Constitutional matters

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal.

Constitutional issues are perhaps among the heaviest matters we handle in this chamber. They are, ultimately, about the protection of our democracy and our free way of life, something that I am completely convinced that everyone in this chamber stands behind but which is perhaps not always as self-evident in all parts of the world as it is here in Sweden. We see that democracy is in decline in more and more places around our world. The protection of our common democracy therefore becomes ever more important with each new day that dawns.

Sweden is still a strong democracy and has good conditions to continue to be so. But we must nurture it. It is possibly a worn-out cliché to say that we must win every new generation for democracy, but sometimes worn-out clichés are something that suddenly happens to become a bit more relevant.

For example, there are very many young guys in Sweden - I believe it is closer to 20 percent - who wonder if democracy really is the right way to govern. There are more who want to try to push that thesis, especially from other countries, and we find ourselves in a security situation where there are those who take advantage of the fact that democracy is allowed to destroy itself.

We as strong democrats must constantly have our sights set on safeguarding not only the legal protection for democracy but also the legitimacy of our democracy and the cultural protection for our democracy. This is something that several of us return to time and again, and it is precisely because it is so incredibly important.

Then there are some things that one may need to consider. One is that there is somewhat of a trend in Swedish politics today that if you have a political issue that you think is particularly important, it is very easy to say that it needs to be enshrined in the constitution.

I want to raise a warning finger for this tendency. Constitutional protection is something beautiful, something important, and something we need for the core values that exist in our democracy. But we must not deceive ourselves into believing that just because it is in the constitution, it is impossible to restrict or, for that matter, impossible to change under the right conditions.

It is quite the opposite that no constitution in the world is immune to the people. This may possibly introduce an inertia in the system. It can introduce a certain protection. But the truly strong, truly powerful protection for our democratic values is the democratic political debate and the legitimacy of the system. As more and more things are introduced into the constitution, there is a risk that there will also be more and more that oppose what is written there. The constitutional laws, the constitutional protection for our democracy, must in most cases constitute the lowest common denominators for the rules of the game that we all see as important for our democracy and the values that uphold it.

The real democratic protection is that which we must devote ourselves to every day, not just write down in a law book. Even now, when we have had democracy in Sweden for over 100 years, we must continue to create a more perfect democracy together. We must understand that it is our common project across party lines, not just a tool in our hands to destroy our political opponent. This is the real protection and that which we must hold fast to. I hope that many of us can join forces and continue to do it together.

It can be important to introduce new things into our constitution. As was mentioned in the previous debate here, there is, among other things, a committee that is looking at civil and political rights right now. Among other things, the right to abortion is relevant to include in our constitution. But there are also many other proposals on what could need to be incorporated. It should be done with caution, prudence, and good judgment, and with the understanding that introducing something into the constitution is not to lock it into a fixed form that cannot be changed for future generations.

This is the core of the Swedish work with constitutional protection and the constitution. Then there are a number of other things around this that relate to the protection of our democracy and to the development and improvement of our democratic system of government, the conflict resolution mechanism that we have decided is the best for resolving various differences of opinion within the framework of our population. This chamber is in some way the central node in our work.

The Committee on the Constitution has a special role in this. I am glad that we have a particularly good dialogue in these types of issues, where we can exchange and challenge ideas with one another.

In this report, there are several different motions. I do, however, move for their rejection by moving for approval of the committee's proposal, but for that reason, the discussion about them does not stop. On the contrary, many of them deal with matters that we need to continue discussing how we should handle in different ways. Another aspect of our democracy is that it is primarily carried out by the government initiating various legislative processes and investigations and then submitting proposals for decisions in this chamber, which we can process.

I actually want to thank those who have chosen to devote time and energy to motioning in this form of questions, because it is important to keep the democratic debate about the development of our democracy alive. I think it is an important issue for us to continue doing so even outside of this chamber, because the risk of having had democracy for just over 100 years is that we become a bit complacent, take it for granted, and perceive it as so to speak standing firm even if we do not nurture it ourselves.

And the risk of codifying and over-legalizing the protection of democracy is that we in the chamber do not feel the same acute need to constantly take responsibility ourselves for managing our democratic tradition, our democratic rules, and our democratic system of government.

We must never deceive ourselves and believe that we do not every day bear the explicit and ultimate responsibility for the protection of our democracy.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation 3.

