Minister for Employment questions about just this. He can answer questions about other things later, but I do, therefore, have confidence in the leadership of the Swedish Tax Agency. The Government absolutely governs the agencies, but in this question, I will not continue. I want to be very clear now and say that the leadership decides and that we ensure that people can live in the entire country.
Speaking of Lycksele: I was born a long time ago at that hospital which is closed time and again during the summers. I will not say which parties are doing it, because I will not make this a partisan issue, and I will now leave this debate and my contributions for this time.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for a good debate.
I believe, as I said earlier, that this is fundamentally a very important issue and a much larger issue than the Swedish Tax Agency's office in Lund. This is about the trust in the state administration, the state administration's legitimacy, and what expectations the Swedish people can have that the state administration is present throughout Sweden.
One thing I think is important to convey is that this is not a question of confidence in the management of the Swedish Tax Agency. I believe that both I and Niklas Karlsson have high confidence in the management of the Swedish Tax Agency. This is about how the Swedish Tax Agency acts based on the mandate that the government gives it.
The government could have been clear and said that, given the urbanization that has been ongoing in Sweden for a very long time, it is important that the Swedish Tax Agency remains in the locations where it is today. Perhaps one could have also looked at other locations, I don't know, but one could at least have said that it should remain in the locations where it exists today. That could have been conveyed to the Swedish Tax Agency in an appropriate manner.
I asked in my first post if there is any outer limit. To really take it to the extreme, authorities could say: We want to relocate parts of our operations abroad, because it is cheap. We could save a huge amount of money on that. Is that also something the Finance Minister would say is okay because it is economically correct, to put it that way? I hope that is not the case, but as I have said, I have not received any real answer as to where the outer limit lies and when the government feels it is ready to do as Member Karlsson said and give these instructions, take this mandate and tell an authority: You cannot act this way, but here you actually must hit the brakes.
I believe we will have reason to return to these types of discussions regarding the presence of the state administration. Should we end up in a situation similar to the one in 2015, I can already promise the Minister for Finance that we will see each other in more interpellation debates ahead.
FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN
The Minister for Finance waives his closing remarks.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.