Response to interpellation 2024/25:636 on the state service office in Bollnäs
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 state service offices. KD argues that service offices should exist throughout the country for personal service 1 and that the closures are based on budget priorities and cost developments 2 3. KD believes that the state increases its presence through police and defense 2 and that mobile solutions as well as digital services increase accessibility 2 3. S argues that the closures make it harder to have physical contact with authorities 4 and worsen accessibility for those who have difficulty with digital services 5. S believes that the closures are ideologically driven 6 and that they affect vulnerable groups 7.
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 (13)
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Kristoffer Lindberg has asked me what Tillväxtverket's division of new FA-regions means for the closures of the service offices and whether I am prepared to provide the funds required to maintain or reopen offices to ensure that there are service offices in every FA-region.
The Government has tasked Statens servicecenter with developing a plan for a new organization of the service office network. In the execution of the assignment, the agency shall plan to, in the long term, provide state services in all so-called functional labor market regions, FA-regions. When the assignment was issued, there were 60 FA-regions in the country, according to the categorization from 2015 by the Agency for Growth Policy Evaluations and Analysis.
Statens servicecenter has submitted an interim report on the assignment which describes the starting points and principles for the future organization, including accessibility throughout the country. In the final report, Statens servicecenter shall, among other things, describe the consequences for accessibility to state services in different types of geographical areas, including rural areas and areas where exclusion is significant. I have full confidence in Statens servicecenter's handling of the assignment and in the agency's assessment of which offices may be phased out based on the conditions specified in the assignment.
The Government continues to consider service centers to be an important activity for providing personal service from state agencies. Service centers shall continue to exist throughout the country to meet individuals' needs for local state service within a reasonable distance. At the same time, there will continue to be a large number of service centers all over the country, even though the travel distance to the nearest permanent office will become longer for some individuals and companies.
When it comes to the consequences for individual localities that risk losing a service office, it follows from the Ordinance (2019:202) on the Location of Government Agencies that Statens servicecenter shall, among other things, establish a consequence analysis before such a decision. These consequence analyses can serve as a starting point for the consultations that the agency initiates with municipalities and other affected actors before the continued process with any decommissioning decisions.
Statens servicecenter is simultaneously working on developing more mobile and flexible office solutions in order to be able to get closer to citizens in more places in the country in a simple and smooth way. This is a development that I follow with great interest.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to again debate the issue of the state's presence outside the major cities and regarding the state service centers.
Civil Minister Erik Slottner and the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, have decided that the state service is too good in Sweden's rural and sparsely populated areas. Therefore, up to 35 service offices are now to be closed. More people will find it more difficult to physically come into contact with the authorities Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Skatteverket, and Pensionsmyndigheten. In some cases, it involves several hours of longer travel times.
The service centers are an important social service, and they fulfill an incredibly important function for many people in their interactions with authorities. Not infrequently, it concerns people who, for various reasons, do not have the opportunity to carry out their interactions via digital solutions and simply need more help than others.
It is incomprehensible why the Minister chooses to do this, especially when one looks at which offices the Minister is forcing the agency to close. There is no logic or well-thought-out overall solution for which offices remain and which are closed. It is not the number of visitors that governs, nor is it geographical location and logical distribution across the country. No, it is simply that the offices that are closed first are the offices where the lease agreement expires first. Other aspects are not taken into account. All of this is done so that the 150 million that the government has decided to save on state services around the country can be saved as quickly as possible. Does the Minister really think that this is giving the agency good conditions to adapt its operations in a sensible way?
This is exactly what has happened at my home in Bollnäs with a well-visited and appreciated service office that serves more municipalities than just Bollnäs. The municipality has very good experience of cooperation with the service office. But now it is closing on June 13, because the lease agreement expires. This will have major consequences for the residents of Bollnäs and others here in Hälsingland. What it means in terms of increased travel times I have already accounted for in previous debates.
The Minister for Civil Affairs has previously emphasized that the goal is to have at least one service office in each so-called FA-region, that is, functional analysis region. This also appears from the assignment that the government has given to Statens servicecenter. I agree that it should be an absolute minimum.
