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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to feel a certain political depression right now. On Monday, Donald Trump was sworn in as president in the USA. One of his first decisions was to pardon the 1,500 people who participated in the storming of the Capitol. In doing so, he sends the signal that it is okay to attack democracy, emergency services, and political "opposition," as long as it lies in the president's interests. He also expressed that the USA's territory should expand. This is outrageous.

But I realize myself that we should not sit on our high horses and be astonished by what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. The election of Donald Trump as president says something about our contemporary era. It is perhaps an expression of a frustration and a lost hope that politics can solve difficult societal problems. It is perhaps an expression that politicians are expected to listen and act when people struggle to pay their bills at the end of the month.

Mr. Speaker! Quite frankly, it is not the time for diplomacy right now. Right now, it is not the time for cooperation. Right now, it is not the time for peace. But a time for that will come. I am convinced of that. The fluctuations in history's Newton's cradle speak to that. Counter-reactions are always born. But this debate is not about the USA or about the global situation, Mr. Speaker, but about the Committee on the Constitution's review of our government power here in Sweden.

The Committee on the Constitution has the task of submitting a report twice a year on how the government has performed its duties. The government needs, as you all know, the parliament's tolerance, and government power ultimately rests on the parliament's mandate. Therefore, it is our responsibility to scrutinize the government.

In the spring, we scrutinize the government specifically based on the KU reports that all members of parliament can submit against individual ministers. In the autumn, we scrutinize the government's work more generally. It is the autumn scrutiny that we are now presenting.

It may sound dry and boring, 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.

Mr. Speaker! This autumn we have reviewed nine areas. We decide on the topics for the autumn review jointly in the committee. These are partly certain issues that we usually follow up on and return to at intervals of a few years, and partly issues that the committee has noticed in one way or another during our ongoing work throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker! A recurring review concerns the organization of the Government Offices. The Government Offices must be dimensioned according to the demands that our modern democratic society places, but at the same time, it must be a reasonable dimensioning. We specifically monitor that the political appointments remain at a reasonable level.

The committee is not making a statement on this, but we Social Democrats noted during the budget debate earlier this autumn that the Government Offices' costs have increased by 27 percent since 2022, at a time when everyone else needs to save. It is worth reflecting on in the future.

The committee also specifically asked a question about the organization for the work on national security within the Government Offices. The Government tells us that the organization has not entailed that responsibility for subject areas or agencies has been moved to the Government Offices, but something that has been discussed in the public debate and made relevant is that that which aims at strategic coordination risks creating double command and double work. There is reason to continue to follow up on this issue, not least when a new function is established within the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! In normal cases, at least four weeks should pass from the time a regulation is printed until it enters into force. Four weeks is at the very limit, it must be said. There are quite a few regulations that have been promulgated less than four weeks before the entry into force.

KU has pointed out on repeated occasions that it is not appropriate to have an excessively short time between a decision and its entry into force. Even though technology has advanced and we can work with electronic announcements, individuals but also authorities need to comply with new regulations and laws. It is not good for the confidence in the legislative process if one is not given sufficient time to introduce new laws and regulations.

We have also examined how long it takes to process appeals to the Government of the County Administrative Board's decisions to establish or expand nature reserves. The Government is not an administrative authority in the sense of the Administrative Procedure Act, but it must nevertheless follow the Administrative Procedure Act and process cases as quickly, efficiently, and with as much legal certainty as possible and drive the processing forward. Problems arise when cases remain pending without us being able to see what measures have been taken. Here, the Government Offices itself states that the processing times could have been shorter in some of the cases.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter concerns the submission of the government bill. It focuses on essentially the entire legislative process, from the investigation until the law is implemented in reality, and on how important it is that we have, for example, parliamentary investigations. The Committee on the Constitution has not made any note of this, but if we can no longer sit in investigations together and place a value on broad parliamentary anchoring, the long-term perspective and sustainability of our laws will deteriorate.

A faster pace in the legislative work is also something for which we must raise a warning finger. The committee understands that in some cases there may be reasons for urgent preparation, but this should be avoidable through good monitoring of the environment, readiness, and foresight. Speeding up to demonstrate political decisiveness can be nice, but it is not an acceptable reason.

Mr. Speaker! An issue that the committee has taken up is the ministers' use of social media. Here, it can be stated that there are uncertainties regarding the use of social media, something that has led many Members of Parliament to submit complaints against ministers after reacting to something that has been written or said.

The government should review how the ministers use their social media. There must be no ambiguity about what is the state's position on issues and what is party-political opinion-building. That is not to say that we in the Committee on the Constitution want to introduce unnecessary rules for the work, because we believe it is important that politicians can be present on these platforms and debate politics in society.

When talking about social media, it is important that one safeguards freedom of expression and upholds the principle of what should be public records. These are rules that also apply on social media.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, we rarely use superlatives in our review, nor do we attempt to politicize our review. This means that what we say may be dull and understated, but it also means that when we speak, we do so with a solid and serious approach. This matters.

