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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! As the committee's chair, I hereby request to hand over and submit to the Riksdag the result of the Committee on the Constitution's annual autumn review.

Before I proceed to the review itself, I want to say a few words about the power of oversight. In a democracy, it is central; it is about scrutiny, transparency, and the separation of powers. What happens if we concentrate all power in one instance without oversight? The risks are obvious, and there are many examples of it all around the world.

Madam Speaker! When Sweden enacted a new constitution in 1809, this was realized. One wanted to guarantee the separation of powers between the king and the estates, and one wanted to develop parliamentarism. A smart and diversified power of control was formed with the Riksdag as the base and center. The Parliamentary Ombudsman was born. The Committee on the Constitution was established with the authority to both prosecute ministers and request their dismissal. The possibility of submitting interpellations in the Riksdag emerged. These are functions that still live on today.

The concept of oversight power sounds sharp, which it is, but there are many nuances. Today is truly a day when we have seen examples of that. Earlier today, we tested one of the oversight power's and the Riksdag's sharpest weapons, namely the motion of no confidence. Here and now, we shall turn to one of the perhaps softer oversight functions, namely the Committee on the Constitution's autumn review.

It may not sound so fun to review the government's administrative work or more general issues, as the KU does every year during the autumn, but it is more fun and more interesting than one might think. We become a bit like a good auditor who finds deficiencies and can point out potential for improvement in the government's work. And even though we belong to different parties, we are all keen that the government's work should function well and that the government's cooperation with the Riksdag is satisfactory. The government needs, as you all know, the Riksdag's tolerance according to how our parliamentary system is designed.

Madam Speaker! How important is it, really, that the diary in the Government Offices is kept up to date? Are the government decisions made according to the order prescribed by our laws? Are there routines that ensure equal treatment and legal certainty in the processing of cases? How fast or slow is the government in responding to the Members of Parliament's urgent questions? Does the government govern the state-owned companies in a good way? Are reasonable conditions provided for important laws to be processed? Has the Council on Legislation been given enough time to review the government's bills? These are some of the questions we have asked ourselves in this autumn's review.

We decide on the topics for the autumn review together in the committee. On the one hand, there are certain issues that we usually follow up on and return to at intervals of a few years, and on the other hand, there are issues that the committee has in one way or another noted as constitutionally interesting among the issues that have emerged in our ongoing work during the year.

Madam Speaker! My intention with this speech is not to go into the matters in detail. I am sure that my committee colleagues will do that, so we shall spare the Chamber this. But I can briefly state what we observe in this year's review:

When the government handles certain administrative matters, such as matters concerning extradition for crimes from Sweden, it is important that we ensure uniform handling. Such matters often contain elements of very intrusive coercive measures against individuals, for example, decisions on deprivation of liberty. The nature of these matters also gives reason for careful and legally secure handling.

Furthermore, we note in the committee that the response times for interpellations and written questions are not followed to the extent that we expect. The proportion of delayed answers to interpellations is still remarkably large. We assume that the government is continuously working to counteract delayed answers to interpellations so that they can be answered within the time specified in the parliamentary rules of procedure.

We also believe that the government should repeal regulations that are no longer applied in practice and which have become obsolete. It belongs to good administration of justice.

We also emphasize the importance of a good dialogue between the government and the EU Committee so that the EU Committee's need for information can be met as far as possible.

The management of state-owned companies with a public mandate is a comprehensive review that the committee has devoted quite a lot of time to. There, we note, among other things, that it may be reasonable to have variations in how the state manages, but it may also be reasonable to ensure similar routines that ensure, for example, that ownership dialogues are conducted at regular intervals and that the documentation during the ownership dialogues functions.

We also note that the government's possibility to use so-called special government decisions is important, but that this constitutes an exception to the main rule of collective government decisions and shall be applied according to that order.

One of our reviews that is particularly important is how the government handles the legislative process: Has the Council on Legislation been given enough time to review the government's referral to the Council on Legislation? Have the referral bodies been given enough time to look at the investigation and the proposal? Has the time between the Council on Legislation's opinion and the government's bill been sufficient? Has the time between the government's bill and the legislation coming into force been sufficient?

Madam Speaker! It is easy for us in today's era to be drawn into the idea that it should go fast, but fast can also mean errors. When it comes to legislative issues, it is important that sufficient time is given so that thorough analyses can be made so that the legislation becomes good.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say that every autumn review is a step in pointing out areas for improvement in the government's work. We perhaps rarely use superlatives in our review; nor do we attempt to politicize our review. That means that what we say may be dull and understated, but it also means that when we do speak out, we do so seriously and solidly – there is a value in that. It means something. We also expect that it contributes to improvements in the government's work.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by wishing you all a good rest of the day and thanking both my committee colleagues and the officials in KU for a good cooperation.