But now it is the case that Tillväxtverket has made a decision on a new division into new FA-regions. Among other things, this means that a new region has been established for the municipalities of Bollnäs and Ovanåker, FA-region number 27. At the same time, the minister is now closing down the only service office in this FA-region. The agency does not have the resources to be present in all FA-regions. Now the minister must act seriously, but in the minister's response to the interpellation, we do not see a trace of this.
I repeat my questions: Does the Swedish Agency for Economic and Innovation Growth's division into new FA regions mean that the government will now provide funds to maintain or reopen offices in those FA regions where service offices are now being closed or have not yet managed to open – yes or no? Is it not still the case that the Minister sees the need for service offices in Bollnäs and other FA regions?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and for the fact that we can discuss this important issue in the chamber of the Riksdag once again. I listened to the Minister's answer with great interest. I noted that the Minister spoke about consequence analyses and consultations with the municipalities concerned. In previous debates, I have highlighted Simrishamn Municipality as a concerned municipality. I was a bit curious about what Simrishamn Municipality might think about the closure of the service office in Simrishamn. The consultations and dialogues with the municipalities have functioned somewhat like that in some places. In Simrishamn, a statement has been submitted regarding what this could mean for the municipality. I intended to report on that briefly.
In Simrishamn Municipality, it is written, among other things: "The State Service Centers' planned closure of the service office in Simrishamn Municipality will result in significantly worsened service and accessibility for the citizens in the municipality." It is further written: "The worsened service and accessibility will primarily affect the group that has the most difficulty navigating the digital services on their own."
It is a statement that we Social Democratic members of Parliament in the chamber have repeated several times. It will hit hard against people who have difficulty with digital services, quite simply. The Minister, in turn, has spoken about how digitalization makes it so that the state is present throughout the country. It is obvious that there are people who have difficulty handling the digital aids.
Then Simrishamn Municipality writes: ”If no reinforcement is made in Ystad, there is a risk that the service and accessibility will also deteriorate there.” It is another dimension that we perhaps do not speak about as often. It is about the people who may need to travel to another office. It is not that Statens servicecenter receives more money. The staff present at the other offices will be increasingly heavily burdened.
It is de facto a deterioration of state service regardless of how one twists and turns it. It is simply a matter of stating the fact.
Simrishamn Municipality also writes that the municipality will receive "a more compensatory role with the consequence that the municipality will need to compensate for the lack of service offices that the decision entails".
So it will be as it is, which Simrishamn Municipality confirms, that the municipalities will have to step forward and take the responsibility when the state fails. The people who have problems with digital services and assistive devices still exist in Simrishamn Municipality and in other municipalities around the country.
It is also said: "Here we see that an even greater responsibility is being placed on the municipality, primarily on the operations within social services, contact centers, and other public operations in the municipality. – – – If there is no service office, citizens will turn to the municipality's operations with their questions to a greater extent." This is signed by Jeanette Ovesson, the chairman of the municipal executive board, from the Moderaterna, in Simrishamn Municipality on March 26, 2025.
This is how it looks across the country. When the State Service Centers disappear, the municipalities are left high and dry, and the people who have difficulty with the digital aids and services remain.
It is very possible that we will see motorhomes in the future that can drive around small towns all over the country and help people with service regarding state affairs. It is a nice thought. But we are not there just now, in any case. That is just a fact to be noted.
There is, as I have said earlier in the debate, actually no conflict. One could keep physical offices and motorhomes that drive to other places around the country, or whatever the mobile solutions will be. I interpret it as motorhomes, but I do not know.
It is very interesting to follow the debate and discussion and see how even conservative politicians across the country express that it is a very bad decision. Imagine being a Moderate municipal board chairman and having such comrades in the government. Then one does not need to have any opposition to worry about.
Agneta Nilsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for that I can stand here today and once again defend Eslöv!
About two months ago, I stood here in a similar interpellation debate and argued that the state service center in Eslöv should not be closed. An answer I received then from Minister Slottner was that it was only 15 kilometers to Lund, where the next office is located.
Mr. Speaker! I have all the understanding that things can go wrong, such as confusing kilometers and minutes when it comes to my home municipality Eslöv. There is a fairly well-known song called 15 minutes from Eslöv. However, it has nothing to do with the distance between Eslöv and Lund.
