(cont.) Response to interpellations 2024/25:527 and 534 on the Prime Minister's role in the handling of the situation surrounding the national security advisor
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S considers that the Minister for Justice is using a legal process as a smokescreen to avoid questions about the Prime Minister's exercise of office 1. S argues that the Prime Minister has a strong trust in a person under indictment 1 and that there was a lack of support from the Prime Minister's Chancellery to build up a structure. MP considers that the Prime Minister should answer when he became aware of the incident and what instructions he gave 2 3. MP argues that the government does not respect the Riksdag's power of oversight 3. M claims that they have answered the questions 4. M argues that the confidence issue is overplayed and agrees that a structure should have been in place since 2006.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Gunnar Strömmer stated in his response that a legal process is ongoing and that he cannot anticipate it. I then asked some questions regarding that. Among other things, I asked which legal basis makes the Minister for Justice believe he can refuse to answer. It would be interesting to hear. I also wondered why he did not answer the other questions, for which there were no legal problems with answering. I asked these questions in my first speech.
Now I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I have not read the Minister for Justice's CV, but I recall that there is some form of legal education in it. We shall have to see from the answer here whether the Minister for Justice passed his exams or not.
The legal basis for refusing to answer when the Riksdag exercises its fully legitimate oversight power against the government would be very interesting to know. Both Gunnar and I know that there is no such basis. It is a general smokescreen that the minister uses to avoid answering.
The Minister of Justice also uses the KU review to avoid answering questions in the chamber. Both the Minister of Justice and I know that an ongoing KU review is absolutely no reason for a government minister to refuse to answer members of Parliament's questions in the chamber. It would also be interesting to get a brief comment on that.
But then the Minister for Justice actually did make some attempts to answer questions – not in the actual interpellation response, where the answers should have come, but in his second contribution. He then said, among other things, that the Prime Minister has answered questions and has not avoided questions. The reason this interpellation debate is happening again is that the Prime Minister's answers were then very vague. Since that interpellation debate, new information has also emerged almost every day in this scandal, which makes it justified to ask new questions.
The question of whether there was confidence in Landerholm, I included in my interpellation. It is overplayed, says the Minister for Justice, because he had left his post. Obviously, the Prime Minister did not have confidence in Landerholm in his work at the Government Offices, but obviously, the party chairman for the Moderaterna had enough confidence to let him work at the Moderate parliamentary office and receive a pass to the Riksdag. This means that the party chairman, that is to say the Prime Minister, has a strong confidence in a person who is under indictment and, among other things, has carelessly lost his pass. The question of confidence, therefore, cannot simply be brushed aside.
Landerholm would build up his own structure, was the answer to the question of why there was no structure that saved this catastrophe. That was, in itself, a telling answer.
The Minister of Justice also received a question here regarding the recruitment process. He then says: I am not prevented from answering that from a legal perspective, but I have no knowledge whatsoever of it. Therefore, I cannot answer it.
That is why it becomes so bizarre, Madam Speaker, that it is the wrong minister who is sitting here today – a minister who is not prepared, who cannot answer questions and who has no knowledge of the recruitment process, which is one of the issues that are addressed in this interpellation debate. It is the wrong minister, a minister who is not prepared and who is not knowledgeable in the substantive issues. It is a minister who is knowledgeable in procedural issues – I believe – and could very well answer those, but who lays out a smokescreen with legal processes and KU investigations.
This is not good, Madam Speaker. I hope and believe that the Minister for Justice can rectify these absurdities in the next entry.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! Let me quote from a report from the Committee on the Constitution concerning a minister's reluctance to answer questions from members of the Riksdag during a question period.
"The question institutions are an important link in the Riksdag's constitutionally mandated oversight power, and through the regulation of them, the individual Member of Parliament's right to question a government minister regarding matters concerning his or her performance of duties is anchored. The institutions fulfill an important function within the parliamentary system through the opportunities they provide the Riksdag for information, debate, and oversight of the government. The importance of these institutions functioning satisfactorily is obvious against this background."
The investigation has revealed that there was no legal assessment behind the Minister for Education's response during the question period, regarding that she was not allowed to answer certain questions because she had been reported to the Committee on the Constitution. In a response to a written question, she stated that during the question period she became unsure as to which questions she could then answer. …
The Committee wishes to emphasize that a referral to the Committee on the Constitution cannot be considered to mean that ministers are prevented from answering questions regarding the government's policy.
