Response to interpellations 2024/25:603, 612, 623 and 630 on the closure of state service offices

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me on what grounds the decision on reduced resources to the service offices has been made, what effects I assess the closure of the service offices will have, and whether I intend to take the initiative for an evaluation and analysis of the effects of which service offices will be closed as a consequence of the savings, and if not, what the reason for that is.

Furthermore, Sanne Lennström has asked me how I and the government intend to ensure that the residents of Enköping continue to receive the help they need, even though it is now proposed that the local service office be closed. Additionally, Åsa Westlund has asked me what measures I intend to take to maintain the authorities' physical service level in Brandbergen. Furthermore, Adrian Magnusson has asked me how I will secure access to state services throughout Skåne and if there is any ultimate limit to how many service offices in Skåne can be phased out.

The Government continues to consider the service centers to be an important activity for offering 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, the activity needs to be streamlined, and some offices will be phased out as a result of reduced appropriations.

The Government's assessment of what opportunities Statens servicecenter has to streamline its operations has, among other things, been made taking into account the Swedish National Audit Office's observations in the audit of the operations, how the distribution of the number of visits has developed, and how the appropriation level has changed over time.

There will simultaneously continue to be a large number of service offices throughout the entire country, even though the travel route to the nearest permanent office will become longer for some individuals and companies.

The Government has tasked Statens servicecenter with developing a plan for a new organization of the service office network. I have full confidence in Statens servicecenter's handling of the assignment and assessment of which offices may be subject to decommissioning – this based on the frameworks and input values given to the agency.

In the final report of the assignment, Statens servicecenter shall, among other things, account for the consequences for the availability of state services in different geographical areas, and the agency shall keep the Government Offices informed about the implementation of the assignment.

The government thus has tools to follow up on the effects of the office closures within the framework of the mandate reporting and the ongoing agency management.

When it comes to consequences for individual localities that risk losing a service office, it follows from the ordinance on the location of state 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 shall initiate with municipalities and other affected actors before the continued process with current decommissioning decisions.

Statens servicecenter is simultaneously working on developing more mobile and flexible office solutions to reach citizens more easily and smoothly in more places across the country. This is a development that I am following with great interest.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! The government decided in the autumn to remove resources for the service centers in the country. As a result of this decision, two service centers in Östergötland are now being closed – one in Norrköping and one in Motala. Additionally, the service center in Tranås is also being closed. Regarding what we are going to talk about next, namely FA-regions, that is to say how we move and how we live, this also affects residents in Östergötland.

The SD-led government has decided to reduce resources to the service offices. They are to remove 150 million kronor by 2027. So far, 35 of the 148 offices are to be removed. Thus, the expansion of state service over the last five years, which the Social Democratic government carried out, is being erased.

The Minister says that he thinks the activities the service centers carry out are important. We Social Democrats know that they really are important, for example, to give people help with contacts with authorities. The government's cuts to the service centers mean that it becomes increasingly difficult to get help from a physical person. It also results in longer journeys and poorer service for those who need it the most.

The government's lack of governance also means that it is the expiration of the lease that determines which service offices will disappear. The government has indeed made the decision not to control exactly which offices are to be closed – even though the minister in his response says that an assessment has been made that this is possible based on how many visits the individual service offices have. It is an unserious way to make decisions that will affect people throughout Sweden, in my case Östergötland.

One effect, besides the obvious one that the service to the citizens becomes worse, is that trust in the state decreases. Let me therefore pause a bit and talk about trust in state activities and society. Many commentators say that trust is Sweden's gold. It is about trust in authorities and society, about trust that decisions are made in a good way and trust that authorities and society do what is best for their citizens. We had good help with this during the pandemic, when we did not need to enact laws but could give advice – people trusted that there was a basis for them.

This trust does not exist on its own. It depends on the decisions we make in this chamber, how the government makes its decisions, and how politics makes a difference for people.

People in Östergötland will no longer receive the service they desire, and this decision will also mean that those who have so eagerly longed for a service office in their municipality will not receive it. It means, I believe, that trust will be affected in the long run – it is tragic.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Mr. Speaker! The state service center is a way for the state to be present throughout the country. At a service office, citizens can get help with contacts with authorities – it can be about, for example, Försäkringskassan or Arbetsförmedlingen. This activity is particularly useful for people who need guidance or who find themselves in a state of digital exclusion.

The vision for Statens servicecenter is to work together to make the state more accessible and efficient. The current government, however, chooses to go in the completely opposite direction, with a saving that means 35 offices will be closed. This is the opposite of local state service throughout the country, as it will mean a longer journey for many who already today have scarce resources in various ways.

The service centers in Östhammar and Enköping are just two of the offices that will need to be closed due to the government's savings on Statens servicecenter. For some who live in the relatively large municipality of Enköping, this will mean that they will have a travel time of one and a half hours to the nearest office, which is located in Uppsala or Västerås.