One of the Committee on the Constitution's most important tasks is to review the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters. This year, we have reviewed nine areas concerning the handling of government matters. There is much of interest in the autumn review, and I refer everyone to read the review report KU10 for a more complete overview. The report is available online. In this speech, however, I will stick to three of the nine reviewed matters.

The committee has during the autumn reviewed the response times for interpellations and written questions. The purpose of the review has been to create an overview of how the proportion of delayed responses has developed over time. In order to obtain a more complete basis, the response times during the parliamentary sessions 2014-2023 have been reviewed.

The question institutions, that is, interpellations as well as written and oral questions, are part of the Riksdag's power of oversight. They fulfill an important function through the opportunities for information, debate, and oversight of the government that they provide the Riksdag.

For a long time, the committee has noted that response times for interpellations, despite repeated pointed remarks from the committee over the years, have been disregarded in a very large proportion of cases. During the years 2014-2023, the proportion of delayed interpellations answers averaged almost 50 percent, while the proportion of delayed answers to written questions was 5-20 percent. The proportion of delayed answers to written questions has, however, decreased in recent years, which is positive and which the committee also notes in the report.

Within the Government Offices, there is also ongoing work to counter delayed answers to interpellations. Now, a system of scheduled answers to interpellations is applied, and time for interpellations debates is booked in the ministers' calendars. It is important that the question institutions function satisfactorily, that the ministers respect current regulations and practice, and that delayed answers are avoided as much as possible. Hopefully, the development is now moving in the right direction.

Madam Speaker! Another matter where the different time aspects have been examined concerns the planning of the legislative process. Here, it is the opposite. It is not always the case that the time is sufficiently long between the government's decision on the bill and the bill's entry into force. The committee has previously noted that excessively short timeframes for the Riksdag's handling of bills can have a negative impact both by shortening the time for motions and by making the time for preparation far too short.

The committee is, however, aware that in some urgent situations it may be necessary for the time between the government's decision on the bill and the law's entry into force to be shorter than normal. In the report, the committee notes that the application of urgent parliamentary proceedings, through continuous monitoring of the world around us and good foresight and preparedness within the Government Offices, should be able to be limited to those cases where it is absolutely necessary.

Madam Speaker! Another area that the committee has examined is the governance of state-owned companies with public mandates. The purpose has been to review, at an overall level, the form of the government's governance of the companies. The government has the Riksdag's mandate to actively manage companies with state ownership so that the long-term value development becomes the best possible and the specifically decided public mandates are well performed.

All these companies are to hold an annual general meeting no later than April 30, which is a known prerequisite. Nevertheless, it was revealed during the committee's review that the owner's proposals for decisions at the annual general meeting, including those regarding the nomination of the chairman and members of the board, were missing in more than half of the notices – despite the fact that the Government Offices' guidelines state that proposals for decisions shall be sent to the company in good time so that these proposals can be included in the notice of the general meeting.

There is also great variation between the companies when it comes to the ownership dialogues. In the ownership dialogues, it is important that minutes are kept, and these should also be registered in the public records. In the audit, it emerged that this procedure has not been applied for the companies managed by the Ministry of Culture. But during the audit, we were informed that future ownership dialogues with these companies will be documented.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's review of the government and the autumn review we conduct every year, which does not concern all KU reports but rather the more overarching matters that the committee itself selects, is a performance that perhaps does not attract quite as many spectators in the stands as that which preceded this debate: party leader debates, votes of no confidence, and other things that are politically current. People may not find it quite as fun.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that it is not possible to spell "fun" without KU. This is something worth remembering. It is, in fact, more exciting than one first thinks. It is interesting, not just from the day-to-day political perspective or from what makes headlines here and now or creates large press coverage outside the chamber. It is about something bigger.

It is about the care of our common democracy. It is about holding together that which we must always be able to be reasonably agreed upon: how the basic rules for the governance of our country should look and be followed. This is what we are looking at. As the guardians of the constitution, we monitor this continuously. This means that one, regardless of whether one sits in opposition or in government, is expected to manage this task, to do it in a well-balanced manner and try to do it by consensus.

In a reality characterized by ever-increasing swells, ever-increasing overreach, harsher rhetoric, and greater division between people in general, and perhaps within politics in particular, this role has a special function, I want to say. This function is to gather around precisely what is common and to have as a starting point that every voice shall always be counted. Everyone has an equal right to be a part of our democracy. We know that the rules must be followed and that we can trust one another, to such an extent that we know that no one enters this chamber with the purpose of making the country worse. We simply have different visions when it comes to what is better. That is where we land in our work - not in delusions that there are ill-intentioned people who are here to destroy, but in the consensus that we want different things. We respect this, and we respect the common basic rules. That is where KU comes in, and that is where our scrutiny takes its starting point.

Some of the matters raised in this review report concern precisely these basic processes; the legislative process is one of them. It has been up for discussion, not least during the last few days. There have been views on how quickly the government proceeds, and so there is a discussion about it. I think this is quite interesting and vitalizing.

