An expanded criminal liability for public officials

Mats Hellhoff (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

This is an important report. In addition to tightening the minimum penalty for gross official misconduct, we are now closing the gap in the legislation that arose more than 50 years ago when the then-current official responsibility was removed.

What might have seemed to be a good decision at the time has proven to withstand the test of time increasingly poorly. 50 years is a long time. Society has changed, the public sector has grown, and crime has found its way into society's most important institutions.

It is truly high time to close this loophole, which has allowed people to, for example, favor certain suppliers in public procurement without being held accountable, leak confidential information to criminal networks, use their position to favor relatives, make decisions that disadvantage a certain person, and handle grants or tax funds in an incorrect manner.

It is against that background that the government now proposes an expanded official responsibility through a new legal rule: abuse of public office.

Madam Speaker! The proposal for an expanded criminal liability for public officials aims to strengthen the protection against abuse of power, corruption, and undue influence within public activities. This is achieved through an effective system for individual accountability when irregularities are committed.

It is important here to note the difference between abuse of public office and official misconduct. Official misconduct requires a connection to the exercise of authority and can be negligent. Abuse of public office requires intent, i.e., intention, and covers many more situations.

The current criminal legal framework has loopholes that risk undermining trust in the public administration. There is therefore a need to expand the criminal liability aimed at abuse of public office which is not limited to the exercise of authority.

There is indeed a system for individual accountability through criminal law, tort law, and labor law. Public employees are also subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice and, in applicable cases, by municipal auditors, but there is still a need to take further measures against those who abuse their public position.

Madam Speaker! The criminal legislation concerning different types of abuse of public office is not in all parts adapted to today's society and today's conditions. A recurring criticism has been that the current criminal regulation does not hit cases of abuse of public funds that do not constitute the exercise of public authority. Measures in connection with procurement or public tendering are generally not considered to be the exercise of public authority.

An official who favors a local supplier in the area, a relative, a friend, or their own company without it involving an exchange, request, or offer of an improper advantage has, until now, been able to escape criminal liability. I mean that such cases must, of course, also be covered by an individual criminal liability. The importance of this and of strengthening trust in public activities cannot, in my opinion, be overstated.

It should be pointed out that the new crime of abuse of public office also covers elected officials, meaning not only civil servants but also members of political assemblies.

Finally, I would like to bring up some cases that have been reported in the media. Most have probably heard of them, and one or another may also have been annoyed by them. In these cases, the new law on abuse of public office could have made a difference, if not during the process, then perhaps afterwards.

I am thinking of Nya Karolinska, not because the project became expensive, but for the parts concerning procurement, consultants, and potential regulatory deviations. The new law would likely have been very relevant here.

The Think Pink scandal is another case. In that case, it is not primarily about the company, but about potential public representatives who deliberately ignored rule violations or gave improper advantages.

The procurement of medical record systems within healthcare is a third case. It has hardly escaped anyone's notice how the procurement and launch of medical record systems within health and medical care have received intense criticism after it turned out that the systems function somewhere between poorly and not at all. Even here, the new law, if it had existed earlier, would have been very relevant.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats usually say that rules are rules. The person who provides incorrect information shall face consequences, and the person who neglects their obligations shall be held accountable. There is usually not much understanding or room for explanations when the Sweden Democrats speak about the unemployed, the sick, or people who seek financial assistance.

But when the question concerns Jimmie Åkesson, it seems that a different yardstick applies. It has been reported that a company controlled by the Sverigedemokraterna has purchased a very large part of a book edition from Jimmie Åkesson's private publishing house. His private company thus received the proceeds, and the proceeds are likely – with the greatest possible probability – tax revenues. It is therefore money that we have paid to finance the purchase.

It has also been reported that Åkesson has failed to report a board position to the Riksdag's register of members' financial interests within the time required by the rules.

I do not want to say that this is covered by the government's new crime classification, but the questions concern something much simpler than that: Does Mats Hellhoff think it is to show good judgment that a party leader makes an extensive private deal with a company that his own party controls? And why should the rules on financial transparency be applied strictly to everyone else but be treated as an administrative detail when it is Jimmie Åkesson who does not follow them?

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

Mats Hellhoff (SD)

Madam Speaker! What Samuel Gonzalez Westling is talking about here is something that appears in a report in the media.

Whether this has happened or not, whether it is criminal or not criminal, and whether it is moral or immoral actually escapes my judgment. I do not intend to take a position on anything that has been reported in the media because I do not know what it is that has not been reported in the same report.

When it comes to whether everyone should be treated equally, I, and everyone else, of course think that everyone should be treated equally.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not think that was a sufficiently clear answer. It is nothing that answers the question.

Jimmie Åkesson's private company made an extensive deal with a company controlled by the party that he himself leads; it must be said to be beyond reasonable doubt that it is the case in that way. The private company received the money, and it was the party that took the cost with the taxpayers' money.

