Review report

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have the honor of opening this debate today in the absence of the chair, Ida Karkiainen. Sometimes the means of transport to the capital are not as punctual as one would wish, but Ida will join us shortly.

The Committee on the Constitution submits today its review report for this parliamentary session to the Chamber. It has been a review that has tested the Committee on the Constitution in several ways, where for the third mandate period in a row we have attempted to strive to find unity among all the parties in the committee in our review report. And, Mr. Speaker, I can proudly announce that the Committee on the Constitution has also succeeded in this unity this time.

This is something that began under the Speaker's own leadership, when he was chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, together with the former Speaker Björn von Sydow, who was then vice-chairman in KU. It continued during the previous parliamentary term, under the leadership of Karin Enström as chairman and Hans Ekström as vice-chairman. And this is what we in KU have to nurture and safeguard during this parliamentary term, where we set party politics aside and focus on what is constitutionally correct, proper and relevant, and where we shall make congruent assessments of our matters and try to create a form of common constitutional basis to stand on.

Many matters have been reviewed during this investigation, and I will not be able to dive deep into all of them. But something that I nevertheless want to draw the Chamber's attention to is the way KU this year has chosen to handle some so-called statement matters under "Certain questions regarding the ministers' exercise of duties" (chapter 3). We choose there to group together a set of matters, so-called statement matters, and treat them jointly. The background to this is the increasing number of ministers over time who have been reported for statements of various kinds, where KU has stated that there must be a constitutional basis for our investigation. And in all statement matters, it has not been an obvious such constitutional basis that lies as the foundation.

We are trying here to clarify what constitutional role the Committee on the Constitution has by delimiting what we make assessments of in such a way that that which primarily concerns political debate, statements in the form of a political debate or a political discussion, was probably not what was intended when the Instrument of Government described the importance of objective and correct communication and information.

Some of those matters concern the nuclear power debate that has been ongoing, where reports have been made from several different sides against both the current government and the previous government. There are also several other matters that concern things other than nuclear power. I would like to assert that the one who is without guilt in this regard may cast the first stone. I believe that all parties in the chamber have, to some extent, contributed to increasing the number of reports concerning statements in general, without any specific constitutional basis in the matter that KU has now chosen to limit its review to.

Why do we do this then? Well, it is about trying to create a confidence in KU's scrutiny that also holds up in the long term. If KU becomes a place where one can try to accuse their opponents of having expressed themselves in a way in a political debate that one oneself does not think is entirely objective, and KU is then to become some kind of truth witness in this, then we will have a very difficult time over time maintaining the unity we have when politics seeks its way into our assessment in a way that is not purposeful, and we will also have difficulty maintaining the confidence in the committee as an institution and that it is precisely the constitutional that we scrutinize and assess, not the political.

In a politically free and open debate, there must be room for polemical and pointed statements. But with that said, the Committee on the Constitution also emphasizes the importance of statements being correct and factual in all essential respects. If we are to have a free, open and democratic debate, it is based on everyone, both ministers and other prominent elected representatives, striving for precisely this factual and correct debate. It benefits our democracy, it benefits our open conversation, and it benefits our open debate and free formation of opinion.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I can warmly recommend this as good reading.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! One of the Committee on the Constitution's most important tasks is to review the government's work, and we have done that for over 200 years.

This year's review is the fifth that I am participating in. Before each time, I have personally been a bit uncertain as to whether we will succeed in maintaining the habit that the committee acquired during the last years under the Speaker's time as chairman of the Committee on the Constitution. And I am quite pleased that KU actually managed to submit a unanimous report even this year. It is a success for us as parties to, through joint efforts, succeed in finding unity and safeguarding the tradition we have now established to safeguard KU's role and to assess governments, regardless of political color, on the same grounds.

In addition to safeguarding the common way of working we have now acquired, we have this year developed KU's work with the review, and I hope that we will be able to maintain it also in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker! What we have jointly come to - which may not seem like a particularly large step from the outside but is actually quite large for us in KU - is a new way to handle those matters concerning ministers' statements. From our point of view, we believe that contributions in a political debate should primarily be scrutinized and debated within the public conversation, not within the framework of the constitutional scrutiny that KU performs.

Over time, more and more reports to the committee have come to concern whether a statement was correct in substance or not. It is obviously always important to scrutinize ministers' statements, and the KU will continue to do so. But it is, as said, our will to limit what we scrutinize to that which is of constitutional value.

This does not mean that we consider it to be free rein for ministers to say whatever they want, but the committee specifically points out that all ministers and elected officials in leading positions have a great responsibility for how the debate is conducted, and that by making deliberately incorrect or untrue statements, one not only makes a serious political debate impossible but also negatively affects opinion formation in society, which in the long run leads to a weakening of our democracy.

As a committee, we also emphasize that a free and open debate is of fundamental importance in a democracy. Contributions to the political debate can be both pointed and polemical and should be able to be so, but we assume that they are factually correct.

I think it is a success for us in the committee that we have found a way to handle these matters and that we have a common goal for how they should be handled going forward.

Mr. Speaker! Another success this year that I think is worth highlighting is that, as we have said, we have succeeded in maintaining our habit of submitting a united report, even though we have this year reviewed two governments of different political colors. It may appear to be a simple job now that we stand here in agreement, but the road there is often quite long, and that has also been the case this year.

I would, of course, like to extend a big thank you to the committee, but above all, I want to thank the fantastic secretariat that we have at our disposal. Without the secretariat, we would definitely have had much more difficulty reaching an agreement. Without revealing too much about our work in the committee, one can perhaps state that we sometimes get stuck in our discussions, and when they become all too protracted, it is not uncommon for us to ask the secretariat to provide proposals for the next meeting. And as if by some kind of magic, they almost always manage to give us a draft proposal that captures all the perspectives and nuances that we have requested. In short, we would not manage without our secretariat. We would probably have had the review debate much later this year.

Mr. Speaker! In this year's review, we have processed 26 reports, and we point out deficiencies in 5 of the cases. It is noteworthy that 10 of the reports concern so-called statement cases, where we choose not to make assessments.

One of the matters that we have handled and assessed, and which I personally think is one of the most interesting in this year's review, is that which concerns the preparation of the secrecy surrounding the electricity support. There we find that the need for urgent preparation could, in any case, have been partially limited if the work could have been initiated earlier than it was. The short timeframe also affected the conditions for the Riksdag's handling through the shortened motion period. We also emphasize that it can only be relevant in exceptional cases to submit legislative proposals to the Riksdag with such a short time until the entry into force as was the case now.

I will return to the other matters later.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! We in the Committee on the Constitution completed a few weeks ago our annual review of the handling of government matters and the ministers' performance of their duties, the so-called spring review, which we are debating today.

This is an audit that serves to see if the government and its ministers follow our constitutional framework and, when that is not the case, to direct criticism toward those who have not behaved perfectly. Even in matters where there is no reason for direct criticism, the KU can comment to point out that there is potential for improvement.

The report we are debating today, which is titled KU20, is approximately 160 pages excluding appendices. It is therefore extensive reading for those who want to know in more detail what the KU has concluded and how we have reached that conclusion. As stated earlier, we have handled 26 cases, and in 5 of them we have issued criticism. In a further handful of cases, we are sending a referral to the government to point out that there is room for improvement.

Initially, just as Jessica Wetterling, I would like to convey a big and warm thank you to the committee's secretariat, which, with its immensely professional handling, has assisted us members during the course of the work. The secretariat has played a large part in the fact that we have such a solid final product to hand over to the Riksdag, as well as that it has been completed on time.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the committee for a well-executed job and very good cooperation. At times, the discussions have been intense – yes, sometimes almost heated – and the arguments for or against a certain direction in a matter have bounced between us. But it feels good to be able to stand here and sincerely say that the discussions in the committee have always been conducted in a respectful tone and with the ambition to move forward and reach a result in consensus.

