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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time of rapidly deteriorating security. Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine continues with unabated brutality. The European security system, which was built up after the Cold War, is seriously damaged. At the same time, we see how the global balance of power is shifting and how great power rivalry once again characterizes international politics.

Even in our immediate vicinity, tensions are increasing. American statements and claims linked to Greenland and the Arctic show how strategic interests are increasingly being linked to territory, resources, and military presence. It is a development that affects the entire North Atlantic area and thus also Sweden's security.

In such a time, not only our military readiness but also our democratic institutions are being tested. When the world around us becomes more uncertain, the constitutional order must function with precision, clarity, and accountability. Government power must be exercised correctly, in accordance with the rule of law, and in close interaction with the Riksdag. It is against that background that the work of the Committee on the Constitution becomes particularly important.

The Riksdag bears the ultimate responsibility for scrutinizing the government, and the government rests on the confidence of the Riksdag. When much is at stake, there must be no ambiguities regarding how power is exercised in Sweden. It is also against that background that we today discuss the Committee on the Constitution's autumn review. This review is not about world politics, but about how government power is exercised in Sweden and how the Riksdag fulfills its responsibility to scrutinize it.

The work of the Committee on the Constitution is rarely eye-catching in form, but it is fundamental in its content. It is about how government power is exercised in practice and about order, responsibility, and predictability in the daily governance of the country. It is in these very questions that it is decided how well our constitutional system functions.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's task is to safeguard the form in which government power is exercised. It concerns how decisions are made, how cases are prepared, and how responsibility is actually taken. At least once a year, the committee reports the observations that are worthy of the Riksdag's attention. It is this collective picture of the government's work that we now present.

This year's autumn review does not concern political issues but the machinery of the state administration itself. It may be perceived as technical, but it is precisely in these processes that legal certainty and trust are tested in practice. The committee has followed the developments within the Government Offices regarding both scope and organization.

The Government Offices must be able to meet the demands of the times but at the same time be characterized by clarity and accountability. When the organization changes, it is crucial that the roles in the Government Offices, the departments, and the agencies do not merge. Coordination may be necessary, but it must not occur at the expense of a clear distribution of responsibility.

We have also reviewed the government's decision-making procedures. Ordinances need to be promulgated well in advance before they enter into force, and decision-making must follow established procedures. That ministers who have signed decisions have also participated in the meetings is a fundamental prerequisite but at the same time something that in this review has shown to require constant attention. In the review of administrative matters, the committee has seen examples where issues that should have been handled early in the process have sometimes been delayed. This concerns, for example, decisions on inhibition and stay of proceedings. Government matters shall be handled efficiently and forward-looking without compromising legal certainty.

The committee has also reviewed how the government handles submissions from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. These are important tools for identifying deficiencies in legislation and application. We have noted that certain cases have remained pending for a long time without a decision. This risks undermining the system's credibility.

Furthermore, we have examined how the functions for security and crisis management within the Government Offices have developed. The Government has great freedom to organize its work, but organizational changes must be well-considered, followed up, and documented. Clear processes and functioning flows of information are crucial, especially in a more uncertain global situation.

The legislative work has been another important area for the review. The committee emphasizes the importance of the referral process and the central role of the Council on Legislation for quality and legal certainty. We note that the government primarily takes the Council on Legislation's views into account, but also that the number of legislative proposals that meet with serious criticism has increased in recent years. When the government chooses not to follow the Council on Legislation, the reasons must be presented clearly and openly.

The committee has also examined the governance of the state's commercial enterprises. Problems remain regarding oversight and clarity in the regulatory frameworks. Differences in governance must be conscious and justified. The financial follow-up needs to be structured and transparent.

In conclusion, the committee has reviewed the government's contacts with the Foreign Affairs Committee. We note that a deteriorating global situation has led to closer contacts and shorter lead times. This development is consistent with the Foreign Affairs Committee's constitutional role and reflects the demands imposed by the international situation.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's review is not loud. It is methodical and objective. But precisely for that reason, it is important. In a time of rapid change and increased uncertainty, this work contributes to stability, accountability, and trust.