The question is what the member thinks. We can play with the member's own words that he doesn't quite know what is correct. We can say it like this: If it were to be correct – we posit it – does it show good judgment here? Yes or no? Mats Hellhoff should be able to answer that.

If the Sweden Democrats really mean that rules should apply to everyone and that there should be rules – why was the board position not reported within the time that the Riksdag's rules require? Has Mats Hellhoff criticized Jimmie Åkesson for this?

It becomes a bit comical. When an unemployed person submits a task too late, the Sverigedemokraterna see a systemic problem and demand extreme control, harsh sanctions, and stricter rules. But when Jimmie Åkesson does it, one can apparently let it slide a little, because nothing is allowed to threaten the great leader. That is somewhat the impression I get: When Jimmie Åkesson engages in what most would say is corruption, he should be able to get away with it. It is not a consistent view on responsibility. It is a class-based double standard where the rules are hardest for those who have the least power and softest for the one who leads Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Mats Hellhoff (SD)

Madam Speaker! As I said before, I do not intend to speculate, make any decisions or have any opinion on whether what is reported in the media is correct, true, not true or deficient.

When it comes to opinions, knowledge and so on, I also intend to refrain from speculating on whether it is true that the Left Party has hundreds of Islamists on its lists. That is also a newspaper report from Expressen. I refrain from that.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the committee report An expanded criminal liability for civil servants. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 3.

We Social Democrats share the government's concern regarding the developments within Swedish public administration. We see how organized crime attempts to influence authorities and municipalities. We see how public employees are subjected to threats and harassment. We see how criminal actors attempt to infiltrate the welfare system and gain access to our common resources.

These are serious problems that must be taken with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, it is also important that the measures we decide upon actually hit the mark.

When I read the bill, I ask myself a rather simple question: What problems is the government actually trying to solve? At the same time as the government speaks about corruption, infiltration, and unauthorized influence, it chooses, in the first instance, to move forward with a new crime that primarily targets the individual official. I am not convinced that is where the biggest problems lie.

Madam Speaker! I see three major challenges for Swedish public administration: firstly, threats, harassment, and pressure against public employees, not least social workers and welfare officers; secondly, corruption, infiltration, and welfare crime; and thirdly, a growing bureaucracy that risks reducing the efficiency of public operations. It is there that the trust for the state and our common institutions is tested.

In the Justice Committee, we work daily with issues regarding organized crime. When I meet police officers, municipalities, and authorities across the country, very few talk about the need for harsher penalties for public officials. People talk about welfare crime, infiltration, unauthorized influence, and organized crime. That is where the power of society needs to be applied.

That is why I find it difficult to understand the government's prioritization. When the problems concern infiltration, corruption, and organized crime, the government chooses to direct focus toward individual civil servants and municipal and regional politicians instead of toward the criminal actors who are trying to influence public operations.

Madam Speaker! The Government argues that the introduction of the new crime of abuse of public office shall strengthen confidence in public activities. I fear that the effect will be the total opposite. If civil servants become more afraid to make decisions, more decisions will take longer. If civil servants become more afraid of making mistakes, more control systems will be built up. If civil servants become more afraid of reports, more time will be spent on documentation and less on operations. There will be more bureaucracy and less decisiveness.

We need public servants who dare to take responsibility. We need officials and politicians who dare to make difficult decisions.

This also applies to our elected municipal and regional politicians, who every day make decisions regarding procurement, welfare and large investments. The risk with this legislation is that both civil servants and elected officials will become more cautious.

Madam Speaker! I am not alone in this concern. Several referral bodies are critical. TCO explicitly warns that the proposal could create a culture of caution where officials become more afraid to make decisions and take responsibility. I believe it is an objection that the government should take more seriously.

When I have worked on this proposal, I have been contacted by people in municipalities and regions who work against welfare crime and unscrupulous actors in public procurement. Several describe a concern that the legislation will be used as a means of pressure against those who review and question.

I have been told about comments from companies during the review process in the vein of: When this legislation comes into force on July 1, it is we who will come for you.

The risk is that the people who should be offensive in the fight against welfare crime become more cautious. The signal behind such statements is clear. In a time when organized crime is actively trying to access public contracts and public funds, we need more people who dare to act, not fewer.

What also surprises me is the government's prioritization. The previous Social Democratic-led government appointed an inquiry into measures against undue influence and corruption. The current government chose to scrap it. Then a new inquiry was appointed, which, among other things, proposed several tightened measures against corruption. But it is not those proposals that the government chooses to proceed with. The government chooses to move forward with its own proposals, while several proposals on tightened measures against corruption and bribery still remain in the drawer.

Madam Speaker! I also want to briefly touch upon the issue of compelling public interest.