A year ago, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) visited us in the Riksdag during a meeting with the Committee on the Constitution to speak about the annual report. In it, they point out that "the broader threat to democracy is becoming increasingly prominent" and describe how activities in the shadows work to overthrow society and our democracy.

Säpo describes, among other things, the following: "Extreme ideas and anti-state narratives have gained a foothold in a broader segment of society. This is something that is exploited by both violence-seeking extremists and foreign powers."

Furthermore, Säpo comments: "Conspiracy theories in themselves are not criminal, and a resistance against the establishment has almost always existed. But they spread a narrative that can contribute to an eroded trust in society and its institutions. This can, in turn, be a threat to security. We saw examples of this during the storming of the Capitol in the USA in 2021 and the attack in Germany in 2022, where there are suspicions of a planned coup d'état."

Säpo describes all of this as threats to the constitution and the broader threat to democracy.

Madam Speaker! About a year ago, we stood here in the rostrum and debated constitutional issues, that is to say, the same subject as today. Many touched upon then that authoritarian forces and tendencies are increasing all around the world, that democracy is being pushed back, and that fewer people live in a free world than before.

Madam Speaker! I would have wished that we could stand here in the speaker's chair today and talk about how we have succeeded in breaking this development. But unfortunately, I cannot do that. Fresh measurements of the development of democracy show that it is going in the wrong direction. Over a year, the decline for democracy has continued, and authoritarian forces have grown further. 71 percent of the world's population now live in authoritarian states. Ten years ago, it was 48 percent.

Madam Speaker! What do we do about this then? We Social Democrats have some proposals in this committee report that can contribute to increasing trust in politics and democracy.

One proposal is that we want to see stronger transition restrictions.

Sweden has had a relatively weak regulation of transition restrictions compared to other countries. The revolving doors between politics and the business sector have often been portrayed in the media. In 2018, the Social Democratic-led government therefore introduced transition restrictions for ministers and secretaries of state. But there is reason to consider whether they should cover more key positions within public activities. The Social Democratic-led government therefore appointed an inquiry which was completed in 2023 and which has now been sent out for consultation by the current government. We will return to the discussion.

The second proposal is to review the regulation of lobbyists.

The possibility of influencing political decisions through dialogue with politicians is a self-evident part of our democracy. But at the same time, we must ask ourselves the questions: Who are we listening to? Who has the economic muscles to conduct lobbying? Not everyone can afford to travel to the Riksdag building and host dinners. Therefore, we need to review how one, similar to the EU, can introduce a lobby register.

The third proposal is to look at the party financing.

Knowing how parties are financed is an important issue. Some parties have wanted to focus on the Social Democrats' lottery financing. The government appointed an inquiry solely for this purpose while a broader party financing inquiry was also appointed. The first crazy thing is that. The second crazy thing is that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna wanted to tighten the reins on the Social Democrats' lotteries with the arguments of countering gambling addiction and that lotteries can damage trust in the parties. Then the Sverigedemokraterna were more honest when they said it is about them wanting to shorten the Social Democrats' May Day parade.

Madam Speaker! If one wants to address gambling addiction, one misses the mark if one focuses on the Social Democrats' lotteries. One is even playing in the wrong division. For the major problems are not people who want to win quality towels, but it is online casinos and that type of activity. But the government does not want to review that activity.

When it comes to the argument of trust, the investigator stated clearly and distinctly the following: We have found no evidence that trust in either the parties or the gambling market has been damaged as a result of the lotteries.

What is, however, a breach of trust is when the government parties, with precision, want to limit the opposition's funding. In any case; this funding investigation should look at a broader palette of measures than it is looking at today. It is something we Social Democrats want.

Madam Speaker! Just as many have been inside, we celebrated a 50-year-old on March 6, namely the Instrument of Government. It begins with what all politicians should know in their sleep: "All public power in Sweden derives from the people." It is a reminder that our mandates are based on the principle of popular sovereignty, that is to say, that political power derives its legitimacy from the people.

I read a comment from someone who listened when we celebrated the Instrument of Government in the Riksdag a few weeks ago and heard a contribution I had that day. I specifically asked the question: Should democracy be protected against the elected? He thought it was a naive question and wanted to emphasize the word political power.

Madam Speaker! It is perhaps not the case that everyone has followed the discussion on how politics has lost its effectiveness. That was my point. All of us who meet many people and talk politics can probably testify that voters have sometimes lost hope in what politics can actually achieve. Even the Supreme Court notes that they have had to handle many difficult cases and areas concerning filling gaps where we politicians thought the subjects had been too difficult to tackle. We have pushed them ahead of us to be decided in court instead. But then we have pushed away the responsibility.

