The parliamentary process with the member of parliament in focus

Lena Malm (S)

Mr. Speaker! In a democratic society, it is of crucial importance that the parliamentary process necessary for the Riksdag functions and can be maintained. The Riksdag's modes of operation are based on respect and trust for the meaning of the mandate to be elected by the people. To be elected by the people means that one has a mandate of trust from the people and shall work for its best interests within the political system.

The first paragraph of the Instrument of Government states that all public power in Sweden derives from the people. Swedish democracy is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage. This is realized, in particular, through a representative and parliamentary system of government.

For legislative processes, preparations and the free formation of opinion to function in practice, the Riksdag's modes of work are crucial.

In order for a member to be able to carry out their mandate in the best possible way, it is important that there is functioning support in the parliamentary work.

Indirect support for the membership is needed, that is, support aimed at administrative, economic, and practical conditions. It is support that enables the member to act under reasonable conditions and get their everyday life to function. One also needs to understand that the need for support can vary among all 349 members.

Each of us as an elected representative also has a duty to take the mandate seriously and fulfill our obligations in the best possible way. The methods of work, in turn, must be clear and be able to be understood and followed by every citizen.

Mr. Speaker! The committee, and we Social Democrats, primarily support the Riksdag Board's considerations and proposals in the report. But against the background of, among other things, the Council for Legislation's views on some of the legislative proposals, the committee has submitted amended proposals.

Some of the matters proposed in the report are amendments to the parliamentary rules. These concern the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, changed registration of the members' commitments and financial interests, adjusted fees for assignments within the Riksdag, an increase and annual adjustment of the support for the party groups' offices, as well as the allocation of overnight accommodation to the Speaker.

The committee notes that the Speaker's mandate differs in some parts from the mandate as a Member of Parliament, for example in terms of requirements for presence in Stockholm, representation and security. Against that background, the committee considers that the circumstances surrounding the Speaker's residence may need to be considered in an appropriate context.

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that the conditions for the Riksdag's work and for the members' mandate have changed during the recent electoral periods. The activity and complexity of the Riksdag's work have increased, and changes have occurred in the world around us and particularly in the security situation. The protection against threats and violence for the Riksdag's members must be strengthened, and preventive safety and security-enhancing measures must be prioritized.

Therefore, it is proposed that questions regarding strengthened protection for members of the Riksdag and the parliamentary process, security here in the chamber, as well as a number of related issues, be reviewed, appropriately by a parliamentary commission under the government.

Security in the Riksdag, however, needs to increase in the near future, and in the report, measures are proposed regarding observers who disturb the order and the conditions for continuing a meeting without observers being allowed to be present in the gallery. It is the Speaker in the plenary hall or alternatively the chairperson who may expel those observers who behave disruptively during a meeting, and the decision shall apply for the remainder of the meeting if so decided.

In this context, I want to highlight the value of allowing journalists to be present even if the breach of order has resulted in spectators being expelled or even prevented from attending at all for the remainder of a meeting. Through the presence of journalists, the negative consequences of the restriction of public access that such a measure entails are limited.

In the preparatory works, changes are also proposed regarding security checks in the Riksdag's premises for those visitors who intend to attend meetings in the plenary chamber or public meetings in committees or in the EU Committee. Other visitors are handled by an authorized visitor host when they move within the Riksdag's premises. In that context, I want to emphasize the importance of an open parliament and that the starting point should be that invited visitors normally should not be subject to increased security checks.

There are many changes underway, and I want to conclude the speech by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report The parliamentary process with the member in focus.

(Applause)

In this speech, Peter Hedberg and Jennie Nilsson (both S) concurred.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are considering the report The parliamentary process with the member in focus.

It is ultimately about a fundamental question: how we ensure that Sweden's elected representatives can carry out their mandate in an efficient, secure, and democratic manner. The starting point in the report is that the Riksdag's core activity – the parliamentary process – must function and be able to be maintained under all circumstances.

The Sweden Democrats welcome this direction. The Riksdag is the people's primary representative. It is here that laws are enacted, budgets are decided, and the government is scrutinized. If the elected representatives are not given reasonable conditions to carry out their mandate, democracy risks being weakened in the long run. It is therefore important that the member's perspective is placed at the center and that the Riksdag Administration's work is organized to a greater extent based on the members' needs.