I mentioned the words dry and boring earlier. When the political world is now swinging rapidly, perhaps an autumn review can create some security. There are no political mandates there, but there are small suggestions on how the government's work can be improved so that trust in our democracy remains strong. It is perhaps just what we need right now.

As the chairman of the committee, I hereby request to submit and report to the Riksdag the results of the Committee on the Constitution's annual autumn review.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker, listeners and colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution! In a time characterized by unrest in our immediate vicinity while we see increased polarization, not least within politics, it is reassuring to know that the Committee on the Constitution continues to work together forward to take Sweden in the right direction.

The Committee on the Constitution's review is an important part of the Riksdag's oversight work, where we ensure that the government's work is transparent and legally sound.

The committee highlights several important issues in report KU10, Mr. Speaker. I intended to go into some of these audit matters.

The review of the submission of the bills shows that the time limit of 45 days between tabling and entry into force is an important principle that should be followed. The committee notes that the motion periods during recent years have been short in some cases, but also that these matters have become fewer. It is positive that the Riksdag and the Government Offices now have an agreement that specific information shall be provided when the motion period is shortened.

We must also remember that the extra supplementary budgets that have come during the last two years since 2022, including among other things the electricity support, have affected the preparatory process. But what is important to emphasize is that the quality of the bills has not been compromised. That is, of course, pleasing, Mr. Speaker.

An area that the Committee on the Constitution has examined during the autumn is the ministers' use of social media.

The use of social media has become increasingly important, and it has brought about some challenges. It is an issue where we know there are very many opinions on what is right and what is wrong. It is a complex issue that requires caution and balancing - we do not want a minister to use social media in an incorrect way, but at the same time, we do not want to hinder openness towards the citizens regarding the work that takes place within the government.

The Committee on the Constitution is in agreement on the guidelines. The Government's information should primarily be communicated via official channels, while the ministers' own accounts should be only a complement.

That accounts which the Government Offices are responsible for only publish information regarding the government's work is a good system. Issues concerning party politics as private matters, the ministers may convey via other channels.

Furthermore, content concerning the government's work must be handled as public documents in accordance with applicable laws. This means that this is part of the principle of public access, which is intended to create transparency and oversight in public work - including the government's activities.

Work is also currently underway within the Government Offices to review steering documents linked to the use of social media, so we will simply have to see if it may be relevant for the Committee on the Constitution to return to this important issue at a later date.

Social media is a means of communication that we must safeguard, and it is generally good for the ministers to inform the citizens about the policies they pursue and the reforms they are working on. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the Committee on the Constitution's report KU10 for a more comprehensive picture of the review of the ministers' use of social media.

The Committee on the Constitution has also during the autumn reviewed the incorporation of EU legal acts and the government's work with implementing these acts in Sweden.

The legal acts consist primarily of various regulations and directives that every EU country commits to follow. But each country's authorities have the right to determine the approach for the implementation of the legal acts and are responsible for ensuring that the acts are implemented correctly even when authorities are involved. It is therefore important that the government receives information in a timely manner regarding the regulations that the authorities decide on.

Mr. Speaker! Here, it is important that Sweden does not go further than what the EU's directives say. This is an issue that can have a major impact on Swedish companies, and we must protect our companies and not introduce unnecessary regulations which in turn can negatively affect the business sector's competitiveness and lead to administrative additional costs and so on.

The committee emphasizes that Swedish regulations should not go further than necessary and that early checks and clearer follow-up are needed to avoid over-implementation, which we, of course, welcome.

A dialogue between the Government Offices and the administrative authorities is of crucial importance. Previous audits have shown this, and it is important for the competitiveness and opportunities for increased growth of Swedish companies that this dialogue is good.

The Committee on the Constitution's review of how authorities inform the government about the incorporation of EU legal acts has shown that certain authorities do not always provide specific notifications but only report via lists. More active follow-up from the departments' side could counteract unnecessary over-implementation and ensure that the intentions of EU law are followed without creating additional regulatory burden in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Let us facilitate for our companies to operate in Sweden by not making it more complicated to run businesses than necessary! Let us give our companies good conditions, conditions that do not hinder the opportunities for increased growth! We do this, among other things, by ensuring that Swedish authorities' regulations do not go further than what the EU's legal acts require.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the government has appointed an implementation council that shall work to avoid over-implementation of the EU's legal acts.

We must ensure that there is a well-functioning dialogue between the Government Offices and the EU, where the EU Committee serves as a link between them. It will therefore certainly be grounds to return to this specific issue further ahead.

Mr. Speaker! I conclude by informing those who wish for a more in-depth insight into the reviews I have briefly touched upon here, and other reviews, that the Committee on the Constitution's report KU10 is available on the Riksdag's website.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's review is an annually recurring task that perhaps does not always receive the same attention as party leadership debates or political maneuvers. But let me remind you that this work is nonetheless of the utmost importance. It is here that we ensure that the government follows decided rules and that the processes are transparent.

