Review of the ministers' performance of duties and the handling of government matters

Hans Ekström (S)

Mr. Speaker! A question described in this report is the management of the county administrative boards. These have an important role in the state's management in various matters.

Sweden's county administrative boards (länsstyrelser) were created through the Instrument of Government of 1634. I mention this because the author, Axel Oxenstierna, is buried in Jäder Church in my home parish. He laid the foundation for the Swedish administrative model with self-governing state authorities under the government. This unusual model, which many members of the Council of State have sworn by, has served Sweden well but means that the authorities must be governed by means other than direct orders.

The Government decides on ordinances, annual regulatory letters as a result of the budget, instructions for the county administrative boards, and so on. The governance can appear fragmented and was audited by the Swedish National Audit Office in an investigation called Vanans makt. It is critical of the governance and points out the problems from both the government's governing perspective and the county administrative boards' executive actions. The Government Offices did not have a consolidated picture of the amount of assignments, and furthermore, it turned out that the county administrative boards received approximately 50 assignments via other agencies. The Swedish National Audit Office then proposed to collect all assignments in the regulatory letters.

KU emphasized during the processing of the government's communication regarding the review that the relevant state authorities needed to cooperate with the county administrative boards. In total, the county administrative boards had 91 assignments given in the regulatory letters 2022, in addition to the 50 indirect ones via authorities and 26 other assignments given in a special order.

For someone like me who has followed the county administrative boards' activities from the inside since 1995 via the board and later the oversight council, the government's intention to reduce the number of assignments and the level of detail in these is welcome. Even the fragmented funding makes the operations difficult to manage for the county managements.

In summary, steps have been taken to make the governance clearer, but also to give the county administrative boards greater freedom. The county administrative boards are an important tool for the state, and better governance is welcome.

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

Matheus Enholm (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can satisfactorily state that we, despite the election, have a unanimous opinion even this year.

During the autumn, the committee has examined nine matters, and I will dwell on a couple of them. I will begin with views on the government's handling of certain administrative matters such as the interception and granting of hunting rights.

The committee has examined 14 cases decided by the government between 2019 and 2021 and found that in some cases there had been a lack of reasonableness regarding the time elapsed between different processing steps and that in other cases it had concerned insufficiently justified decisions. As an example, it can be mentioned that in one of the cases it took more than one and a half months from the time the case was ready for a decision until the government reached a decision in the case.

In light of the observations in the review, the committee also finds reason to highlight that it is important that, in all instances, a processing and decision-making process that is as fast, simple, and cost-effective as possible is pursued without compromising legal certainty and without unnecessary delays in the matter.

Another area the committee has examined is authorizations or other legal basis for the government's regulations. The basic regulations decided by the government during the parliamentary sessions 2014/15 to 2021/22 have been reviewed by the committee. The purpose of the review has been to determine to what extent the government in the regulations provides information on which authorization or other legal basis has been utilized in the individual case.

The review has shown that a development has occurred whereby the proportion of ordinances containing an explanation of which authorization or other legal basis has been utilized has increased significantly, which is positive. We can simultaneously observe that there are large differences between the various departments regarding the extent to which the decided ordinances contain an explanation of the utilized authorization.

KU:s previous statements regarding the value of it appearing from a regulation which authorization or authorizations have been utilized apply, of course, regardless of which department is responsible. Even though it is each department that in the individual case assesses the need for disclosure provisions, the criteria underlying these assessments should, according to the committee, be the same for all departments. The committee assumes that the observations in the committee's review are followed up within the Government Offices to ensure that is the case.

Mr. Speaker! During the autumn, the Committee on the Constitution has also reviewed the government's referral documents. A mapping has been conducted of the documents that the Government Offices referred during 2016/17 to 2020/21. The purpose of the mapping was, at an overall level, to obtain an overview of the documents that the Government Offices have referred, whether there have been any differences between the departments, and whether any changes have occurred over time. Questions of interest have been what considerations may lie behind the choice of referral documents and what advantages and disadvantages may exist with different types of referral documents. The basis for the review has also been two memoranda that were prepared within the Cabinet Secretariat.

The committee has had relatively much to say here, and I will try to summarize it all.

It is the government's responsibility to determine how the investigations deemed necessary as a basis for the government's decisions should be conducted. This means that the government has to decide on issues such as the form of investigation and to provide guidelines for the work.