With this, I submit the Committee on the Constitution's annual autumn review to the Riksdag.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming everyone who is following this speech on TV, via the internet, or from the gallery here in the Riksdag. We are now presenting the review of the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that the Committee on the Constitution's task is not to conduct politics but to examine how government power is exercised and how responsibility is taken in practice. The Committee addresses several important issues in report KU10. I intended to go a little deeper into two areas of review.

The Committee has examined the government's referrals as well as propositions to the Council on Legislation from 2019 onwards. A similar review was last conducted in 2018. We can read that in half of the cases, the Council on Legislation has provided either comments or its own proposals. A majority of the inputs have been of a legal-technical nature and had a major focus on how the application of various legislative proposals interacts with other regulations. This can involve comments concerning issues of whether a legislative proposal is compatible with current constitutional laws or whether the requirements for legal certainty have been met.

Just when it comes to the review concerning the Council on Legislation, the Committee on the Constitution has highlighted that the processing of referrals is vital and an important part of the work to achieve a high quality in future legislation. Information shall be gathered from expertise, and there shall be a reasonable amount of time to consider the proposals and to submit a referral response.

Mr. Speaker! Let us proceed to the second review matter that I intended to address. We have today three state-owned enterprises: Svenska kraftnät, Luftfartsverket, and Sjöfartsverket. The Committee on the Constitution has reviewed how the government governs these three state-owned enterprises.

The activities of the state-owned enterprises are regulated through various laws and regulations, and the governance resembles in many ways the governance of other government agencies. At the same time, there are several specific rules and exceptions that only apply to our state-owned enterprises.

The activities of the state-owned enterprises are in turn regulated by the government's regulatory letters, which consist of instructions on the direction in which the government wants the state-owned enterprises to operate.

The Committee on the Constitution's review shows, however, that there is no unified overview in the Government Offices of which specific provisions and exceptions apply. This in turn makes it difficult to obtain a clear picture of the regulatory framework governing the state-owned enterprises, which means that the governance risks being perceived as unclear.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome that the governance of state-owned enterprises is being reviewed, just as for agencies, as we are not convinced that governance in the way it currently occurs is optimal. We see that there is an inertia for many agencies to transition when new directives from a newly appointed government are to be implemented. This is an issue that we will certainly have reason to return to.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to financing, the business entities differ from other government agencies in that their activities are primarily financed by fees instead of appropriations. In this review, the committee emphasizes the importance of an ongoing dialogue regarding the economic situation as well as careful considerations regarding how projects and assignments shall be financed.

We have looked at the annual authority dialogue and can state that the agendas are often generally formulated. They are not as information-rich as one might have hoped. This makes it difficult to discern what has actually been discussed at the meetings.

The Committee therefore considers that the documentation prescribed in the Ministry of Finance's circular on annual agency dialogues is a good arrangement and presupposes that corresponding documentation is also prepared for the dialogue with the state-owned enterprises. Let us safeguard and work for increased transparency in our state-owned enterprises and not least in our agencies.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say that it would take far too long to go into detail on various reviews. But if one wishes to take part in this extensive review with the designation KU10, it is available on riksdagen.se.

I and my colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution, and our office which summarizes and prints all documents, continue to work together forward to take Sweden in the right direction, which is of great importance not least considering what is happening in our immediate vicinity and in the world around us.

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are considering today concerns one of the most important oversight functions in our democracy – the Committee on the Constitution's review of the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters.

This review is not some technical formality. It is a cornerstone of our constitutional order, part of the extensive system of checks and balances that our forefathers once built into the Instrument of Government. This occurred primarily in the Instrument of Government of 1809, which also formed the basis for the formation of the Committee on the Constitution. The Swedish Committee on the Constitution is, moreover, the world's oldest parliamentary committee. It is binding, Mr. Speaker. It is through this review that the Riksdag – the representatives of the people – can assure themselves that executive power is exercised in accordance with law and good practice.