We are not only examining individual cases but also how the entire government machinery functions in practice. In a time characterized by change, this review is an important part of maintaining trust in our institutions. I also hope that it can, to some extent, contribute to reducing the polarization that we see increasing in society.

Mr. Speaker! This year's report covers several central areas concerning the government's work. The committee has, among other things, examined the government's composition, the government's minutes, and the political coordination functions in the Government Offices. We have also looked at the ministers' use of social media and the submission of government bills.

The latter, i.e., the submission of the bill, warrants a little extra attention because it is part of the Swedish legislative process.

In recent years, a debate has been held regarding the legislative process and its speed - or slowness, if you will.

The legislative process consists of different parts. First and foremost, directives for an investigation must be prepared. After that, an investigator shall be appointed and an investigation shall be commissioned. When the investigation is complete, it shall be referred, both to relevant actors and to the Council on Legislation. After that, the legislation shall become a government bill which the Riksdag shall process and decide upon.

When it comes to the first part of the investigation process, the Moderate-led government has started fast tracks for legislation. In practice, this means that full-time investigators produce legislative proposals faster than the traditional investigations do. In those, the investigators are usually part-time employees and work as, for example, judges during the day.

It is good that the government is now accelerating the investigation process. Social development moves quickly, and it is important that our legislation is able to keep up with that pace. Without flexibility and speed, the legislative process risks becoming outdated before the decisions have even been hammered out in this chamber. This applies particularly to certain areas, such as crime policy and migration policy.

High quality in investigations is not always the same as taking time. As I just pointed out, there is an obvious advantage with the so-called fast tracks for legislation, namely that it is exactly full-time employed investigators who can devote all their time to the current investigation assignment. When the investigation is then complete, the next part of the legislative process begins: the referral process and eventually the submission of the bill to the Riksdag. This was reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution in parts last autumn and in parts this autumn.

Let me repeat what the Committee on the Constitution concluded last autumn. When it came to the referral periods and their length, it was not possible to draw any firm conclusions as to whether the referral periods have become shorter or longer over the last 15 years. The average referral period, however, seems to have become somewhat longer.

During the reviewed periods, namely 2007, 2015 and 2023, the average time spent on the Council for Legislation's review varied without any clear trend. Regarding the time between the Council for Legislation's opinion and the government's decision to submit the bill to the Riksdag, it can be stated that a time interval between opinion and decision of approximately one month has become more common, while shorter time intervals than that have become less common.

From the Committee on the Constitution's review last autumn, it was not possible to draw any conclusions that the government would now cut any corners in the legislative process. Instead, parts of the legislative process now seem to be moving in a direction where it takes longer.

Mr. Speaker! Let me now turn my gaze towards the autumn review and the submission of government bills. The committee notes that during the time of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there was an increase in both the number of bills tabled earlier than 85 days before the proposed entry into force and the number of bills treated with shortened motion time. It has, therefore, gone very fast during the period of covid-19 and the full-scale war in Ukraine. It appears to everyone as justified that these events prompted legislation that needed to be handled quickly by the Riksdag.

When it comes to the entire group of bills tabled 85 days or less before the proposed entry into force, the committee does not, however, note any tangible changes compared to the parliamentary sessions before the outbreak of the pandemic. Within this group, one can, however, observe an increase in bills tabled 10 weeks, or even less time, before the proposed entry into force. The bills that are submitted late are now submitted at a later stage than they did before the outbreak of the pandemic. But the group of bills submitted late has not increased as a whole.

When it concerns bills that have been tabled less than 85 days before the entry into force, perhaps the most important part of the parliamentary process is to look at the motion time. The motion tool is, after all, the opposition's opportunity to formally comment on the legislation that the government proposes. Maintaining the motion tool and the motion institution is a very important task so that the opposition can, in practice, be able to carry out opposition work.

When it comes to bills with shortened motion time, it is also not possible to point to a trend of more and more bills with shortened motion time. In the parliamentary sessions 2022/23 and 2023/24, there were three and one bill, respectively, that were not of the character of an extra amendment budget and were treated with shortened motion time. This can be compared with five bills in 2013/14 and eight bills in 2015/16.

It is also interesting to look at which the three propositions were – that is, the three respective ones, which since the Moderate-led government took office, have been treated with shortened motion time. They were the following legislative products: certain procedural issues regarding electricity support to companies, Sweden's membership in Nato, confidentiality in the Försäkringskassan's handling of cases regarding electricity support and additional tax for companies in large corporations.

With these two reviews in our backs, namely the Committee on the Constitution's reviews last autumn and this autumn, we can state that the government is not being careless with the legislative process. Instead, the Moderate-led government is delivering what the voters chose us to do.