Mr. Speaker! Being a member of the KU is work-intensive; you, Mr. Speaker, know this well. But at the same time, it is uplifting to sit in a committee that is so focused on finally reaching results by consensus and where the facts of the case are at the center of the assessments we gradually arrive at.

Certainly, every committee in the Riksdag and the way one works there has a certain character, but I still dare to assert that our way of working in the Committee on the Constitution distinguishes itself from the rest in several ways. It is our responsibility to lift ourselves above what could casually be called partisan bickering and focus on what is constitutionally important and correct. For many years, even during the time when the Speaker led the Committee on the Constitution, we have had the ambition to reach a consensus in order to thereby give the statements we make in this report special weight.

Such a respectful tone in politics, like a sincere willingness to listen to each other's arguments and take them in, I believe is needed - and actually even demanded - more than perhaps ever before. Unfortunately, we have a rather polarized debate climate today, with many times a high tone where flashy statements, pointed formulations and sometimes unfortunately also an aggressive tone are given preference over a sensible and objective debate.

Yesterday I listened to a refreshing report in P1's Godmorgon världen. It was about precisely the tedious development where politicians interrupt each other in debates and try to get in simple points even though what they say is not always entirely truthful. Some politicians in Tyresö had reacted to this. They were of different political colors and were interviewed in the report, and they had decided to work against this to at least in the municipal politics achieve a better climate for conversation.

In the extension, it is also about the trust for politicians among our voters. In the report, several randomly selected people who the reporter met at Stockholm Central Station were interviewed, and all of these lamented this tedious development. They demanded precisely more objectivity and focus on what one wants to do. They did not want to hear accusations against others for what they might have done previously, but something more forward-looking and constructive.

Here I hope that we members of the Committee on the Constitution can serve as good examples of how one can work together, all parliamentary parties regardless of political color, and despite heated debates and discussions still reach a constructive solution to the problems.

Mr. Speaker! It is gratifying to stand here after the spring's tough and intensive work and to debate with the other members of the KU. This is a report where we, as the previous speaker has pointed out, can also this year demonstrate total unity regarding our assessments.

Previous speakers have also pointed out that this report contains something new, namely that the KU concludes by actually not making any individual assessments in a dozen cases. These are cases concerning statements by ministers where the complainant has asserted that the statement is not correct. We also believe that there is a lack of a constitutional aspect that warrants a specific KU review of each case.

I really want, as several of my colleagues in the committee have done, to emphasize that this is a major step forward. I will also return to this in later speeches. It is unfortunate and not constructive with a development where reports to KU are used as a political punching bag instead of what KU is actually for: to conduct constitutional reviews. We want to put a stop to that development. We hope that other members of the Riksdag take this message to heart, so that KU can devote its efforts to what is constitutionally important.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! So it is time for the great debate on the Committee on the Constitution's first review for the parliamentary term regarding the ministers' exercise of office and the government's handling. It is special for several reasons.

The committee has examined both the previous government and the one that took office after the election; it does not happen every year that one has several governments to examine. The election also meant that the committee's composition changed. Many experienced members left the committee as a result of the election, and new ones joined instead – several are serving their first term in the Riksdag. This has certainly entailed an extra burden both for the committee secretariat and for the committee's more experienced members.

It was perhaps not entirely obvious that the consensus ambition, won over several parliamentary terms, with common positions across party and bloc boundaries, would prevail this time as well, given how many were not raised in or shaped by that culture. Thanks to the office's experienced and objective submissions and a presidium with great integrity, we have however been able to deliver a unanimous review report this time as well. It is an important milestone: the Committee on the Constitution's review addresses to what extent the ministers and the government have adhered to the constitution, Sweden's fundamental laws, and other regulatory frameworks, and has, on the whole, been able to set aside party-political loyalties.

I also wish to express my great gratitude to the highly competent secretariat and the good colleagues in the committee for spirited discussions and good cooperation.

The committee notes deficiencies in only 5 cases this year, which is probably also quite unique – I want to remember that it concerned 14 cases last year.

Something that has characterized many of the positions is the Committee on the Constitution's role as the good auditor, which does not primarily issue pompous judgments but in a more understated and restrained manner offers cooperation and points out areas for improvement. This is a beneficial approach, I think after 25 years as an elected official, of which more than 20 years were full-time and the most recent mandate period in the Riksdag. One can easily grow tired of the fact that much else is about winning quick political points.

From that perspective, it is a statement of strength that KU has unanimously concluded that a large number of complaints should be set aside entirely if they are based on a polemical and pointed statement from some cabinet minister and if the complainant desires an assessment of the truthfulness of the statement. This is hardly KU's mandate. Therefore, we have drawn a clear dividing line for which types of statements we consider reasonable to review. This applies, for example, to statements made in direct connection with the Riksdag's oversight power, as an answer to written questions from a Member of Parliament, in an interpellation debate, or when government representatives provide information on the government's position and planning. This screening welcomes the Christian Democrats.

The distinction regarding whether someone should be reported to the KU has become blurred over the years and has rather become an arena for political maneuvers. It is my and the committee's hope that the parties will take this to heart and in the future think a little more about whether something specifically qualifies for a KU report or if it is rather suitable for general political debate.

I will return to the individual chapters.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has completed its annual review of the government's work based on the reports of potential deficiencies made to the committee. I have participated for the first time, not only in KU but also in the Riksdag, and belong to that group that perhaps has not been fully raised in the spirit of KU - I hope this is taken as a promise rather than as a threat.

Some occurrences and discussions have made a stronger impression than others. One example is how fantastically the committee's secretariat has worked. With an almost magical precision, the secretariat has interpreted both vague and sometimes slightly contradictory as well as very clear but perhaps impossible proposals from the committee members – myself included. I shall also not disparage the meritorious work that the committee's presidium has done between the committee's meetings and, as far as I understand, sometimes even during the committee's meetings.

I also want to extend a thank you to our colleagues in the Riksdag, who actually make use of the opportunity to scrutinize and to ask questions. Has this gone correctly? Are these facts truly accurate? Has it led to decisions that otherwise might not have been taken? As is known, there are several opportunities to do this – a report to KU is certainly the most visible, but not the only one.

In the following post, I will address some of the matters that the committee has handled, which leads me to wonder if it could have been done in a different way.

I can initially state that this year's review, as several members have already pointed out, has resulted in that reports concerning individual statements in some cases have been handled collectively by the committee. As a newly elected member of both the Riksdag and the committee, I can think that this is a reasonable procedure. There is a point to marking that it is not the Constitutional Committee's business to decide on questions regarding politically colored statements and who is right or wrong, and thereby also save time for the committee's work.

A problem with the phenomenon of communication is that one often believes it has taken place. It is not entirely uncommon in contexts where it involves publishing things on, for example, an organization's website. Posting a press release online is hardly communication in itself. This applies, of course, not only to governments but to all types of organizations, and it does not become problematic until what one wants to say has not reached those it concerns.

Mr. Speaker! I have some points that I will carry with me into next year's reviews and perhaps above all in the political everyday life in our joint work for the sake of democracy.

To begin with, I want to say that things take time, as the excellent Danish researcher, philosopher, and author Piet Hein expressed it. This must be respected. Shortening preparation times may look like a commendable deed to demonstrate decisiveness, but it should actually be avoided – otherwise, it becomes rather the opposite.