Order and regularity and correctness in the highest administration is one of the Committee on the Constitution's core areas. Ultimately, it is about safeguarding the citizens' trust in the public sector, about the rule of law, and about the democratic processes. A well-functioning administration is not just a goal in itself. It is a prerequisite for our society to function.

Mr. Speaker! In the report we are debating, the results of a number of different audits are presented, and I will touch upon some of them. I want to begin with the part that perhaps in the greatest extent has bearing on the very dramatic events that we can all follow in the news reporting and which the committee chair Jennie Nilsson touched upon just now. I am thinking then of the developments in our world around us.

This is not in any way to become a contribution to the foreign policy debate, but it belongs to the parliamentary committees. But it is obvious that the international developments over the past year and the past months and days show how great the need is for our government and, ultimately, our Prime Minister to have good opportunities to follow and manage everything that is happening.

The war in Ukraine continues to rage. Tensions surrounding Greenland and the Arctic region are increasing. The situation in the Middle East remains unpredictable. Hybrid threats and sabotage against critical infrastructure are part of our everyday lives. In such a time, the Government Offices must have the ability to quickly analyze the situation, coordinate information, and provide the government with the basis required to make well-considered decisions.

Of course, many of the functions that have been built up over time within the Government Offices are important. All the capacity that exists within the Government Offices, in the departments and in central parts is highly relevant so that well-founded conclusions can be drawn and relevant decisions can be made.

It may, however, not be fully questioned by anyone in all parts that it has been very well considered to strengthen the functions in the Government Offices that have the task of analyzing the global and security situation, to handle crisis management issues, as well as to be a support for coordination and direction in this.

The scope of issues regarding foreign and security policy as well as national security that the Prime Minister has to handle in the capacity of both head of government and head of the Government Offices has, as was just stated, increased significantly. It is a consequence of the changed global situation. War in Europe, Sweden's NATO membership, and a heightened security situation require that the organization be adapted.

It is obviously very important that the Government Offices have the ability to conduct global analyses and handle the complex security policy issues that our time requires. The Committee notes that the Government Offices must, of course, be changed based on the needs that arise from time to time in order to be able to fulfill its task of preparing government matters and assisting the government and the ministers.

An adaptation of the organization has taken place to meet the demands of the times. That the government has strengthened the functions within the Government Offices for security and crisis management is necessary for us in Sweden to be able to handle the challenges we face.

At the same time – and this is important – the government has been careful to maintain a clear division of roles between the Government Offices and the ministries, as well as towards the agencies under the government. The responsibility for separate branches of activity, with associated matters and agency responsibilities, is distributed among the ministries for good reason.

The committee notes that internal processes are functioning, that information is disseminated to all concerned within the Government Offices and that issues can be collectively anchored within the government. The ambition is to coordinate tasks between different units to achieve synergies and good use of resources. This is in line with good administrative practice and responsible management of public funds.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's referrals to the Council on Legislation have been reviewed. Propositions from the parliamentary sessions 2019/20, 2020/21, 2023/24, and 2024/25 have been examined. The Council on Legislation's work is also an important cog in the larger machinery that encompasses all the different parts of democracy. Here, the ensuring of the requirements for quality, rigor, and consistency in legislation has been particularly considered.

The Council for Legislation's role is important. As is known, this government has in a proposition, among other things, proposed that the Council for Legislation's scope of review should be expanded to also include proposals concerning constitutionally protected civil and political rights.

The review in the report we are debating today shows that the Council on Legislation has submitted comments and proposals in approximately half of the cases, which is actually a somewhat lower proportion than in the previous review. A majority of the comments have been legal-technical and focused on how the provisions of different legislative proposals relate to one another.

The committee emphasizes that the referral process is an essential element in the work of maintaining good quality in legislation. It is important that the expertise of authorities is obtained and that the referral periods are well-proportioned. At the same time, the committee emphasizes the value of efficiency in the legislative process.

The Committee notes that the Government Offices' Audit Office is continuously monitoring the issue and that discussions are being held with the departments. This demonstrates a systematic quality of work within the Government Offices.