KU has in previous reports accounted for its view on the different types of investigation forms that the government has at its disposal, and I will therefore omit that part.

When it comes to the referral material itself, the review gives reason for some reflections and comments. The review shows that the Government Offices referred a total of 1,180 documents during the period studied and that the number of referred documents increased every year. Departmental memoranda in the Ds-series and other memoranda from the Government Offices accounted for just over 50 percent of the total referral material. Also, reports in the SOU-series and material from an agency accounted for relatively large proportions, while drafts for Council of State referrals and material from the commission were less commonly occurring.

The distribution between different types of referral documents was relatively constant during the period under review. The proportion of department memoranda in the Ds-series decreased, however, while the proportion of other memoranda from the Government Offices increased relatively significantly.

A breakdown between internally and externally prepared referral documents also shows that the proportion of internally prepared documents was higher and the proportion of externally prepared documents lower during 2020 and 2021 than during 2016 and 2017. The referral documents were therefore prepared to an ever greater extent within the Government Offices during the period under review.

When it comes to different types of referral documents, the committee notes that there are several advantages for a government in referring department memoranda in the Ds-series, other memoranda from the Government Offices, and documents from an agency. The investigation work can generally start faster and take less time than in the preparation of a report in the SO-series. Accordingly, the aforementioned referral documents may also be preferable in cases where it is urgent to achieve a change in a certain area or solve an acute problem. When it comes to memoranda prepared within the Government Offices, the responsible department also has a different level of control over what is proposed and can decide whether a memorandum should be published or not and in what form.

It can also be noted that the investigative capacity within the Government Offices is limited and that internally prepared referral documents can therefore not always be as thoroughly elaborated as, for example, reports in the SOU series. In contrast to formally appointed investigations, internal investigative work within the Government Offices also lacks the participation of external experts or a broad representation of different interests. There are also no dissenting opinions to report.

The Committee wishes, in light of what has emerged in the review, to emphasize the value of being able to subsequently access the underlying material that has been referred and formed the basis for the Government's decision. This applies particularly when it concerns ordinances and legislative proposals.

That all the documents being referred now are available on the government's website is, as the committee has previously pointed out, positive. It also increases the possibility for others than the referral bodies to contribute with views by submitting spontaneous responses. At the same time, publications mean better accessibility and facilitate for those who in hindsight want to take part of the material, for example to study preparatory works for a law.

Mr. Speaker! There is much in the autumn review that is interesting and worth reading, but I refer everyone to read the review report KU10, which is available online.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In this year's autumn review, we, as has already been emphasized, are in agreement. It is not actually a report but a presentation to the Chamber of the review. The autumn review is such in its character that it focuses quite a bit on organizational issues and a little less on political issues. It is largely about how matters are handled and what assessments are made.

It makes it, I can think, a bit frustrating to read. I have a background as a former quality auditor and am used to recommending what should be done. But here, it works much in such a way that there are threads to pull to change routines, but as long as the government is satisfied with how it works, the government has the possibility to work in that way, Mr. Speaker. It is the government's decision that is decisive. I will not say that all the good suggestions that exist in many places fall on deaf ears, but it means we cannot say: You must implement this. That would, in fact, conflict with the division of labor that exists.

Not only is there a number of things in the reviews that may be worth noting and considering. This concerns everything from how one ensures security regarding electronically published regulations and ordinances to what basis one has in legislative matters or what references one has to ordinances when issuing them. There are, therefore, a number of tracks here, Mr. Speaker. There is reason to bring them up and analyze them.

Mr. Speaker! There is a point where there is a bit more gravity in the review. It concerns what has been hidden under the heading Certain administrative matters. There, a reasoning is presented regarding how long one can wait in handling a request for inhibition. When someone appeals a decision, one can also request that it be inhibited, meaning that the decision is not executed during the time the appeal is being examined.

This concerns hunting cases according to the Reindeer Husbandry Act. In many cases, it has been possible to see that a decision has been appealed. The decision has been stayed, which is a protection against making mistakes. But it has taken so long before the stay is reviewed that the hunting period is over, that is, the stay has in reality become a way to prevent. It cannot be said that it is a deliberate strategy. But it is important to note that it is a danger if the handling of the stay is perceived as a reason or an opportunity to prevent what is the intention of the rules. This is a memento. Take this into account! Reflect on it!