I am against the savings that the government is making at Statens servicecenter. It is this saving that leads to the closures we are debating here today. The government and the minister cannot wash their hands of it and say that it is the agency that chooses which offices should be closed, when they are making this gigantic saving.

It is also not the case that, during the decommissioning, one has only looked at which offices have been used the least, but one has also taken lease agreements into account. If a lease agreement is going to expire, that can also be decisive.

During 2024, the Enköping office received 9,377 visits – that is many. Many people who have received help will in the future be left without an office to turn to.

There are many target groups that are dependent on these offices. One can get help with pension or tax issues, which the office on Korsängsgatan in Enköping has been able to assist with until now. Last year, the number of visits to the offices increased by 4 percent. It concerns older people who do not have digital skills, but employees also testify to a younger target group, namely young people who have difficulty with contact with authorities. This is a help that will now be moved significantly further away from those who live in Enköping.

This is also a question of the rural area's existence or non-existence. Enköping and Östhammar are both surrounding municipalities, and it is not unique that most things are centralized to cities and that it is there one must travel to receive service. It is often a matter of both long and sometimes costly journeys in our country.

In an interview with Sveriges Radio P4 Uppland, the chairperson of the regional board for Region Uppsala, Helena Proos, pointed this out. The Minister himself chose not to participate in the interview and claimed that failing visitor figures were the basis for the decision regarding Enköping and Östhammar. But how can the Minister say so? When such an initiative is so new, one has not given the operation a fair chance.

Despite the fact that the activity is relatively new, I would really not want to claim that the figure for Enköping for 2024, 9,377 visits, is small. It is on the contrary many people who have relied on an activity that will now disappear.

It speaks for itself that the government is leaving the countryside and those who live there behind. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister: How does the government intend to ensure that the people in Enköping are not hit hard by this closure?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

I was perhaps a bit naive when I thought that state service to the residents in this country was not a partisan issue, and that everyone nevertheless had the ambition that the state should provide an accessible, reliable, and present service for its citizens – not least when it concerns such important functions as being able to pay the correct tax, which in turn is the foundation of our society, being able to receive the correct support, neither too much nor too little, from Försäkringskassan when one needs it, and being able to get into work.

But apparently, this is an issue where we do not have the same ambitions. The National Audit Office has shown that when it comes to the service centers, there are some quality aspects where it could be better. A reaction to this could be that one improves the quality, but this government chooses instead to scale back and close offices – despite the fact that we know that today there are many citizens in our country who experience that it is very difficult to get in contact with state authorities.

The service office in Brandbergen is located a bit south of Stockholm. It is easy to think that all state services are in this region's area, but that is not the case. I think some would argue that the government believes that the entire Stockholm region in some way has proximity to Stureplan, Medborgarplatsen, or Sergels torg. That is not the case.

The service office is stated to be located in Stockholm, Brandbergen. Brandbergen is located in Haninge, a municipality with 100,000 inhabitants, as mentioned. We have many residents who live very far from just Brandbergen and who, with this decision, will have even further to go for state services. They live out on our islands and so on.

If you visit a regular bank branch, which I do sometimes, you notice how many people there are who do not manage digital contacts and who need help with both one and the other. It is the same target group that has the greatest need for the state service centers. It is those who have some form of disability, have an immigrant background, or have difficulty with Swedish. But it is also completely ordinary people who are starting to find it difficult to keep up with the technological development. Sometimes it can even be someone with a broad dialect who cannot get through and can use the digital solutions. The state service must also exist for them, and the service centers around the country are an important and good reform that the previous government achieved.

I also want to return to what colleague Eva Lindh said: that this matter of trust in the state, that we declare as well and as honestly as we can and try to do right in contacts with authorities, is something to be very careful with, not least in the times we live in, with the threats and the defense discussions we have. We have such a community in our country, and we know that the state is there when we need to talk to someone. It is not just about a telephone number, but it is possible to get in contact. But it is also about the larger and broader perspective: that we help each other when we end up in different crises. In that work, I would say that the service centers have a very important function that the government completely misses.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It is an answer that in large parts resembles the previous answers that have been presented in the debate, but I thank you nonetheless.

In Skåne, there are four service offices that have been closed or are to be closed. In Simrishamn, the sign has already been taken down and removed. It also concerns Trelleborg, Landskrona, and Eslöv. The size of the towns is somewhat mixed, but overall they are quite well-visited offices. Landskrona, for example, had over 22,000 visits during 2024. I think that is quite a lot, at least, but perhaps it is not much for a former city council member from the City of Stockholm.

During this discussion, which has now occurred in episodes, Minister Slottner has constantly referred to the fact that it is the Statens servicecenters' decision to close the offices. This, in turn, is based on the budget conditions that the government has provided to the agency; it is important to emphasize this. It is a decision that the government owns and which one should not shift onto the agency. The Kristersson government has therefore wanted to reduce the number of service offices in this country. That is just how it is.