With this said, it is welcome – and we heard the committee chairman speak about this – to have a discussion about the Swedish legislative process and the time taken from directive to the entry into force of new legislation. The timeframes that have come to be something of a soft law are not set in stone. They are not in the constitution, and it is not either in ordinary law how long the lead times should be for respective sub-steps in the legislative process. Often they were added many decades ago in another time and another reality.

In Sweden, we are also unique when it comes to the time it takes to produce new legislation. If we look at our Nordic neighbors, it goes significantly faster. It is also the case that voters expect a government that has been elected to also deliver on the election promises they have set out, regardless of whether it should be a Social Democratic-led government or a Moderate-led one like now. A high pace in legislation is required in order to have time to deliver within four years. As previously pointed out, there is also a risk that all-too-long processes could lead to outdated proposals even before they enter into force.

There are, therefore, many reasons to have a serious debate on how our legislative process should look, regardless of which government we have in the future.

Mr. Speaker! My time is running out after the deep dive into the various parts of the legislative process and the recapitulation of last autumn's committee review. But let me also just note, underline, and comment on one final area that the committee reviewed in the autumn. It concerns the ministers' use of social media.

Social media is today an important channel for communication and dialogue. This applies perhaps especially to the younger audience, who can seek information via social media and apps. This in itself means that messages and information - and thus also democracy, through the possibility of informing oneself and taking part in the decisions that are made - increases with the possibility of reaching out to the entire population through social media.

The committee points out, however, that there are certain dangers with the use of social media. I think it is important to establish that. We also agree that the official channels for communication are the government's website and the government's accounts. They are not the private accounts on social media. It is important that there is such a guideline and, above all, that there is such clarity in practice.

With that said, I would like to thank you very much for this review and for the work that the committee has done with it. I look forward to all the reviews this spring.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Just as previous speakers have said, we in the Committee on the Constitution report every year the results of the two reviews we conduct. Today we report what emerged during our autumn review, which is not based on KU reports but on subjects that we in the committee ourselves have chosen. Some subjects recur annually and some at a certain interval. Sometimes we also select issues that have become topical during the autumn review or that are interesting from a constitutional perspective.

In the autumn review, we mostly look at the government's administrative work, and we emphasize and highlight sometimes things that may appear as pure self-evident truths. But from our review, we have collectively seen the need to collectively make these joint signals in the committee, and just as previous speakers have also touched upon, we naturally expect that these signals are perceived by the government even though they may appear somewhat soft.

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, certain issues can be scrutinized depending on that we have received a feeling. Something might be debated a lot in the media or among us members. In that case, we in the KU have an opportunity, through our investigation, to have that feeling confirmed – or sometimes contradicted.

In a world where there is a lot of talk about polarization and a high tone, it still feels good that we in this committee mostly succeed in resisting and working to find common conclusions. We are once again submitting a unanimous review report. In the end, it is about our democracy and that the rules of the game for it are protected - that the regulatory framework is followed regardless of which parties are in power and that we see the importance of both the majority and the opposition in the Riksdag being able to act. It may be a bit dry and boring, but it is also quite safe.

Mr. Speaker! What results do we have in this year's autumn review?

One subject we have gone through is the government protocols from 2023. There, we emphasize the importance of regulations being issued well in advance before they come into effect, so that everyone affected has the opportunity to adapt to the upcoming changes. Authorities have usually received information before the changes, perhaps through a referral process, but for individuals, things are sometimes introduced on short notice. One might not have noted the change in advance.

We have also examined certain administrative cases. This time we have looked at appeals of decisions to establish or expand nature reserves, and we note that the processing times in several of these cases are long. There can, of course, be good reasons for this; they are complex cases, and perhaps a lot of investigation is needed. But just as when we have looked at similar processing times, for example when it concerns appeals regarding mines, we can see that there are a number of cases where the measures do not seem to be particularly extensive but where instead one has delayed in processing the case. Therefore, the processing time in some cases could have been shorter.

Long processing times are something that has consequences for all involved and can lead not only to uncertainty but sometimes also to economic losses. Ultimately, it is also about trust in our democratic system. It must work, and one should not end up in a long process characterized by uncertainty.

Another question that is often debated is the power of appointment, especially regarding the appointment of persons who have a political background, which the committee has also examined. In addition to political background, we have looked at gender and whether there have been open recruitment procedures. We have also partially looked at the occurrence of transfers of heads of agencies.

The review shows that the proportion of appointed heads of government agencies with a political background in Sweden has remained more or less constant since 2006, i.e., for nearly 20 years. We stand by our previous view that a political background should not be disqualifying in an appointment, but that the decision on appointment must, of course, be based on objective grounds, such as merit and competence. In the issue of reassignments and transfers, we emphasize, in line with previous, the importance of considering what documentation was needed. This may be something that stems from our previous spring review when we reviewed previous cases.

Mr. Speaker! The last matter I intended to raise in today's debate is the ministers' use of social media. This stems, of course, from several things, including this spring's review where we dealt with a number of KU reports that in different ways concerned social media.