Mr. Speaker! Otherwise, the review is also somewhat of a reference book. This applies in particular to the parts that deal with the change of government. They include an enumeration of and the possibility of finding out how many employees there are in the Government Offices and a great deal of statistics.

Overall, it is a report that deserves to be read and reflected upon. But it also deserves to be said that a unanimous Committee on the Constitution finds nothing to direct criticism towards, other than the small reasoning or the concern regarding the timing of inhibition decisions.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is a good matter. I am pleased to be a part of the Committee on the Constitution, which now submits the review to the Riksdag. It is not subject to any parliamentary decision. Therefore, there will be no motion from me.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Just as has been reported previously, the Committee on the Constitution conducts two reviews every year, one in the spring and one in the autumn. This concerns the reporting of the autumn review. It is somewhat more focused on the ministers' administrative exercise of duties and the handling of government matters. This time, the report contains nine matters. Some matters are, as previously stated, recurring annually, for example, the government's compilation, while other matters may be linked to current events or simply something that the committee has chosen to look at more closely. For example, several matters last year were linked to the pandemic in various ways.

The committee has, as usual, made a number of observations which, just as other members have said previously, can be seen as recommendations to the government for the future. I would like to draw the attention of previous speakers to some of these.

The first matter I want to highlight is the review of the government's management of the county administrative boards. The management takes place both through regulatory letters and through other assignments. In this year's review of this part, we want to emphasize the importance of coordination and a holistic view in the preparation of assignments to the county administrative boards, regardless of whether the assignment comes via a regulatory letter or in some other way.

We also note that the regulatory letter to the county administrative boards now contains an appendix where all ongoing assignments are stated and which have been decided upon in a specific order. We view these measures positively, as part of achieving better coordination and a holistic view in the management of the county administrative boards. But in this context, we would like to reiterate as before that a prerequisite for the county administrative boards to be able to fulfill their function as coordinators is that the relevant state authorities cooperate and have a mandate to cooperate with the county administrative boards.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter that I would like to highlight, even though previous speakers have also done so, concerns the government's referral documents. One must be honest and say that it is perhaps primarily our eminent office that has conducted a mapping of the documents that the Government Offices have referred over a certain number of years. The purpose of the mapping is for us in the committee, at an overall level, to get a picture of the documents that the Government Offices have referred. Have there been differences between different departments? Have there been changes over time?

Questions of interest are what considerations may lie behind the choice of referral documents and what advantages and disadvantages may exist with different types of documents.

I have already highlighted the importance of a good referral process today, but we note initially - just as previous speakers have said - that it is up to the government to decide how the investigations deemed necessary as a basis for the government's decisions should be conducted.

It also means that the government decides which form of investigation and which guidelines shall apply to the work. There can, of course, be several circumstances that influence in what form the underlying materials are desired. This can be due to the scope and complexity of the questions or whether they are of a principled importance.

A few months ago, we had a debate here in the chamber about foreign espionage. In my opinion, it was a shortcoming that a specific investigator had investigated it. We in the Committee on the Constitution usually prefer that changes to the constitution are prepared by, for example, a parliamentary committee. We note that the government has taken certain measures to obtain a unified picture and achieve coordination, but still want to emphasize that it is important to ensure that there is a unified picture.

I would therefore like to thank my colleagues in the committee and our office.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report KU10, where the Committee on the Constitution reviews the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters. It is usually called the KU's autumn review and is conducted annually. The autumn review does not receive nearly as much attention as the spring review, which is based on the KU reports that have been submitted during the past year and whose results are delayed by a few more months.

I would like to take the opportunity today to highlight a specific issue that is one of those that has been examined more closely during the autumn. I actually intend to focus solely on that issue, and several others have also done so. It is an issue that I see we in KU may have reason to touch upon even when we stand here in a few months' time and debate the audit.

What I particularly want to dwell on today is how the government's matters are prepared. It is stipulated in the constitution, more specifically in the Instrument of Government, that the government shall obtain the information and opinions that are needed from the relevant authorities and municipalities, and also from associations and individuals. This is called the preparation requirement. Then it is up to the government to decide whether an investigation shall be entrusted to a committee, a special investigator, or an authority. The government can also decide that the investigation work shall be conducted internally within the Government Offices. Regardless of which form is chosen for a given investigation, the underlying material that is prepared shall be sent out for consultation to obtain information and opinions.