This is, however, a justified reminder. When the Council on Legislation rejects or seriously questions a bill, the government must be clearer in its justification for why it still chooses to proceed. Whether the government's position is based on a different legal assessment or on a certain political consideration should be reported clearly and openly, and here the government must improve.

Democracy and the rule of law must always carry more weight than political urgency. It is justified criticism that the Committee on the Constitution presents, and the government must, of course, take it seriously.

Mr. Speaker! I could mention some of the review that KU has conducted regarding the Foreign Affairs Committee's work, but time does not really permit that.

In summary: The report shows a government that works according to constitutional principles and adapts to the demands of the times. In an uncertain global situation with war in Europe, it has strengthened Sweden's ability to handle security policy crises and challenges. But the report also points to areas where the government can and must become better, and it is important that the criticism is taken seriously.

Order and correctness are timeless principles, which we safeguard. Where the committee points out deficiencies, the government must act. That is how a responsible government works, with humility before the scrutiny and determination to constantly improve its work.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit special to debate, or perhaps rather to report on, the review that the Committee on the Constitution is conducting. Since this is a unanimous report, I could almost just supplement what the previous speakers have said and highlight the parts that they did not quite have time for.

As the previous speaker has described, it is a solid piece of work that the Committee on the Constitution is doing even in the autumn review. It consists of many different parts, and one naturally wants to emphasize all of them. There are therefore important joint submissions from the committee in all parts, and I choose to highlight a number of them.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Committee on the Constitution have the task, on behalf of the Riksdag, to report the results of our reviews twice a year. In the spring, we conduct the perhaps more high-profile review, which specifically stems from the KU-reports that all Members of Parliament can submit regarding individual ministers. In the autumn, the committee reviews the government's work more generally and looks at the machinery, as previous speakers mentioned.

We emphasize and highlight parts that may sometimes appear as mere self-evident truths, but based on the committee's review, all parties in the Riksdag have jointly seen the need to make various joint submissions even this year. Just as previous speakers have touched upon, we naturally expect that these signals are perceived by the government, even though they may appear somewhat softer. Even though we belong to different parties, we are all eager that the government's work functions well and that the government's cooperation with the Riksdag is satisfactory.

In a world where there is a lot of talk about polarization and a high tone, I personally think it feels good that we in this committee mostly succeed in resisting this and work to find common conclusions. It is a strength that we once again submit a unanimous review report.

In the end, it is about our democracy. It is about ensuring that the rules of the game for democracy are protected and that the regulatory framework is followed regardless of which parties are in power. It is about us collectively in this chamber recognizing the importance of ensuring that both the majority and the opposition in the Riksdag can function.

Mr. Speaker! In this year's review, the committee has gone through the government protocols from 2024. We remind once again of the importance of ordinances being promulgated well in advance of their entry into force. Several ordinances have been decided upon very close to the dates of entry into force. This is not a new problem, but when it occurs, it risks undermining legal certainty. It is authorities, municipalities, regions and, ultimately, above all individuals who have to bear the consequences. Good governance requires more than quick decisions; it also requires predictability. The committee naturally assumes that government decisions are signed as they should be and that ministers who sign a decision have also been present.

Mr. Speaker! The committee has this time also reviewed certain administrative matters concerning appeals of decisions linked to the Reindeer Husbandry Act. These have primarily been handled within the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure. The committee notes that in the reviewed cases, it is not uncommon for the government to already know at an early stage that it will need to make assessments when an appeal is submitted regarding, for example, standing to appeal or stay of proceedings. Despite this, the assessment of issues that must be made at an early stage has in several cases been delayed. The handling is thus not as prompt as it should be.