Madam Speaker! I think it is important to hold people accountable in the right place. Therefore, I intend to hold Minister Slottner accountable for these closures. In the discussion, the Minister has repeatedly shifted the question to the agency itself. In the response, the Minister states that the agency needs to be streamlined but does not actually specify why. It is apparently at the expense of Simrishamnsborg and others; it is clear, at least.

The question then becomes: Is the authority sufficiently streamlined now, or should further streamlining take place? We do not know that.

It is precisely on this, Madam Speaker, on which I base my interpellation. Is there any outer limit for when the government might say that no more service offices than this shall be closed? Or could it involve more closed service offices throughout the whole of Skåne?

The Minister has in previous debates said that there should be at least one service office in each FA-region. Purely hypothetically, this could mean that in Skåne there is one service office in Malmö and one service office in Kristianstad. That could be all in the whole of Skåne.

But the discussion we have here today and on many other occasions about state service is not just about people being able to submit their tax returns at a physical office. It is also, as we have touched upon previously, about the state's role, the state's legitimacy, and the state's function in this country. Should the state be present in the entire country or just a bastion located within the Stockholm city limits?

These savings mean that the state moves another step further away from the people. Combined with the other savings that we are currently seeing in state agencies all over the country, it becomes a kind of cocktail of withdrawal. The Swedish Tax Agency, for example, is closing processing offices both in Skåne, such as in Lund, and in Upplands län, such as in Enköping.

Other authorities are also disappearing from smaller towns following clear directives from the government and are being centralized to large cities, for example Stockholm, or other cities. But most often, it is still Stockholm that the authorities are centralized to.

Madam Speaker! It is possible that a former city council member in Stockholm, who can probably see authority signs everywhere, does not think this is a problem. But for people who perhaps only have one authority sign left in the suburb, I still want to assert that it is a rather strong value signal when the last sign is unscrewed.

This government usually does not hesitate to engage in signaling politics in other contexts. But in this case, the government does not see the value of the signals one sends out or the value of state services for the elderly people in Simrishamn or for the over 22,000 visitors in Landskrona.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The old Scanian actor and singer Edvard Persson once sang: Let them just go on, we will manage anyway! The verse gains a new relevance with the bourgeois-led government. Now, in fact, we have no choice. We are forced to manage anyway.

We are now seeing an SD government that does not look at the whole country. A big-city perspective permeates the entire policy, everything from the economic distribution policy to the state presence throughout the country.

I have at previous occasions when we have discussed the issue claimed – which the Prime Minister has actually never contradicted – that we have a government that sends the message: We do not see you, we do not hear you, we do not care! I assert that it is precisely that perspective that governs the government's policy, everything from the economic policy to the state's presence out in the country.

I have indeed harbored a certain hope that these debates would mean that the Minister would nevertheless come to some small insight and have the courage for some small reconsideration and perhaps be able to say: This did not turn out right, and this did not turn out well. Of that, we see nothing. Now we stand in the chamber of the Riksdag again. The Minister gets a new chance to say something in that direction. If he does not do so today, he will surely get more opportunities ahead.

This entire thesis, this entire assertion that we have a government that does not represent the whole country is also underscored in the answer that the Minister now delivers to the interpellants.

Let me take three examples. In the government's response to the interpellations, it appears that service centers shall continue to exist throughout the country but within a reasonable distance. With the closures that are now occurring, it is easy to get the impression that the government thinks we have had an over-establishment of service centers all over the country. The level of service has been too high. It needs to be reduced.

Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: Does the government mean that we have an over-establishment of service offices all over the country?

The second point is that the Minister, in his response, writes that the operations need to be streamlined and that this should occur based on the Swedish National Audit Office's observations when it comes to the distribution of the number of visits. In that case, one can reflect on a couple of things. Landskrona – my home municipality – with a population of around 45,000 has a service office that has received 22,000 visits, which is twice as much as corresponding municipalities of the same size. In that case, it can hardly be the distribution of the number of visits that has been governing.

When one then meets the service offices, one hears what the reason is: No, there is no consequence analysis, and there is no assessment. What governs the entire closure is when the lease agreements expire. And now it happens to be that the lease agreements in Landskrona expire now in June, and therefore one can move from there now. It is not the number of visits, it is not the service level and it is not the need that determines which offices shall remain.

The third and final one is this: It states that the authority is responsible for initiating dialogue with municipalities and other relevant actors in the ongoing process. Good! The problem is only that the municipalities governed by the right, those who are party friends with the minister and the government's representatives, choose not to even accept that summons.

Then my question is: Has the Minister spoken with their party friends around in the municipalities and asked how they intend to act and in what way cooperation can be achieved in this matter?

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the interpellants, who have taken the initiative for this very important debate!

I have said it before, but given the policy that the government is pursuing regarding the state's presence throughout Sweden, I repeat myself: Sweden is larger than Stockholm. The service offices have an incredibly important role to play for the citizens, and they contribute to maintaining the state's presence in the entire country.