In this review, we note that most legislative processes take the time that such processes usually take. In some cases, there may be reasons to expedite. We are not looking at individual processes in that way. The Committee on the Constitution has done so in other reviews and submitted views. We will undoubtedly have reasons to return to this.

But even the role of this entire Riksdag as a supervisory body must, of course, be guarded. Interpellations and written questions are part of this. It should, of course, be strived for that response times are respected. We point out that continued work with this was needed. We note that during the last year we could oversee - this government's first - there was a reduction in the number of delayed responses to interpellations and written questions.

But there is still much work left to do, not least after a year like the last one, when we as a country held the presidency of the European Union. It was a monumental – or, as Carl Bildt would have said, pyramidal – task for Sweden. This was, of course, something that caused the backlog of work in the Government Offices to become so extensive that it was sometimes difficult to maintain response times, especially for those ministers who carried an extra large load in this work.

Since then, I have a matter close to my heart, something that we in the Committee on the Constitution have many times returned to in our work and our review. It concerns the relationship between, on one hand, the Riksdag, through the EU Committee, and on the other hand, the Government.

We, together with a few other countries, have the arrangement that the government, before they go to meetings in Brussels or elsewhere in the EU to present Sweden's position, must anchor this in parliament. It is a very democratic arrangement that should serve as a model for many other countries, where a government cannot simply go and make decisions on its own initiative but must anchor them in parliament with the parliamentary conditions that exist there.

This assumes that the EU Committee has the information it needs to be able to make decisions on what it actually thinks and how it views the government's proposal for a position. It assumes that the dialogue between them works well, and it assumes a mutual trust when it comes to trying to do as well as possible.

We have, during several reviews, not least this one, been able to observe that there are still things to work on in this area to ensure that the EU Committee feels secure with the information they have and that the government hands over the information that is relevant and that may be needed, but not too much information so that the EU Committee's members are drowned in paperwork and reading that might cause them to miss what is important or simply not have time to familiarize themselves with all the material. One should receive information at the point in the process when this is relevant, and one should have enough information on the table for it to be valuable for the EU Committee and in that way ensure that one receives a valuable consultation. But it should not be handed over earlier when things have not yet settled and one does not quite know everything, as this only risks creating confusion and uncertainty and a risk of more problems than are solved.

This is a difficult balancing act, and it requires a dialogue between the Riksdag and the EU Committee on one hand and the government on the other to ensure that it works in the best way possible.

With this, Madam Speaker, I do not, of course, move for approval, as we are not to make a decision, but I warmly recommend all those politically interested to read our review, which is a handbook in the care of democracy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I must say that it is special to stand in the speaker's chair today when, as previous speakers have pointed out, another part of the Riksdag's oversight power has been exercised through the motion of no confidence and the testing of it. Furthermore, during the last few hours, we have had a party leader debate where the focus has largely only been on what separates our parties, which questions we consider important and, as MP Ottoson spoke about, what solutions our respective parties see for the problems and challenges that Sweden has.

And so we come here from KU, as one cannot spell "fun" without. When it comes to the coverage, we may not be as many in the chamber here now, and we may not be as interesting because what is usually interesting in today's debate is when there is a conflict. We stand here and are in agreement on the issues that we have reviewed in the committee. This means that the interest may not always be as great, but it is nonetheless important, Madam Speaker.

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, the Committee on the Constitution has conducted two reviews, one in the spring and one in the autumn. In today's report, we present the results from this year's autumn review. It becomes very repetitive as one gets further down the list of speakers, and just as has been said earlier, the review is focused on the government's and the ministers' administrative handling and work.

We have, as we have said, looked at nine different matters. Some are recurring annually, and some are linked to current events or perhaps concern something that has reappeared in our spring reviews and caused us to want to take a larger grip on it in this year's autumn review. I want, just like previous speakers, to draw attention to some of the results we have found in our review.

Madam Speaker! On the topic of issues that are recurring and which we often look at in our committee in different ways, we have response times for interpellations and written questions, and last year we looked at the development there. These instruments are enormously important, especially for us Members of Parliament, so that in the case of current events or important issues that we want to follow up on, we can pose questions to the Ministers about them and receive answers within a reasonable time. It is therefore important that they function satisfactorily. In that regard, the committee notes that there is still a remarkably large proportion where the answers, primarily to interpellations, are delayed.

There is simply a continued great potential for development, and we assume that the Government Offices will continue to work towards the goal that all interpellations shall be answered in time. A small personal reflection, which the committee may not fully share, is that we really must hope that the significant resource additions that the Government Offices have received in recent years are used precisely to safeguard the dialogue between the government and the Riksdag and simply to answer the Riksdag's questions in time.

Madam Speaker! Another well-known subject in this year's review is the one that previous speakers have touched upon, namely the interaction between the Government and the EU Committee, which is almost always a subject of our review. There, we note and point out that it is important that the EU Committee receives a written basis as complete as possible and that the Government should hand it over as soon as it is practically possible. We also urge the Government Offices to consider what type of basis it is best to attach when there are no documents from the Council of Ministers available.