Region Stockholm's procurement of ambulance helicopters is a good example. There, the court found that the procurement rules had not been fully followed. If this law passes, it could be punishable both for the regional board and for officials. At the same time, the court notes that the agreement must stand because people's lives and health are at stake. It shows that reality is more complicated than theory.

No official or elected representative should have to wonder whether a decision made to secure healthcare, rescue services, or other important societal functions could lead to criminal liability. Therefore, we believe that the legislation needs to be clearer.

Madam Speaker! I am convinced that most Swedes want to see tougher measures against corruption, welfare crime, and organized crime. That is what we want too. But then we must direct the efforts toward those who try to exploit the systems, not create greater insecurity for those who work to defend them. We need more people who stand up against welfare crime, more who dare to scrutinize suspected schemes, and more who dare to make necessary decisions, not more who are afraid to make decisions.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, one should be able to trust the public sector – trust that decisions are made objectively, trust that tax money is used correctly, and trust that those who have been given the power to make decisions for others do not abuse it.

The vast majority of civil servants and elected officials do an honest, diligent, and impartial job to provide good service to the citizens. They deserve respect, appreciation, and clear mandates so that they can feel secure in their decisions. We must also have a strong protection against external threats and influence. It is about creating a culture where civil servants in the public sector dare to step forward, take responsibility, and make necessary decisions.

But let us be honest: The system we have today is not sufficient. There are actions that are obviously wrong, that harm people, that distort competition and that erode trust, but which are still not hit by criminal liability. The system has loopholes, and those loopholes are being exploited. It is these loopholes that we are now closing.

Every year, goods and services worth over 1,000 billion kronor are procured using tax money. That money assumes that the person making the decisions truly does so without ulterior motives. Yet we know that criminal actors today can infiltrate public activities, enrich themselves at the taxpayers' expense, and get away with it without punishment. It is an insult to every honest official and every taxpayer, and that is what we are putting a stop to.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has submitted a sharp proposal to the Riksdag regarding a broader and better official responsibility. The existing responsibility for official misconduct only covers the exercise of authority, that is, formal decisions that directly concern an individual. It does not capture the misuse of tax money in procurement. It does not capture municipalities that deliberately disregard court decisions. It does not capture what is one of the most alarming threats to the public sector, namely criminal actors who, through contacts in the public sector, purchase services and goods from companies controlled by criminal networks. Now we are closing those loopholes.

The proposal suggests that an entirely new crime be introduced into the Penal Code, namely abuse of public office. It is a crime that requires intent. One must deliberately break laws and rules to benefit oneself, help criminals, or improperly disadvantage someone. It is not about mistakes or difficult trade-offs in everyday life, but it is about intentional transgressions. In those cases, one shall be punishable for it.

The proposal covers civil servants and elected officials. It covers documents outside of classic exercise of authority. The responsibility shall cover the entire public mandate. It sends a clear message that those who abuse their position in the service of the citizens shall be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker! I hear the opposition say that criminal law is not the answer. We need better control mechanisms, more education, and strengthened supervision. Yes, I agree with that, and that work is ongoing. But a control mechanism without legal consequences is a regulatory framework without a backbone. Both are needed. One does not exclude the other.

I also hear the argument that the law creates fear among civil servants. Fear of what, actually? The person who does their job in good faith, who makes difficult trade-offs and makes decisions under pressure, that person is not affected by this new crime. It requires intent. It is not mistakes we are criminalizing, but it is intentional transgressions that we are putting a price on.

For the person where fear exists, it is a question of a side effect of the law. That is exactly what the law is for. The law also strengthens the many honest officials who today are subjected to undue influence. When the rules are clear, it also becomes easier to resist. We keep what we promise.

This is a promise from the Tidö Agreement, but it was anchored in an announcement from the Riksdag already in 2018. We are now fulfilling that promise.

Mr. Speaker! This is not an isolated reform, but it is part of a broader work to strengthen the protection against corruption, against infiltration, and against organized crime. The EU's directive on combating corruption received its political resolution in December 2025, which requires new measures. The proposals from the investigation on corruption crimes are being further prepared in the Government Offices. Bit by bit, we are closing the loopholes, tightening the penalties, and ensuring that the regulatory framework holds together.

Those who work in the service of the citizen shall do so with integrity. Those who abuse their position shall know that there is a price to pay. It is not a mistrust of public employees, but it is a protection against them.

Ultimately, it is about something greater than law, namely trust in the state, trust in the public sector. Without that trust, our society does not function. No one shall be above the law, not even those who have been given the power to make decisions for others.

Those who abuse public trust shall face a clear personal responsibility. In this way, we strengthen trust in the public sector, in the rule of law, and in democracy. That is what the citizen has the right to demand.

Mr. Speaker! I move that the Riksdag reject the motion proposals and approve the committee's proposal to approve the government bill.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Charlotte Nordström says that one should be able to trust that those who have power do not abuse it. But as far as I understand, based on what we have heard now, it seems to be primarily a responsibility that is to be demanded far down in the organization. When a social worker or a case officer makes a mistake, then the government wants to expand the criminal liability.