Now the government has seen to it, with "brave courage," as they say, that the service office at my home in Bollnäs is being shut down on June 13. We have previously debated the matter in this chamber, but the question that the minister still has not answered is: Why?

The number of visits to the Bollnäs office over the last three years has been between 10,000 and 13,000. In the same year, the office handles between 13,000 and 17,000 administrative cases. The office is open five hours a day, four days a week. A rough calculation means that approximately every fourth minute that the office is open, someone visits the service office. The Minister thinks that these people will now find it more difficult to physically get help from Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket.

In a previous interpellation regarding the service centers, the Minister has emphasized that the goal should be to have at least one service center in each FA-area, i.e., functional analysis area. It also appears from the assignment that the government has given to Statens servicecenter when service centers are now being closed.

But Tillväxtverket has now made a decision on a new division of FA-regions in Sweden. Among other things, this means that a new region is established for Bollnäs-Ovanåker, number 27. But only a few months later, the government closes the only service office in that FA-region. Why then, if the goal now is that there should be at least one office in every FA-region?

The same thing is happening in FA-region 34 and 43, Arvika and Ludvika. The offices are being closed, and now one lacks offices in those FA-regions.

The Minister must surely be aware of this and know that his cuts mean that more and more FA-regions are left without service offices, even though the goal is that they should remain. Or is it such that within the Civil Minister's area of responsibility, one hand does not know what the other is doing? The update of the FA-region division occurs every ten years, so it feels, to say the least, strange that the Minister would not have been aware of this.

In an additional six FA-regions, service offices are missing even before the government begins its cuts. This means that they are now missing in nine regions. But since the closures continue according to the Minister for Civil Affairs' plan, more and more FA-regions will completely lack service offices. How is that possible? And what does the minister intend to do to ensure that there are service offices in every FA-region, in accordance with the promises that the minister himself has made here in the Riksdag's rostrum?

Statens servicecenter as an authority and the, in fact, hundreds of thousands of residents in the new FA regions need a statement from the minister. Will the authority receive new funds to maintain or reopen offices in the new FA regions, or does the minister intend to decide that service offices, after all, shall not exist in all FA regions?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost: Niklas Karlsson applies the epithet SD-government to this government. That is, of course, wrong. It is factually wrong. A government where a party is not included can never be called by that party's name as a government. The Sweden Democrats are not part of the government. It is the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals who have parliamentary cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, just as the Social Democrats had parliamentary cooperation with other parties when they themselves sat in government. It did not become a V-government, a C-government, or an MP-government for that reason.

It is therefore factually incorrect that Sweden has an SD government. We have a bourgeois government that must secure a majority in the chamber, which we need to do because we in Sweden live in a parliamentary democracy. We also said before the election: If these parties win, we will gather a majority in Sweden's Riksdag and form a government. Therefore, we have parliamentary cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna.

Nor neither is it true that we have an SD-led government, as Eva Lindh claims. It is not SD that rules us. We are naturally dependent on SD to get our policies through, but the government is not ruled by SD. We have a cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna.

So I have said it.

Yes, sometimes it can feel like one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. It is an incredibly broad portfolio I have as Civil Minister. But I try to keep many balls in the air at the same time and think I manage it quite well.

I notice a criticism during the debate that it is the same answer now as in previous interpellation debates. I believe I have now received about twenty interpellations on the same subject, so it cannot come as a huge surprise that the answer resembles the previous 15. The messages are, in fact, the same. The budget has not changed since then. Nor did any new messages come in the supplementary budget regarding Statens servicecenter. The budget is laid and applies for 2025, and the agency has to handle this.

We have also changed the ordinance so that the government no longer decides or interferes with which offices should be open and which not. This shall be done by the authority itself. This does not in any way conflict with the Swedish administrative principle. We believe that the authority is the one that best determines where the offices do the most good based on the revenue available.

It is of course true that the number of offices is now decreasing due to new budget conditions. On that point, I have never shifted the blame. It is a reality. But exactly which offices are to be closed, we believe the authority is best positioned to determine.

It was also one of the proposals that came in the National Audit Office's report. They suggested that it should be a decision for the agency itself where the service centers should be located.

This shall be done based primarily on three main principles. It is about where they provide the most operational benefit based on, among other things, the number of visits, it is about where the operations become most efficient, and it is about economic realities. It is this that must be weighed together. Then, the long-term ambition is that there shall be an office within each FA-region.

Now the number of FA regions is being expanded. We will have to see exactly what consequences that will have in this regard; I cannot give any statement on that here and now.