The question of dialogue and, as the previous speaker also touched upon, the trust between us parties in opposition and those who are in government for the time being is a question that I believe is recurring right now, and where there is a desire among all parties to feel that one has received the information required to be able to make well-founded decisions.

In the matters we have looked at, for example when it concerns the management of state-owned companies, it is also about safeguarding the existing institutional memory and ensuring that there are memory notes and the possibility for governments that may have come to power after a change of government to follow the developments, follow up on issues that have been current and not to act blindly.

When we have reviewed the state-owned companies, we have, just as previous speakers have pointed out, seen that there are some differences in how they have been managed. This has depended a bit on which department has been responsible for the ownership dialogue. Sometimes there are minutes, but in some cases there are no minutes. Sometimes the state has had several dialogues, but sometimes perhaps one has not had any dialogue for a year. There we think, as a small recommendation or direction from the committee's side, that it is good to have at least one ownership dialogue per company, if one is to be an active and present owner and be able to follow a state-owned company.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we have also examined the government's planning of the legislative process. I see that I have exceeded my speaking time, so I will try to summarize it briefly.

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, I am convinced that all parties and all members of this Riksdag want to do as good a job as possible, regardless of whether one is in opposition or in government. In that case, we also need to safeguard the instruments and the process that have actually been developed over centuries. We need to safeguard our referral system. We need to give the Council on Legislation and other referral bodies ample time. When we receive a government bill to the Riksdag, we need to have a process where we have the opportunity to make well-founded decisions and which is not accelerated when it is not absolutely necessary.

Madam Speaker! I think I will stop there. Because if I am to speak about when and how it is absolutely necessary to shorten the motion time and shorten the debate, I do not think we will be in agreement any longer.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! June 9 is an important date this year. That is because it is election day in Sweden. It is an election where we are to elect members who shall represent us in the European Parliament during the next five years.

Unfortunately, most Swedes have no idea about this. A measurement from the past week shows that more than half of the Swedes do not know that there is an election this year. We in this chamber who are politically engaged, of course, have full control and are at best beginning to prepare an election campaign. And it is also up to us to ensure that we talk about the EU and why the EU was needed and explain issues that are actually decided at the EU level. For what we call EU policy is actually largely national policy that affects our everyday lives here and now.

But, perhaps a friend of order will wonder now, why should we talk about the EU in this debate? It actually concerns KU10, that is, the Committee on the Constitution's autumn review. Yes, because one of the nine matters that have been reviewed by KU during the autumn concerns precisely the EU, more specifically how issues decided at the EU level at the council meetings that our ministers participate in are anchored in the Riksdag. Before a Swedish minister travels to a council meeting to negotiate with ministers from the other 26 EU countries, he needs, in fact, to seek the Riksdag's mandate for his negotiating position.

Madam Speaker! KU has on several occasions during recent years had reason to review how this anchoring process was handled by the government. And here there is clearly a potential for improvement. Last year, KU stated in its spring review that the government has an information advantage regarding what is happening in the negotiations within the EU and therefore also has a responsibility to ensure that the Riksdag's EU Committee receives the necessary documentation, in order to give all parties in the Riksdag insight into and influence over the process that leads to important decisions for Sweden. We pointed out then in KU that the EU Committee and thus all parties in the Riksdag must be able to have confidence that the government lives up to this responsibility.

In the autumn review, KU has specifically looked at the written materials that form the basis for the meetings that the government has with the EU Committee, which usually take place on Friday mornings when all the Riksdag's parties are represented in Skandiasalen. And KU emphasizes here that for a consultation between the government and the EU Committee to be meaningful, the members of the EU Committee must receive a written basis from the government that is as complete as possible and as soon as it is practically possible. It is certainly understandable that during intensive negotiations at the EU level, where positions and thus writings change, it is sometimes not possible for the government to send current Council documents to the EU Committee because such documents simply are not available. But when Council documents are missing, it should, according to KU, be considered whether any other type of material can be expedient, this in order to create good conditions for a meaningful consultation.

We in the KU emphasize the importance of dialogue between the government and the EU Committee, so that the EU Committee's need for information can be met as far as possible. This is important in order to ensure as much transparency as possible regarding what is happening at the EU level. In the long run, this actually matters for the Swedes to have confidence in the EU and for our membership in the EU to be important, and thus also for Swedes to go and vote in the EU elections that take place every five years.

Madam Speaker! The second matter in the autumn review that I want to highlight, because I believe it is such an important issue, is the government's planning of the legislative process and how it has looked over time. We have conducted this review to see what conditions are provided for referral bodies, for the Council on Legislation, and for the Riksdag to process various legislative proposals. This review includes, among other things, how the preparation requirement—that is, the requirement that new legislation must undergo a thorough examination of different interests through a referral process—is complied with in practice.