Madam Speaker! The questions I have asked do not concern the government's policy, but rather the Prime Minister's performance of duties in the matter of the national security advisor's failure regarding misplaced papers. They concern at what point the Prime Minister became aware of the incident. They concern what instructions the Prime Minister has given and what measures the Prime Minister has taken to locate the papers that still appear to be missing.
Instead of coming here to the Riksdag, whose task it is to oversee the government's exercise of authority, the Prime Minister chooses to send the Minister for Justice. Instead of answering the questions I have asked, the Minister for Justice chooses to say that he cannot do so because a preliminary investigation is ongoing and a KU report has been submitted.
I would like to ask the Minister for Justice which of my five questions the Minister for Justice chooses not to answer because there is an ongoing preliminary investigation and which of my five questions the Minister for Justice does not want to answer because a matter is being handled in the Committee on the Constitution. If I do not receive an answer to this, we will have to ask the Committee on the Constitution whether the government is prevented from answering questions about the Prime Minister's handling of the Landerholm scandal or not, pending the KU review which, in the worst-case scenario, will be delayed for over a year given that the KU wants access to the material that is subject to secrecy in the investigation. However, it is certainly not subject to secrecy by the prosecutor or anyone else which measures the Prime Minister has taken to find these papers, what instructions the Prime Minister has given to handle the situation, or when the Prime Minister became aware of this.
I once again request the newly appointed Minister for Justice for answers to these questions.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I would like to correct both Annika Hirvonen and Patrik Björck on a very significant point. I have not pointed to the Committee on the Constitution to say that I am prevented from answering questions. I said the following in my interpellation response, and it is important to emphasize it: "I can also state that a review of this will subsequently be carried out by the Riksdag's Committee on the Constitution." That is the only thing I said in that part. I have not claimed that I am prevented from answering questions with reference to an ongoing process in KU, and I do not want anyone to put that in my mouth either.
Regarding the ongoing legal process, I think it is reasonable to refer to it. It is clear that it is a very significant matter that many of the circumstances related to the questions we are discussing here now are subject to a legal review. I do not think it is unreasonable to remind of that and possibly also say that there are elements in this which I naturally do not want to anticipate. The process must be allowed to take its course, just like all legal processes. So even in this case.
It is not the case that I have not answered questions. Perhaps the members do not appreciate my answers or do not think they are sufficiently detailed. I would therefore like to remind that I have touched upon the issue of confidence. I did so because the discussion concerns a person who has been national security adviser and who is no longer that. I also perceive that it is what I am here to answer questions about. In that case, it is obvious that the question has less relevance in a situation where the person in question is no longer national security adviser. The former national security adviser no longer has that role and has left the assignment. In that case, the question of confidence in that role also becomes somewhat overstated. It is therefore not a matter of not answering the question. Perhaps one may have views on the answer, but I answered the question.
I have also answered the question concerning the structure surrounding the national security advisor in the Government Offices. If the individual in question had stepped into a finished structure, he would not have needed to be given a mandate to build it up. There was no such structure, even though – if we look back in time – such a structure was already requested after the tsunami disaster by the then tsunami commission, which pointed out the indispensability of building up such a structure under the Prime Minister in the Government Offices. No such structure existed to step into. Therefore, I also think it is very reasonable to describe that the mandate to build up that structure went to the person who received the role as national security advisor.
I also described that while the recruitment of employees to the structure was underway, a structure was also being built around the national security advisor. It is possible that the members are not satisfied with that answer, but I want to emphasize that it is an answer to the question.
Regarding the question of the recruitment of a new national security adviser, it is in the nature of the matter that when one has that function, and the previous national security adviser has left their post, a process is also initiated to recruit a new one. I said this already before the break, and I am happy to repeat it again, that I have not referred to the legal process, and I have also not referred to KU's review regarding the question. On the other hand, I have said that I have no reason to go into and anticipate the recruitment process in the matter. This is because I do not own the process myself, but it is a matter that lies within the Government Offices since we are talking about a non-political position.
The short point of this long speech is that the Prime Minister has been in the chamber and answered questions on several occasions during this term. He also, of course, participated in the Committee on the Constitution's review of the appointment itself, and he will participate in the upcoming review that has now been actualized.