It is also worth reminding that with these changes in the coming years, we are returning to the office network we had in 2019. The state will therefore be present even after these changes. There will be state service offices all over Sweden. Furthermore, the agency has now been tasked with working on flexible and mobile office solutions so that state service offices may perhaps be in even more places in the future than today, but with slightly freer concepts.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I have still not received an answer from the Minister on my questions. Perhaps the Minister would have had time to answer them if he had not spent so much time talking about whether we are right or not when we say SD-led government. I can only state that I will continue to say SD-led government, because that is what it says according to the Tidö Agreement. It is a completely different arrangement than what has existed previously, and therefore it is also an SD-led government – so that was also said.

We go back to 2019, says the Minister. We will now, according to information, have as few service offices in Sweden as we had in 2019. The Social Democrats think it is important to have service offices. That is why we expanded them and continued to expand from what we had in 2019 to what we had when we handed over power in 2022. We think it is an important place for the state to provide that help and that support to people who need it.

I have asked what effect the Minister considers this will have. I have not quite received an answer to that question.

I can provide some pictures from Östergötland. It is not so difficult to find them. Many people are very upset about the decision that has now been taken and what it will mean for the people of Östergötland.

Let me just mention one meeting. A woman said this: I have worked my whole life, and throughout my whole life, my intention has been that I want to do right. I want to be a human being and a citizen who does right. If I do not now receive this help to understand all the documentation and everything I am to answer, I am afraid that I might not be able to do everything right. Who then bears that responsibility?

This woman is just one of all those people who feel frustration over no longer being able to go to the service office nearest to them.

I also want to dwell a little on what is said in the answer regarding that service offices will continue to exist throughout the country – within a reasonable distance. How does one assess a reasonable distance? The Minister can, for example, travel to those parts of southern Östergötland which will now not have any particularly reasonable distance – as I assess it – to a service office.

I am also worried about the offices that will nevertheless remain. We have some in our underserved areas that are not judged to be relevant to be closed, at least not right now, because the contract does not expire right now. But has it been saved completely? I think that question still needs to be asked. Is the Minister's assessment that it has now been saved completely? Or do other service offices need to be worried, and do other people need to continue to be worried that their service offices will also disappear?

That we continue to ask these questions and bring the issue to debate in the chamber is because we are passionate about it. Creating trust, continuing to provide support to people, and ensuring that people feel that the state is present is something we Social Democrats are passionate about. Therefore, we will also continue to pursue this issue.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says that the answer remains unchanged. Yes, it does – unfortunately, we must add. The decision truly affects people of flesh and blood. Therefore, I intended to build upon my colleague Eva Lindh's story about people who actually exist and who are hit hard by the decision on cuts that the government has made.

I have been asked to tell about Tilda during the debate. Tilda lives in Enköping, and she has used the service center frequently. She is a sickness pensioner, and she has dyslexia and dyscalculia. She has received help from both Arbetsförmedlingen and Försäkringskassan via the service office in Enköping.

When I ask Tilda what she thinks is good about Statens servicecenter, she answers: There is no one who is condescending towards me, and I get help.

Tilda continues: The closure affects me in many different ways. I have no family who can help me. After I became unemployed, the people who work at the office helped me, because I need more help than others. Many forms are tough for me, among other things, the letters easily jump in the papers that need to be filled in. It is difficult to tell friends how sick I am and ask them for help. I do not want to worry them. I live, in fact, with 40 percent lung capacity, and that means I cannot travel long distances, for example to Uppsala where the nearest office will be located.

Tilda underlines that she is not the only one who finds herself in a difficult situation.

The conversation with Tilda was emotional. She wanted to tell her story to the Minister today, and that is why I called for the debate. I actually have only one question for the Minister, which I hope I will get an answer to: What does the Minister want to answer Tilda?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I was somewhat moved by the story of Tilda. Given that she is not the only one who can be affected in a similar situation, one can only conclude that the Minister has received far too few interpellations on the subject. It sounded a bit as if the Minister thought that this is enough now. But I think the opposite, namely that all people who are affected by the decision must be heard in the chamber. They must receive answers as to why they should find it harder to do right, as Tilda wants and has told my colleague Sanne Lennström.

The Minister thinks it is a bit awkward to be called a government minister in an SD government. One tip is not to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats, if you think it is that awkward to be mentioned in the same breath as the Sweden Democrats.

The government also finds it difficult to be claimed to be governed by the Sweden Democrats. It is the same thing there, that is to say, one just has to stop being it to avoid that epithet. Eva Lindh clearly explained how the Sweden Democrats govern the government. It is clearly seen in the cooperation agreement, namely that everything must go through the Sweden Democrats before it is taken up in the chamber.

This debate, however, is not about the government's choice of coalition partners but about the people who are affected by the government's policy. It is surely obvious that the physical presence of the state will decrease significantly for many people. More reference will be made to that one should manage one's affairs with the help of digital services.