But when Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson personally appoints a close friend to one of the country's most security-sensitive positions, the responsibility suddenly becomes significantly more unclear. It was still Ulf Kristersson who chose Henrik Landerholm. It was Ulf Kristersson who placed him closest to him in matters concerning Sweden's security. When serious security flaws became known, the Prime Minister continued to express his confidence.

I want to be clear that I am not speaking about criminal liability. That should, of course, be decided by the judiciary. But I am speaking about Ulf Kristersson's political responsibility. The government now wants that an individual official should be able to be held criminally liable for how she uses her position, and then Charlotte Nordström should be able to answer a much simpler question: What responsibility does Ulf Kristersson bear for the person he himself chose, for the control that obviously lacked, and for the fact that he continued to defend his close friend when the problems were already known?

Or is it the Moderaternas view that personal responsibility ceases exactly when one reaches the position of Prime Minister?

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member heard exactly what I said. I was clear in my speech. The matter concerns an expanded criminal liability for civil servants, and I say that it concerns the entire democratic mandate.

We appoint honest – not holy – officials. We hold those who deliberately abuse their position accountable. That is the question we are debating, namely the criminal official responsibility which covers both officials and elected representatives – if criminal acts have occurred, if one has intentionally acted against the law.

Since the member is concerned that we should do the right thing, I ask, given that the opposition wants measures to be taken but still votes against the government's bill: Does the member believe that it really should be exempt from punishment to deliberately favor one's friend, relative, or one's own company with public funds, simply because it does not happen to be the exercise of public authority?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Charlotte Nordström did not answer the question regarding Ulf Kristersson's responsibility. She spoke about something completely different. I think this is highly relevant and belongs with this debate. It was not Henrik Landerholm who appointed himself, it was Ulf Kristersson who appointed him. This is not the only occasion where responsibility suddenly disappears when it comes close to the Prime Minister.

Ulf Kristersson also participated in a government meeting where support was decided for a foundation whose board included his own sister-in-law. At that time, the Prime Minister said that he was not aware of it. Why does the government not have functioning routines to detect such a close family connection when public money is to be distributed?

The Moderates want the individual official to have a duty to exercise control. She shall understand the regulatory framework, she shall detect conflicts of interest, she shall do the right thing even in difficult situations. But when the Prime Minister himself appoints a close friend or participates in a decision with a family connection, we are told that he did not know. Someone else prepared the case. The responsibility lies elsewhere.

This is not sustainable. Either personal responsibility also applies, Ulf Kristersson, or else the government's and Charlotte Nordströms talk about responsibility is just something one uses against people who have less power.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I was clear that the proposal applies to the entire mandate of trust and the official mandate, and we are talking here about the criminal liability.

I am a politician who does not throw out a lot of things without knowing the facts. I do not bring up examples from other parties and throw them out if I do not have the facts and know what is truth and what is not. I stick to the matters that one is reasoning about.

The member is very concerned that it should be correct. Why does the member then vote against the bill, which is a step towards sharpening the things that he mentioned?

I ask the question again: Should it really be crime-free to deliberately favor one's friend, one's relative, or one's own company with public funds simply because it does not happen to be the exercise of public authority? The answer is the Vänsterpartiet and the member of Parliament responsible in the Riksdag.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by apologizing in advance. There is a certain risk that I will exceed the allotted speaking time, which I also did in the previous matter in this Saturday's debate.

There is something strange about the government's view on responsibility. When a social worker, a procurement officer, or a case officer makes a mistake, criminal liability should be expanded. When the operation has too few staff, when the workload is unreasonable, or when the management has organized the work poorly, significantly less is said about responsibility.

When problems arise at the very top of the state, the government suddenly becomes very interested in various explanations, circumstances, and understanding. It is the responsibility downwards that is to become tougher. The responsibility upwards remains strangely diffuse.

Mr. Speaker! Corruption, abuse of power, and undue influence must, of course, be combated. Those who use a public position to enrich themselves, favor their friends, or improperly assist a company shall be held accountable. Those who meet an authority, a municipality, or a region shall be able to trust that decisions are made objectively, impartially, and according to the same rules for everyone.

That is not where the dividing line lies. The question is whether the government's new crime of abuse of public office is truly an accurate response or if it will primarily make public employees more afraid to make difficult decisions.

The Left Party's assessment is that the provision is too broad and too vague. The Government refers to the fact that a specific intent to give someone an undue advantage or to unduly disadvantage someone is required. However, several of the referral bodies have nevertheless warned of uncertainty, defensive decision-making, and longer processing times, not least in complicated cases where a decision inevitably benefits someone and disadvantages someone else.