I am here and answering questions, and I am not hiding behind either the legal process or the KU in that part. I still think it would have been more objective to describe this in a correct way.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! One can still give Gunnar Strömmer the credit that he is good at talking without saying anything.
Gunnar Strömmer says that he has not said that the KU prevented answers. No, perhaps not explicitly so. But in the answer we received, he said the following: ”I can also state that a review of this will subsequently be carried out by the parliamentary Committee on the Constitution.” This was then followed by no answers.
It is difficult to draw any other conclusion from that text than that it is an excuse for why the answer does not contain any answers. Well done, but easy to see through.
Gunnar Strömmer said, in response to my direct question about the legal basis for refusing to answer, that he simply wanted to remind that a legal process is ongoing. Yes, Gunnar Strömmer is welcome to do that, if he wishes to use his speaking time for that. But it would be much better, Madam Speaker, if Gunnar Strömmer used his speaking time to actually answer the questions. Gunnar Strömmer knows that a legal process is ongoing. I know it. Annika Hirvonen knows it. I suspect that Madam Speaker is aware of it.
Answer the questions instead! Do not inform us that a legal process is ongoing. No one has asked if a legal process is ongoing. I asked for the legal basis for why the Minister for Justice is obstructing the Riksdag's important oversight work over the government. Why does the Minister for Justice come here and consistently refuse to answer? Yes, not on all questions, that is true. We received an answer to the question about the structure, and it was an alarming answer. It was as if Landerholm himself were to build the house while simultaneously living in it. There was no support from the Prime Minister's Office or from the Prime Minister's State Secretary. On the other hand, there was enormous support from the staff when it came to trying to create smokescreens, false rumors, and informing about what had happened. The staff was there then, but not to support so that it would not happen.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I have not received answers to four questions. The questions concerned when the Prime Minister found out and what he did then, what instructions he had given, why the documents regarding the negligence were not registered, or if the Prime Minister had taken any measures to find the missing secret papers.
In the interpellation answer, Gunnar Strömmer said that a legal process is ongoing regarding this and that he therefore cannot comment further on the questions that have been asked. Which of these questions can Gunnar Strömmer not comment further on due to the legal process? That was the question I asked in my previous post. Why does Gunnar Strömmer not answer four out of five questions that I have asked? Why does he also not explain why he does not answer these questions, when I ask exactly that in a direct question?
The interpellation tool is one of the Riksdag's central tools for scrutinizing the government. If the government comes here and pretends as if they haven't even noticed that questions have been asked, they do not respect the important constitutionally enshrined responsibility that the Riksdag has to control the government.
I understand that one feels ashamed over the Landerholm affair. I understand that it is embarrassing. I understand that one would prefer to forget everything, but we in the Riksdag and the Swedish people want the cards on the table now.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues this evening.
If we demand seriousness from one another, I think it is reasonable to refer to what I have answered in the written part of the response. I have stated that a legal process is underway. I have also stated that a review is underway in the Committee on the Constitution.
One might possibly think that they are unnecessary pieces of information in an answer, but they are not incorrect. Nor is it the case that I refer to the fact that I cannot answer questions due to the ongoing investigation in KU. It would be tasteful if it were not claimed that I have asserted something that I have not asserted.
It is also obvious that the members do not like my answers. They think the answers are incomplete or that I have not answered all the questions. But I do not buy that I have not answered the questions.
I have touched upon the recruitment process. It does not appear to be entirely central in this context, especially as it has been previously reviewed by KU. One can certainly imagine that a number of questions will return to that issue. I only note that a recruitment must reasonably take place, but I have nothing further to say regarding that process.
I have touched upon the motion of confidence, and it can, of course, also be approached from different angles. I merely observe that the question appears less relevant when the person in question has left their post at their own request, in a context that may possibly have something to say about the motion of confidence – but under all circumstances, it is overplayed here and now.
Regarding the construction of the structure, I can agree that it would have been much better if such a structure had been in place, since it has been requested at least since 2006. Someone must reasonably be tasked with building it up. That was the case for the then national security advisor, and there is certainly reason to return to those questions here in the chamber. The Prime Minister has been here on several occasions, he has been in the Committee on the Constitution, and he has also, for that part, participated in the work ongoing in the Government Offices regarding these issues.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.