At the service center in Brandbergen, 100 people every day receive help to do what is expected of them, but where they actually need support to be able to do it correctly. It is about declaring, getting the right pension, and getting the right support from Försäkringskassan. I think that the government needs to give some thought to how the changes affect the social contract. That was the reason we decided to expand the service centers. We believe that the state needs to be available in people's everyday lives, to reach out and have a conversation with, not just be met by a voice on the phone. Therefore, the offices were needed all over the country, preferably where the groups who have the hardest time using other alternative technologies live in greater numbers than others.

What happens to the social contract when Tilda cannot do right, despite trying? What happens to the social contract when it is not possible to get in contact with the state regarding a perhaps slightly more complicated matter than what can be explained over a telephone service? The government should reflect on that.

The last thing I intend to bring up is that I welcome the streamlining and reduction of bureaucracy in the state. But then one must ensure that the streamlining occurs in the right place, that is, not in the service that is intended for the benefit of the citizens, but in the superstructure that is most often defended by all types of organizations. The research shows this clearly. This requires an active government that ensures that the savings occur in the right place.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! During the debate, we have entered into more philosophical or ideological arguments regarding the state's presence and trust. These are important arguments to advance, and I am happy to do so every day of the week. But as has also been raised in the debate, it is people of flesh and blood who are affected by the closures in practice.

Skånes Folkblad went to the service office in Eslöv and spent a few hours there. The office in Eslöv is open two days a week – a few hours a day. It is not the case that all service offices are open eight hours a day five days a week. Sometimes it appears to be so. In any case; they went there. There was high activity at the office during the entire opening time. Many people were moving there.

A man, Jonas Jansson, was there to declare; it was declaration times. He expressed himself like this regarding the closure: The whole society disappears. Previously, Arbetsförmedlingen existed. Now there is the service center, which is only open two days a week. If it is closed down, my daughter can help me.

It is how it is; some people have difficulty with digital contacts. Not infrequently they are the elderly, but sometimes also other people. For them, it is a matter of important service.

Among ordinary people, there is a feeling that the state has withdrawn and disappeared for a long time. The office has disappeared from my home location, and it is a feeling shared in many places around the country. It does not apply if one walks out from the chamber and stands at Centralplan, but it applies if one travels to Simrishamn, Tomelilla or Ystad in my part of Skåne.

I believe there is a major misconception of what the situation looks like around the country. During a question period about two weeks ago, there was a discussion about the number of police stations in the country. The Minister stated that he finds it hard to believe that there are fewer police stations today than before. But that is the case. In 2023, there were 254 police visitor offices, and today there are 231 offices. That is a large reduction in just one year. But that is how it is. The state is disappearing to an ever greater extent, and then the service center where you can talk about your tax return or your case at Arbetsförmedlingen or Försäkringskassan can be an important institution in society.

The Minister is trying to build up a conflict here regarding flexibility and argues that these authorities will become much more flexible in the future, that it is the goal. He is trying to make it seem as if there is a conflict between a caravan in Tomelilla and a physical building in Simrishamn. It is a fabricated, imaginary conflict. But the Minister still paints it as if they were to stand in conflict with each other. They obviously do not.

The risk is imminent that many of these locations will be deprived of a physical office and then perhaps may be given a caravan, which will come once in the spring and once in the autumn – if it even becomes such a flexible solution. It is perhaps not entirely easy to be present with all those systems.

The Minister also said that what is being done does not conflict with Swedish administrative principles. No, and no one has claimed that. One could have said that Statens servicecenter should be located in these places. That is what is done in the case of other agencies and companies. For example, Systembolaget has a clear mandate to be present in every municipality in the entire country. One could have said that Statens servicecenter should also be located in existing places.

This, however, conflicts with the principle that a good state should exist throughout the entire country. It conflicts with a principle of state presence. I therefore think that the Minister is trying to muddy the waters a bit sometimes. One may perhaps do that in a debate. But it needs to be pointed out at least.

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister spent almost half of his time talking about other things instead of answering the questions that arose in the submission. I asked how the Minister views whether there is an over-establishment of service offices today. Of that, we heard nothing. I asked which contacts and conversations he has had with the municipal managements represented by the parties that sit in Sweden's government and which have chosen to forgo consultation opportunities with the service offices. Of that, we heard nothing.

The question becomes increasingly strange. It is stated very clearly in the Instrument of Government that the government governs the realm. When the minister in an interpellation debate in the chamber of the Riksdag says that the number of visits shall be one of the conditions for reviewing and streamlining the service offices, and in the next breath says that the authority decides this itself, one wonders what we need the government for.

More and more of us are wondering what we are going to do with the SD government. It is clear. In this debate, Minister Slottner personifies it – what are we going to do with the government? It is obvious that the government has no plan. There is no interest in a consequence analysis of the decisions one makes. There is no idea of why the service offices should exist.

This is about using a cheese-slicer principle to find cuts in the entire state budget in act and meaning to free up resources to lower taxes and make it better for those who already have, for those who can take a walk to the subway, and for those who have five minutes for public and commercial service.

To the rest of the country, one says: We do not hear you. We do not see you. We do not care.