We have also sold out democratic control over important operations. How is it even possible that properties such as district courts can be owned by gang criminals? Or that you have to drive 25 miles one way to the vehicle inspection? Or that you, as an adult, cannot get a dentist appointment in Haparanda, while dentist appointments are being sold off along Drottninggatan in Stockholm?

My point is that the elections every four years must mean something. The effectiveness of politics must be strong. But it is wise that there is a certain inertia in the system, especially when it comes to constitutional issues. Just as Erik Ottoson so wisely expressed in the previous contribution, the truly strong protection for democracy is the deep popular conviction among the broad masses that democracy and the freedom that democracy provides is the system of government that everyone wants to live under.

Madam Speaker! We are going to elections to the European Parliament, and one of the most important issues will be about the EU's security and cohesion. There are many antagonists who would like to see the EU weakened, not least Russia. Therefore, it is concerning that in this report there is a motion from the Sverigedemokraterna that Sweden's membership in the EU should be removed from the Instrument of Government. I think that is worth noting ahead of the upcoming EU elections.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! KU16 is also a motion report. As the heading indicates, it concerns constitutional issues. Several of the motions concern, for example, membership in the EU and the subsidiarity test in the EU. Much is about how much Swedish legislation should be handed over to the EU.

Today, there are 67 days left until the EU election. Then we have the opportunity to choose which EU we want and what role Sweden, the Swedish constitution, and our fundamental laws shall have in relation to the EU. Should the EU standardize everything, from wage levels to how much daily rest employees should have, regardless of the nature of the work, and how a uniform forestry shall be conducted within the entire EU area, regardless of latitude or growing conditions?

I do not believe that it was the type of meddlesomeness that the fathers of the EU, the three Christian Democrats Robert Schuman from France, Konrad Adenauer from Germany and Alcide de Gasperi from Italy, had envisioned when they took the first steps toward the cooperation that would, through freedom and free trade, weave together the former enemy countries and in this way build peace. They had seen their countries destroyed through war between different authoritarian regimes – Nazism, fascism and communism. Based on the Christian Democratic principles that still form the foundations of the EU, they built the Coal and Steel Community, which over time developed into the EU.

75 years later we can state that their idea worked. Through trade and free movement, such a dense network has been created that one always wins more through peaceful solutions than by declaring war on another EU country. No country that is part of the European community has initiated a war against another EU country.

No, in the spirit of the three EU fathers, the EU shall be a free union with democratic accountability where our fundamental freedoms and rights are protected. The EU's work in standing up for our common Western values and our European way of life needs to be strengthened. A major challenge is to counter the antisemitism that we see all around in several cities, both in Sweden and in many EU countries.

The EU needs to focus on its core tasks and not on detailed regulation. The subsidiarity principle must be protected. It means that decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level. Therefore, it is important that we also have a strong subsidiarity review in Sweden. We shall continue to protect that. We shall not delegate issues that are in conflict with the Swedish constitution to the EU.

We Christian Democrats also want to go even further and have a proposal to make it possible for the Riksdag to issue a so-called red card to the European Commission's proposals. It is a way to safeguard subsidiarity and stand up for the EU's core mission and our Swedish constitution.

Madam Speaker! I hope for understanding that I became a little inspired in this hyper-current issue. The balance between national constitution and EU legislation is incredibly important to maintain.

In addition, the report deals with issues such as party financing, which is being investigated by the 2023 transparency committee, rules on cooling-off periods for ministers and high-ranking civil servants, which have very recently been investigated and are now being further prepared, and a number of other motions.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 in the report KU16 Constitutional Issues.

In this report, the Committee on the Constitution deals with a broad subject that engages all parties to a relatively high degree. This is clearly evident from a large number of motions from all our parliamentary parties. It concerns everything from our EU membership to party financing, the form of government, the rule of law principle, the number of members of parliament, membership in fraternal orders, the protection of trans people, and the independence of lawyers - to name just a few. It is a broad report, to say the least, which we in the Committee on the Constitution can delve into in many different ways.

Madam Speaker! For my part, and on behalf of the Sweden Democrats, I first want to dwell on the Swedish language and its position. Language is the primary means of communication in a society. It is therefore an integrated part of the culture. Language is living and changeable by nature. It adapts to the social community in which we find ourselves. Language can therefore be inclusive and exclusive at the same time.