As I said: Communication is difficult. One must be able to empathize with the recipient's circumstances in receiving a message that, for example, from the day after tomorrow, there will be no bonus for electric car purchases.

Facts must, of course, be correct. There is a kind of falling scale here – it is reasonable that information included in answers to interpellations or written questions is correct and verified against appropriate and reliable sources. At the same time, one must accept that in a debate without a script, it can become more pointed or polemical. Generally speaking, however, it is usually not a big problem to find and evaluate sources. In my area, i.e., that which concerns climate, environment, and sustainability, the number of assessed scientific articles has increased manifold over the last decades.

I request to return to these reflections in individual cases and thank you for the floor so far.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Since it is the first time I am participating in the annual spring review, I am grateful to be able to take part in the knowledge that both the Chancellery and my colleagues possess when we are to tackle and understand vastly different parts of the government's work in order to be able to review them. I am also impressed by the seriousness that permeates the committee and the striving for unity that characterizes the work within the committee. In a time of high tone and polarization, and when it is increasingly warned about the decline of democracy, stable institutions were needed that are not dragged along but which, with objectivity, tackle the tasks they are set to perform.

Mr. Speaker! Generally, we can state that we have relatively few deficiencies to report this year. This does not mean that 2022 was an exceptionally calm year. On the contrary, it was a year characterized by Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the electricity crisis, and the election campaign.

As several of my colleagues have pointed out, it is what stands out in this year's review of the Committee on the Constitution's handling of complaints. Members of Parliament's ability to report ministers and the government in cases where they believe the rules for government work have not been followed is an important part of the Parliament's control function. However, in recent years, we have seen an increased number of reports that are rather about an assessment of a statement that falls more within the scope of a political debate than a statement that should be reviewed from a constitutional perspective.

On a number of occasions over the years, the report to the KU has also been referred to as a reason for a minister not to answer questions from, for example, the media. It is a development that risks putting a lid on the ongoing debate and making it more difficult for media scrutiny.

For Members of Parliament, there are several options to exercise the control function when it comes to this type of statement, for example, written questions and interpellations. They also have the advantage of being closer in time than the KU's annual review.

Mr. Speaker! Based on this, we have chosen not to make assessments in a number of review cases concerning statements. When it concerns statements that can be considered well-prepared, for example, statements in an interpellation debate, as in the case of the statement by the then Minister for Climate and the Environment, Annika Strandhäll, regarding new nuclear power, there is still reason for the committee to assess these.

But regardless of whether it concerns a statement that we have reviewed or not, we continue to expect that statements from both ministers and elected representatives shall be objective, correct, and based on facts. We all have a responsibility to safeguard our democracy and not be swept up in a tone in the debate that, in the long run, can lead to a diminished trust in democracy. However, statements that have the character of posts in a political debate should primarily be reviewed within the framework of that specific political debate and in the public conversation.

In conclusion, and before we proceed to the individual matters, I would like to thank my colleagues and the committee secretariat for the work they have put in and the commitment they have shown during the spring. A special thanks I would like to direct to the chair and the vice-chair who have carried a heavy load during this review, as we have had several new members in the committee. They have performed their work in a very meritorious manner and with great integrity.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The bustling student boats, the whistling steamships at Strömkajen, and the brass music of the guard parade are all sure signs that summer has arrived in Stockholm. But here inside the Riksdag, the most certain sign of summer is probably the debate on the Committee on the Constitution's review report.

This year, the report is particularly important given that a unanimous committee has agreed on a very important principle: When it concerns reports on the ministers' statements, the KU's review in the future shall be delimited to statements where constitutionally justified demands can be made regarding the statements. Statements that have primarily been made as part of the general political debate, where the person who made the statement did so in the capacity of a representative for a party, are less suitable to be reviewed by the KU.

Statements made by a minister providing information in the capacity of a minister are, however, an example of when the KU can and should scrutinize the ministers. Answers to interpellations from members of the Riksdag are a good example of such things that should be scrutinized as part of the Riksdag's power of oversight.

By doing this, KU can focus on its true mission – to review the ministers' performance of their duties – instead of incorrectly claiming to be some kind of political final word. I believe that in the long run, this will increase the dignity of the submitted reports and the committee's positions, as well as benefit parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I will move on to highlighting two matters raised by the Sverigedemokraterna, where the KU has found deficiencies in the ministers' performance of their duties. One matter concerns former Foreign Minister Ann Lindes statement just before the Russian full-scale invasion that Swedish arms exports to Ukraine were not possible without changing the regulatory framework. The other matter concerns a statement by former Minister for Climate and Environment Annika Strandhäll during an interpellation debate, that is, at exactly such an occasion as the committee has determined falls within the core of its area of oversight. I will speak more about these matters further on in the debate.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I apologize for not making it in time for the beginning of the debate. Let me however be clear that I woke up in time, at four o'clock this morning, but both flights and trains were delayed. For this, both the previous and the current government deserve criticism.

Mr. Speaker, honorable members and listeners! It always feels solemn when the Committee on the Constitution holds its so-called decharge debate regarding the report that the Committee on the Constitution issues every year concerning the review of the government and its ministers - a tradition over 200 years long.

We no longer grant or deny immunity, which the KU did in the past. What we do instead is to examine and point out deficiencies if such exist. However, it is not a question of any deficiencies in pure political positions; it is important to remember that. Had it been so, we might have had eight different reports, one from each party. Instead, it concerns deficiencies in relation to the laws and rules and the practice that the government and ministers have to adhere to.

Why is consensus so important for the Committee on the Constitution? Well, for exactly this reason. The provisions of the Instrument of Government and our other constitutional laws are fixed and should be regarded in the same way regardless of the color of the government. To interpret them differently undermines both the credibility of the government's work and our constitutional laws.

We can observe that throughout all the years there has existed a kind of golden rule for the Committee on the Constitution: Just as parties in government wish for the government to function in a certain way, so do parties in opposition wish for the government to function in a certain way. This golden rule is important to remember regardless of side.

Mr. Speaker! KU has had eight years of largely unanimous audit reports, and now we can, as said, add a ninth. It was Andreas Norlén and Björn von Sydow, then chairman and vice chairman of the committee, who started the tradition, and thereafter Karin Enström and Hans Ekström have continued to manage it, just as the current members of the committee do now.

It is no simple task, Mr. Speaker. The government parties naturally want the government to be as blameless as possible, and the opposition wants the government to be reprimanded for the slightest misstep. It is easy to fall into one's own defensive line and fail to see the beam in one's own eye.

But we demonstrate continued responsibility for the importance of the Committee on the Constitution by achieving consensus. We further strengthen confidence in the Riksdag's power of oversight and, ultimately, in the Riksdag and parliamentary democracy.

I really want to thank my colleagues in the committee for a constructive cooperation. It is a new parliamentary term, we have had a change of government, and the Committee on the Constitution is a very work-intensive committee. We have at times had an intense debate, but it has always been respectful. I also want to take the opportunity to thank our secretariat, as many have done before me, which assists us members in our work in an incredibly meritorious way.

So, as to what we have found in this year's review. We have reviewed a total of 26 cases: 9 cases directed against the previous government and 17 against the current one. We have found deficiencies in 5 of the cases. Every year, between 20 and 40 reports are received, so it is neither fewer nor more than before.

I do not intend to go into the details of the matters – my colleagues will do that later in the debate. I also want to say in this context that I have not participated in the matters concerning the review of the previous government, as I myself was part of it.

