The handling of the Riksdag's communications

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I heard the beginning of Lars Engsund's speech, I felt like saying: Now we have come to the matter that is today's main act.

It may not be true considering the time the debate will cover, but it is nevertheless an important matter.

We have just had a proper review of the KU's work in the debates on the audit cases. For me, who is new both to the Riksdag and to the KU, it has been an educational year, which many others have expressed. I have at times reflected on the concept of "nådiga luntan" and thought that it is perhaps used a bit too stingily when it is only used in reference to the budget. Sometimes, when one goes through the KU documents, it feels as if this expression could very well apply to them as well.

What I am about to say has been emphasized by several people during the day, but I intend to say it anyway. I truly experience that the committee's work has been characterized by respect, a willingness to cooperate, and some tough discussions. And it has not been easy all the time. But I think we have collectively contributed to the KU continuing to take its tasks seriously.

Now there are some who have followed this debate on-site and on TV, and I want to emphasize that my colleagues and I, when we bring up the way we work, do not do so because we in any way want to congratulate ourselves. Malin Björk said at the beginning of the review debate that in times of polarization and when there is a tough social climate and debate climate, there can be a point in showing how politicians from different sides can actually cooperate.

Since I and other colleagues are dependent on the office's service, I want to emphasize that the office has performed eminently well during the year.

Men, Mr. Speaker, it is not the review that we are debating now, but the handling of the Riksdag's petitions. Just like previous debates, this debate is largely about the relationship between the Riksdag and the government. I will not use my entire allotted speaking time, but I would like to briefly address a few points in the position paper.

Firstly, we in the KU do not make any other assessment than the government regarding the announcements in our area that the government considers to be finalized. But one of these concerns the work against antisemitism. There, the government argues that several proposals that were in the budget bill for 2023 addressed the content of the announcement, and it is against this background that it is considered to be finalized. I think it is good that the government also emphasizes that the work against antisemitism must continue, which the committee has also agreed with.

Secondly, the KU must once again address the time aspect for some announcements that have not been finalized. If one reads the report, it can be seen that there are some announcements that were decided upon over eleven years ago. It cannot be considered reasonable that it takes so long. The committee has clarified this in several previous reports. If one reads our report from this year, it appears with all desirable clarity exactly how many times this has been emphasized.

Thirdly, a number of other committees have expressed their views. They either share the government's assessments or they object, as in some cases. KU makes no independent assessment of these conditions but refers to the respective committees' statements.

However, we have noted one thing in our position, and that is that the government has included two announcements in the social affairs committee's area that the Riksdag has not decided on. And we can perhaps agree that it is somewhat unfortunate.

With these words regarding an important report, I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal to include the letters in the records.

I would like to thank the committee for a good cooperation. Since I will probably not return to this rostrum during this parliamentary session, I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a wonderful summer. And note the weather warnings that have now been issued, because it is going to get very hot.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Since 1961, the government has submitted reports to the Riksdag regarding the measures the government has taken in connection with the Riksdag's various decisions. According to the Rules of Procedure, the government shall every year, in a communication to the Riksdag, report which measures the government has taken in connection with the Riksdag communications that have been submitted to the government.

Also this year, we in the Committee on the Constitution want to repeat what we have said previously, namely that we note that the government's account of the handling of the Riksdag's petitions since several years back provides a more detailed report of measures taken by the government and can be considered to give a correct picture of the Riksdag's petitions to the government. We naturally view this development positively.

In this report, the government first accounts for the measures it has taken following various requests from us in the Riksdag. The committees are given the opportunity to comment on these and assess whether, strictly speaking, they are satisfied with, for example, how long it has taken and how it has occurred. We do not review that assessment in the Committee on the Constitution, which is ultimately due to the fact that it requires a great deal of expertise to be able to decide the issue, and it is our colleagues in the respective committees who primarily possess that expertise.