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

Kristoffer Lindberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for this debate!

The Minister lists some principles that should apply when deciding which offices are to be closed. The problem, which we have tried to describe, is that it is not those principles that are being followed. The offices that are closed are those whose lease agreements expire first. No other considerations are taken into account.

What does the Minister intend to do about that? I perceive no announcement regarding whether the service office in Bollnäs will remain, given that it is the only service office remaining in FA-region 27. We will have to return to that question.

Another example where the service office is being closed is Kungälv. It is a decision that evokes strong feelings among both the opposition and the governing party. "It is the worst thing I have been involved with," says the chairman of the municipal executive board, Miguel Odhner, Socialdemokraterna. The Civil Minister also receives criticism from his own party: "This affects the most vulnerable, this service has been very, very important," says opposition councillor Gun-Marie Daun, Kristdemokraterna. Both Västra Götalandsregionen and the County Administrative Board are also critical of the closure.

Kungälv Municipality has offered its premises, its services, money and mobile solutions. For me, that testifies to desperation. Municipalities are thus prepared to provide premises and to bear costs that the state has for the service centers but get no response from the minister's agencies. Does the minister understand how important the service centers are for citizens and municipalities all over Sweden?

Madam Speaker! The last time we debated the issue, I urged the Minister to go out to the municipalities where the service centers are to be closed and meet all the people who are dependent on the service and the contact they receive at the service centers. I intended to conclude by giving the Minister the opportunity to report which locations he has visited and what the feedback from the visitors at the service centers has been to the Minister during those visits.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! For obvious reasons, it will be difficult to have time to answer all the questions that have been asked here.

The members of the committee also know that I take every opportunity to react against the epithet SD-government, because it is factually incorrect. And I will continue to do so. One must either get used to it or say the government.

To Åsa Westlund, I can say that I do not mean that interpellations are enough. It would never occur to me to tell a member not to submit any interpellations or questions to the government and to us ministers. But I said that it is now approximately 20 interpellations that have been submitted, and that the answer will be approximately the same cannot surprise the interpellants, because nothing has changed in substance since the first interpellation was written. One can probably expect to receive approximately the same answer on the 21st, 22nd, and perhaps the 32nd or 52nd interpellation, as long as no other budget conditions are given to the agencies.

I do not think it is particularly difficult that we are called the SD government. But I think it is quite silly and frivolous. Above all, I think it is to speak untruths. One risks giving an impression that the Sweden Democrats are in the government. It is unfortunate if that impression is given here in the chamber when perhaps tens of thousands of people are sitting and watching. Many school classes are also here visiting the Riksdag. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to say that the Sweden Democrats are not, in fact, in the government.

We did, however, get an election result which means that over 50 percent of the members belong to parties that want a conservative prime minister. That is the democracy we operate in. Furthermore, we now have a very successful government, if I may say so myself.

I still want to de-dramatize a bit. The state is not present only through physical offices. One can be present in many different ways. Not least, the digital service has developed incredibly much in recent years. The digital services are used to a significantly greater extent than before. It is clear that it has some kind of effect. We cannot escape that. Furthermore, we have tasked the authority to work more with mobile and flexible office solutions in order to be able to be present in more places in the future than today, if concepts that are good are found.

At the same time, we must remember that over half of the municipalities in Sweden do not have a state service office today. One still receives help in some way from these authorities, either by traveling to the nearest service office in another municipality or by calling, emailing, or however else one can get in contact with these authorities.

Each respective authority can now answer for itself regarding whether it will set up its own office after the state service office has been shut down. It may be the case that one of these four authorities wants to do so. For example, Arbetsförmedlingen or Skatteverket may want to open a local office at the location where there has previously been a state service office. I cannot answer that right now, but it is entirely possible that they see that the need exists.

Eva Lindh asked a direct question: What will the effect be? The effect will primarily be that more people will have a longer distance to their nearest government service office. But many of those who get a longer distance will have shorter distances than those who today have the longest distance with the offices we have now.

As for Östergötland, Norrköping is one of the municipalities where a service office is to be closed. But they have two service offices today. Norrköping will therefore continue to have a state service office.

Regarding the absolute last question I received here, I have visited, among other places, Motala, which is one of the municipalities whose service offices will be closed. There, I spoke with the press and answered questions about this. I am not hiding.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! The fact that there is not a service office in every municipality is still not a reason to close more service offices so that people have even longer distances to them. I think that is a very poor argument. I have also said that this is very strange because it does not really add up. The Minister has answered that the government always considers the service offices to be an important activity. We see no evidence of that. In that way, the government is not successful. I would like to call it detached from reality, because it obviously does not listen to what is important for people.

It is important for people to feel that they have proximity to societal functions, to be able to do right, and to be a part of society. It is precisely what all those we have talked about express. One is not at the service office because one wants to hang out a bit. One is at the service office because one wants help and support to be able to do right and be a citizen who participates and contributes to our society. I believe that is something we should be happy about.