Mr. Speaker! There were 6,500 visits to the service office in Eslöv in 2024, even though it is only open two days a week and for four hours at a time. The office serves all of Mellanskåne. These visits are now considered not so important that it is profitable to keep the office, and it can be closed down. People living in Mellanskåne will have to go to Lund instead.
The authority that is used most in Eslöv is Skatteverket, closely followed by Försäkringskassan, Arbetsförmedlingen and Pensionsmyndigheten.
I visited the service office in Eslöv a few weeks ago. It turned out that many families with children come there to get help. They take time off from work and come to receive physical assistance. They are digitally literate, but not knowledgeable in administrative matters. They then choose to come to the office to get help from trained staff who can guide them in contacts with authorities. They can fill out forms and get help on-site with understanding decisions. They do not want things to go wrong in administrative contacts. Therefore, they visit offices with knowledgeable staff so that it is correct from the beginning.
Even those who are victims of economic violence came and received help, because they often lack identification in these contexts. Here they can receive help without anyone knowing or being able to check what they are doing. The staff has a well-functioning way of working when it comes to economic violence and knows how to handle this.
Mr. Speaker! What I have spoken about so far is evidence that the office in Eslöv was needed and is well utilized. The Eslöv office opens at 10:00. On the day I was there, there was a queue outside half an hour before opening. When the doors were then opened, 22 people who had waited outside came in.
My question is: How does the Minister and the Government intend to ensure that the residents of Mellanskåne continue to have access to this necessary state service after the closure?
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I assume the Minister gets a headache from standing here again and speaking about service offices with Social Democrats, because it happens often. But we get a headache from the situation in the country. That is why we insist once again on raising this issue.
It affects many, and we know that. If you look at the reality out there, you realize that it is very problematic for many people. I see it as that we are the carriers of the histories and stories of what it actually means.
I have two things that I want to bring up with the Minister. I am taking the opportunity when Kristoffer Lindberg has tabled the interpellations. One is what my colleague Agneta Nilsson touched upon here and which I also highlighted in another debate.
How does the Minister intend to answer those people who contact us and ask: How can we do the right thing now? When they turn to the service centers, it is precisely with the wish to do the right thing. That is why they come to the service centers. It is complicated.
I can take myself as an example. It is many years ago, but when I was on parental leave, I did not think it was simple to fill out the forms. It is something. I still have an academic education and am quite used to forms. But it is not completely easy.
To do right, it can sometimes be nice to come there and go through how to write correctly so that one does not make mistakes. If one also has difficulties with taking on text at all, it becomes even harder. But they are also citizens who want to do right.
It was my first question. What is the answer from the Minister now when we are not developing the service centers as we had wished to do? Now we are going backwards and reducing the number of service centers instead. People have to travel further to come and ask in order to be able to do the right thing.
I have also asked my second question in several interpellations. But I do not feel that I have really received an answer to it. I do not understand what the grounds for the decision are. Is it just to save money? In every answer we receive, the Minister says that this type of activity is important. Why then is a lot of offices being removed? That is our question.
Furthermore, no analysis is being made of which offices can potentially be removed. I do not think any service offices should disappear, because they are needed. There is a reason why they exist. The S-led government conducted a careful analysis and began expanding the operations where they felt it was necessary. I therefore think that all service offices were needed.
The Minister has nevertheless said that he has some kind of thought, but it does not seem to be so because he abdicates the decision and lets the responsible authority make the decisions. It then seems to occur on the basis of when the lease agreements expire, and it is not a serious assessment of where service offices were needed most.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! First, I can reassure Eva Lindh that I will not need to take any headache pills after this debate, and I have not taken any in advance either. I am happy to come here to the chamber and debate with my political opponents on many different issues. It does not give me a headache.
Let me touch upon the final question raised by Member Lindh regarding whether it is the lease agreements that determine the closures. There is, of course, a risk that that type of interest takes over when one, as an authority, receives a savings mandate. For that very reason – to reduce the risk of that type of consideration – we increased the so-called appropriation savings for Statens servicecenter.
We established guidelines that when Statens servicecenter is now to decide which offices need to be closed due to new economic conditions, one should primarily base this on the number of visits, geographical distribution, and general efficiency thinking regarding the office composition. Then, I cannot exclude that the lease agreements in their own right have played a role in the balanced summary. But to reduce the risk of it being unequivocally decisive, we increased the savings on grants for this year.