However, I want to make a few short overall reflections. This concerns the matters regarding the fast-track procedure. The Riksdag cannot become a forum and an object for a fast-track procedure at any time. We have shown over the years that we are very capable of action and can act quickly when needed, but this tool shall be used very sparingly and with caution.

(TALMANNEN: Four minutes go very quickly.)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they do!

I will also say, just as I touched upon earlier, that we constitute the good auditor in many cases. It may be worth reading and noting.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that Sweden's national day was celebrated last week. Every year, the discussion arises as to why we celebrate on June 6th specifically. That Gustav Vasa was elected king is one reason. Another is that a newly established Committee on the Constitution worked out a form of government that was adopted on June 6, 1809. It is a form of government that strengthens the Riksdag's power of control in the form of a scrutinizing Committee on the Constitution - innovative for its time. Let us safeguard this body for a long time to come!

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not customary for us to request the floor from one another in the Committee on the Constitution, especially not in the scrutiny debate. But I thought I would kill two birds with one stone. First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Committee on the Constitution in general, and Ida Karkiainen in particular as chair, for a constructive and dignified work during the Committee's scrutiny this year. It has been very enjoyable to work under the circumstances that we have been able to create together, and it has been rewarding to work so closely together with Ida Karkiainen.

I also want to thank the office for the fantastic work they have done.

I hope the Speaker will forgive me for cutting the system in this way and allowing Ida Karkiainen an additional two minutes to conclude her speech.

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also really want to thank the deputy chairman of the committee, Erik Ottoson. He has not only saved me many times, as you have noticed during this debate. He is also a very constructive party, together with all the other members of the committee. I also want to thank you for this opportunity to fill out the short minutes I was given.

What I did not have time to say in the introduction was, among other things, something about our new way of working. This is something that we have discussed together. The statement cases have over a long period developed both in terms of becoming more numerous and in terms of concerning the political comments made in interview situations. We in the Committee on the Constitution find it very difficult to scrutinize these comments. Not unexpectedly, this year's statement cases largely concern energy issues and a good deal of comments regarding nuclear power. The members of the Committee on the Constitution may be well-informed on energy issues of various kinds, but the Committee on the Constitution is not the place where we are to debate nuclear power or decide on the historical development of nuclear power; that happens in other forums.

What I also wanted to say in my introduction was that there is a tendency, both regarding the previous government and the current government, that some cabinet ministers sometimes choose to hide behind KU reports in order not to comment on their policy or on a certain issue. In the committee's work, we want to remind that a KU report does not mean that a government or a cabinet minister can choose to avoid commenting on their policy or on a certain issue. It is nothing that prevents it. This is important to establish. Those were the two things I intended to say.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ida Karkiainen. I also think it is worth highlighting that when we have made our assessments in these matters, it has never been about any kind of bargaining, but it has always been about reasonable discussions about where the bar should be set. Then it may have been tense over several matters in which we then have to make congruent assessments in order to keep it together in a neat way.

I also want to express my appreciation to Ida Karkiainen and all the members of the committee, because it is precisely this that is the focus of our review. Ida Karkiainen highlights examples of cases where we have had careful considerations that have not been about party politics but have been about legal and constitutional issues, and where we have landed on something that we can also stand by. It can sting a bit when one goes home to a party group that thinks one should be able to squeeze the other side a little extra. I believe we have both experienced that in different instances. It is also not always completely simple to explain to the pure political creatures and animals who move in this chamber on a daily basis why we choose, for example, to do something so almost drastic as we have done this year with the so-called statement cases. But ultimately, it is about guarding the constitutional basis for the Committee on the Constitution's review and, in the long run, about the confidence in the institution.

Review Report Introduction

I am very much looking forward to spending the coming years in the committee together with Ida Karkiainen and the other members and continuing to guard the committee's integrity. I will let it slip that I might actually have had thoughts of seeking a different committee this parliamentary term, Mr. Speaker. But as things have turned out now, I am very grateful that my party leadership put their foot down and said something else. I am very much looking forward to the coming years!

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

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Vice Chairman Erik Ottoson for the kind words. I truly want to direct the same words back to the Vice Chairman! I, on the other hand, had clearly looked forward to continuing to be in a government position, and now that did not happen – but what can be a more enjoyable role when one is in an opposition position than to be in the Committee on the Constitution? I do not believe there is any more enjoyable role. But it is not just for that reason, but also for the issues we deal with.

I would like to take the opportunity to say that there have been moments in the history of the Committee on the Constitution where the debate has at times been somewhat heated. It has been difficult to reach each other and difficult to find the trusting conversation. I truly experience that we have a committee consisting of members who are serious and committed and who really want to move forward in this work, and that there is a consensus on how important seriousness is in this work. It is perhaps nothing that is usually uttered from this rostrum, but I believe that this debate has shown that politics can also be about us appreciating each other purely politically, even if we stand far apart on substantive issues. It feels very nice and is something to cherish.

Certain questions regarding the government's relationship to the Riksdag (Chapter 1)

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

Amalia Rud Pedersen (S)

Mr. Speaker! I see myself not only as a Swedish citizen but also as a European citizen.

As a European citizen, I am, just like all other EU citizens, part of a larger community, a European family, where I have the opportunity to travel freely between the union's countries but also the opportunity to work, study, or live as a retiree in countries other than my home country.

The European Union is important for a number of different reasons, but in times of war and crisis, it is more important than ever. We have seen this during the recent years during both the corona pandemic and the energy crisis in Europe, and not least during and after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Review Report Certain questions regarding the government's relationship to the Riksdag (chapter 1)

Before Sweden joined the EU in 1995, a constitutional investigation was conducted concerning the Riksdag's position in relation to the upcoming membership.

The Constitutional Commission concluded, among other things, that a certain weakening of the Riksdag's position could occur, as much of the decision-making power that the Swedish Riksdag had previously held would be shifted to the EU level with the membership.

In order for these decisions to be made in as good a democratic order as possible, the investigation considered that an EU committee should be established in the Swedish Riksdag. The committee would focus on consultation between the Riksdag and the government prior to negotiations and decisions at the European level.

Mr. Speaker! In this year's review of the government's relationship with the Riksdag, the Committee on the Constitution has reviewed three complaints concerning the government's relationship with and consultation with the EU Committee.

The committee has examined Infrastructure and Housing Minister Andreas Carlsson's failure to consult with the EU Committee and the Transport Committee before the meeting with the EU's transport ministers.

The committee has also examined Equality Minister and Deputy Minister for Employment Paulina Brandberg's consultation with the Riksdag ahead of the Epsco meeting, which was to address directives on better working conditions for platform work.

Furthermore, the committee has reviewed Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson's consultation with the EU Committee regarding the EU's annual budget for 2023.

The different reviews give rise to more or fewer points of view from the Committee on the Constitution.

In the latter review of the consultation regarding the EU's annual budget, a unanimous committee notes that it would have been natural if the government and the EU Committee, jointly at a consultation, could have agreed on how Sweden would cast its vote if the negotiations turned out in different ways, or alternatively if the government had returned to the EU Committee for a new consultation before the Council meeting.

In the review that the committee has conducted of Equality Minister and Deputy Minister for Employment Paulina Brandberg's consultation with the Riksdag ahead of the EPS meeting, the committee finds that a prerequisite for the Riksdag to be able to have insight and real influence and affect the decision-making processes is that the EU Committee receives written documents in a reasonable time to be able to prepare for a consultation and also time to discuss in the party groups.

Mr. Speaker! I can state after the spring review that the concerns that the constitutional law commission highlighted before Sweden became a member of the European Union are, to some extent, unfortunately relevant today. That is not how it should be.