KU has, in the autumn reviews of both 2021 and 2022, looked at precisely this preparation requirement and has, among other things, found that it has become increasingly common for departments to refer memoranda that have been prepared by officials within the Government Offices instead of by external actors. These referral documents usually had shorter response times and were referred to fewer instances than those that have been prepared by external actors. I still think it is important to remind of this and of the fact that we must be vigilant and cautious to ensure that new legislation is preceded by work where the issues are illuminated from all sides.

Madam Speaker! We want good quality in our legislation. And for this, it is required that the different stages in the legislative process are carried out in a way that provides sufficient space for deliberation, analysis, and consideration. In this process, the Council on Legislation fulfills a very important function, where the Council on Legislation pre-examines the government's bills before they are submitted to the Riksdag. This is what we all in KU write under. We have stated this in our joint process, and it is what we submit today.

Therefore, this part of the legislative process must also be given the space required. KU also emphasizes the importance of allocating sufficient time within the Government Offices for the preparation of the views submitted by the Council on Legislation.

Why is all of this so important? Well, it is because no one wins from legislation that is of poor quality and that is difficult to implement and thus does not achieve the effects that the policy has promised.

Finally, I want to say something about the time between the government's decision on the bill and the law's entry into force. In some cases, it may be necessary for this time to be shorter than normal. We agree on that. But the KU emphasizes that the effects this has on the conditions for the Riksdag and its parties should not be neglected.

When comparing the different periods in the review, a certain increase in cases with shorter time than normal between the decision on the proposition and the law's entry into force is noted. With shorter timeframes, the conditions for the Riksdag's processing are negatively affected through, for example, shortened motion time and shorter time for preparation. It is a point that we in KU make in this review which is retrospective, that is, it concerns what has been. But in these days, exactly this is becoming relevant again as we have several legislative products underway where exactly this time has been shortened. It will therefore certainly be grounds to return to exactly this issue.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! As some have pointed out, it is a bit special to stand here at the very beginning of the spring term and debate a report that we in the Committee on the Constitution worked on during a fairly large part of the autumn. It is a bit special not only for the great contrast that this debate constitutes compared to the debates that took place during the morning with the vote of no confidence and the party leader debate, but also because the report we are now debating has had time to settle in quite properly since we adjusted it in December.

As other speakers have already had the opportunity to describe, today's debate concerns the annual review of the ministers' performance of duties and, above all, in this case, the handling of government matters. Certain areas are reviewed repeatedly at certain intervals, while others may be raised for some specific reason. The latter group includes the review of the basis for consultations with the EU Commission, which arose as a consequence of the committee's review of KU reports against ministers during the spring review.

A prerequisite for a consultation between the government and the EU Committee to be meaningful is that the EU Committee receives a written basis that is as complete as possible as soon as it is practically possible. The Government Offices state in its response that a change has occurred over time so that a larger part of the anchoring work now takes place in the Riksdag's subject committees and that the government's position usually appears from the commented agenda. We, from the Committee on the Constitution's side, have no objections to this.

The review also shows that the Government Offices include relevant Coreper documents if a current Council document is not available. There may be situations where it may be necessary to proceed in that manner, but it should nevertheless be considered whether some other type of basis could be used so that a meaningful consultation is possible if Council documents are missing. It is also desirable that the commented agendas contain references to documents that are actually available as far as possible.

Another review concerns response times for interpellations and written questions. There is a reason why response times are set, and that is that the answer should be given when a question is topical. The compilation that has been made shows that a large part of the interpellations' answers have been delayed over time, especially within certain work-heavy departments, regardless of government. It is important that the work continues so that interpellations' answers can be answered within the set time. We also note that it is positive that the proportion of delayed answers to written questions has decreased in recent years.

Madam Speaker! I also want to mention the review of the government's planning of the legislative process. There, different stages in the process have been reviewed: the referral period, the time taken by the Council on Legislation, the time between the Council on Legislation's opinion and the government's decision on the bill, as well as the time between the decision on the bill and the law proposals' entry into force. The periods that have been studied are bills that different governments decided on in the spring of 2007, the spring of 2015, and the spring of 2023.

From the committee's side, we emphasize the importance of good planning, as several previous speakers have pointed out, and that each item is given sufficient time for review, analysis, and consideration in order to maintain a good quality in the legislation. Short referral periods should only occur in extraordinary situations.

The average time spent on the Council on Legislation's reviews has varied. Time intervals shorter than one month between the Council on Legislation's opinion and the government's decision on a bill have become less common. We assume that there is a well-functioning dialogue between the Government Offices and the Council on Legislation and that there is sufficient time to prepare the views put forward by the Council on Legislation.

The review shows a certain increase in cases with shorter time than normal between the decision on the proposition and the law's entry into force, something that can affect the conditions for the Riksdag's processing. The committee emphasizes that the need for urgent Riksdag processing should be able to be limited to those cases where it is absolutely necessary. At the same time, we also know what it is like when public opinion pushes and says "you are too slow." But there is a reason why one may need to hurry slowly.