The government wants to appear decisive, but the risk is that the result will be a more cautious, slower, and less decisive administration.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a remarkable gap in the government's proposal. The bill concerns civil servant responsibility. It does not, however, concern the concrete proposals against corruption that were put forward by the same government inquiry.

It is worth reminding of the history. When the government took office, it laid down the broad investigation into corruption and undue influence that had already begun. The government said that it would take a new approach. Later, a new, more criminally oriented investigation was commissioned. It was tasked with reviewing both the corruption legislation and the responsibility for misconduct in office.

The investigation examined the bribery crimes. It dealt with trading in influence. It dealt with breach of trust against the principal and other abuses of trust. It submitted proposals on how corruption in Sweden and in international business dealings could be combated more effectively.

When the government now proceeds, it chooses precisely that part which entails a broader criminal liability for civil servants. The proposals against corruption are not included, and it is an incredibly strange prioritization. The government could have started by strengthening the legislation against bribes, cronyism, abuse of trust, and improper economic interests. Instead, it began by placing a greater criminal responsibility on the individual public employee. This says a great deal about where the government prefers to look for accountability.

The threats against the public administration are real. Social workers are threatened for changing decisions. Officials are subjected to harassment and unauthorized influence. Criminal networks attempt to infiltrate authorities, gain access to sensitive information, and use welfare activities for their own purposes.

At the same time, public activities have become increasingly bureaucratic. More and more time is spent on documenting, reporting, and controlling. Less and less time remains for the work itself.

The government does not respond by giving the threatened social worker better protection. It does not respond by strengthening the authorities' work against infiltration. It does not respond by giving the operations enough people, time, and knowledge. It responds by expanding the criminal liability for the same officials who are supposed to try to make the operations function.

The social worker who is threatened by a criminal network shall therefore also have to consider whether she herself risks becoming the subject of a criminal investigation. It is completely backwards.

Mr. Speaker! There is already an extensive system of accountability today. Those who accept bribes, steal, defraud, or embezzle money can be convicted for it. There is accountability for misconduct in office. There are disciplinary and labor law measures. There is oversight through JO, JK, and the audit office.

This does not mean that everything works perfectly. Of course, there are people who abuse their positions and who are not detected in time. But the government's image of a public administration where people can do almost anything without being held accountable is incorrect.

The government avoids the most important question: Why is it going wrong?

Sometimes things go wrong because someone deliberately abuses their power, but sometimes things go wrong because a social worker has twice as many cases as a human can reasonably handle or because a newly hired caseworker has not received any proper introduction. It can go wrong because the rules have become increasingly complicated while time has become increasingly scarce, or because the operations have been cut back year after year, and the experienced staff have simply given up and quit.

First the politicians cut the operations, and then they increase the demands. When something goes wrong, they point at the individual employee and ask why she did not do a better job. It is not a serious accountability. It is shifting the responsibility from those who have the power to those who are forced to handle the consequences.

Accountability must also be able to be demanded from managers, agency leaderships and politicians, that is, those who decide on staffing, resources and working conditions. Otherwise, civil servant responsibility becomes yet another way for the authorities to be able to protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker! Several heavy referral bodies have warned that the proposal could make civil servants more cautious and defensive. They may hesitate to participate in complicated matters. They may avoid making difficult decisions. Processing times could become longer, and it could become harder to recruit experienced staff.

There is also a risk that mistakes are hidden instead of being corrected. A functioning organization needs employees who dare to say: This went wrong – now we correct it and ensure it doesn't happen again. But if every admission of a mistake can become the start of a criminal investigation, behavior changes. Then people protect themselves instead of the operation. Then we get more documents, more scapegoats, and more cautious non-decisions. But we do not necessarily get a better public operation.

The government's talk about responsibility becomes particularly hollow when one sees how responsibility is handled at the highest level of the state. The Prime Minister appointed a close personal friend to one of the country's most security-sensitive positions. Personal trust can never replace oversight, security clearance, and political responsibility. When serious security flaws became known, the Prime Minister continued to express his confidence.

The criminal liability shall be determined by the judiciary, not here in the Speaker's chair of the Riksdag. But the political responsibility can we discuss. Who was responsible for the appointment? Who was responsible for the oversight? And who took responsibility when the deficiencies became known? It was the Prime Minister who made the appointment. It is not possible to reduce this to it being about someone else's individual mistakes.

This does not have to be corruption in a criminal law sense. But it raises questions about cronyism, judgment, and responsibility. It is precisely such boundaries that a serious preventive work against corruption must dare to examine.

The same applies to conflict of interest and impartiality.

The government has recently decided on support to a foundation where a close relative of the Prime Minister's wife sits on the board. The Prime Minister himself participated in the government meeting. The Prime Minister's office has stated that he has not been involved in the matter at a detailed level.