Different groups in different contexts develop their own version of the language with their own expressions. This in itself has great value. The unique expressions tell something about the group's history and development. At the same time, this phenomenon can sometimes lead to different groups, even within a society, having difficulty understanding each other. This is, of course, due to general culture clashes. But sometimes, groups' different versions of the language can become a communication barrier. A linguistic barrier in harmony with a culture clash can, in the worst case, lead to a great lack of understanding between the groups.

The Language Act of 2009 guarantees the right for our country's inhabitants to have access to, learn, and use the Swedish language. The Act also gives the five national minority languages and Swedish sign language a special status. They shall be as accessible as the main language, Swedish, for those who belong to any of these national minorities and for those who are deaf, hard of hearing, or for other reasons need sign language.

If we distort our own language, we lose contact with our linguistic heritage and our origins. Language is identity and belonging. Therefore, it is important to maintain our own linguistic distinctiveness. Therefore, we believe that it should be reviewed how the position of the Swedish language can be strengthened.

An overlooked but important symbolic issue is that of the status of the Swedish language. In several countries, for example our neighboring country Finland and France, the main languages are enshrined in the constitution. But Swedish is not enshrined in the constitution in Sweden.

To constitutionalize Swedish as our main language would clarify the position of Swedish in Sweden, both for the own population and for the rest of the world. Swedes have the right to feel pride and respect for their thousands-of-years-old linguistic tradition. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna believe that the position of the Swedish language as the main language in Sweden should be constitutionalized.

Madam Speaker! I want to say a few words about the EU and our membership in this supranational union. It is almost 30 years since we joined the EU, which at that time was primarily a peace and free trade union but which today has grown into something completely different. I imagine that no one could have predicted that it would become as extensive as it is today.

Sweden's membership in the EU should promote the long-term interests of the Swedish people. A fundamental such interest is to preserve Sweden's self-determination and democracy for future generations.

Every decision that limits the Riksdag's powers and authorities through transfers of power to the EU also limits our independence and our people's opportunity to demand accountability in elections and thus our democratic right to change Sweden's political direction. It should therefore be a fundamental thought to limit all power transfers to the EU unless it is evidently positive for Sweden, in both the short and long term.

Membership in the EU affects the entire Swedish society in ways that few could have imagined at the time of EU accession in 1995. All parts of the public administration, all levels as well as private companies and individuals are affected by legislation proposed by the EU Commission and voted through by the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament.

Despite this, the Swedish people have only to a limited extent been engaged in the issue of the EU's continued development and our membership in the union. Sweden did indeed hold a referendum on joining the EU in November 1994, but unlike several other countries, the public was not consulted when it came to either the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997, the Nice Treaty in 2001, the EU Constitution in 2004, or the Lisbon Treaty in 2007.

At the same time, it is important to consider that a strong Swedish voice in the EU is underpinned by popular support for the policy that the government pursues in relation to the EU.

In the current situation, there are only limited provisions regarding the anchoring of major EU reforms in the Instrument of Government. From Chapter 10, Section 6 of the Instrument of Government, it appears, for example, that the Riksdag can, within the framework of EU cooperation, delegate decision-making power that does not concern the principles of the constitutional system, and that such can occur if at least three-quarters of those voting and more than half of the members of the Riksdag vote for it. It can also occur in the order that applies for the enactment of a constitution, i.e., through two parliamentary decisions with an intervening ordinary parliamentary election in between.

A developed and expanded variant of this procedure or a model with referendums should, according to the Sweden Democrats, be investigated in order to improve the public support for our membership in the EU.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I stated in my previous contribution here today that it was not until Sweden took the step into the EU and incorporated the European Convention into Swedish law that the judiciary and also politics began to seriously adhere to individual freedoms and rights. Sweden's entry has therefore been to the benefit of Swedes' opportunity to have their individual freedoms and rights examined and respected.

The advantages of EU membership are not only about our civil and political rights being strengthened. Peace, free trade, and the opportunity to travel, study, and work within the union are fundamental to the cooperation, just as it is through the cooperation that we solve today's problems with climate change, cross-border crime, and other issues that Sweden as a country cannot solve on its own. I am therefore pleased that we are in the EU and that our membership is also enshrined in the Instrument of Government.