In the area of the Committee on the Constitution, however, we make our own assessment on the merits. We agree on the assessment even this year – we usually do – but when it comes to the whole, we can state that it is more announcements that take slightly longer for the government to execute, just as previous speakers have also pointed out today. The oldest not yet finalized announcements were made more than eleven years ago, which the committee has stated cannot be considered an acceptable amount of time for the processing of an announcement.

We do, however, view positively that the government reports on the handling of an announcement if it submits a proposition or letter addressing a substantive issue linked to the announcement. Given the scope of the budget bill, it also appears natural that the number of announcements reported in it is relatively large.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag represents the citizens and shall control the government. This is called the power of oversight, and the power of oversight is exercised by the Riksdag in various ways. One part of the power of oversight is the members' right to ask questions to the ministers here in the chamber. Another part of the power of oversight is the Committee on the Constitution's annual reviews of the government and the various ministers, that is to say, what we have debated here earlier today.

Another way to exercise the power of oversight is the report we are now debating. The report is based on a provision in Chapter 9, Section 8 of the Instrument of Government. In this provision, it can be read that the government shall every year, in a communication to the Riksdag, report which measures the government has taken in connection with the parliamentary communications submitted to the government. The report being discussed today comprises, with appendices, around 550 pages and concerns measures during the calendar year 2022, that is, during both the Andersson government and the Kristersson government.

Mr. Speaker! I want to comment very briefly on a few things in the communication and the committee's report. In the communication, the body of regulations in the Swedish Code of Statutes and among the country's authorities is described in an exemplary manner. By the body of regulations, the number of applicable ordinances and other lists of regulations is meant, and one can particularly note that the body of regulations among the country's authorities has increased significantly since 2017 – from just under 8,000 to over 11,500. In a time when the country's business sector is requesting regulatory relief, this cannot be the right way to go. The development gives cause for reflection.

The document also provides a follow-up on how the government has handled the Riksdag's announcements (tillkännagivanden). Announcements can best be described as assignments that the Riksdag has given to the government. It can be noted here that the number of announcements during the previous mandate period was very large – the largest in 30 years. The number of announcements reflects the previous government's weak support in the Riksdag. It can be stated that after the change of government, we have seen a marked decrease in the number of announcements from the Riksdag, which is naturally a reflection of the fact that the current government, with the Tidö Agreement behind it, has the support of a majority of the Riksdag's members.

It appears from the report that there is an announcement which, as has been stated here earlier, was made more than eleven years ago and which has still not been finalized. This is naturally not acceptable. The committee therefore reminds of the importance of the government processing the Riksdag's instructions promptly.

Regarding the government's report, a unanimous committee notes that the report on a general level provides a correct picture of the parliament's instructions to the government but also contains a detailed account of the government's actions, which is very good.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has also referred the government's communication to the other committees to obtain their views regarding the announcements that pertain to the respective committees. The Committee on the Constitution does not review the assessments of the other committees. It is our colleagues in the respective committees who have the best competence to make these assessments based on their expertise.

With those words, I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a history of being led by minority governments. That is precisely why this committee report is important, even though the committee is in agreement.

Every year, the government submits a report to the Riksdag in which it accounts for how the Riksdag's decisions have been fulfilled, and the instructions that the Riksdag has given to the government are usually of particular interest. It is therefore a matter of the Riksdag commissioning the government to act in a specific issue, for example, that an issue should be investigated.

One can observe that the Riksdag, during the last parliamentary term, directed many more motions to the government than in previous years for various reasons. The peak was reached last year with 328 motions. Just as the previous speaker said, it may be due to the unclear parliamentary situation, but another aspect I believe is the pandemic effect. In any case, KU's own small group that looked at the number of committee initiatives over time came up with that.

We have also seen during this mandate period that governments of different colors sometimes request committees to act because it goes faster in an urgent situation. We can of course discuss more next time if we think it is good or bad, but it is still a fact.

Historically, the number of announcements has been approximately 75 per year, but it has indeed varied greatly over time. Not too infrequently, an announcement can also come from a unanimous committee, just like one that the KU actually has reported this spring.

Sometimes it may be quite simple for a Member of Parliament to think that one is finished once a motion has been passed – that one has done one's part and can simply wait for the government to act quickly and resolve the issue that one has put in focus. But it is not always quite that simple, just as previous speakers have said.