I am incredibly concerned about what I spoke about in my first post, that is to say, the trust, which has been Sweden's gold. We need to safeguard the trust of our fellow citizens. They must be able to trust that the state, politics, and society are for them. Closing down the service centers can be dismissed and called a minor issue. But it is an important issue for many.

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

Sanne Lennström (S)

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I was quite speechless when I heard the Minister's latest debate contribution. He said that he sits in a successful government. But I stood here at the rostrum and told about a woman in Enköping who will have to travel very far to the nearest office, which is located in Uppsala. She lives with reduced lung capacity. I asked for an answer for her on how she should act when the service office in Enköping is shut down. But we heard the Minister talk about whether he sits in an SD government or not. He said that his government is successful. I think that is unworthy of this debate.

I would also like to build on what Member Adrian Magnusson touched upon: that this is about democracy. It is about accountability and about us standing here in the debate today and demanding answers on what the consequences will be of the offices disappearing and the rug being pulled out from under, for example, Enköping and Östhammar. I think it is unworthy and very sad that the people who want answers about a more difficult life situation will not get them.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The service office in Brandbergen will be closed. Every day, 100 fewer people will be able to receive help from state authorities in Haninge. Almost every fourth service office in the country is being closed by the government with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna.

The Minister called the government successful. It is therefore the work of a successful government to abolish the state service all over the country. I think Eva Lindh was completely right when she said that the government is rather detached from reality.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that the state is accessible to all people in the entire country, also for those people who have difficulty with digital technology.

When one is to save money and streamline operations – that can be done – one must have a clear goal to safeguard the core activities and the service provided to people, whether it concerns healthcare or service offices, and not just give a saving mandate to the authorities. We know, after all, what the result will be otherwise. Then one safeguards one's own office and one's own middle management. That is what all research shows.

If one seriously wants to streamline operations, one should not abolish them but instead ensure that all those agencies that have a mandate from the government to serve the citizens actually devote themselves to that and reduce other administration.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! It has already been stated from the rostrum several times that this is a special debate, if one expresses it diplomatically. It is a rather strange debate, I think, where it has, among other things, been said that Statens servicecenter follows certain principles. But then we were told that the lease agreements determine which offices are closed. There are, therefore, actually no principles being followed. The Government does not govern the agency but lets it float freely and do a bit of whatever it wants. This can lead to Statens servicecenter's offices being closed down a bit everywhere.

As I said in my previous post, this is about people of flesh and blood, but one can, of course, also make ideological and philosophical arguments. The Minister gave in to an almost philosophical digression when he began talking about how digitalization makes the state present and said that if you can call an authority, then it exists. If you call 114 14, it means that the Swedish Police Authority exists in your municipality. If you can log in somewhere and handle your affairs, then the state is present. It is almost like paraphrasing Descartes: I think of the state, therefore it exists. We are truly entering into some kind of philosophical reasoning if we think that the state is present if one can log in to a service.

I am going to meet the national organization of pensioners in Ystad on Friday. If I tell them that digitalization means that the state is present – and that the fact that they can log in to a service means that the state is present in Ystad – I will probably have to put on a protective helmet because of how they might react.

This is a very special debate, I must say. It wanders a bit here and there, and a lot of time is spent talking about parliamentary conditions. One can spend time on that. It is the government's choice. I believe we will have reason to return. There may not be 52 interpellation debates, but we will probably have a heap more before we are finished with this question.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! The debate is absolutely scattered, but that can also be due to the fact that we have five interpellants and one minister. Quite a few arguments have been raised. The interpellants have significantly more speaking time than the minister in this case. That naturally means that many arguments must be addressed. It can be perceived as scattered.

I still hope that it has been a content-rich and rewarding debate for the listeners. Just the fact that the debate is broadcast on TV, both digitally and analogically, is enough to make the Riksdag feel more present for those who live far from here, for example. Certainly, one can make activities and institutions accessible through digitalization. That is something I truly want to advocate for.

It was claimed that the prioritization regarding the offices that are now being closed is done with regard to the length of the lease agreements. I have not verified that claim. That should not be what is guiding, but it is clear that it can sometimes coincide. The government increased the so-called appropriation savings precisely so that it would not have to be the only factor.

I received criticism stating that I did not answer the question regarding the effect of the closure of the service offices. I believe that I did. The effects are that some people will have a physically longer distance to a service office and that we will go down to the same number of offices as in 2019. But even then, I think that Sweden was a reasonably well-functioning country, where the state was also present.

Since then, the question has been asked: Has it been saved completely? The conditions we have now set imply a saving of 50 million per year. It will produce these effects. The Government must return in coming budgets regarding which frameworks we set for the authorities.

It was almost entertaining when Niklas Karlsson said that the government only thinks about those who live five minutes from the subway. It comes from a government that left behind a diesel price of 28 kronor per liter.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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