Mr. Speaker! Generally, it can be stated that when memoranda are prepared within the Government Offices, as opposed to when a committee or a special investigator is appointed, the process becomes faster and the responsible department has a completely different level of control over the underlying material that is prepared. But when that form is chosen, often in order to produce a memorandum in a short time, there is a risk that the legal analysis becomes superficial. When experts or specialists are not involved during the investigation, there is a risk that practical problems in the area in question are not highlighted in a comprehensive way.

When these documents are then sent out for consultation, it becomes more difficult for the consulting bodies to weigh opposing arguments against each other. This feels somewhat familiar, perhaps because we recently debated a bill that had been prepared in haste internally within a ministry, namely the bill on secrecy for electricity support.

Mr. Speaker! Already during the previous autumn review, that is the autumn of 2021, the KU reviewed the referral system and its development over time. It emerged then that an ever smaller proportion of the documents that were referred were externally prepared reports from the committee system, while it has become increasingly common for departments to refer memoranda prepared by officials within the Government Offices.

KU found that the referral documents prepared within the Government Offices generally had shorter response times and were referred to fewer authorities than the referral documents prepared externally. In this autumn review, that picture is further examined.

KU has this autumn looked at material that the Government Offices have referred during a certain period to see if there have been any differences between the departments and if any changes have occurred over time. Particularly interesting is to see what considerations may lie behind the choice of referral material, i.e., the choice between placing the assignment on an external investigator or investigating internally, and what advantages and disadvantages may exist with these different types of referral material. It clearly appears from the review that the referral materials during the period under review have to an ever greater extent been produced within the Government Offices, i.e., not externally.

There may be advantages for a government in referring internal memoranda. The investigation work can then start quickly compared to if one were to produce an SOU report. When it is urgent to achieve a change in a certain area, that may be necessary. At the same time, the investigation capacity within the Government Offices is limited, and internally prepared referral documents do not become as thoroughly worked out as, for example, reports in the SOU series. Furthermore, internal memos lack external experts or a broad representation of different interests. In other words, there is a risk that the issue will not be illuminated from all sides.

Mr. Speaker! The requirement for preparation means that when new legislation is to be proposed, the issue must first be properly prepared and undergo a thorough review of different interests by experts in the field and by experienced lawyers who watch over our fundamental rights. That requirement is something to safeguard, partly to produce robust legislation that is well-anchored and takes different interests into account, and partly – not least – to produce legally secure proposals with well-founded constitutional considerations.

When the entire KU visited the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, JO, last week, we were told that before Christmas, JO received a referral document that had been prepared internally within the Government Offices under great haste. JO was given two hours to respond to the referral. That was not enough to produce a well-elaborated proposal in this case because it concerned very complicated legislation. JO does not rush. They take their assignments very seriously. JO therefore abstained from commenting. It is a fresh example of how the preparatory process has proceeded lately.

We in the KU are looking, among other things, at how the constitutional laws are followed - including the requirement for preparation. It is, in my opinion, a mandate that there is reason to take very seriously.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! During the autumn, the Committee on the Constitution has reviewed the handling of government matters according to Chapter 13, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government. As a new member of the committee, I cannot express enough my gratitude to the very competent and highly qualified chancellery and for the well-prepared documents that the committee receives.

Since I am entering the debate a bit late, several of the issues I intended to raise have already been addressed, but I still wish to touch upon them. One of the matters I want to highlight concerns the county administrative boards' decisions on the granting or cancellation of hunting rights. Such matters have been handled within the Ministry of Enterprise, and the appealed decisions often contain requests for an injunction. It is important that any such requests are examined promptly, especially if execution is imminent and if the decision is judged to be capable of causing damage that cannot be repaired or if a complainant loses a right that is of great significance to them.

From the committee's review, it appears that such motions for inhibition are often not taken up for consideration until the government's final review of the appeal. By the time the case has reached that point, so much time may have passed that the motion for inhibition has lost its significance. Therefore, the committee wishes to emphasize the importance of promptness regarding these motions for inhibition.

It is important that the Government Offices review the possibility of adapting the handling routines for requests for inhibition so that the handling and decision-making process becomes as simple, fast, and cost-effective as possible without, for that reason, reducing legal certainty.