Madam Speaker! We who sit in the Riksdag have the privilege of being in this chamber and contributing to the strengthening and development of our democracy. Just 200 miles from us, brave Ukrainians are fighting a war so that they can build up their own democracy. Ukraine's goal is not only to secure its own self-determination, but the Ukrainian parliamentarians are enacting laws and implementing reforms to bring Ukraine closer to membership in the EU while simultaneously defending themselves against Russia's aggression. They know that alone is not strong – alone is just alone.

The requirements for membership in the EU are and shall be set high. The values on which the EU cooperation is based - people's freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights - are fundamental principles that need to be respected throughout the EU. It is central for the residents' rights to be guaranteed.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as Ukraine and several other countries would like to become members and are working hard to live up to the EU's high requirements, there are, paradoxically, countries that are members and repeatedly show that they do not respect the fundamental values on which membership is based. Therefore, the Liberals are pushing for the EU to be able to withdraw funding to countries that violate basic democratic values. The rule of law mechanism, which was established in 2019, is an important tool, but sanctions are also required.

Madam Speaker! The year 2024 is a super election year. This year, it is estimated that approximately half of the world's population will be given the opportunity to vote in one of the elections planned in 76 countries worldwide. The election to the European Parliament is one of these elections.

The V-Dem Institute, which annually reports on how democracy is developing in the world, however, paints a very gloomy picture. Since 2009, the proportion of the world's population living in countries that are becoming autocratized has been greater than the proportion living in countries that are becoming democratized.

Maria Ressa, journalist and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize 2021, recently said in an interview: By the end of 2024 we will know if democracy survives or dies. The background to her concern is the rapid development of AI, deepfakes and social media. Other alarming trends we see are how countries are exposed to disinformation and foreign influence.

At the EU level, work is being done on proposals regarding transparency, and the Swedish government has appointed an oversight committee to investigate the issue of strengthened oversight and transparency in the funding of political parties. The investigation will look at a range of issues, which I think is good.

Democracy should not be taken for granted. Free elections are not a guarantee of democracy. A well-written constitution can secure democracy in the short term, but not in the long term. Democracy is something that we must collectively take responsibility for, and every generation must take its responsibility to defend democracy. In the time we now live in, full of disinformation and influence campaigns, it is needed more than in a long time. We all have a responsibility here. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is falling in Transparency International's annual corruption index. We are now the worst in the Nordic countries, and it has gone worse than it has during the last decade.

Cold facts revealed during the 2022 election campaign that several representatives for parliamentary parties had attempted to bypass the ban on receiving anonymous contributions. It is very serious, because it is important that it is clarified which economic interests exist behind the parties and that anonymous contributions can influence politics. It is important because the voters have the right to know which organizations or persons support a party financially with contributions above a certain level. It is a matter of the credibility of our democratic system.

According to the Act on Transparency in Party Financing, a party shall report how it has financed its activities, and it must clearly appear from the report which funds have come into the activities and from where the funds come. The Act contains a prohibition on anonymous contributions, and according to the provision, parties and their affiliated organizations, members and substitutes for members, and election candidates may not receive anonymous contributions whose value exceeds 5 percent of a price base amount. That is just under 3,000 kronor. If one has received a contribution that exceeds this and one cannot return it to the donor, it shall be handed over to Kammarkollegiet.

Unfortunately, Kalla faktas review shows that it is all too easy to circumvent the current legislation. Vänsterpartiet considers that the transparency rules must be reviewed and tightened. Therefore, we welcome that the government has appointed an inquiry with the aim of precisely strengthening transparency and transparency in the financing of political parties. The inquiry shall, among other things, analyze and take a position on whether there is a need for clarifications of the ban on anonymous contributions and whether the ban on anonymous contributions shall also apply to companies, foundations and other legal entities other than those side organizations that the reporting entity has control and influence over. The assignment shall be reported by February 15, 2025, at the latest.

Madam Speaker! Let us speak plainly. What we saw in Kalla fakta during the 2022 election campaign was a complete scandal. We saw and heard how all government parties and their support parties had planned and advanced arrangements to be able to receive anonymous donations through straw men. It was not something that was found spontaneously in the moment, but it was stated openly that this was something that one knew how to handle. The question must therefore be asked: How many more such arrangements have the parties made? Who are the persons who we can assume have been able to buy influence over Swedish politics in this way?

This is a question of our democratic system's legitimacy. The reason why this is not a bigger scandal, in the media, is probably that we have legislation that is both unclear and allows for this type of fiddling to pass unpunished.