Our principle of public access is something that everyone in KU holds in high regard, in any case, but it and our constitutional laws TF and YGL are, to put it mildly, perhaps not quite adapted to today's digitalization and today's social media. This is something that a review is underway of within the Government Offices and which will certainly lead to challenges for both ministers and others within the Government Offices.

There we emphasize the importance of the ministers clarifying, to the greatest extent possible, when the use of social media – I don't quite know how to say it – is not occurring in the minister's capacity but privately. But as was said, that is what is difficult, because our ministers are ministers around the clock. The guidelines within the Government Offices that we have been made aware of also contradict each other sometimes, which can obviously make it even harder for a minister to follow them.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! When ministers speak to their constituents via social media, what do they need to consider then? When a landowner has complained about a decision to the government and is impatiently waiting for a response, how long can the government actually delay its answer? And when a government is eager to show decisiveness, how quickly is it okay for it to put forward its proposals?

Regarding question A, we answer in the KU: Tweet with your voters if you want, even if you are a minister! But if you are going to tell about what the government has just decided, then it is appropriate to use official channels - not the private account.

To question B we answer: It is not okay for the department to slack off by letting documents sit on the shelf without action for several months.

To question C we answer: Wait a moment now – this is the time to think! There is actually a point in that the government does not rush its proposals and makes the opposition merely a rounding mark. I will return to that in a moment.

Mr. Speaker! I chose not to begin my speech with the same phrase I used in this debate a couple of years ago, specifically: "We are debating here today the report KU10, where the Committee on the Constitution reviews the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters." There is, of course, nothing wrong with that phrase, but it does not directly attract large crowds to the KU's debates. And it is a pity that our debates, where we are often in agreement, rarely make any headlines in the media or, for that matter, draw a large audience.

That we seem rather uninteresting is probably precisely because we move forward in unity, as we do today. Conflict, however, creates headlines. But in practice, politics is actually about reaching agreements. We are eight parties in this Riksdag, and none is like the other. It is exactly as it should be in a vital democracy: many different opinions and party programs to choose from for the one who casts their vote every four years. After that, it is up to us politicians to compromise, to give and take, and to take responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! This matter of the consensus in KU is actually worth a bit more attention, I think. We stand here again and present a review of the government where all eight parties are in complete agreement. It should reach more people outside of politics that we can actually reach an agreement and that we politicians are not just engaged in bickering.

The ability to reach an agreement is something we truly need today. We need to show our voters that we possess it. This applies especially in the uncertain times we live in, with a tense global situation where strong forces that do not want Sweden well often fuel polarization in our society. There are already far too many trenches in the world, so let us not dig any of our own here at home.

What we are doing here in KU are important matters. It is, of course, easy to be biased and emphasize the great significance of one's own committee, but the rules of the game of democracy—the foundation upon which both the Riksdag and the government rest—should surely engage everyone?

To be more audience-friendly, I just tried a less high-flown introduction than last year. I briefly mentioned three areas that we in KU delved into during the autumn when we reviewed the government's work. Of these three, I do not intend to speak further about either A or B, but will stick to C. This concerns how quickly the government can rush forward in its eagerness to show decisiveness and why it is not a good idea to rush at express speed. This is called the submission of the bill in our report.

Mr. Speaker! When the government has decided on a bill, it is submitted to the Riksdag. Then the parties in the Riksdag have two weeks - or 15 days, to be exact - to process it. If it is to go faster than that, special reasons are required. As a lawyer, one knows that special reasons are a signal that it must truly involve something exceptional that justifies such haste. It must be a question of pure exceptional circumstances for the provision of 15 days to be departed from. It is the Riksdag that decides if it should go faster than that, but it happens on the government's initiative. It is thus the government that sends the signal that it wants the Riksdag to hurry up with something.

In the time planning found in the Government Offices' guidelines, 85 days is the minimum specified to complete all necessary sub-steps on the path from when a proposition is submitted to the Riksdag until the law enters into force. KU has examined instances when it has gone faster than that and looked at how it has appeared over time, from 2011 onwards.

It is not particularly surprising that more bills were processed at express speed during the covid-19 pandemic, as has been mentioned here earlier. Also as a result of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it sometimes had to be rushed. If one compares the time before and after the pandemic, one sees that the number of propositions processed in less than 85 days was at approximately the same level. But in the cases where it went faster than normal, i.e., in less than 85 days, the urgency was slightly greater in more recent years than before the pandemic. This is not only due to the war in Ukraine.

More and more often, the time from the government bill to the law's entry into force has become shorter. I mean that there is good reason to keep an eye on this moving forward, because the Riksdag must be given time to handle the government's proposals in a serious manner. For the parliament to function well, all political parties must have good conditions to familiarize themselves with proposals put forward by the government and be able to formulate counter-proposals.