The committee demands a more prompt handling, which is carried out directly when an appeal is submitted to the Government Offices. When basic procedural issues such as standing and inhibition are examined late in the process, it leads to long processing times and increased uncertainty for those concerned. This is something that KU has reviewed, among other things, regarding mining cases and permit processes in many other parts of our society. When the process is delayed and when an assessment is not made at an early stage, the whole thing becomes, of course, very difficult to reconcile with the requirements for efficiency and legal certainty that the government itself often emphasizes.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, we in the KU are clear regarding the government's handling of JO's submissions and decisions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is not only an advisor in the broadest sense but a central instrument for improving public administration. When the government lets the Parliamentary Ombudsman's cases and submissions lie and does not clearly report which measures are being taken, the Riksdag's chain of control is weakened. In our review, several cases are highlighted where submissions or decisions have not been handled at all, despite several years having passed since they were submitted. This is obviously not acceptable in the long run.

We have also, as previous speakers have pointed out, examined the legislative work. In a significant portion of the government bills, the Council on Legislation has submitted critical comments, sometimes with clear objections to the preparation. The Government has the right to proceed despite such criticism, but just as previous speakers have pointed out, transparency and clarity are then required. When the referral periods are compressed and objections are dismissed without proper reporting, the quality of the legislation risks being impaired – and it is actually we in this chamber who, in the end, shall take responsibility for the laws. The Committee emphasizes that it is important that the Council on Legislation's central role in the legislative work is not eroded.

I also want, Mr. Speaker, to mention something about the governance of the state-owned enterprises. The KU finds that the regulatory framework is unclear and difficult to oversee. There is potential for improvement for the future, especially considering the critical operations that these state-owned enterprises are responsible for, including infrastructure and other societal functions.

In conclusion, I also want to say a few words about the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We in the committee naturally have an understanding, just like everyone else, that a deteriorating global situation requires rapid handling. But even in restless times, and perhaps even more so then, it is important that we hold fast to our constitutional principles. The Riksdag's oversight must never be reduced to a formality.

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

Fredrik Lindstål (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are here to debate the report KU10 Review of the ministers' performance of duties and the handling of government matters.

In the report, the committee has addressed several areas. Many have been mentioned by previous speakers – in a very meritorious and respectful manner, I would like to say. I will do my best not to undermine the good tone that has been maintained in the debate.

In my speech, I will focus on the part of the matter concerning the review of the government's referral to the Council on Legislation.

During the review period, 580 bills were submitted, of which 454 were reviewed by the Council on Legislation. Of these, the Council on Legislation rejected 37, in whole or in part. This is to be seen as an increase.

Which matters were criticized do not appear in the report, as the KU's role is to deal with the constitutional aspect. But let me nevertheless mention a few of these matters to put the question in context.

Regarding the bill concerning anonymous witnesses, the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) rejected that one could testify anonymously in court. They argued that the proposal would not be accurate and that there was a significant risk that the defendant would nevertheless understand the witness's identity. The Council on Legislation judged that anonymous testimonies would have a very low evidentiary value and could only be used as supporting evidence.

Regarding the bill dealing with information exchange between authorities, the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) rejected parts of the proposal that schools, municipalities, and authorities should be forced to share information with the police. The criticism primarily concerned the threat to personal privacy and the risk of discrimination.

Regarding the bill dealing with security zones or search zones, the Council on Legislation required that the law on security zones be time-limited and argued that the possibility of appealing zone decisions needed to be better investigated. They also warned against unwanted side effects and arbitrary interventions.

When it comes to the bill dealing with preventive coercive measures, the proposal for expanded possibilities for secret wiretapping and surveillance for crime prevention purposes without a concrete suspicion of a crime met with strong criticism for being too far-reaching.

Regarding the bill dealing with the criminalization of participation in terrorist organizations, the Council on Legislation criticized the proposal for being unclear and unnecessary and risking leading to a too extensive criminalization that would conflict with the freedom of association.

Regarding the bill concerning restrictions on electronic communication on Sis, the proposal to give the State Institution Board greater powers to restrict youth's access to telephone and internet was rejected due to a lack of legal certainty and unclear regulation of individual rights.

Mr. Speaker! From a constitutional perspective, the Council on Legislation fulfills an important function in the preliminary review of the government's legislative proposals before these are submitted to the Riksdag, and the legislative work must not be undermined. Historically, however, it is not uncommon that this occurs. What is then important is that the argumentation for why one chooses not to follow the Council on Legislation's recommendation is clearly stated so that the Riksdag can consider the reasons behind it. Our review shows that this must be stated more clearly.