In the Instrument of Government, Chapter 10, Section 10, it states that the Government shall continuously inform the Riksdag and consult with bodies appointed by the Riksdag regarding what occurs within the scope of the cooperation in the European Union.

This is described in more detail in the Rules of Procedure. The deliberations are intended to strengthen the committees' role in the Riksdag's work with EU issues. There, the importance of involving the committees early in the process rather than later is also described, so that the committees have the opportunity to deliberate with the government before the issues are placed on the Council agendas in Brussels.

That the committees should be involved early was also something that the parliamentary EU committee, which in 2016 was tasked to investigate the Riksdag's work with EU issues, came to.

Involving both the committees and the EU Committee at an earlier stage is once again a recommendation from this year's review. If we want Sweden to be a strong voice in the European family, the Riksdag's position and knowledge on substantive policy issues must be improved. There is a great responsibility on the government to enable the Riksdag to do just this.

While the committees can summon the government for their own deliberations, it is precisely the government that possesses a massive knowledge advantage in relation to the Riksdag's organs. The so-called EU machinery operates at a rapid pace. Agendas can be changed quickly, and in those cases, the Riksdag must already be involved in the process. It is a prerequisite for the Riksdag to be able to feel confidence in and trust that the government acts on behalf of the Riksdag in the EU. Therefore, the government needs to constantly ensure that it works organically with both the committees and the EU Committee.

A successful consultation or a well-prepared position is not evidence of a well-functioning relationship in the long run. On the other hand, three reports and reviews of a government that had been in power for three months at the time are clear signs that both the government as a whole and individual ministers need to review and develop how they work in the best way with the committees and the EU Committee on current EU issues. There, the government now has an important task ahead of it.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In this review report, KU20, in the section "Certain questions regarding the government's relationship to the Riksdag," we have four of KU's handled matters. Three of these concern the EU Committee.

We can begin by stating that the purpose of the EU Committee is consultation and information between the Riksdag and the Government. Unlike the Riksdag's various committees, the EU Committee does not prepare proposals for Riksdag decisions. The Government consults with the EU Committee before each meeting of the Council of the European Union, the so-called Council of Ministers. This is done to obtain a direction for how Sweden should position itself in various issues and matters to be negotiated and decided by the Council of Ministers.

When negotiations occur, the consultation sometimes needs to take place in a different way than a formal physical meeting. For example, the consultation can be conducted over the telephone, because the government may need to receive a new mandate from the Riksdag depending on how the negotiations proceed. It is the EU Committee that gives the government the mandate for which opinion should be put forward in the EU negotiations. Although there is no legal requirement for the government to follow exactly what the EU Committee has decided, the KU has established that the government must have very good reasons if it does not follow the mandate it received from the EU Committee. It is these parameters that make this a delicate dynamic, combined with practice, agreements, and guidelines.

Every year, it is customary for KU reports to be submitted concerning precisely the dynamics between the Riksdag and the Government and the work in the EU Committee. This review period saw three such reports. The committee has processed these in the usual manner, and regarding the specific positions, I refer to the written report.

I consider the fourth and final case to be a matter of principle. It concerns the Minister for Education's actions during the parliamentary question period.

The background is that School Minister Lotta Edholm was reported to the KU in connection with her appointment as a minister. We will come to that matter later; I can mention already now, to provide further context, that it was a matter where we had no objections to how she acted. But after the minister was reported to the KU, she participated in the question period in the Riksdag on October 27, 2022, where she received questions about market schools, the position of independent schools, and so on. On four occasions when the minister was asked questions about the government's school policy, she chose not to answer in consideration of the upcoming review in the Committee on the Constitution.

On one of the questions concerning the government's future policy, the Minister for Education answered as follows: "Mr. Speaker! I choose not to answer this question now, out of consideration for the proceedings that will take place in the Committee on the Constitution in due course."

Another Member of Parliament asked the Minister the following: "Is there anything regarding the Liberals' and the government's school policy that we will be able to ask about until June next year, when KU has finished its handling?" Lotta Edholm then answered the following: "Mr. Speaker! I have very great respect for the Riksdag's Committee on the Constitution. I therefore choose not to comment on this as long as I have received that advice."

That answer was not entirely spot on, and I must say that it was rather poor advice that the minister received.

The Committee notes: "The question hours are an important part of the Riksdag's constitutionally mandated oversight power, and through the regulation of them, the individual Member of Parliament's right to question a minister regarding matters concerning his/her performance of duties is anchored. The question hours fulfill an important function within the parliamentary system through the opportunities they provide the Riksdag for information, debate, and oversight of the government. - - - The Committee wishes to emphasize that a report to the Committee on the Constitution cannot be considered to mean that ministers are prevented from answering questions regarding the government's policy."

It is good that KU takes a stand against this and that, in my opinion, it appears in the investigation that the minister himself understands that it went wrong this time. I further consider it to be an important recurring theme that KU safeguards the principle of inquiry and the Riksdag's power of oversight.

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! We should be very proud of our constitution here in Sweden, a constitution that regulates Sweden's system of government. I am proud to be a member of the Committee on the Constitution, which I will continue to refer to as KU.

KU has the task of controlling the government but also of auditing the ministers' exercise of their duties. We in KU are the Riksdag's control function. This spring, we in KU have devoted ourselves to auditing ministers following reports that have been submitted. If a minister has been reported to KU, it is we who examine whether the report has any substance – that is, whether the minister has done something wrong in a constitutional sense or if the report is at a so-called "peti-meter" level. Some would probably argue that "peti-meters" are uttered, but then we end up in the question of statements, and as is known, KU does not place any extensive scrutiny on statements.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to mention some of the matters concerning the government's relationship with the Riksdag, and primarily the relationship with the Riksdag's EU Committee. The government has an information advantage in these matters and shall therefore inform the EU Committee about the issues to be decided upon in the Council of the European Union. The government shall also consult with the EU Committee on how the negotiations in the Council shall be conducted. The government simply wants support for the position to be put forward in the Council.

In this context, it is important to point out that the mandate the government receives from the EU Committee is not formally binding – but as a practice, or as a gentlemen's agreement, one should assume that the government will not take a position that stands in conflict with what the EU Committee has expressed during the consultation.

We have examined three matters, Mr. Speaker, concerning the government's consultations with the EU Commission. One was about TEN-T maps, and honestly, I think one either needs to be a politician or a bit of a railway infrastructure nerd to keep up with the debate surrounding trains, main lines, and trans-European transport networks, which TEN-T stands for. I at least learned that word when I became a member of the KU.

In the matter concerning the regulatory framework that shall build up a coherent and high-quality European transport network until 2050, a report was made to the KU. The reporter argued that Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson had not consulted with the Riksdag's EU Committee and the Transport Committee regarding deleted sections for main lines on the TEN-T maps. The KU notes in its position that it is the Riksdag that decides on the economic scope for measures in the state transport infrastructure and that it is the government that, based on the Riksdag's decision, determines which infrastructure projects shall be implemented.

Another matter concerned the EU's platform directive. It concerns better working conditions for platform work, that is, work organized via digital platforms. We surely all recognize this from our everyday lives. We can have food delivered to the door and book a doctor's appointment online, to give two examples. Today, nearly 28 million people in the EU work via digital platforms.

The report concerned that the EU Committee had not been given access to documents or received information about changes in the case within a reasonable time in order to be able to familiarize themselves with the case and the council document that makes it possible to influence the positions that Sweden shall take before decisions in the EU. These decisions are binding and important for Sweden.

According to the Government Offices' guidelines for consultations in the EU Committee, the written basis for consultation shall be submitted no later than twelve o'clock on the Monday of the same week that the committee meets on Friday. This very Monday, there was no consultation document. Nor was there any document on Thursday.