When it comes to the assessment of what time allocation is reasonable in different cases, we in the Committee on the Constitution can, of course, refer to what the respective committees have presented in their reports on the account to the KU. We note at the same time that among the oldest announcements that have not yet been finalized, there are several that are over eleven years old. We are even quite lenient when we write it that way in our position, for the very oldest is actually from the parliamentary session 1999/2000 and is thus over 20 years old.

These matters are obviously not common occurrences, but it is still quite remarkable that they even occur. In the cases where it has been over eleven years without the matter having been finalized, it is not all too uncommon that governments of different colors have governed Sweden during that time. In some cases, it may even be so that those who pushed through a notification subsequently came to power and were given the power to change and pass through their notification. Still, it was not finalized. I, who represent a party that has never been in power, can think it is remarkable that this can occur.

The Committee on the Constitution has previously emphasized the importance of a government processing the Riksdag's referrals promptly and has stated that it should be among the exceptions that announcements cannot be finalized within two to three years, and that eleven years cannot be considered an acceptable amount of time for the processing of an announcement.

In some committee's statements to KU, the question of when a referral can be considered finalized has been raised. KU has previously stated that, for natural reasons, just as I said earlier, the measures required for a referral to be finalized can vary. We have reminded of the importance of the government being clear on how its handling of a referral relates to what is requested in the referral and with which measures it intends to take. We have, however, also said that a referral from the Riksdag needs to be clear for the government to be able to be as clear as required. This is about communication and interaction at a high level.

Mr. Speaker! Given the increase in the number of motions that have not yet been finalized in recent years, I believe that ever greater weight will need to be placed on this report and the government's handling moving forward. On a day like this, however, it feels, in conclusion, quite nice to be able to move for the approval of the report from a unanimous committee in the fine spirit of the KU. Even though my committee colleagues know that I am not always in agreement with the others, I am today.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will not speak for very long - just so you know. It is some kind of honor to stand last on the list after five areas of debate.

We shall, therefore, talk a little about the handling of the Riksdag's reports. I stand behind the committee's proposal and move for approval of the proposal to submit the government's report and the Riksdag Board's account to the records.

We in the committee have been in agreement on this, as several have pointed out. I do not intend to repeat anything that has been said about this. We see them as well-designed and of good quality and consider that they provide a good picture of what has happened with the communications that have been delivered.

I intended to devote a few minutes to what is called dissenting opinions in the reports of the other committees. It concerns announcements that parts of the committees have not felt have been sufficiently addressed. For purely selfish reasons, I intended to dwell on dissenting opinions that have been expressed by us in the opposition in varying constellations, where MP, S, V and C may have appeared. I will take a couple of examples, for this implies that there are things that parts of the parliamentary collective do not consider to be fully processed.

In the communication we are talking about now, there is, among other things, one from the Committee on Health and Welfare. It is quite extensive and concerns care beds, education, queues, and the work environment. Some of our colleagues feel that this has not been addressed in the way described in the communications.

The handling of the Riksdag's petitions

There is also one, or even two, from the Committee on Transport that concern something that I can consider to be a quite relevant and serious issue, namely Bromma Airport and Arlanda. Descriptions of and accounts of investigations that have been conducted on the topic are missing, and one perhaps overlooks that there is a widespread understanding of the idea that Bromma Airport might not be needed and that Arlanda has the capacity to handle it. This is missing in the announcement from the government.

Finally, there is also a small passage about bicycle paths. I think it is a bit nice. We should cherish and take care of bicycle paths. There is a deviating sentence concerning the fact that they should be given attention and about the cooperation required between the municipalities and the state in this regard so that more bicycle paths can be realized that do not necessarily follow the usual major routes. This, either, has not been included.

These were minor impacts in something else. You are actually just waiting for me to be finished, and I am now. I ask to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a big thank you to all colleagues. We will see each other again soon – we have more reports to take care of – but now I want to thank you for today.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 June.)

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