In addition to individual laws, the Council on Legislation has repeatedly criticized that laws are rushed through, that the referral periods are too short, and that the quality of the government's underlying material is then negatively affected. This has been partially acknowledged by the government, which has proposed a temporary expansion of the number of departments within the Council on Legislation so that they can keep up with the review, which is welcomed.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying a few words about the state-owned enterprises, whose governance has also been reviewed. We are, therefore, talking about Svenska kraftnät, Luftfartsverket, and Sjöfartsverket. It is still perceived as difficult to oversee the regulatory framework that governs the state-owned enterprises, and thus a risk remains that the governance appears unclear. It should also be said that because the state-owned enterprises are primarily fee-financed, in contrast to grant-financed, there is also a concern about difficulties in following the financing in a clear manner.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always a challenge to come towards the end of the speaking list when most of the day's topic has already been exhausted and highlighted from different perspectives. Since the Committee on the Constitution's review reports are, after all, part of the committee's main numbers during the year, I shall nevertheless take up some aspects from the autumn review.

The autumn review concerns certain general, administrative parts of the work in the Government Offices. Certain themes recur often, others more rarely, but one of the points is to be able to see tendencies, trends, and development over time. Not infrequently we can then state that what at first glance deviates from recent years is not particularly noteworthy seen over a longer period of time and across different governments.

One of the autumn reviews concerned something as basic as the departments' minutes and the countersigning of decisions. The committee establishes that ministers who countersign a decision shall have participated in the relevant government meeting. The committee also reminds of the importance of ordinances being promulgated in good time before they enter into force. It is necessary so that those affected by the legislative change have time to adapt their operations in good time before a new ordinance enters into force.

The committee has also examined the government's referrals to the Council on Legislation, which several speakers have touched upon. This concerns the period 2019–2025, with different government holders. Most of the comments the Council on Legislation has submitted have been legal-technical and shown how different legislative proposals relate to one another and what problems may arise when the laws are to be applied. In some cases, it has concerned whether the legislative proposal is compatible with the constitutional laws, the requirements for legal certainty, or the referral process.

The referral process is important for maintaining good quality in legislation. The referral period needs to be sufficiently long for the referral bodies to have time to familiarize themselves with the bill.

The Committee emphasizes that it is important that the Council on Legislation's role is not eroded. For the most part, the Government has followed the Council on Legislation's proposals. In the relatively few cases of bills that the Government has submitted to the Riksdag where the Council on Legislation has rejected or seriously questioned the legislative proposals, and in the cases where the Government has not followed the Council on Legislation's proposals, the Government has argued for its position. The Committee reminds of the importance that it clearly appears from the summary description of a bill to what extent the Government has followed the Council on Legislation's views and proposals.

Mr. Speaker! The scope of issues within foreign and security policy and national security that the Prime Minister has to handle has increased significantly during recent years. The Committee notes that the Government Offices need to be changed based on the existing needs in order to be able to fulfill their tasks. It is simultaneously important with the division of roles between the Government Offices and the departments, as well as towards the agencies that fall under the government. All concerned must be well-informed in the government's collective decision-making. Joint preparation and coordination are therefore important parts of the internal processes.

The Committee has also reviewed information to and deliberations with the Foreign Affairs Committee during the years 2015–2024. The Committee reminds that the Foreign Affairs Committee is regulated in the constitution to give the Riksdag extensive insight and strong influence in foreign policy. The Committee notes that the global situation to a great extent affects what is discussed in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The Government has seen a greater need to deliberate with the Committee when more difficult international situations need to be handled. Since 2022, the Committee has often been called in at short notice due to specific events. A personal reflection is that it looks like it will continue this way for a while to come.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Gudrun Brunegård was about to say that it is not so easy to say something that has not already been said when one is second to last, and that naturally also applies to the one who is last. At the same time, it is a certain honor to conclude the handover of the review to the Riksdag.