The ultimate responsible parties for the two largest parties in the government support have since left their posts, but they have not left politics. Richard Jomshof, who was the party secretary for Sverigedemokraterna at the time, is now chairman of the Committee on Justice. Gunnar Strömmer, who was the party secretary for Moderaterna, is the Minister for Justice.

If it were a work of fiction describing exactly this scenario, the review would probably be something along the lines of: It is very exciting but completely unbelievable. This could never happen in reality.

It is still the case that reality sometimes surpasses poetry.

Madam Speaker! It has been said here earlier that all public power emanates from the people. I agree that it should be so, but corruption causes more power to emanate from a slightly smaller part of the people. Corruption, lobbying, and revolving doors between the business sector and politics are a great threat to people's trust in the democratic system.

During the last 30 years, large parts of our society have been privatized and handed over to the market. This has made many large companies directly dependent on political decisions and good relations with politicians. These are companies that are dependent on tax money, for example welfare companies and free school corporations that have all too close ties to certain Riksdag parties.

It is important for democracy that the public has a high level of confidence in ministers and senior officials in the Government Offices. There must not be any suspicions that the statements and decisions of a minister are influenced by expectations of future employment at a company or an organization. A former minister shall also not have special advantages in contacts with representatives of the state in their new employment.

The right-wing government, which we have now, has for example recruited a large part of its ministers and secretaries of state directly from the business sector's lobby organizations. We in the Left Party consider it deeply problematic that the same people who before the election tried to influence the legislation on behalf of the business sector are now sitting and producing proposals for legislative changes.

In order for people to continue to feel confidence in our democratic system and to prevent the contempt for politicians from growing further, measures are required.

The exchange of individuals in senior positions between the public sector and the business sector can also lead to conflicts of interest. The question of the need for a regulation of transitions has previously been highlighted by, among others, the Council of Europe's anti-corruption body, Greco. After a review, Greco recommended that Sweden should introduce guidelines to avoid exactly these conflicts of interest when public officials transition to the private sector.

In 2018, as mentioned earlier, the cooling-off period (karensnämnden) was introduced to address the revolving doors between politics and the business sector. According to the Act on Restrictions on Ministers and Secretaries of State's Transition to Non-Governmental Activities, transition restrictions may be issued in the form of a cooling-off period or so-called subject restrictions for up to twelve months after a completed assignment or employment. The Act contains a specific duty of care provision.

But no specific sanction possibility was introduced because the regulation itself was judged to have a sufficient preventive effect. The Chairman of the Complaints Board has, however, himself described the current system as "toothless".

The previous government appointed an inquiry to review the system and submit proposals on restrictions when transitioning from public to other activities. The inquiry, which conducted an evaluation of the restriction law, presented its report in August 2023. Unfortunately, the inquiry does not submit any proposal on sanction possibilities in the event of a violation of the restriction law.

The government should appoint an inquiry to review the system of ministers with multiple portfolios in order to tighten supervision and sharpen the regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! In the real world, it sounds as if the work against corruption would be something self-evident. But it is a fact that we are a small country. A small country also entails that the economic elite is a small and tightly-knit circle. We know that the connections between the business sector and politics are closer than what is appropriate. Thanks to heroes such as, for example, Åsa Plesner and Marcus Larsson at Tankesmedjan Balans, we know that the tentacles reach all the way up into the absolute top tier of Swedish politics, all the way into the Prime Minister's office at Rosenbad.

We have ministers who have gone from being board members in private school companies to becoming directly responsible for the school area. It is quite reasonable in that situation to question where the loyalties actually lie. Do they lie primarily with the Swedish people, or do they lie with the friends on the company board?

In a country where the person ultimately responsible for Sweden's NATO membership can, from one day to the next, begin working directly for the defense industry, as if it were completely uncontroversial, it is obvious that something is breaking down. We need to tackle the corruption in our society seriously. It seems that the only thing one can rely on in this situation is that we in Vänsterpartiet will continue to do what we can to ensure that corruption does not gain further foothold in Swedish democracy.

I vote in favor of reservation 11.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 5, under point 3.

In a couple of months we go to an election, not just we here in Sweden, but we in all EU countries. We shall choose those who shall represent us in the European Parliament during the next five years. It is a very important election in these times of unrest in Europe. I want to emphasize how important it is that one makes use of one's right to vote and also finds out which values the candidate one casts one's vote on stands for. It is not entirely easy, unfortunately, for all citizens to find out.