Nothing prevents the four agencies that today are linked to the state service centers from opening new offices. If, for example, Arbetsförmedlingen feels that it needs to be present with a physical office in a location because the digital services are not sufficient, it can itself make a decision to have physical offices. That possibility lies with the agency; it can itself decide whether it should establish its own physical offices.
I therefore do not rule out that one office or another at the individual agencies may now be opened where the state service centers are closed. But that is nothing I can control, I am only saying that the possibility exists. It must be up to each agency to answer this themselves.
Regarding the FA regions – which is what the interpellation debates primarily concern and what Kristoffer Lindberg's interpellation is about – it is entirely correct that the number of FA regions, according to a new decision, has been increased by 11. Tillväxtverket has increased the number of regions from 60 to 71. We have today a target vision that, in the long term, there shall be a state service office in every so-called FA region.
This decision is new, so it is a bit too early for me to answer right here and now exactly what effects it will have. If the question that Lindberg asks is whether the government will now provide funds to meet the increased number of FA-regions, the answer is therefore no. We have not presented any supplementary budget, which the members are very well aware of, but we will present the budget in the autumn. In September, the government's budget will be presented, and then we will see what appropriations Statens servicecenter will receive.
We can discuss Skåne's geography and Eslöv. I am only stating that the distance between Eslöv and Lund is 16–17 kilometers or approximately 1 ½ miles as the crow flies. I could perhaps have said just over 1 ½ miles, so I would have been even more accurate. By road, it is just over 2 miles, namely 21 kilometers. It is therefore no great distance between Eslöv and Lund. I can say that even with today's office network, there are many more around Sweden who have significantly longer than 1 ½–2 miles to their nearest service office.
Even after the closure in Eslöv, the residents there will have the opportunity to reach their nearest service office quite quickly – significantly faster than many residents can do today with the 148 offices.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Erik Slottner points to the authorities and that it is they themselves who get to plan where they shall have their offices. Now we also hear that it is the individual authorities that are served by the service centers, if I put it that way. The service centers group four different authorities. The Minister argues that it is the individual authorities that in that case get to open their own offices where they see the need.
But it is Erik Slottner who is the responsible minister for the service offices! It is Slottner who has given Statens servicecenter these conditions to quickly save 150 million. What will be the cost if the four agencies instead are to open their own offices in these locations? What is the saving for the state then? What is the efficiency for the state in that matter?
What can be saved on are premises and staff. When the planning conditions that the government has given to the agencies are so short-sighted, I understand that one removes the offices where one can get out of the lease agreements most quickly. Since the government and Erik Slottner have completely abdicated all responsibility and are also not clear that the geographical aspect must be taken into account for the citizens' accessibility, service offices are being closed that actually should remain – at least if we are still to believe the minister's words that the other aspects shall play some role and that there shall be offices in every FA-region.
One does not need to leave municipalities to save money. There are already municipalities today that have offered free premises so that activities do not disappear from the municipalities. But one still receives a cold shoulder from the state. And it is Erik Slottner who is the responsible minister – no one else.
Regarding the closure of the service office in Bollnäs, it has emerged that the reason for the decommissioning was that one could quickly get out of the lease agreement in Bollnäs. No other aspects have been taken into account. This can be read in the agency's own impact assessment, which I assume the minister has read before the debate today.
The target groups that will be most affected by a shutdown are those who are already the most vulnerable in society today, namely pensioners, foreign-born persons, persons with cognitive and physical functional variations, persons with mental ill-health, job seekers, and so on. This means that those who have great needs for personal service will find it significantly more difficult to fulfill their obligations towards the authorities.
Madam Speaker! Both the municipalities of Bollnäs and Ovanåker also testify that a number of guardians have already reached out and said that they do not want to continue their assignments if the service office is closed. Several types of matters that they handle for their principals cannot be performed entirely digitally or via telephone. Being a guardian is already demanding today – we all know that – but when the state makes it even harder, many plan to leave their assignments. All of this combined increases the risk that large groups of people will end up even further outside of society.
Closing the office in Bollnäs means, according to the authority, a saving that can amount to approximately 3.9 million. My questions to the minister then are: What increased costs does the government assess the society will face when people are left out and do not have their needs met, or when municipalities can no longer get people to step up as good samaritans?