But it's not just about someone having demonstrably influenced a decision. It's also about trust. The citizens in this country should not have to wonder whether family ties or private networks have influenced how public money is distributed. Someone who has a close personal connection to a matter should not participate in the decision – not because we are pre-emptively establishing that a crime has been committed, but because public power must withstand scrutiny and maintain clear boundaries between public decisions and private relations. This, too, is a matter of preventing corruption, not just prosecuting it once the damage has already been done.

The question of responsibility and transparency also applies to Jimmie Åkesson. It has been reported that a company controlled by the Sverigedemokraterna has conducted an extensive business deal with Åkesson's private publishing house. It has also been reported that board assignments were not reported to the Riksdag's register of members' economic interests within the time required by the rules.

We have also heard that there are suspicions that money has been used in a very inappropriate way. It has been stated that it concerned events and representation, when it actually could have been about pure drinking parties for Jimmie Åkesson and his friends.

I do not claim that this constitutes a corruption offense or is covered by the government's new provision. But it concerns issues that are close to anti-corruption work: the boundary between private economic interests and political organizations' resources, the risk of conflicts of interest, and the public's opportunities to gain insight into what economic commitments a leading politician has.

The Riksdag's financial register does not exist as a decoration, but it exists so that the voters can scrutinize us. It exists to prevent conflicts of interest and to protect trust in democracy.

According to the government, the individual official shall face a broader criminal liability. In that case, questions regarding economic transparency of one of the country's most powerful party leaders cannot be treated as administrative details. Responsibility cannot be stone-hard downwards and a little soft and fluffy upwards. Rules cannot be rules only for others. And a government that claims to want to combat abuse of power cannot simultaneously leave the concrete proposals against corruption outside of this bill.

Mr. Speaker! The new crime also has a very concrete problem: What happens when an official must deviate from a regulatory framework in order to protect a compelling public interest?

Region Stockholm's procurement of ambulance helicopters illustrates the problem. The region risked being left without necessary transports for patients with life-threatening conditions. The direct procurement was judged to be impermissible, but the agreement was allowed to remain because people's lives and health weighed more heavily.

An official may have deliberately deviated from the rules in such a situation. A supplier may have been favored and others disadvantaged. But the purpose was not to help a friend or enrich themselves; the purpose was to save lives.

Now the government is trying to claim that such situations can be handled through the requirement of specific intent and through future court practice. But, Mr. Speaker, criminal law must be clear, and it must be predictable. Someone who, in an emergency, makes a decision to protect people's lives and health should not have to wait for several years to find out if the court actually understood the situation. If the crime is introduced, there must therefore be an explicit outlet for compelling societal interests.

Mr. Speaker! A strong democracy needs a public administration characterized by objectivity, impartiality, and accountability. But it also needs civil servants who dare to do their jobs – who dare to make difficult decisions, report irregularities, acknowledge and correct mistakes, and act when people's lives or health are at stake.

Corruption and deliberate abuse of power must be combated. But then the government must also address corruption – not set aside a broad investigation into the phenomenon, set aside concrete proposals against corruption, and be satisfied with expanding criminal liability for those who work at the periphery of public activities.

The measures must be accurate. They must cover bribes, conflicts of interest, cronyism, abuse of trust, and improper influence. And the responsibility must apply equally to the caseworker, the agency management, and the political leadership. It is equality before the rules that creates trust, not a system where the one with the least power receives the harshest responsibility and the one with the most power receives the best explanations.

Vänsterpartiet therefore opposes the introduction of the crimes abuse of public office and gross abuse of public office. If the Riksdag nevertheless introduces them, the legislation must at least contain a clear exception for situations where a compelling public interest is at stake.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating, as mentioned, criminal liability for civil servants. Today we have a criminal liability for misconduct in office that is linked to errors in the exercise of authority.

In 1975, the so-called civil servant reform was implemented, which involved a significant decriminalization and a phasing out of the then-existing official responsibility. Through the new rules on abuse of authority and negligent exercise of authority, criminal liability for errors in the line of duty was limited to that part of public activity which involves the exercise of authority.

The criminal liability for official misconduct received its current form in 1989. The criminal liability was expanded then, among other things, in such a way that it now covers measures taken in the exercise of public authority, that is, not only actions that independently constitute the exercise of public authority but also measures that stand in a natural and close connection with the exercise of public authority.

Members of state and municipal decision-making assemblies are not subject to criminal liability for misconduct in office when they take actions in that role. This has primarily been justified by the argument that responsibility for elected officials should be held politically and not legally.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats have long worked to have the official responsibility expanded. It is fundamentally about society's trust in the authorities and the state. The fight against corruption must be strengthened, and this is a step in the right direction. That the official responsibility is now expanded is crucial to curb gang criminals, who all too often seek out authorities and authority personnel to infiltrate or gain access to information.