Ahead of the upcoming election, another revelation emerged this week regarding how politicians in the European Parliament have been in the hands of anything other than democratic forces. Last week's news came from Belgium's Prime Minister after Belgian and Czech intelligence services collaborated. It turned out that the Prague-based site Voice of Europe conducted a Moscow-financed influence campaign to turn public opinion in Russia's favor ahead of the EU election.

EU-parliamentarians from six countries - Germany, France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Hungary - are said to have been paid via Voice of Europe to spread Russian propaganda. The European Commission's Vice-President Vera Jourová commented on the news with: This confirms what we already suspected, that the Kremlin uses shady fake media to buy secret influence.

Madam Speaker! Last week's news was, therefore, one in a series of revelations. A couple of months ago, we could learn the news that a member of the European Parliament had been an agent for the Russian security service FSB since 2004. It concerned the Latvian MEP Tatjana Zdanoka, who until 2022 was part of the Greens group in the European Parliament. As representatives for several Swedish parties, when that news came, there is a risk that this will happen again. Many are naive regarding how actively Russia is trying to destabilize the EU.

But it is not only Russia that is active in its attempts to influence Members of the European Parliament. Just over a year ago, the Belgian police carried out a raid at the homes of several high-ranking EU politicians in Brussels, including at the home of the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Eva Kaili, and soon this web began to be unraveled regarding organized crime and corruption that was dubbed Qatargate, where, among other things, Qatar was accused of trying to buy influence in the European Parliament.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country that has historically ranked high on Transparency International's corruption index, that is to say, we have had relatively little corruption in comparison with other countries in Europe and the world. As was said here earlier, unfortunately, it has gone in the wrong direction over the recent years, even though we still rank well. In the measurement presented in January this year, we had slipped down to sixth place, so even though I initially took a number of examples from the European Parliament, I want to emphasize that we are not immune just because we are Swedes. Where power is concentrated, there is always a risk of undue influence and corruption, and therefore it is important to ensure that we have a strong protection against such influence.

We also know from other countries that political parties at all levels often constitute a weak link in the protection of liberal democracy. In many cases, they are vulnerable to cyberattacks, and they can be infiltrated or otherwise influenced by foreign powers. The parties actually also lack sufficient knowledge about the threats they face and the tools to arm themselves against them.

Centerpartiet therefore wants to strengthen today's deficient ban on party financing from foreign sources. We want to tighten the law on transparency in party financing, this in order to increase transparency and close the loopholes that have been shown to exist. It should not be possible to circumvent the ban on anonymous contributions, something that the TV program Kalla fakta showed was possible before the election in the autumn of 2022.

Madam Speaker! To increase transparency for our citizens regarding how political decisions are made and which interests lie behind these decisions, the Centre Party wants to establish a lobby register or a transparency register, which is a more accurate name, at the national level. That decision-makers speak with representatives from the business sector, trade unions, interest organizations, and civil society is fundamentally a useful part of the legislative process and government work. Through such conversations, different parts of society can participate in shaping political decisions that affect them.

It is however equally important that the contacts made are also carried out in a transparent and correct manner. Several countries, including our neighboring country Finland, which we gladly look towards these days, have created lobby registers. Such registers also exist in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Austria. The different registers differ regarding who is classified as a lobbyist, which decision-makers are covered, and what form of contacts should be registered, but a common denominator is that lobbying is registered with an authority and that the register covers both the legislative and the executive power.

It is therefore welcome that work regarding these issues is being carried out in the 2023 transparency committee, which has been mentioned here by a couple of colleagues in the committee. I note that the committee shall, among other things, conduct a review of the current regulation and consider whether it needs to be clarified or supplemented. It shall also consider whether there is a need to further strengthen transparency in political decision-making through a regulation that sets requirements for transparency and oversight in contacts between political decision-makers and lobbyists.

We will, of course, follow this work closely and look forward to seeing what the committee has landed on next year.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now I am last out and could have considered making a summary of what has been said. But I think I will stick to what I intended to say. This does not mean that I in any way am without opinions or support thoughts that have been expressed earlier, but I want to highlight some questions that we within Miljöpartiet have spoken about.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long tradition of civic oversight of the authorities' exercise of power. The principle of public access has served our country well, so to speak. It has enabled a scrutiny of those in power that in many other countries would have been difficult or even impossible. In this respect, Sweden is a pioneer regarding oversight and transparency. The legal right to oversight is an important reason why we are one of the world's least corrupt countries, even though it is extremely worrying that we have fallen in the ranking and are currently the worst in the Nordic region. This has also been pointed out by previous speakers. Our freedom of communication is unique in an international perspective.