Mr. Speaker! A year ago, the government wanted to speed up a certain much-discussed bill and then requested a shortened motion period of three days. However, the Riksdag said no, so it became 15 days as usual. When I turned on the radio news one morning, I was surprised to hear the responsible minister say: I hope that the opposition will use this time well.

Today, my party is in opposition, but it is not what I and my party do in an individual case that is relevant. These rules, with certain deadlines, exist so that we have a functioning opposition regardless of which parties are included in it. Then the opposition must have reasonable conditions to operate within - otherwise, the opposition's role in democracy is curtailed, and I assume that no party desires that.

Mr. Speaker! Tomorrow, the Oscar nominations will be announced. I expect some for the film Conclave. It is a film that depicts intricate power struggles within the Catholic Church ahead of the election of a new pope. The actor Ralph Fiennes has the leading role, and his character Lawrence represents reflection and wisdom in the film. In a powerful scene, Lawrence emphasizes the danger with certainty. To be convinced that one's own opinion is the only correct one is a step toward the perfection of power. Instead, Lawrence calls for doubt, because it is a way for us humans to realize that we are limited and that our opinion can and should be questioned.

Regardless of how the nominations and Oscar statues go for Konklaven - I believe it will get a few - there must be room for doubt even in politics. There must be an openness for us politicians, like all other people, to be wrong. Doubt makes a person humble.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As someone who has been here during the debate, I have realized that today's debate concerns one of the Riksdag's most important functions, namely to scrutinize the government. The purpose is, for example, to detect things that need to be adjusted or clarified in the Government Offices' handling and processing of matters in order to contribute to predictable and equal processing routines, regardless of, for example, departments, and in this way strengthen confidence.

A recurring review concerns the composition of the government and the organization of the government's work. In that, the committee follows how the number of officials in the Government Offices develops over time. We can observe that it has remained somewhat constant for a very long time.

We have also reviewed government protocols from 2023, with a particular focus on the sub-protocols for the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise. We point out the importance of announcing regulations well in advance before the regulation enters into force – at least four weeks, or in exceptional cases two weeks, before the entry into force. This is important so that both individual citizens and authorities have time to prepare for the change that is to occur.

Another issue we have examined is appeals of decisions to establish or expand nature reserves. The Committee notes that processing times can be long, likely due to the difficult trade-offs that may need to be made. However, there are cases where it is difficult to see that such extensive investigation would have been required or such difficult trade-offs made, but where the investigation time was nevertheless long. The Committee emphasizes the importance of an efficient and purposeful organization and simultaneously notes that the unit at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise that this concerns has worked actively to reduce processing times.

The Committee on the Constitution has also examined the power of appointment, with a particular focus on political background and gender. We can note that the proportion of agency heads appointed who have had a political background has largely been constant over the last 20 years, around 10 percent. The Committee emphasizes its view that appointments should be made on objective grounds such as merit and skill. However, it should not be disqualifying if the intended agency head happens to have a political background or a certain gender. The proportion of women is otherwise now just under half.

An examination we have conducted concerns the submission of propositions. We have noted the time between the tabling of a proposition and the date when the bill is to enter into force, as well as whether shortened motion periods have occurred. It can be noted that both the covid-19 pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine have clearly affected the number of propositions tabled less than 85 days before entry into force and which have been treated with shortened motion periods. Both of these crises have resulted in a great need to take rapid measures, as it has been necessary to depart from the usual procedure. The committee points out that a well-functioning parliament presupposes that there is time for the Riksdag to process the propositions without sacrificing the time established from the promulgation of regulations to their entry into force.

Mr. Speaker! The political coordination in the Government Offices has been reviewed over time. We can state that the last ten-year period has had a greater degree of continuity than before. There are great advantages to the system that applies with jointly made government decisions. For this purpose, the Government Offices apply division and joint preparation. The joint preparation shall be completed before the political coordination. It is a good arrangement that the preparation of the cases that takes place at the ministries is kept separate from the political coordination.

A current issue that the committee has examined is the ministers' use of social media. There are both ministerial accounts, which the Government Offices are responsible for, and personal accounts that the minister themselves is responsible for. It is not always crystal clear in which role one is writing on a social media account. The committee does not wish to make far-reaching statements on how the ministers should manage their own accounts on social media, but it should be clear in which role one is writing. It is reasonable that it should be clear whether a comment is to be seen as part of the performance of official duties.

The consular support for deprived Swedish citizens abroad is another issue that we have examined. UD makes continuous collective assessments of how particularly complicated cases are handled, what measures should be taken, and whether the case needs to be raised to a higher political level. We can state that the initial period of such a case is of great importance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the committee has examined the authorities' reports on how EU legal acts are incorporated. This occurs in different ways in different authorities. The committee emphasizes that the authorities have an obligation to inform the government of which regulations the authority has issued and to provide the basis to the Government Offices that is needed for it to be able to fulfill its reporting obligation.

In some cases, the Swedish regulations go further than the EU act. It should be coordinated with the government if the agency regulations go further than what the government considers necessary. Such a coordination must take place earlier than when the already decided regulations are handed over and reported to the EU.