Madam Speaker! With these excerpts from the over 400-page review report, I would like, like a previous speaker, to recommend reading of the same.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have made roughly the same points as many of my colleagues. It will therefore involve some repetition, perhaps with a new perspective in some places.

First, I want to emphasize that the Committee on the Constitution's review of the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters is carried out on the Committee's own initiative and thus is not based on reports from our colleagues in the Riksdag, unlike the more spectacular and interesting spring review.

This year, the report resulting from the review comprises a document with nine sections. I have, like others, chosen three of them. It should be emphasized that we agree on the report, but it does not prevent us as individuals, party representatives, and members from having slightly different perspectives which, in the best of worlds, complement each other in a constructive way.

I leave a part of the review, for example regarding the composition of the government, the organization of work and the government protocols, without further comment but get stuck on the response times for interpellations and written questions. Someone also mentioned oral questions. We have not taken a position on those, but that too belongs to our arsenal of possibilities. We simply have to assume that they are answered directly.

Regarding the written questions and the interpellations, the committee secretariat has carried out a meritorious and thorough review of how things stand - many thanks for that! A written question, to take them first, is as known to be answered within a week. This occurs in nine out of ten cases, during the last year even in nineteen out of twenty cases.

One could possibly consider that the number of written questions varies quite a bit, from about 1,000 at the most recent parliamentary session to more than three times as many two years earlier. One observation is that the first parliamentary session in this and the two preceding terms has had a significantly lower number of written questions than in later years. It could be that beginners like myself have not been quite vigilant regarding this opportunity during the first year, and so it starts up a bit later. That may be the case, but it is still an observation that one can consider.

The interpellations, on the other hand, are perhaps more of a sore point where, at times, up to half of the answers have been delayed.

Madam Speaker! Written questions and interpellations are important as part of the democratic structure, the democratic dialogue and, not to forget, as part of the power of oversight. It is therefore naturally important that response times are respected as far as it is at all possible. In the case of interpellations, it is also about respect for the questioner's time. As is well known, not all members are resident in Stockholm and may not have the same opportunities to reschedule on short notice when one receives a notice that it will not be possible on the day intended but, for example, the following Friday.

The written questions are of a completely different kind. They reach across the entire country at the speed of light once they are sent.

Madam Speaker! My second item concerns the EU Committee, something that others have also touched upon.

The EU Committee is, as is known, a committee with special conditions where the government, according to the Instrument of Government, shall inform and consult with the Riksdag regarding what is happening within the EU cooperation.

The concept of "consultation" entails discussing and giving the EU Committee an opportunity to support or argue for changes in Swedish positions before decisions in the Council of the European Union. It is admittedly not binding for the government, but KU has previously pointed out that it should be about the Riksdag being able to have a significant influence. It follows with some logic from this that it is important that the committee's members have a sufficient basis to be able to take a position, discuss, and anchor it in their party groups. This was something that the Riksdag Committee pointed out more than 20 years ago.

I still want to devote a few sentences to the government's information advantage, which we discussed in last year's spring review in two cases. In those cases, it was about what information the government considered appropriate and/or possible to provide the committee members in advance. It is my hope that these matters contribute to an extra review when similar cases arise in the future. The information from Brussels is not something the government controls, but rather something to manage, which can sometimes result in delays.

Another thing I have heard is that the fact that a party is part of the government base without sitting in the government on several occasions has created situations where the government's position or stance has come to change after the basis has been sent to the committee members but before the committee's meeting. This is unfortunate and increases the information advantage that the government has in relation to the committee.

Madam Speaker! My final reflection concerns what is referred to in the report as the planning of the legislative process. It is true, of course, that the provisions in the Instrument of Government are quite concise. The intention is not to make government work something that is completely bound by rules determined in advance. This benefits no one, but at the same time gives the government a freedom that can, for example, concern how an investigation should be organized.

All of this is ultimately about the quality of the legislation that we as members of Parliament are to take a position on and, in the best-case scenario, find so relevant and well-written that we stand behind it. Since we are, in some sense, last, or at least among the last, in the supply chain, we have to take on some of the accumulated delays that have occurred along the way. This is something that companies and organizations in all industries and sectors are well acquainted with, and something that has been highlighted a lot through various types of focus and changes.

Yesterday, among other things, the bill on residence bans and temporary bans on transporting persons without valid ID documents to Sweden was discussed. As recently as yesterday, I also received a message regarding a delayed investigation concerning members of the boards of educational institutions.

Within the committee, we have underlined in the report the value and necessity of good planning throughout the process. The referral periods are such a point. It is, of course, satisfying that it appears that they actually become longer rather than shorter on average, but this does not help when individual propositions fall outside of what can be considered decent. It is not about swings and carousels here, which together give a good picture, but about all referrals and the associated referral periods providing those who respond with reasonable time to respond, anchor, and themselves delve into any controversial issues. The exceptions to such a view are the few cases where urgency is obviously a necessity.