Some of the proposals in the report concern modernizing and streamlining the parliamentary work. The Sweden Democrats view it positively that the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker becomes more predictable by ensuring that only nominated candidates can be elected. We also view it positively that the election procedure for the Deputy Speaker is simplified by reducing the number of votes. This contributes to a clearer and more efficient process.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats also welcome the possibility of shortened motion time for letters and reports when special reasons exist. We are in a time of concern; we must not forget that. The Riksdag must be able to act promptly when the situation requires exactly that. At the same time, it is important that this possibility is used restrictively so that the opposition's opportunities for scrutiny and preparation are not eroded.

Another important part concerns the support for the party groups' work. The parliamentary work has become more extensive and more complex. The number of EU cases has increased, the security situation has changed, and the requirements for availability and readiness are higher than before.

It is therefore reasonable that the support for the party groups' offices is strengthened and that the support is adjusted annually in line with cost developments. The purpose is not to strengthen the parties as organizations but to ensure that the members of the Riksdag receive the support required to be able to fulfill their duties in a professional manner.

Perhaps the most important part of the report, Mr. Speaker, however, concerns security. Sweden is in a serious security situation, and threats, harassment, and undue influence against elected officials have become a growing problem. It is a democratic deficit when elected representatives feel concern for their own or their family's safety. No one should have to hesitate to engage politically or to make necessary decisions for fear of threats, violence, or other serious consequences linked to one's political engagement.

The Sweden Democrats therefore welcome the proposals for clearer rules of order and expanded opportunities for security checks at the public meetings of the Chamber, the committees, and the EU Committee.

Mr. Speaker! Openness is a fundamental democratic principle, but openness must never mean that security is sidelined. An open parliament presupposes that the elected representatives can work under safe conditions, and there are currently uncertainties regarding the distribution of responsibility between the Riksdagsförvaltningen, the Polismyndigheten, and the Säkerhetspolisen.

The Sweden Democrats therefore view it particularly positively that the committee proposes a notification regarding an in-depth investigation of the security for the parliamentary process and for the members of the Riksdag. It needs to be investigated how the protection for elected representatives can be strengthened, not only in the Riksdag's premises but also when the members are out in the country and meeting the citizens.

We shall together safeguard an open dialogue, where all opinions and political orientations within the scope of the law are allowed to be expressed, and a climate where politicians want and can be accessible in the public sphere for a dialogue with the citizens.

Mr. Speaker! Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It must be constantly defended and developed. This bill contains several important reforms that strengthen the Riksdag's functional capacity, improve the conditions for the members, and increase the security of the parliamentary process.

The Sweden Democrats stand behind these ambitions. We want a Riksdag that functions effectively, that puts the member of parliament in focus, and that can stand strong even in a time of increased security threats and growing pressures against our democratic institutions.

With this said, the Sweden Democrats support the committee's proposal for a decision, and I move for approval of the proposal.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Several speakers have already spoken quite a bit about what the matter contains. An investigation was commissioned following a referral from the Riksdag proposed by the Committee on the Constitution, and its report has subsequently been presented and passed by the Committee on the Riksdag. Many members have thus already put their heads together regarding the matter. Therefore, I shall not describe the matter as such but instead make some observations and reflections in connection with it.

The first and perhaps most important thing we should establish is that the mandate as a member of the Riksdag is important. It is therefore also important that the members are given the conditions and opportunities to do a job that shall both be good and build on the possibility of having contact with their voter base and those who have elected us.

It must therefore work for everyone. Regardless of whether one lives in Kiruna or in central Stockholm, we must find solutions that make it possible to uphold the mandate. Regardless of whether one is highly educated or perhaps dropped out of high school, we must create tools so that anyone who is elected can hold the mandate. Regardless of whether one is good at languages or not, we must have opportunities to carry out the mandate.

It is important to say this, because if we, the elected members, do not defend the parliamentary mandate and its importance for democracy, we should probably not expect anyone else to do so. It must matter who sits in the Riksdag.

Then the question of what support and what help one receives as a member becomes of great importance. It can be about what technology we have access to – phones, computers, tablets and other things. Some are extremely used to handling such things, while others need more help and support – not only in obtaining the equipment but also in being able to handle it and its software.