With this rapid overview of a thick report, I propose that the report be added to the records.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As no one can have escaped, we have before us the report Review of the Ministers' Exercise of Duties and the Handling of Government Matters with the identification number 2024/25:KU10. After the front page, it perhaps ends somewhat formally and boringly with that.

It is a fantastic report, a wonderful report, produced by the Committee on the Constitution with very great help from its secretariat and with the members' comments, questions, and suggestions along the way. Here are carefully elaborated texts and tables based on previous and new compilations as well as all the explanations and references that characterize a solid piece of work.

It is only fair to tip one's hat and extend a warm thank you to the committee secretariat for this. It feels a bit trivial to suggest that the report be added to the records, but that is the opportunity that is available here. So I do so here and now.

With that said, and with what my committee colleagues have spoken about, I would like to make a cautious attempt to illustrate a few sections so that they perhaps get a small taste of life, what it is actually about.

Mr. Speaker! I too have thought about the section on the government's submission of bills, that is, what describes how bills are handled from the moment they leave the government until they have been voted on in the Riksdag and, in most cases, also become laws that have entered into force. In the report, there is a little over a page of reflections and conclusions that, in some points, I think should be particularly noted.

Mr. Speaker! Many of us have surely, one or more times in our company with friends, neighbors, relatives, or complete strangers, said: Yes, you know, one is a bit of a time optimist now. This usually does not mean very much. In my case, perhaps I have to apologize to my daughter for the fact that there are still some half-finished things in the hallway for a few more days while I travel to Stockholm.

The same time optimism and, at times, common impatience, which in itself is not anything bad, perhaps also characterizes the government's handling of the bill's work. Of course, a sharp-tongued committee such as KU does not pass unnoticed, and we write about it in the committee's position.

The committee notes that even though there are not more bills than before the pandemic that have a shortened preparation time in the Riksdag, the shortened time has tended to become even shorter. That is, of course, not so good. The main rule is and must continue to be that the Riksdag and the committees shall be able to do a proper job.

I must take a bit of a detour and add a perspective that was presented by our vice chair Louise Meijer a short while ago. I become a bit thoughtful about this with fast-tracks, that the investigations are carried out in a shorter time with the help of full-time employed investigators or sole investigators.

We have options that involve investigations with reference groups and parliamentary investigations. It is clear that it goes faster on a fast track. But then one loses part of the point that lies in reference groups and parliamentary investigations, namely that part of the discussion has already been done when the investigation is submitted.

This means that the time that the fast-track investigation needs is not included later. In that case, it is even more unfortunate if there is no time for the opposition and, for all intents and purposes, also the government parties to have that discussion afterwards.

I am also a bit worried that the legislation must proceed quickly so that the new laws are not outdated or obsolete already upon entry into force. I can think somewhat spontaneously that it might then be better if they are not introduced at all. The legislation we decide on here should have a certain resistance to the passage of time and be able to hold for at least a number of years.

In which case have we written about this. KU therefore sends, with a hope, or an urging, regarding foresight, preparedness, situational awareness and knowledge of the Riksdag's work processes to the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! When I was young, the expression "to be sent home at the consulate's expense" was common. That was the case when I was out hitchhiking. That was the last thing I was told: Now see to it that you don't get sent home. Perhaps there are others here who remember that.

For those of us who have had the luck of never being anywhere near needing to ask for help, whether abroad or here at home, it may be difficult to imagine. My simple investigations into the matter indicate that the period around the turn of the century, meaning the last 25 years, involved a certain shift in these issues.

From potentially being a real possibility, there has since been a clear tightening. Consular assistance now comes as a kind of last resort, after relatives, credit cards, loans, and other conceivable solutions have been considered and dismissed. Good so, I think.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a subject related to this that we need to talk about, namely deprived Swedes abroad. Every year, a couple of three hundred cases are added, and a couple of hundred can be concluded. It fluctuates a bit. But in broad strokes, it is in that order of magnitude. The Committee on the Constitution has monitored that development for many years and informed the Riksdag on how it stands, based on information from UD and the foreign authorities.

There are a couple of aspects of the figures that cause concern for me. Firstly, it is stated without further specification that the number, as it is called, of complicated cases seems to be increasing; secondly, we do not actually know quite how long-lasting such cases are, or for that matter how long they can become. It is unsatisfactory not to know whether it is a few cases that continue year after year or if the vast majority are decided over the course of days, weeks, or months.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish-Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak turned 60 years old a couple of months ago. He was imprisoned in Eritrea in 2001 after, together with others, calling for democratic reforms. He has never been brought to trial, and it is unclear where he is, how he is doing, and what he is actually accused of.

Dawit Isaak received the Harald Edelstam Prize last November. Harald Edelstam was, as many know, an ambassador in Chile and saved the lives of many activists and others during the military coup in 1973, more than 50 years ago. It was certainly not recorded in the same distinct way as today, but it was clearly many cases – or individual fates, if you will. The memories live on, not least among those who eventually ended up as refugees in Sweden.