Minister for Equality and Deputy Minister for Employment Paulina Brandberg believed that the council document would arrive much faster, as it is incredibly unusual for council documents to arrive as late as occurred in this case. The explanation given to the department was that it was unclear whether there would be a majority in the Council of Ministers for the directive or not, and whether it would become a decision point or an information point.

One cannot ignore that it is the EU's decision-making process that sets the framework for the consultation between the government and the EU Commission. The government does not have control over the decision-making process within the EU or how the negotiations are conducted. The Minister had no other ambition than to provide the EU Commission with a basis that was as current as possible.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the matter regarding the consultation in the EU Committee on the EU's annual budget for 2023. During the vote on the EU's annual budget in the Council, the government abstained, as the agreement between the Council and the European Parliament involved an increase compared to the original proposal. The government's position was to advocate for an effective and restrained budget policy within the EU.

How did we then land in these matters in KU, when we neither directed any criticism towards anyone nor stated any deficiency? One could say that a well-functioning consultation between the government and the EU Committee is a prerequisite for any potential ambiguities to be resolved. The dialogue with the government is of great importance, and the EU Committee's need for information shall be met as far as possible, even in time-critical situations.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In this chapter, the matters concerning reports regarding the government's connection to the Riksdag are addressed.

I have only printed out half of my speech, so I simply have to take it from my head. So it can go! It is good that the Committee on the Constitution has a unanimous report, because that means what I intended to say about the Minister for Education's actions during a question period is what previous speakers have already touched upon. Therefore, I will only speak about the complaints concerning the government's consultations with the EU Commission in various matters. I apologize.

What characterizes these matters is that they are constantly recurring, and it is not particularly surprising. Regardless of the government's political color, matters concerning consultations with the EU Committee return to the committee almost every year. The complaints usually consist of the complainant considering that the government has fallen short in its anchoring in the EU Committee.

Unfortunately, there is something that grates in the matters that recur every year. Probably much of it is due to the fact that there is a power imbalance that is difficult to contend with as the opposition. Partly it is surely due to the fact that the EU machinery does not take into account the process that we have in Sweden. It would truly be desirable to find an arrangement where the process in the EU Committee functioned better for all involved.

Personally, I believe that many of the referrals that reach the committee are often a result of the information advantage that the government has over the Riksdag. Especially in more complicated issues, consultation is important so that the parties can ask the right questions, but also so that they receive sufficient underlying material.

If one feels that one does not have access to all the information or believes that one has not been given all the information on the table, it is difficult to form an opinion. I believe that one can then get a feeling that something is wrong, and therefore makes a report to KU so that KU can investigate this. Sometimes perhaps the communication between the government and the EU Committee could be improved by the government continuously updating the Committee that there is no information.

KU considers that the EU Committee needs to receive a written basis from the government that is as complete as possible and that it is handed over as soon as practically possible. This is a prerequisite for the consultation between the government and the EU Committee to be meaningful. In this way, all parties can also be given space to discuss and anchor a well-founded position. These processes in the EU Committee often occur within a very limited timeframe, which easily leads to stress in all levels. We also naturally note that the government unfortunately does not have power over the EU machinery on its own. One simply cannot always control how the decision-making process is conducted in the EU.

However, the government always has an information advantage regarding what is happening in the negotiations within the EU. Therefore, the government has an extra responsibility to provide the EU Committee with the necessary underlying material.

KU considers that in situations such as the current ones, there may sometimes be reason for the government to update the EU Committee on the status of the matter. We also emphasize the importance of dialogue between the government and the EU Committee so that the EU Committee's need for information can be met as far as possible.

Now my concluding remarks will be a bit strange because I have not spoken about the Minister for Education's actions during the question period. We found a deficiency there, however. I personally think that the matters concerning the EU Committee specifically are more interesting and important in this chapter, because they show a common problem for all the parties in the Riksdag in relation to the government and how we should communicate with each other in the best way. This is a good example of when the good auditor's accompaniment is perhaps just as important as the matters where we make a firmer accompaniment that something was not good.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, we are addressing matters concerning the government's relationship with the Riksdag. Several have already touched upon the importance of the government's anchoring of its EU policy in the Riksdag.

I agree with Jessica Wetterling and take up from where she left off. She did say that it is precisely those matters concerning the government's relationship with the EU Committee that are the truly interesting ones in this chapter. I agree and note that the matter in which we have found a deficiency is the one concerning Lotta Edholm, which some have touched upon. I intended, however, to stick to the EU matters.

Three of the four matters in the section concern exactly this. In two of these matters, we provide recommendations to the government as there is room for improvement.

It is far from the first time that reports have been submitted to the KU regarding exactly how the government anchors its EU policy in the Riksdag. In recent years, we have repeatedly seen reports in this area. Perhaps it has to do with an ever-increasing awareness of how decisions at the EU level actually affect us here in Sweden. In that case, it is positive that the opposition is on its toes to ensure that the government truly fulfills its obligation to anchor its EU policy in the Riksdag.

We should, by the way, not refer to it as "EU policy". In practice, the issues discussed at the EU council meetings are matters that have a very high degree of domestic political significance. Therefore, we should avoid this term.

Mr. Speaker! As I just said, many of the decisions taken within the framework of our EU cooperation have a major impact on us in Sweden. Therefore, it is extremely important that the Riksdag gains insight into what line the government intends to pursue within the framework of that cooperation. This happens in practice when ministers participate in Council meetings and negotiate directives, recommendations, and Council conclusions. In the Instrument of Government, it is stipulated that the government shall continuously inform the Riksdag and consult with bodies appointed by the Riksdag regarding what occurs within the framework of the cooperation in the EU, which several of my colleagues in the committee have touched upon.

The EU Committee usually meets on Fridays and addresses the agendas that are relevant ahead of the upcoming week's Council meetings. Before each meeting with the EU Committee, a commented agenda is sent out to the committee members. This specifies what the government's position is in each relevant issue on the agenda. Additionally, underlying material is usually also sent out, i.e., that which is up for consideration at the upcoming Council meeting. This material can be very extensive, and therefore the material is normally sent out on Mondays, which Susanne Nordström pointed out.

In this way, the members of the EU Committee are given an opportunity to examine the government's position on the various issues and decide whether it is something they stand behind or not.

During the Czech presidency, an EU directive was negotiated that will have a major impact on the Swedish labor market, particularly for so-called platform companies and their opportunities to operate in the market. There has been no broad political consensus on the directive among the Swedish parties, as they have held very different views on it.

Before a meeting in the EU Committee concerning this directive, which took place on a Friday in early December last year, no documents or any Swedish position were issued to the members of the EU Committee at the beginning of the week – on Monday – as is usually the case. This was due to the fact that intensive negotiations were ongoing at the EU level, and it was not clear where they would land. This led to documents being sent out only late on Thursday afternoon. They were not the final ones, but the Government Offices chose to do so anyway.

This led to great frustration among several parties in the opposition, who do not have insight into what is happening. There was therefore a discussion in the EU Committee during this point, and the meeting was adjourned. The discussion of the point actually had to be postponed until the following week. This was because several parties felt that they had not been given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the proposal and make a well-founded assessment of the material. It was, in short, difficult to know what position to take and whether it was possible to stand behind the Swedish line or not.

The whole thing led to a KU report on the handling and eventually also an inquiry of the responsible minister Paulina Brandberg. During the inquiry, Mr. Speaker, it emerged that Paulina Brandberg had thought that a finished council document would arrive and wanted to wait for it, but that did not happen. Therefore, another material was sent out late on Thursday afternoon.