We need assistance in the form of people who help us. It can be about booking trips but also about reading through documents or formulating policy. Therefore, the support to both members and parties is an important function for the mission to function. We may need help – now it sounds like we are completely helpless, but we have quite a lot on our plate – with booking or preparing those trips.

Let me conclude with what I did just before I came here. I was at a lecture on how history teaching can be used to create leadership and politics. Getting those insights in other areas that a number of lectures can give us, or that the Riksdag's investigation service can help with, facilitates the mission.

We must ensure that we can actually receive all of this.

Madam Speaker! It is also about our ability to carry out the assignment in a safe and secure manner. Naturally, it should preferably not happen that anything happens to us, but there is always a trade-off between security and openness, between how we should be protected in our assignment and our political role and how we should be able to ensure that proceedings, meetings and such are transparent and open so that we can receive information.

This is probably the only section in the report where we have had to think a lot. Here, the parliamentary board thinks one thing and the investigation another. We eventually landed, after quite a bit of reasoning, on the proposal that was in the investigation.

What it is really about is whether one should be allowed to body search for material that can be disruptive to order when it concerns meetings other than those that take place in the chamber or open meetings. We chose, on the advice of the Council on Legislation, to follow the original proposal and not the Riksdag Board's, simply because we must have the opportunity to have broad information, meet many people and have meetings in the Riksdag.

That is perhaps also an example of what this leads to, namely that we must be able to weigh the pros and cons and take a stand based on what we see.

I think, Madam Speaker, that the proposal currently before the Riksdag is well-balanced. It is a good balance between the importance of the mandate and its needs, between security and accessibility. Therefore, it is my pleasure to be able to move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal for a decision in report KU38 The parliamentary process with the member in focus.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Just as previous speakers have pointed out, this committee report is based on three different investigations, two of which I have had the privilege of participating in.

The large one, and the one that most speakers before me have spoken about, is the parliamentary investigation which in various ways has highlighted the conditions for being a member of the Riksdag. There, we have looked at how the mandate has changed over time and what can be done to create the best possible conditions for those of us who have the privilege of being elected to the Riksdag.

We are 349 individuals who have the same mission, but there is also much that sets us apart. Some of us live far from here and commute to Stockholm, while others can meet their family every evening. We differ in age, in education, in class background, and in whether we have a disability or not.

Every member, all 349 of us with the same mandate, also design how we fulfill the mandate in completely different ways. Some – not me – have the opportunity to make many study visits. Others, for example we in the Committee on the Constitution, have instead many and long meetings where we most often try to find agreement on what we think – as in this report.

Many work with issues that receive a lot of attention in the media. Others work with issues that receive less media attention but which can be quite important.

One thing I am certain of: All of us Members of Parliament do our best to manage the trust we have been given. We know that it is unique and that it is during a limited period of our lives that we hold this fine trust from the people to represent our respective parties.

I am pleased that we were able to reach a consensus in this investigation regarding the proposals we submitted. Riksdagsförvaltningen has already begun work to, as stated, create the best possible conditions for us.

A good deal of the perspectives that we in the commission brought with us from our parliamentary groups were shared experiences and challenges. A particular focus concerned, as previous speakers have also touched upon, the security for us members and our relatives and the vulnerability to threats and hate that not infrequently affects elected officials at all political levels.

Another investigation has looked at the balance between publicity and security in this chamber. It is, of course, of crucial importance that the parliamentary process functions and can be carried out in safe and secure forms. At the same time, we in the committee emphasize the importance of the Riksdag being an open and accessible parliament. The pursuit of openness must simply be balanced against the need for security.

The possibility of following the work in the Riksdag is important and can promote both interest and understanding of the parliamentary work, which in itself has a great democratic value.

The third investigation has reviewed certain compensations to us members of parliament.

Madam Speaker! The committee is in agreement in this report, but I have added two specific statements.

Just as earlier in a debate during this parliamentary session, I believe that the information contained in the financial register should be published on the Riksdag's website. The financial register exists to create transparency and insight for the public regarding the members' commitments and economic interests. The register contains information on interests in companies, for example shareholdings and board positions, and other agreements of an economic nature. Even the member who has no such information to register must report that.