Another matter is the Swedish-Chinese book publisher Gui Minhai, who also turned 60 last year. Since 2015, for nearly ten years, he has been imprisoned in China on extremely unclear grounds.

We must also not forget Ahmadreza Djalali, the Iranian-Swedish researcher in disaster medicine from Karolinska Institutet, who has been imprisoned in Iran since 2016 and sentenced to death for an alleged espionage crime.

It is cases such as these three that capture our attention, sympathy, and care. They have all three, for many years, been part of the case statistics, but unfortunately among those who, despite consular support and other work, also political, which has surely been ongoing behind the scenes, have not succeeded in reaching a solution. One wonders cautiously if there are more such cases.

For the cases of Gui Minhai and Dawit Isaak, an inquiry commission was appointed in 2021 regarding the work of the government, the UD, and the foreign authorities, with the aim of evaluating and potentially proposing changes. The commission found that the work in itself was characterized by both intensity and commitment, but that there were also some shortcomings, particularly in the initial stages of their detentions. A number of conceivable measures were proposed, and the work with these continues. Hopefully, they will be able to lead to fewer cases and thus fewer people who suffer ill now and in the future.

My proposal is that the report be added to the records. My hope is that the cases I have spoken about can quickly reach a solution.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! My colleagues have explained the conclusions we have in the KU's report and which we are submitting to the records today. The text in the report may not always convey stories that are as vivid as those being presented here.

I thought I would make an attempt to provide a historical perspective on today's review. The Committee on the Constitution has been active since 1809. Sometimes one can wonder how different it was 200 years ago, when the committee was formed, compared to today. Several of the matters that we have handled in the annual autumn review probably did not even exist in the imagination of the members at that time.

A subject that I suspect was already relevant in 1809 is hidden under the heading Certain administrative matters. At that time, the KU examined how the king exercised power, and now it concerns how the government exercises the same. A question concerning the exercise of power is over how long the matters are allowed to be handled. What is a reasonable time?

Simple, fast and cost-effective without compromising legal certainty – that is what it says in the Administrative Procedure Act. Those are the requirements for how cases should be handled today. Long processing times do not only create uncertainty but can also lead to personal and financial losses for those involved.

Sometimes there are reasons why it takes time, not least in complex matters. With all the knowledge we have today, the complexity usually increases. But sometimes there are no visible reasons why the processing has dragged on. KU repeatedly reviews just processing times, so also this year. This time it particularly concerns the government's decisions upon appeal of the establishment of nature reserves. There is more to do here, we will come to in the review, even though the department within the responsible ministry that handles the issue is actively working to shorten processing times.

Maybe it went faster before, when one went to the King. That is what, for example, Spann-Karin from Dalarna did to resolve a dispute over the ownership of a cottage. She received a quick decision from the King and also took a hat home with her. Maybe it was better before from a speed perspective. On the other hand, the complexity we have today requires that we have a government offices with different competencies that handle it, even if it should happen a bit faster sometimes.

Mr. Speaker! The fastest way to convey a message or information when the KU was formed was to send a courier on horseback. The 1809 KU would probably have choked if they had seen the amount of information that reaches us every hour, and even every minute, today. Digital platforms and social media with constantly updated feeds in today's information society are both an asset and a challenge.

Review of the State Council's performance of duties and the handling of government matters

The government and the ministers also need to adapt to today's ways of reaching out with information and be active in the channels available. It is, however, important, just as KU emphasizes in its opinion, that it is made clear to the greatest extent possible when the use of personal accounts in social media constitutes a part of the performance of duties. Official information from the government should, to the greatest extent possible, be communicated in the government's own channels, and the ministers' own accounts in social media shall only be used as a complement. In this way, one can be sure of where the information comes from in today's large flow of information - and sometimes also of disinformation.

Mr. Speaker! In the year 1809, Sweden had fought a war against Russia. It was neither the first nor the last war that Sweden participated in. Peace in Europe and cooperation between Europe's countries in the form of the EU, perhaps someone dared to dream of even in 1809, but it was only realized after two devastating world wars.

The current Committee on the Constitution probably had other matters to consider than how the Government Offices can fulfill its duty of information regarding agency ordinances issued to incorporate EU legal acts.

That Sweden is part of a union with a parliament that, alongside our national parliament, has the right to enact laws is preferable to war and misery, every day of the week. However, it is important that the government has a good overview of the regulations that the authorities issue by reason of the legislation that takes place at the EU level. Equally important is that the government is informed before a regulation that goes further than necessary is issued - this as part of ensuring that Sweden does not over-implement EU decisions.

Mr. Speaker! Even though the KU's investigations have probably looked different over time depending on the period that the members at the time were appointed to handle, the principle has been the same: to examine that power is exercised in accordance with our laws.

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)