Madam Speaker! Despite this, a great deal remains to be done to counter the possibilities for corruption and bribery. Already in 2011, my party colleague Peter Eriksson, notably known in KU circles, submitted a motion regarding a clearer and more open reporting of which contributions private individuals, companies, foundations, associations, and other organizations provided to the parties. It was time, Peter thought with several others, to further improve transparency—from reporting upon request to a public reporting.

Historically, the parties' activities have been quite unregulated, which has been justified by the free formation of opinions and the fact that great caution with rules has been considered essential in this context. There have been various agreements and discussions between the parties, for example, to disclose donations exceeding certain specified amounts from private individuals. A bit of trivia is that in the election year 2006, 18 years ago, the Moderaterna collected approximately 30 million kronor from individuals, the Socialdemokrateren slightly over 3 million kronor, the Miljöpartiet 160,000 kronor, and, if I remember correctly, Folkpartiet and Centerpartiet nothing at all. But that was then, and that was according to what was said.

The 2023 Transparency Committee, which was appointed in June 2023 and is to report its work in February 2025, has indeed received several of the questions we have discussed in various contexts in its committee directives. This includes, for example, whether there is a need for clarification regarding the ban on anonymous contributions and whether foreign contributions should be prohibited or regulated in another way.

From the Green Party's side, we have in a party motion in 2023 proposed tightenings both in relation to previous practice and in relation to the investigation directives I just mentioned. We think it is reasonable that voters know, or at least can easily find out, who or which entities are financing the parties, if not otherwise to prevent unnecessary rumor-mongering or pure disinformation. We also think it is important to limit the possibilities for foreign financing in order to thereby reduce the risks of undue influence from foreign powers.

Both of these requirements exist as alternatives to milder formulations in the transparency committee's directive, but I want to mark, through reservation 6 to point 3 on party financing, that the sharper rules are, in our opinion, necessary.

Madam Speaker! The possibility of achieving changes in politics and society through dialogue is an important part of democracy. It leads to valuable discussions, points of contact, and an exchange of knowledge and thereby contributes to a living democracy.

When I was little, lobbing meant kicking the ball in a nice arc over and beyond the reach of the opposing team's goalkeeper. Today, it means something completely different, but the will to achieve results seems to be common. Lobbying has become a very important tool used by interest organizations to achieve change or to defend positions.

In recent years, the market for public affairs companies has grown significantly. Both in the European Parliament and among parliamentary parties, revelations have recently been made regarding corruption and unauthorized influence on decision-makers. Such revelations risk undermining trust in the political parties and in democracy.

Given the great significance lobbying can have, it is of course important that the contact that takes place is transparent. It is important that the activity becomes more open so that citizens have insight into which interests are involved and influencing the political decisions.

As a step in that direction, the Green Party wants to introduce a transparency register where meetings and actors are reported openly. The register shall cover the Riksdag, the government and authorities. Regions and municipalities may also be involved. The transparency register should be mandatory. The responsibility for the register should lie with the public sector so that, for example, the rules of the General Data Protection Regulation can be ensured.

I welcome that these questions shall be addressed in the 2023 transparency committee but nevertheless, by reservation 9 to point 4, wish to mark our position that a register must be established.

Madam Speaker! Some time ago, I listened to a recording of an American hearing of a prospective justice to the Supreme Court. A highly educated lawyer—a senator or a member of Congress—asks another highly educated lawyer about her grounds for acting in certain specific cases, in order to thereby imply that she nevertheless had her own agenda. By Swedish standards, it is a rather skillful overstep; the independence of Swedish judges and lawyers has until now been something that one has simply taken for granted.

But even a constitutional state like ours may need to strengthen the defense against future politicization. In a constitutional state, all people are equal before the law, and efforts are required at several levels to ensure legal certainty. This is partly about ensuring that new laws that restrict individual rights undergo a comprehensive review, and partly about ensuring the independence of courts and authorities. Personal privacy and the right not to be discriminated against must be respected both in legislation and in law enforcement. We want to provide constitutional protection for the independence of lawyers to ensure their position over time and thereby mark the self-evident value that, in a constitutional state, must go hand in hand with crystal-clear independence.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations, including the latest one, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 9.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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