The information in the economic register is public and can be requested, but I believe there are reasons to lower the thresholds further. I have explained this in another debate concerning the Riksdag's working methods.

Madam Speaker! I also have a special statement together with the Christian Democrats and the Liberals. In the parliamentary investigation that I spoke about earlier, we were in agreement on almost all issues. But now we are dealing with the Riksdag Board's proposal, where in some parts a different assessment has been made than in the investigation. Just as previous speakers have pointed out, the Committee on the Constitution has made a different assessment than the Riksdag Board in some parts. Well – not in those where I, Gudrun Brunegård and Mauricio Rojas have a special statement together. I truly regret that the Riksdag Board does not see the same need to appoint a special preparatory group for budget issues, which we in the investigation discussed thoroughly and submitted proposals on.

The investigation had a proposal for a budget preparation where all parties would be represented because not all parties in today's parliamentary board participate with the right to submit motions and vote. The group leaders for the parties that are not included in the parliamentary board are adjuncts. We believe that the form must be different, where all parties are involved in the budget process and budget issues.

Furthermore, the Riksdag Board proposes a different design of the support to the Riksdag's party groups than the proposal that the investigation has submitted. In the investigation, a distribution key between the basic support's basic amount and the additional amounts was proposed, which took into account the basic costs that all parties, regardless of size in the Riksdag, have to contend with. On the other hand, we consider it good that the Riksdag Board proposes that the basic support should be increased, but we believe that they should have had a different size in relation to each other when it comes to these parts.

In the Riksdag Board's proposal, a distribution is also suggested that disadvantages smaller parties in a way that we find regrettable. There is another speaker who also wants to talk about what is included in our joint special statement!

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, the committee's proposal differs somewhat from the parliamentary board's proposal. The committee has also obtained an opinion from the Council on Legislation for certain parts of the report, which in hindsight proved to be valuable for us in the committee. I would like to correct a previous speaker here, namely that the proposal does not apply to body searches. However, we have discussed the issue extensively in the committee and landed where we landed.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to emphasize that the support for us members functioned well even before the parliamentary investigation was appointed and worked on. This is primarily due to the skilled and professional staff in the Riksdag Administration. I hope they get a nice summer when the time comes, but KU has many debates remaining.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag decided in 2023 to appoint an inquiry into the support for the parliamentary decision-making process and the membership in the Riksdag following an announcement from the Committee on the Constitution, which several previous speakers have touched upon. In October 2023, the Riksdag Board decided to convene a parliamentarily composed committee with the mandate to carry out the inquiry. I myself had the honor of being part of this committee.

In March 2025, the investigation reported the assignment in the report The Member of Parliament in Focus. The 2023 parliamentary investigation – support for parliamentary work and the role of the Member of Parliament (2024/25:URF1). The report was supported by a unanimous parliamentary committee.

In today's report, proposals from two other investigations that have also been mentioned here earlier are also being handled.

The proposals in the report concern a number of different issues, for example, the approach to the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, the level of the so-called Stockholm per diem, settlement rules for outgoing members of Parliament, and security in the House of Parliament.

On 27 March 2026, the Riksdag Board submitted the proposal The parliamentary process with the member in focus. In it, the Riksdag Board has, among other things, taken a position on the proposals from the parliamentary committee that I mentioned earlier. My colleagues in the committee have already largely accounted for the content, and I will not take time to do so.

In some respects, however, the Riksdag Board has proposed other measures than those proposed by the committee. The Christian Democrats have therefore written a special statement, which the Liberals and the Left Party have also joined. I will here present what the special statement entails.

The Riksdag Board sees no need to appoint a special preparatory group for budget matters, as the committee had proposed. The investigation, in its proposal for a budget preparation – with representatives for all parties in the Riksdag – takes into account that not all parties are included in the Riksdag Board and thus lack the right to submit motions and make decisions, even though the group leaders for the parties that are not included in the Riksdag Board are adjuncted. The Riksdag Board's proposal to involve the Board's members in the budget process at an early stage and, at certain times, extend the Board's meetings does not change the fact that certain parties with such an arrangement still lack the right to submit motions and make decisions when it comes to budget matters.