The committee has also reviewed electronic proclamations in the Swedish Code of Statutes. They began being made in 2018, and the committee now wanted to look at in what way the reform has changed the constitutional work. We note that the reform has resulted in both time and efficiency gains, with shorter time from government decision to proclamation.

However, there are large variations between the departments' processing times in the legislative work. The committee expects the Government Offices to review this. It is also important that there is a readiness to be able to guarantee security in the event of operational disruptions in the system for proclamations.

Mr. Speaker! The government's management of the county administrative boards has also been reviewed. We have focused on how the government manages the county administrative boards through both assignments in regulatory letters and assignments decided in a special order, as well as how the preparation of these assignments takes place. It is important that the assignments are prepared with coordination and a holistic view and that the relevant state authorities cooperate with the county administrative boards. If this is not the case, the government needs to take management measures to ensure that cooperation takes place.

Finally, I want to mention the committee's review of how the government's preparation of proposals for EU regulations is conducted. According to the committee, the choice of preparation form for Swedish positions regarding proposals for EU regulations should be based on the same considerations as in government matters.

Despite circumstances that one cannot always influence, such as narrow timeframes, it is necessary to have a solid preparation that provides a complete basis. A combination of different preparatory measures occurs, including continuous gathering of views and contacts between the Government Offices and relevant agencies, sometimes with very short response times.

External preparatory measures should therefore be taken as soon as possible to provide authorities and others with the best possible conditions to contribute relevant information of high quality. The reports indicate that there are developed working methods that are adapted to the conditions in the individual proposals and negotiations. In this case, the committee has no objections, and it is good to be able to carry out a review that shows that things are being done in a good way.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many of the questions in the report have already been discussed very productively by my colleagues in the committee. I will nevertheless make a few short comments that we can possibly take with us moving forward.

To begin with, I want to emphasize that a rejection of the report does not necessarily mean that we may in the future consider accepting the points that the committee has discussed this year. Such a point concerns times in different contexts - the time between a constitution's publication and its entry into force, the time in inhibition cases, and the time in other contexts.

It is important and necessary that the time established, not least regarding the time between a proclamation and an entry into force, is sufficient for people to be able to adapt and answer the questions and that no one suffers harm, something that was raised earlier regarding hunting. This I say, moreover, without having any views on the type of matter.

A fairly extensive chapter is devoted to the Government's referral documents. The Committee notes, however, that it is the Government that chooses which basis and which referrals are needed in order to be able to present well-substantiated proposals. It seems as if the number of documents prepared internally at the Government Offices has increased in number in recent years. This is not necessarily a disadvantage, but for my part, I think there is reason to keep an eye on the continued development.

We have in Sweden a tradition of thorough investigations carried out by parliamentarily composed committees, which for the most part can take time but which guarantee a comprehensive illumination, allow many voices to be heard and where many perspectives can be addressed.

In the near future, directives for an investigation regarding public service licenses for the upcoming eight years after the current agreements expire will be issued. For our part, we see it as a matter of course that directives as important as these, which affect very many people, are also handled by a parliamentarily composed committee.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the preparation of proposals for EU regulations. The choice of preparation of Swedish positions should be based in the same way as the preparation of government matters. This has also been discussed earlier today, and I have no objections to that. But the timeframes within the administrations in Brussels sometimes pose obstacles. One must remember that the concept of Midsummer and Swedish holiday periods are somewhat more or less unknown within the EU bureaucracy in Belgium. It is a matter of handling this in a purposeful way, and it must be documented in a reasonable way.

It appears that we will have reason to return to this. Already in these days, we have discussions about how things are handled when it comes to timing - again - for example, in the handling of potential EU support for the expansion of Swedish main lines.

Lastly, I want to add something that was raised regarding the governance of the county administrative boards. It is a joint submission that I have received from the county administrative board there at home, the one in Halland. After the meeting with them, it became clear to me that actually much more resources are being allocated to handling nuclear power issues than I thought; Halland is, after all, a nuclear power county. Much time and resources are spent there on safety issues. This is also done in the municipalities that are closest.

In some ways, it is reassuring that a lot of time is spent on these issues. But it is also worrying because it means that it is not completely certain. Otherwise, it would not have required so much preparation, reviews, and other matters in order to be able to handle it all.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In the annual autumn review that the Committee on the Constitution conducts, there are a couple of things that I would like to highlight.