KU notes that as it turned out, this resulted in the members of the EU Committee having limited opportunities to analyze the underlying material that was eventually sent out and also to anchor a well-founded position internally within respective parties. KU emphasizes that the purpose of the rules on information and consultation is that the Riksdag receives an active and real influence that makes it possible to influence in advance the positions that Sweden shall take before negotiations and decision-making within the EU. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the information to and the consultation with the EU Committee functions in a good way.

Unfortunately, in this case, the material that was eventually sent over hardly allowed for a meaningful consultation. Therefore, KU emphasizes that the government always has an information advantage regarding what occurs in the negotiations within the EU and therefore also has the responsibility to provide the EU Committee with the relevant material. In a situation such as the one in question, there may be reasons for the government to update the EU Committee with information on the status of the matter.

Here, KU underlines the importance of dialogue between the government and the EU Committee. We simply hope for improvements, and that is why a so-called joint submission is made. It is indeed of great importance for the opposition's role to actively work on issues concerning what is decided within the framework of our EU cooperation.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We now move on to the actual content of the Committee on the Constitution's review report. In the first chapter, certain issues regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag are reported. Three of these matters concern the government's information to the Riksdag's EU Committee, as several have previously mentioned. According to Chapter 10, Section 10 of the Instrument of Government, the government shall continuously inform the Riksdag and consult with bodies appointed by the Riksdag regarding what occurs within the framework of cooperation within the EU.

An overall reflection is that the government has the opportunity to inform the Riksdag about the work in the EU in order to contribute to the Riksdag receiving an active and real influence. This makes it possible to influence in advance the positions that Sweden shall take before the negotiations and the decision-making. It is also important that the Riksdag receives insight into and influence over the process that leads up to decisions that are important for Sweden.

When it comes to the request for a review of Infrastructure and Housing Minister Andreas Carlsson's alleged failure to consult with the EU Committee and the Transport Committee regarding deleted sections for the main lines in the so-called TEN-T maps, the review shows that the map annexes and the changes made regarding sections and nodes were not reported by previous governments either. Old routines in the Government Offices were therefore followed.

The reason lies in the fact that the maps and the various distances and nodes reported there are not subject to formal negotiation in the EU. It is also important to remember that the Riksdag decides on the economic frameworks for the state transport infrastructure, but it is the government that decides which infrastructure projects shall be implemented. The question of the expansion of the main line is therefore not subject to a decision by the Riksdag.

The changes made to the maps were a direct consequence of the intention that the government announced in the budget bill to cancel the construction of new main lines for high-speed trains. If the map annexes had not been changed, the government would have committed itself to, despite the decision not to complete the main lines for high-speed trains, still ensuring that the relevant sections would be built out to such a standard by a certain year.

In this matter, the Committee on the Constitution considers that the review does not give reason for any statement. We in the committee do, however, point out the possibility for the ministers and the EU Committee to jointly highlight and clarify during the consultation why parts of a document to be processed are not included in the dispatch to the Committee, in order to avoid questions in hindsight. This is a message from the Committee on the Constitution as "the good auditor," which we have spoken about a few times.

It is a bit more complicated regarding the request for a review of Equality and Assistant Minister for Employment Paulina Brandberg's consultation with the Riksdag on the directive on better working conditions for platform work. A preparation had been made in the Committee on Employment in January 2022, that is, during the old government. When the EU Committee was to handle the issue of the directive on 2 December 2022, there was still no negotiated proposal to take a position on. This meant that from the department's side, they waited until the last moment to be able to send out a basis. When, the day before the EU Committee's meeting, no such decision had yet been reached, it was decided to send out the document from Coreper and the government's position to the EU Committee.

This resulted, as described here earlier, in limited opportunities for the members of the EU Committee to analyze the underlying material and anchor a well-founded position internally within respective parties. But the negotiations in the EU dragged on for a few more days, which prompted new meetings via video with the EU Committee.

The Committee on the Constitution emphasizes the information advantage that the government has and the subsequent responsibility to provide the EU Committee with the underlying material required for the Riksdag to have insight into the process leading up to important decisions for Sweden. The dialogue between the government and the EU Committee is underscored – the EU Committee's need for information shall be met to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Speaker! This chapter also covers Education Minister Lotta Edholm's actions during the parliamentary question period. She stated then that she could not answer certain questions because there was a report to the Committee on the Constitution. During the ongoing question period, she corrected herself, and she answered some questions later. She later explained in a response to a written question: "During question periods, answers must be given immediately without deliberation. During the question period, I became unsure which questions I could answer due to the report to the Committee on the Constitution. I am responsible for and want to answer the Parliament's questions regarding the government's school policy. Such questions should therefore be directed to me and I will answer."

The Committee therefore wishes to emphasize that a referral to the Committee on the Constitution cannot be considered to mean that a minister is prevented from answering questions about the government's policy. But any further statement from the Committee gives the review no reason to do so.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Some of what I had intended to say has already been said, so my speech may be somewhat shorter than I had imagined. On the other hand, there may come some small additional reflection.

Three of the four matters under this item are, as you know, about the government's consultations with the EU Committee on certain issues. One of them attracts, not entirely unexpectedly, a particular interest from a green party like mine. It concerns, of course, to what extent the planned investments in new and upgraded railways should or could have been informed about in a better way in the EU Committee.

The report formally concerned attachments in the form of maps of European railway sections that are part of the trans-European transport network TEN-T. The government that took office in October 2022 chose not to proceed with the proposed expansion of high-speed railways in Sweden. This was made public in connection with the presentation of the budget proposal for 2023 in early November. Consequently, the sections were removed from the map material. At the same time, the sections Göteborg-Borås and Lund-Hässleholm were also removed, even though it was assumed at that time that they would be rebuilt to European TEN-T standard.

By simply not including the updated maps, this was not reported to the EU Committee. Formally speaking, it is perfectly in order. It is the government that is responsible for the negotiations within the EU. The government therefore also has the right, at least in some sense, to decide what the Riksdag's EU Committee shall be informed about.

We have also gained an increased understanding in this context of how the preparations for meetings with the Council of Ministers and in other contexts are conducted, and that the processes include both more formal documents and others that can be discussed during ongoing negotiations.

For example, as in the case of the railway maps, it was supposed to be that several countries have made changes during the process. This has sometimes occurred in the form of requests that are raised during ongoing meetings.

The review has thus clarified that the Minister for Infrastructure has not committed any formal error.

But this and the other two audits concerning the government's information on EU matters in the EU Committee have led to a discussion about the government's information advantage in relation to the Riksdag and in what way the Riksdag's information can be improved.

It should certainly not open any doors to changes in practice that challenge the government's task and right to handle EU issues and other foreign relations. But at the same time, it can be understood to be valuable that the Riksdag's access to information through the EU Committee is not undermined but rather developed.

For my part, I can imagine that EU matters are becoming increasingly important, or in other words, that in the ever more international world we have, the European relations are becoming ever more significant.

This applies in particular to transport, where railways are assumed to constitute important pieces in a future sustainable system for passenger and freight transport. It also applies to the absolutely necessary changes that will arise in the coming years in the work for a fossil-free world, based on renewable energy as far as possible.

This has also been said with all respect for the complexity that a cooperation with 26 other countries entails. The matter which fundamentally concerned what one does if promised information does not arrive as planned demonstrates the necessity of both flexibility and a spirit of not giving up and thereby doing what is at all possible to - as in this case - the members of the EU Committee shall get access to the best possible basis.