The Council on Legislation - this goldmine of knowledge, wisdom and experience - must, of course, also be met with the respect it deserves. The Council on Legislation is a quality assurance that we as legislators, who are at the end of the supply chain, definitely must not forgo.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I would like, like others, to propose that this report be added to the records.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to explain what we are doing for the school class that I suspect is sitting in the gallery. It may not be completely obvious to those who come in here what we are talking about.

We who are sitting here and debating right now are the Committee on the Constitution. We have a mandate to review the government and to ensure that the government exercises its power in such a way that one stays within the existing frameworks and handles the matters that one takes care of in a correct manner.

This committee is very often – almost always – in agreement, especially when the committee scrutinizes the government. We think it is important to ensure that the rules of democracy work regardless of which government is in power. I must unfortunately disappoint those of you who perhaps had hoped for a heated political debate here!

There are a couple of things in the annual autumn review, which we are now debating, that I want to highlight.

The Riksdag's scrutiny of the government takes place in various ways. The question instrument is one such way. Members can exercise the Riksdag's power of control through written questions and interpellations. Questions and interpellations should, for reasons that many of my colleagues have touched upon previously, be answered within certain timeframes.

This review shows that the proportion of delayed responses to interpellations has remained at approximately the same level over time. During the two most recent parliamentary terms, the proportion of delayed responses has averaged 45 percent. During the first year of this parliamentary term, the proportion has been 41 percent.

When it comes to written questions, we see that an improvement has occurred over time. During the last parliamentary term, the answers to an average of 11 percent of the questions were delayed.

There may be reasons why answers are delayed - for example, the ministers needed to prioritize leading the negotiations during Sweden's presidency in the EU. However, the work that is now ongoing within the Government Offices to counter delays is important, just as we state in the report.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes it may be perceived as that our legislative process is quite long and complicated, but it is thanks to the fact that the legislative proposals are illuminated from all sides that we obtain laws of good quality. Through referrals, authorities, civil society, and experts can comment on the proposed laws and contribute to making the legislation both better and more anchored.

The review shows that referrals with a response time shorter than three months have become somewhat less common, and what has increased are referrals with a response time of exactly three months. The proportion with even longer response times has been fairly constant over time.

It can sometimes be necessary with shorter preparation times in urgent matters; we saw this, not least during the pandemic. It is, however, very important that this is limited to those cases where it is absolutely necessary.

Order and clarity are important. The review is a way to shed light on routines that need to be updated to ensure this. For example, the review shows that there are a number of regulations on state support for which funds are no longer allocated and which need to be reviewed, as well as that there are unjustified variations regarding the forms for the write-off and conclusion of certain administrative matters. By shedding light on this in our report, we contribute to the order and clarity that I believe everyone expects from the Swedish public administration.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank for the important and solid work that our committee secretariat does so that we can present such a review report.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! For someone who visits Systembolaget, submits a tip to Svenska Spel, or for that matter takes a trip into a forest area that might be owned and managed by Sveaskog, it is perhaps not always obvious to put this in connection with the fact that the operations as such are based on the balance between political decisions and business considerations. The three companies I mentioned have, like 19 other companies, specific social missions that go beyond the guidelines that apply to all 43 state-owned companies. Samhall and SOS Alarm are two others.

During the autumn review, the Committee on the Constitution has looked at the governance of specifically state-owned companies with public mandates. The purpose has been to review the forms of the government's governance at an overall level. A review of annual reports has been conducted and registered special cases within the framework of the administration have been examined. The special act for distribution to all state-owned companies has also been reviewed.

According to the guidelines that the Riksdag has backed, which were decided upon in the spring of 1996, all state-owned companies shall follow the principles of working under requirements of efficiency, return on the capital that the company represents, and structural adjustment.

The management of the state-owned companies is ultimately the government's responsibility, even though the companies appoint boards at their annual general meetings and operate as limited companies - in most cases in competition. In total, the operations encompass over 130,000 employees and have a combined value of 850 billion kronor. We as citizens, and in many cases also customers, should be assured that the companies owned by the public are well-managed. Therefore, issues of oversight, transparency, and control are of great importance.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's position contains some observations that I wish to account for here.

In the ongoing management, and in contact with the companies, the owner is represented by the responsible minister. The minister responsible for the companies with state ownership has also received the government's authorization to represent and exercise voting rights for the state as an owner at company meetings. It can be mentioned that we as individual members of Parliament have a standing invitation to the annual general meetings, where we can also follow the work.

Regarding the government's authorizations, the committee considers the current order to be sufficiently clear given that the minister's area of responsibility is apparent from the appointment that the Prime Minister decides upon with the support of the Instrument of Government.