The first point concerns the review of how the government governs the county administrative boards. The county administrative boards have a broad mandate that spans many areas. Their mandate is regulated in letters of instruction but also through assignments given in a special order outside the letter of instruction. The number of assignments is extensive. In 2022, 91 assignments were directed to the county administrative boards in the joint letter of instruction, and in addition to that, there are 26 ongoing or new assignments that have been given in a special order to one or more county administrative boards.

This management was audited during 2019 by the Swedish National Audit Office, which found deficiencies in the preparation of the assignments. A need was also seen to strengthen the holistic perspective in the management of the county administrative boards.

The committee's review shows that measures have been taken to achieve better coordination and a holistic view in the management of the county administrative boards, and the committee views this very positively. Among other things, the regulatory letters now include an appendix with an overview of all assignments.

Previous reviews have also shown certain difficulties for the county administrative boards to perform their coordinating mandate, as corresponding mandates have been lacking at the relevant authorities. The committee emphasizes once again that it is a prerequisite that the relevant state authorities cooperate with the county administrative boards to the extent required. If this is not met, it falls on the government to take governance measures that ensure the cooperation takes place.

The second part I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, concerns electronic proclamations in the Swedish Code of Statutes. Electronic proclamations were introduced in 2018. The Committee notes that the reform has resulted in both time and efficiency gains in the legislative work, which is very positive. The time between the government's decision on issuance and the proclamation itself has been shortened. However, there are large differences between the processing times of the various departments. The number of days from the decision on issuance to proclamation varies between a best of 3.4 days and up to 6 days on average. The Committee wishes to draw the Government Offices' attention to this so that unjustified variations can be countered.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee secretariat and my colleagues in the committee for a well-executed work with the autumn review.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will confine myself to a single issue. It is an issue that several have raised here, but I think it is fundamentally important. It concerns the appeal of decisions regarding the granting of hunting rights or the cancellation of hunting rights. I am perhaps a suitable speaker on this issue, as I have lived in Stockholm since 1976 and have never held a rifle or a shotgun.

The Administrative Procedure Act is clear regarding certain general requirements for the processing of cases. The processing shall be simple and fast and as cost-effective as possible. The requirement for speed means that a case should be submitted for a decision as soon as possible after the investigation of the case has been completed. The Committee's review has shown that this is not the case, which is described in the report KU10. The heading for what I have looked at may not sound so remarkable: Certain administrative cases.

Mr. Speaker! It is stated in Section 46 of the Administrative Procedure Act that the deciding authority shall promptly submit an appeal and other documents in the case to the appellate authority. However, it appears from the review that a number of cases were submitted from the County Administrative Board to the Ministry of Enterprise late; it took a week or more. This applies to 3 of the 14 reviewed cases. In a number of cases, it took several weeks and in one instance a month from the time the case containing a request for an injunction reached the Ministry of Enterprise until a decision was made. In several cases, the request became irrelevant because the decision was made only after the expiration of the period that was relevant. This applies to 5 of the 14 cases.

A decision must also contain a justification. Naturally, the person who has appealed must receive such a justification. However, it was missing in one of the cases. A clarifying justification should have been included with the decision to reject the motion for inhibition. The committee has previously raised this in several reviews before I joined the committee, that this is needed in order for a firm and uniform practice to be maintained.

Of course, it does not sound like there are so many cases that have not been handled in time or where a justification is missing, but it is only 14 cases in total that have been reviewed in the autumn review.

The Committee on the Constitution has, after its review, of course submitted some observations. The appealed decisions often contain requests for inhibition and may concern periods in close proximity to the appeal. Therefore, it is important that the Government Offices are vigilant regarding this in the future and follow up to ensure that the county administrative boards submit appealed cases to the government as soon as possible. Naturally, it is important that requests for inhibition are examined promptly, just as the legislation states. The Committee also notes in the matter that inhibitions are many times not even brought up for consideration before the government finally examines the appeal, because the request has lost its significance.

Mr. Speaker! What is important moving forward is that the Government Offices take into account the committee's views and thoughts. It concerns decisions that can cause damage that cannot be repaired afterwards or cause a loss of rights of significance for the complainant.

Now it is about the hunt, but if the Government Offices are not vigilant, next time it could be about another kind of appeals that are not handled as the Administrative Procedure Act says.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

The committee's submission was added to the records.

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