For someone to be convicted of misconduct in office, it is required that an action has been taken in the exercise of public authority. In the current situation, it happens that abuse occurs without connection to the exercise of public authority. Such abuse can, for example, result in JO criticism but does not result in more tangible measures. Many of us have reacted to the fact that JO often presents criticism – serious criticism against certain things and matters. But what happens to the one who becomes the subject of the criticism? Nada, nothing! In some respects, one can even say: If you have not been reported to JO, you have not done any sensible work.

Now we are strengthening the protection for public employees who behave themselves, and we are tightening the responsibility for those who do not. As a public employee, one should not feel anxiety regarding the introduction of the new regulations on abuse of public office. On the contrary, one should see that they primarily constitute a support to resist any potential pressure, as the frameworks for what is correct or not become clearer for all public employees.

As has been mentioned here in the speaker's chair, it is only intentional action that shall be punishable. Some speakers have mixed up the concepts, I believe, between negligence and intent. Likewise, one cannot consider that a lack of resources, which makes it impossible to process a case, entails criminal liability. It would become a bit strange in that case. In that case, the responsibility must be moved higher up. It can never land on the individual processor that one has such a workload that one cannot fulfill one's work duties. It would be completely unreasonable if an individual official were to be punished for this.

As said: It is only intentional actions that shall be punishable. Mistakes in the performance of duties can be made by everyone. If that happens, the action thus falls outside the scope of the law. There is therefore no reason for concern for the one with good intentions.

We are imperfect. We are not infallible. Everyone can make mistakes. I believe that everyone who has worked in state or municipal service at some point has made some mistake. Perhaps there is someone who hasn't, but most of us have, in any case, made one. It is therefore not such things that the law should target, but rather it concerns people who are actually corrupt or activists, or where there are other factors that drive individuals to circumvent the regulatory framework.

The crime of abuse of public office shall also include elected officials, which should further strengthen the people's trust in the decision-making power. It has been mentioned previously that people have sometimes reacted to individual politicians acting in a way that draws criticism. But such actions have not affected the individual politician previously because political responsibility could be demanded but not criminal responsibility. But now this is changing, as said.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on an expanded criminal liability for civil servants.

Centerpartiet shares the government's ambition to combat corruption, abuse of power, and undue influence. But a good ambition is not always a guarantee of good legislation. In this bill, we unfortunately see an example where the government, in its eagerness to show decisiveness, presents a proposal that is ill-considered and undermines legal certainty and which risks causing more harm than good.

The government's proposal revolves around the introduction of a new graded offense, abuse of public office. The intention is to close the gaps that exist in today's legislation, where actions that do not occur during direct exercise of authority can fall outside the scope of criminal liability. It is commendable.

The problem is that the proposal is far too broad and unclear. Several weighty referral bodies – the Crime Prevention Council, the Svea Court of Appeal, and not least the Council on Legislation – have warned that the provision is so vague that it risks violating the principle of legality's fundamental requirements for predictability. When not even the country's leading jurists can determine where the line for what is punishable lies, how then is an individual social worker, permit officer, or procurement officer supposed to do so?

I want to counter the claim that it only concerns intentional crimes, and therefore it is no danger. But at the same time, it is the case that we are all expected to know the law. If one then says "I didn't know I was doing something illegal, because the legislation was so vague," it is no defense if one has committed such an act. Do not confuse intent and vague legislation!

We must also remember that crimes such as embezzlement, breach of trust against a principal, theft, false certification, and others still exist. This is not an unregulated area. Instead, there are obvious risks with today's proposal.

Instead of strengthening the administration, we risk creating a fear of making mistakes. It risks becoming a culture of silence where people do not dare to point out deficiencies and a culture of caution where processing times are dragged out because no one dares to make difficult but necessary decisions.

Our public employees, who every day work in the service of the citizens, deserve our full support. The real threats to our administration today are the infiltration of organized crime, the increasing vulnerability to threats and violence against officials, and the growing bureaucracy.

What is needed is a holistic approach. We need to strengthen the protection for our public employees. Then, of course, we need better preventive work and sharper control mechanisms to stop corruption, not least in public procurement, which involves enormously large sums.

With the risk of a slight digression on the subject, I would like to take the opportunity to mention the protection of public employees. It is a weakness that it is only police who have the possibility, in certain situations with a tangible risk of violence, to be anonymous. If the whole of society and the entire public sector are to combat organized crime, we need to protect more and more.

Avoiding having one's name on the paper that is sent home with the notification of a decision, the legislation we received last year, is not worth much because someone can call the switchboard and ask whose name is on the decision.

From the Center Party's side, we will push for continued protection. It is about bailiffs, building permit officers, fire inspectors and social welfare officers – all those who are needed in the fight against serious organized crime. They also need our protection in vulnerable situations.