These are costs that society has to bear regardless. So what is society's actual saving in this? The government must have discussed it anyway when they decided to make this cut.
It is obvious that the decision leads to poorer efficiency, more complications for the citizens, and a diminished public benefit. Why should the only office in, for example, FA-region 27, Bollnäs-Ovanåker, be closed – in contradiction to what the minister himself has stated as the government's goal?
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless react a little to what the Minister of State said: that it is very possible that Arbetsförmedlingen, Skatteverket, the police, or whichever state agency it is in question, can open up in the local areas if such a need exists.
Arbetsförmedlingen is in a situation where the administrative budget is constantly decreasing and the agency is laying off employees. There are no signs that the government is injecting money into Arbetsförmedlingen so that they can open offices in other parts of the country. If there is any agency that has been driven to digitize, it is Arbetsförmedlingen.
The Swedish Tax Agency is also making savings right now and is closing down processing offices around Sweden. Lund has been mentioned here. They are closing down their office there by the summer. I have had that debate with the Minister for Finance here in the chamber. Even in Enköping, the office is being phased out now. The Police Authority receives more money all the time, but the number of open police stations is decreasing in Sweden.
That the Swedish Tax Agency should open offices to provide declaration services all over the country when one has savings would therefore be noteworthy.
It is clear that if one wants state service, it is governance from the government that is required. Now, it will indeed be a governance from the government, but towards a reduced state presence and reduced state service, at least physical such.
This is ideologically driven. That must be admitted. One does not think that the state should exist all over the country. It is okay for the state to exist inside the customs borders here in Stockholm, but the state does not need to exist in Bollnäs, Eslöv, or Simrishamn.
Regardless of what one thinks ideologically, the risk is that it is the municipalities that will be left there and have to handle those situations when people need service. Bollnäs municipality will have to stand there, just like Simrishamn municipality, when the residents need service.
I believe we need to state that this is ideologically driven by a bourgeois government that thinks the state's presence in the country should be reduced. So that is just how it is.
Agneta Nilsson (S)
Madam Speaker! Since expired lease agreements have been grounds for the closure of other offices, we in Eslöv should be grateful that our contract has not yet expired. Therefore, we are able to keep our center until 2026. However, to base a closure on when a lease agreement expires, I think is a somewhat cynical way to treat people who clearly have a need for their service office.
Service centers spread across the entire country, even in smaller localities and in cities like Eslöv, ensure that people easily have access to local state community services. In this way, geographical gaps are countered. People living in smaller localities feel that they are worth just as much as those who live in larger cities.
A service center has several authorities gathered under the same roof. Then you take the opportunity to get help with several different matters at the same time when you are going there anyway, as one of the visitors told me when I was there in Eslöv.
When it comes to distances, it is about 40 kilometers from a part of Eslövs kommun to Lund. In that case, I have only calculated for our municipality and not for the other municipalities that belong to Mellanskåne. It is therefore not always the distance between the offices that matters, but the important thing is that all offices shall remain. One should not cut back on them.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! The concern regarding the closure of some service offices, which many of us have talked about, concerns people's opportunities to ask questions and receive support and help to do the right thing in what is difficult. But the state's presence where people live is also about creating trust. One might not think about it when cutting a little in some budget item, but the feeling that people get when the service office is closed or when the dream of a service office in their own municipality moves further and further away is that they are not important: We do not mean so much, so now they strike this out of the budget in a heartbeat.
One should not underestimate that feeling, because this is very crucial and important for a society that is to hold together.
I asked on what grounds it has now been decided that the service offices should be reduced in number. My criticism is not against the authority; it is obvious that one must make this type of decision when you are informed in the autumn that there will be cuts next year. In order to manage that saving, the only way is to close the offices where the contracts are soon expiring, without making an assessment of where the offices are needed most. Why is the government making such a decision?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it must be said that the majority of Sweden's municipalities today lack a state service office. Also, when the full expansion with 148 offices was completed, a majority of Sweden's municipalities had no state service office.
It is now claimed that municipalities that lose their state service offices will face increased costs. But it has never been the case that municipalities that have received a state service office have received reduced state grants to compensate for the municipality's reduced costs. We have never weighted state grants to municipalities based on whether they have a state service office or not. I therefore think that argument is a bit hollow.