Furthermore, the Committee on the Constitution proposes a different design of the support to the Riksdag's party groups than what the 2023 Riksdag investigation did. In that, a distribution key between the basic support's basic amount and the supplementary amount was proposed, which took into account the basic costs that lie on all parties regardless of size. The Committee on the Constitution proposes that the basic support to the Riksdag's party groups should be increased, but we believe that the size of the basic support in relation to the mandate support's size needs to constitute a larger proportion of the party support since all parties have the same basic resources for the political work in the Riksdag's committees. In the Committee on the Constitution's motion, however, a distribution is proposed where the smaller parties are relatively disadvantaged, which is regrettable. Furthermore, it is proposed that the basic support shall continue to be adjusted annually through a link to the current price base amount without the need for recurring legislative changes, which we, on the other hand, consider to be a good proposal.

We welcome that the Riksdag Board proposes an in-depth analysis of issues regarding strengthened security for the members of the Riksdag. We would, however, like to see increased and earmarked party support to political parties to strengthen security issues for the members of the Riksdag. Financial resources have been added to the Riksdag Administration's security unit and the Swedish Security Service during recent years for the work regarding the members' security issues. The equivalent needs to be done for the political parties to create conditions for good cooperation in the issues between the Riksdag's security unit, the Swedish Security Service, and the parties. This is, however, a matter for future investigations.

With this, I thank you for the floor and move for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was intended to be a short speech, based primarily on my participation in the so-called member investigation. Much of what I had intended to say has already been said. Any similarities with previous speeches are pure coincidence, but it may happen that things you have heard before will recur.

Every time I am reminded of the members' inquiry and the path it has taken since then, I think about how many pressing matters we nevertheless managed to discuss. By "we" I mean the parliamentary group that participated and the investigator with first-class support from both a secretariat and various experts and groups within the Riksdag Administration. A big thank you to them!

I also gained an insight into how a certain distance arises over time between the administration and, in our case, the elected representatives; this also happens in many other organizations. From that perspective, the timing of the investigation was quite accurate.

It was soon clear that the image of the membership and the members' work differed in some respects between the administration and the members. While members with more years in the Riksdag, with a certain longing in their voices, could speak of the much-appreciated travel agency in the bank hall, the administration could speak of how they nevertheless did their best to treat everyone equally.

I have great understanding for the latter. It is presumably completely inevitable in such a professional group of officials that thoughts arise about solutions that suit most people at least quite well.

But as members, elected representatives and the people's foremost representatives, we showed ourselves to be reasonably different. Certainly inspired by the significance of the mandate of politics itself, but at the same time we are individuals with different needs, interests and demands.

Someone travels from Haparanda, someone else from Medborgarplatsen. Someone has small children, others have no children or adult children. Someone sits in a wheelchair, someone else runs or at least makes their way along the Speaker's round at some decent time. We all have our life puzzles, and we have all added a number of difficult pieces that we need help solving.

It is therefore pleasing that many of the proposals that the investigation put forward have either already become a reality, such as the resurrected travel agency, or are in the process of becoming so.

Madam Speaker! The security for the members in the chamber and at home was discussed extensively. Many feel anxiety. This can be for both the days in Stockholm and fear of threats and hate at home. That incidents then occurred in the chamber led to a further investigation into security in the Riksdag. That too has been delivered, and proposals exist for further security measures in the Riksdag.

I have great understanding for the proposals but at the same time would like to remind that the Riksdag truly should be the people's house. Where else should the people's primary representatives be?

From a democratic perspective, it is of course also extremely important that the media always have access without inspections or other interventions, at least regarding accredited journalists. It is important that they have access to the chamber for debates, even if it has occasionally been necessary to eject disruptive spectators. Journalists are our democratic guarantee and shall be the public's messengers.

A proposal to appoint an inquiry into the security of the parliamentary process is in the report, and we support that.

Madam Speaker! The investigations contain much more than I have touched upon here. For example, there are proposals to make the financial register more accessible, that is to say, the register of the members' possible other occupations and incomes beyond the parliamentary mandate. Many of the proposals are wise. We in Miljöpartiet have no objections and move for approval of the committee's proposals.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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