But at the same time, work is needed against infiltration and enablers with controls and follow-up so that crimes cannot be committed. That is why the Riksdag needs to move forward with the concrete and well-elaborated proposals that the investigation Criminal measures against corruption and official misconduct actually placed on the government's table, proposals that the government, for inexplicable reasons, has chosen not to move forward with.

Centerpartiet wants to see a smart and tough justice policy based on knowledge and legal certainty. The government's proposal does not quite reach this. It is a prime example of symbolic politics that looks good as a headline but risks creating more problems than it solves.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by apologizing for a mobile phone being here. We were curious about the medal the Speaker is wearing. We also received an answer – thank you for that!

Mr. Speaker! It is important that the people who are paid through tax revenue, which many are in our country, do a good job. We – the people – who pay taxes demand that we get value for our money.

I, who have been a state employee for more than half of my life, have often been told by citizens that they pay my salary. Sometimes I have been able to counter when it turned out that people I had dealt with, who had been upset, also received their salary through tax funds. But that is a completely different story.

With that said: There are many of us here in the country who have a public employment through jobs in the state, municipality, or region. But it is not teachers, police officers, and nurses who first come to mind now that the government wants to expand the criminal liability of public officials. The new rules will not hit those professions. It is not often that anyone in these professions commits a crime of official misconduct with intent. Those who, on the other hand, will now have to think a bit more are those who are to make decisions. These are politicians and officials working in, for example, a municipality. This is good.

Politicians should be people who can be trusted. They are to manage our tax money, and they must ensure that we have a well-functioning society. They must not cheat. They must not ensure that acquaintances or relatives receive good contracts with, for example, a municipality. They must not enrich themselves by bypassing certain regulations during, for example, procurements.

Some say that this sharpened legislation is not good. They mean that it will scare people away from taking employment in, for example, a municipality and that it will make people afraid to make decisions, sign contracts and carry out procurements.

If you are afraid that you will fall for it, that you will be tempted to cheat or that you will want to help a friend through cheating, then you probably should not take a job where you handle other people's money. Do not take such a job if that temptation is too great!

If you are unsure which regulations apply, you must ask. Find out what applies so that it does not go wrong! As has been mentioned before, there is a big difference between making a mistake and, for example, deliberately cheating.

If you are ambitious, have your regulatory framework, have passion for the task and are honest, you have nothing to worry about. The law, in fact, only strikes those who intentionally break the rules and the law that we are now debating. It is therefore about them doing this with intent.

I have myself worked as a civil servant for over 30 years, and I have never been afraid that I would be reported for misconduct in office. I have felt secure in my role as a civil servant.

We are a bit unique and naive in our country. We don't really believe that abuse of power, corruption, and undue influence occur here. I can inform you that unfortunately, they do. This law was needed to address this. It is also time that it covers all forms of exercise of public authority. The definition of what constitutes exercise of public authority is a bit awkward, in my opinion.

Now this new law will cover most of it. I believe it is useful, and I am convinced that it will make a difference.

With that said, I move for the approval of the bill.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker and dear persistent colleagues, this sunny Saturday! Miljöpartiet shares the government's view that corruption, abuse of power, and unauthorized influence in public activities must be combated forcefully. For that very reason, the legislation must be accurate, legally sound, and proportionate. We believe that this proposal does not live up to those requirements.

We are not alone in holding this view. Several referral bodies have very clearly rejected the proposal. TCO, LO, and Saco emphasize that there is already a well-established system for accountability through criminal law, labor law, disciplinary responsibility, and supervision. Today's problems in public activities are therefore not solved by shifting a greater criminal responsibility onto individual officials. On the contrary, there is a risk that the focus will shift from lacking organization, insufficient resources, and weak control systems to the individual caseworker.

We share these referral bodies' criticism of the new crime of abuse of public office. We believe that the government's proposed provision is too broad and unclear. It risks creating uncertainty about which actions are actually punishable and allows for difficult boundary lines. We believe that it is not a sustainable path in criminal law.

LO and Saco warn that the proposal will be disproportionate in relation to the problems that the investigation has identified, and TCO points out the risk of arbitrary assessments and a greater pressure on the judicial system.

Miljöpartiet also takes seriously the practical consequences that several referral bodies raise. TCO and Saco warn that an expanded criminal liability could lead to increased fear, to greater caution, and to a culture of silence emerging in more workplaces. This, in turn, risks resulting in longer processing times, more micro-management, and poorer opportunities to recruit and retain competent staff in the public sector.

A strong democracy needs independent and professional civil servants who dare to use their knowledge and their judgment, not an order that drives forward a culture of silence and defensive decision-making.

Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen trust in the public sector through preventive work against corruption, better control mechanisms, stronger protection against undue influence, and good conditions for public employees to do the right thing from the start. It is a better way than introducing a broad and vague penal provision.

Mr. Speaker! We therefore consider that the entire bill should be rejected. We have also stood behind reservation 2, where rejection of certain parts is proposed. But that being said, I move for approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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