The system of lay judges came to Sweden long before the state service offices. It is now claimed that many lay judges say they will end their assignment because the state service offices no longer exist. But there are, in fact, today heaps of lay judges operating in municipalities where there are no state service offices, and lay judges have operated in Sweden for decades without state service offices having existed. I therefore think that even this is somewhat strange and far-reaching arguments.
It is also important to point out that the state is increasing its presence throughout Sweden. The state is being significantly expanded in terms of police presence, the military defense, the judiciary, and the correctional services. The state is thus increasing its activities and presence throughout Sweden. I think it is important to add that.
Eva Lindh asks what lies behind the government's decision. The National Audit Office issued a report on the state's service centers where we were recommended to make some efficiencies. This involved, for example, that it is not efficient for the Riksdag and the government to decide where individual offices should be located. It is instead something that agencies should decide for themselves based on different parameters. This we addressed. One also sees a cost development regarding the state's service offices that is not quite matched by an increased number of visits.
That is what lies behind it, apart from naturally a general prioritization. This government wants to invest in many different things in the state budget, and then we need to cut back on some other things. There is a prioritization at the bottom.
It sometimes sounds in the debate as if we are closing down the authority. But the authority will, therefore, remain. State service offices remain around the country. After these closures, there will be 119 offices remaining – the same number that existed when Stefan Löfven was Prime Minister in 2019. I still think it is worth saying this, because the tone in the debate gives a different impression.
We have also directed the authority to come up with proposals for more mobile solutions. Adrian Magnusson can only see a motorhome when he hears the word mobile. I see many other conceivable solutions for how this authority could be staffed around Sweden in significantly more municipalities through various mobile concepts. In order not to devote too much to the management of the authority, I refrain from saying here and now which images I get in my head when I hear about mobile concepts, but it is in any case significantly more than motorhomes.
Kristoffer Lindberg (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for another debate on this issue!
Before the service center existed in Bollnäs, the authorities had their own offices there. The Minister can express concern over the anxiety of the good people as much as he wants, but at that time, it was possible to visit each authority individually. That possibility does not exist today.
The consequences that I have highlighted come from letters from the affected municipalities. They are confirmed by Statens servicecenter, which describes how the decommissioning of service offices in the extent and pace required to meet the government's cuts will have consequences for both private individuals, companies, and municipalities.
Statens servicecenter also argues that there is an increased risk that more individuals will not have their service needs met. It is, of course, true that at first glance it may appear more efficient for an agency to be in fewer locations. But what will be the social cost in the long perspective? I lack an answer to that question. How has the government calculated the total cost increase for society when these closures are made? We need to have more service offices in Sweden, not fewer.
The Minister has in a previous debate on the same issue said that his three keywords as Civil Minister are efficiency, simplification, and citizen benefit. In what way do the closures lead to more efficiency for the citizens, when they have to devote a large part of the day to traveling long distances to visit the service office? In what way does the Minister simplify things for the residents of Bollnäs and Ovanåker when the office is closed? And in what way does it mean increased citizen benefit to make it more difficult for more people to meet the authorities physically?
If the goal is for there to be at least one office in each FA-region, the minister needs to act promptly, because right now the minister's own agency is moving in the exact opposite direction.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! We will return to the chamber and continue to debate this. It is about twenty interpellations that have been submitted now, and not much happens between the times. The handling of the questions that arise regarding economic conditions and other matters is, as the members very well know, nothing that happens on an ongoing basis. We will return to this in both the spring budget and the autumn budget.
The reduction in appropriations to Statens servicecenter, I must say, is part of the streamlining of the state. We are constantly, on an ongoing basis, reviewing various state expenditures in order to be able to prioritize what is important for the parties that sit in the government. We are convinced that even with this reduction in appropriations, we will be able to provide important state services to all citizens in the country.
It is entirely correct that some residents, following this reduction, will have a longer distance to their nearest physical office. But the authorities are developing digital solutions that are becoming increasingly user-friendly and more and more advanced in their accessibility. The mobile solutions in the form of mobile offices are hoped to contribute to the authorities becoming more accessible in large parts of the country where there is currently a lack of state service offices.
We must return to this issue – but the state is present throughout the country. The State Service Center remains as an authority, and state service offices remain in very large parts of Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.