The report is certainly no blockbuster, which perhaps has been confirmed by previous speakers. At the same time, it constitutes an extremely solid review of a number of aspects of the government's work. For the most part, the report is the result of extensive and qualified work by the committee's secretariat – for which a particularly warm thanks is expressed here and now. It is easy to be a member with such support.

With this said, I would nevertheless like to take the opportunity to highlight a few things that emerge in the material. If these overlap with other things that have already been said, it may well be interpreted as being issues that we consider to be particularly important.

I will begin with the government's referrals to the Council on Legislation. For those who are following this remotely, I would like to say that the Council on Legislation consists of particularly experienced and knowledgeable lawyers and judges from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The government can choose to have the Council on Legislation review proposals for new laws, so that the proposals are not in conflict with existing legislation or to see if the new laws perhaps can be expressed better and with more precision, so that there is no discussion about them later when the laws, after parliamentary processing, are to be implemented in our justice system. It is an incredibly valuable opportunity, I think, to have the proposals reviewed by some of the foremost jurists we have.

The Council on Legislation also examines whether the proposals conflict with the constitution and whether they can be assumed to achieve what is intended for them to do, that is, whether the legislative proposals are designed with such accuracy that they achieve the intended effect. This also ensures that legal certainty is increased for those who may be subject to review following such legislation.

The Committee on the Constitution has followed the development regarding the number of referrals to the Council on Legislation and, during the last six parliamentary sessions, has followed up on these more detailed four times. Approximately four out of five bills with legislative proposals have in recent years been sent for referral to the Council on Legislation. In number, it is 454 out of 580. In approximately half of the more than 450 proposals, the Council on Legislation has had comments, and in the other half, the proposals have been left without comment. In some cases, the Council on Legislation has called for further preparation or investigation of the proposals; in others, the Council on Legislation has rejected the entire proposal or, in any case, questioned it – but this is in a limited number of cases.

In summary, the committee concludes that it is important to argue for its position in cases where the government chooses not to follow the Council on Legislation's proposal. This enables a more comprehensive preparation in the Riksdag when members of the committees concerned can follow how the reasoning has proceeded.

Mr. Speaker! Another area that has been selected for this year's review is the government's management of the so-called state-owned enterprises. There are now three of them. There were more previously, but some have been restructured into limited companies – with the state as the owner – partly to better fit into a competitive market context, and others have been shut down.

The remaining business entities are Luftfartsverket, Sjöfartsverket, and Svenska kraftnät. They are therefore not independent legal entities but are counted as government agencies under the state. They have boards appointed by the government and can be corporations with subsidiaries – but they are counted as the state. They are governed by instructions and regulatory letters and, where applicable, by specific assignments. The revenues are primarily fees, not appropriations.

The Committee notes that there are differences between the three business entities' instructions, which are not quite explained by the differences in operations. From the Committee's side, we point out that it is reasonable that these differences are both considered as well as justified and documented in order to more easily be able to make comparisons and to be able to follow the development. We also point out that the documentation regarding the annual authority dialogues, for the same reasons, could be somewhat more detailed, so that it is actually possible to discern what has been discussed.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I intended to say a few words about this year's edition of the review under the heading "Certain Administrative Matters." This year, it deals more specifically with how the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure has handled appeals regarding decisions on the surrender of usufructuary rights according to the Reindeer Husbandry Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act, which concerns how cases shall be handled, is clear, namely that a case shall be handled as simply, quickly and cost-effectively as possible – naturally without compromising legal certainty.

Appeals concerning decisions under the reindeer husbandry act can be complicated. They concern issues of standing to speak and stay of proceedings or inhibition, which is why it is important that as soon as a case reaches the department, an assessment is made of which processes must be initiated immediately so that the entire work can be carried out promptly.

The committee notes in the review of these cases – a dozen – that there have been long periods of passivity in some cases. We believe it is important that the need for any changes to the routines is reviewed, so that the concept of promptness gains a real and actual meaning.

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)