Regarding the questions about the general meetings, has the review identified the rules in the Swedish Code of Corporate Governance regarding that nomination proposals for the board are included in the notice of the general meetings? The committee, however, has some understanding that the preparation process can sometimes take time, and we note that the proposal is at least always published on the company's website before the meeting itself takes place.

The ownership dialogues are important for following up on the goals and the assignments that the Riksdag and the government have decided on. The committee wants to emphasize the importance of that minutes are kept in the ownership dialogues and are registered in the respective company's annual report. In the review, it has occurred that this has not been applied for companies managed by the Ministry of Culture. This will, however, as far as the committee has noted, occur from now on.

In the question regarding contacts with the companies' auditors, the KU notes that the Government Offices, in its response, states that the auditors' meetings have diminished in significance. The Committee sees no reason for any other assessment to be made but nevertheless considers that the Government Offices' guidelines should be reviewed to reflect today's conditions.

The question of the company manager's dual roles is also addressed in the report, and the committee wishes to emphasize in this context that an arrangement is applied in all matters concerning the management of the companies which ensures that conflicts of interest are minimized.

In addition to what we in the committee have already stated regarding documentation and the formation of shares, we also want to emphasize the importance of a good public structure.

We can also note that the Government Offices state that further work remains to ensure that the guidelines applicable to the corporate management gain full traction.

KU assumes that the government in the continued work will take the measures deemed necessary based on what the committee has stated, both in terms of a good public structure and in the work in general.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a few words on point 2, the Government Protocols. In this matter, a general review has been made of the main protocols for the period January-December 2022. A general review has also been made of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' and the Ministry for Social Affairs' sub-protocols, series A and B, for the same period.

Statistics are also presented on the number of decided government matters based on a compilation from the Government Offices. From this, it appears that during 2022, a total of 5,699 government matters were decided at government meetings. The largest group of matters was employment matters, followed by regulatory letters as well as grant and subsidy matters. The number of appeals increased the most.

Overall, it can be said regarding the review of the government protocols that it does not give reason for any statement from the Committee on the Constitution.

I hereby wish to submit that the autumn review in KU10 can be added to the records.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that culture eats strategy for breakfast. Perhaps that is exactly what we are talking about here, the culture, how the work has been carried out. When one reads the review report, one gets many thoughts that this way of working has developed over a long period, but that it might perhaps be possible to do things a bit differently today. Here, several examples have been highlighted of areas where one actually could do things a bit differently – without for that reason saying that what it is today is wrong.

A government and a government offices must both implement the policy for which they have received support in an election and enable scrutiny that they are behaving in the correct way. It is clear that routines have developed over time, but they are not always the most expedient today.

At the same time as we praise inertia, reliability, and predictability, and possibly make us kufar, which by the way is also spelled with KU, we must also be aware that in the future, methods must be found to both solve problems and communicate that are adapted to today's technology and ways of working. This is perhaps the great value of this review. Overall, it works in an acceptable way, but there may be opportunities to do things differently. That brings us to what the chairman began by saying: See it as a tip catalog of things one can look at!

In line with the others, I shall highlight some points. We have reviewed certain administrative cases. These primarily concern deportations. In cases where the deportation has been carried out or where there are obstacles to enforcement, it is possible to close the case. In cases where it has not been carried out, the cases are not always closed but remain open. But the person to be deported will hardly report that the case is not settled, as they have everything to gain from it not being closed. Therefore, a routine must be found to handle this so that a large number of cases do not remain open. This is easy to say, but it may be difficult to find a practical solution. Therefore, it is only pointed out without stating how it should be solved.

We have discussed the regulations that we jokingly call ghost or zombie regulations. A system is introduced via a regulation with allocated budget space, but when the budget space disappears, the regulation remains, which can lead someone to believe that it can still be applied despite the lack of funding. How can this be solved? We point it out but do not say how it should be solved. One should, however, reflect on this if this construction becomes increasingly common.

We also have the so-called command matters. There is a certain type of matter where the Minister for Defence, under the Prime Minister's supervision, can make decisions. This concerns, for example, visits by foreign state vessels to Sweden. What does "under the Prime Minister's supervision" mean? The Government has a collective responsibility. Does it mean that the Prime Minister is to look over the Minister for Defence's shoulder? Or does it mean that he is to approve the decision in retrospect in order to make it a collective government decision?

We may not have found the best form for this, and therefore we are raising it. But we also humbly hand over to the Government Offices to consider how the systems can be made more purposeful. There is a catalog of over 400 pages with tips here. Make sure Sweden works! In the main, it works well today, but it might be possible to do a number of things differently – hence the consideration.

It is pleasing that everyone in KU stands behind the fact that a government should be able to implement its policy and that it should be possible to scrutinize and review the government and that we are therefore in agreement in the report. Like everyone else, I say: Please read it, but also take in the general picture. Sweden works well, but we need to develop working methods that are adapted to today's technology.

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)