I leave the matter of the Minister for Education's non-answer during the question period, as many others have already raised it. I have no other opinions on it.

Some of the things we have heard here about the EU Commission seem to be about railway maps or platform work, which is of course important. It has a very great significance in a larger context.

What kind of transport solutions should we have in the future? It is about workplace regions, the possibility to move freely, and to work, live and reside where one wants and wishes. It is not just railways on a map. It is actually people's lives that it is about.

In the same way, it is with the platform directive. It is about people's opportunities to engage in a good way, a safe way, and in a way that makes the world something a little better for those it affects and also for others.

I can think that it is significant when we talk about EU issues and the EU Committee's information. It is about trying to put it into a larger context. It falls back on us as parties in many contexts to see individual cases and individual pieces as part of the whole. With that, I thank you for the floor.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A recurring theme for the KU's investigations concerns the relationship between the government and the Riksdag regarding the anchoring of issues handled within the framework of European cooperation.

The amount of issues that we solve within the EU is large, and the issues are many and sometimes complex. When the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the Commission are to find a common viable path toward a goal, it can sometimes result in both U-turns and dead ends before one finds the steady course forward that everyone agrees on.

Things and matters can, in other words, change along the way and sometimes both quickly and at the last second. The Government has a large information advantage in the issues handled at the EU level and a responsibility to provide the Riksdag with information so that all parties can take a position on the issues being negotiated.

This year, we have examined a couple of cases that concern precisely the access to information for the members of the EU Committee, including when it concerns consultations with the EU Committee regarding the platform directive.

Mr. Speaker! In our review, we point out that the EU Committee shall receive a written basis from the government that is as complete as possible and that it shall be handed over as soon as it is practically possible. However, the government does not have control over the decision-making process within the EU, except now when we are the chair, or how the negotiations are conducted. This became a complicating factor in this case with the platform directive.

For similar situations in the future, it is important to have a dialogue between the government and the EU Committee so that the EU Committee's need for information can be met as far as possible. We express no criticism in the matter. We are rather the good auditor, as several here have mentioned earlier, and point to this as an area for development.

This is often encountered in the KU's reviews, probably due to the complexity that exists in the matters concerning European cooperation. But it also concerns the information advantage that the government has. For us EU-friends, it is important and obvious that the process between the government and the Riksdag should function well.

Finally, I come to another issue touched upon within this area, Mr. Speaker. It is the Minister for Education's conduct during a question period here in the Riksdag. Just as I stated in my opening remarks, I note that there are no obstacles to answering questions even when a report has been submitted to KU.

The Minister was not the first to refer to the report. She is hopefully the last after the submissions we have had here today. It has happened on a number of occasions previously. To the Minister's credit is the fact that during the same question period she realized her mistake and answered questions.

Audit-

Considering certain questions regarding the government's relationship to the Riksdag (chapter 1)

That even a new minister without experience of parliamentary work has a mistaken perception of what a KU report entails, I see a bit as a sign of the times. The hope is, of course, that former, current, and future ministers in the future take to heart what is said in the debate here today so that we can avoid similar statements in the future.

Processing of certain government matters (chapter 2)

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Mr. Speaker! The background to the matter concerning the preparation of a bill on confidentiality in cases regarding electricity support is the energy crisis that Europe was plunged into after Russia's attack on Ukraine.

The missing gas deliveries, in combination with other unfortunate circumstances, led to sharply increased electricity prices across Europe. During the election campaign, Ebba Busch, among others, promised that extensive support would be directed to households. They were even to be in place well before Christmas.

The then sitting government made preparations to be able to provide support by using so-called bottleneck revenues in Svenska kraftnät to compensate electricity customers. As a result, Svenska kraftnät applied on 27 October to be able to carry out that.

At the change of government on 18 October, Ebba Busch was appointed Minister for Enterprise with responsibility for energy issues. The preparation of the electricity support issue was already underway at that time, and the responsibility for the continued preparation rests ultimately with her.

Despite the fact that the preparatory process was thus already underway from October, the timeframes in December were very short for processing the two memoranda that formed the basis for the government bill.

The first memorandum was sent for consultation on 5 December, and responses were to be submitted by 12 December. Even that is a very short consultation period. It was seven days compared to normally several months.

On 16 December, the second memorandum concerning the identity of electrical installations was referred. This time, responses were to be submitted by 19 December at 12:00. Given that 17 and 18 December were a weekend, no more than half a working day's preparation time was offered for the referral responses.

On 22 December, the government submitted a referral to the Council on Legislation in the matter, and on 30 December, the Council on Legislation delivered its opinion. The Council on Legislation's opinion primarily criticizes the time pressure and points out specifically that the referral period, which normally usually lasts up to several months, in this case became half a working day. It was also noted that the matter was principled, as it was an exception to the fundamental rule on the public nature of public documents. Despite the need for speed, the Council on Legislation considered the referral period unacceptable. It is noteworthy that the Council on Legislation even considered that the preparation requirement in Chapter 7, Section 2 of the Instrument of Government had not been fulfilled.

Why is the matter then important? KU has previously stated that the quality of the government's and the parliament's decision-making increases if the preparation is good, and it is up to the government to avoid time pressure with good time planning.

Of course, situations can arise where one must cut corners in the system. We saw this, for example, during the pandemic. In this case, however, KU makes the assessment that it cannot be ruled out that the government could have initiated the work with a memorandum earlier. Already at the turn of the month of October/November, it should have been clear that Försäkringskassan needed to obtain information. An earlier initiation of the work would have limited the need for urgent preparation and led to a more quality-assured decision. One can hope that KU's statement leads to greater care regarding the preparation in the future.

Review Report Processing of certain government matters (chapter 2)

I would like to conclude by thanking the office and the committee for a good cooperation.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In my speech, I will focus on the second section of the report - "Handling of certain government matters". The section concerns six specific reviews.

Two of the reviews concern the phasing out of different supports, namely the investment support for rental and student housing and the phasing out of the climate car bonus. Both supports are based on regulations in which it is stated that support is provided subject to the availability of funds. A prerequisite for the support to be paid out is therefore, in both cases, that the Riksdag allocates funds for the purpose.

The climate car bonus was introduced by the previous government and was a contribution towards the purchase of an electric car, in approximately the same way as the previously abolished contribution for electric bicycles. Regarding the climate car bonus, the government announced in a press release in connection with the submission of the budget bill to the Riksdag that the bonus would be abolished the following day. As the budget was decided by the Riksdag, the phasing out of the bonus was also formalized in such a way that funds for the climate car bonus were not allocated by the Riksdag.

The Government subsequently decided on the necessary changes to the ordinance at the beginning of the year. The Committee on the Constitution has no comments on the order of the various decisions. The Government's way of handling the matter was wise. The public was informed of the deadline for the bonus so that no car buyer was surprised by a missing bonus in hindsight, while at the same time, through a short notice period, a rush for the purchase of climate bonus cars was avoided as much as possible. It is difficult to see how the Government could have handled the issue in a better way.

Regarding the phasing out of the investment support, the initiative for the phase-out was taken by the Committee on Civil Affairs, and the Riksdag has subsequently continued to phase out the support through budget decisions. The Committee on the Constitution reviews the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters - not the Riksdag. This means that the Committee on the Constitution has not made any assessment of these decisions.

One observation in this review is, however, that the current regulation remains unchanged despite the investment support having been abolished. The committee therefore intends to, in the future within the framework of a more comprehensive review, review the handling of this type of regulation.

Mr. Speaker! Another review that has garnered some media interest is the review of the preparation of the bill on confidentiality in cases concerning electricity support. The introduction of electricity support to households was one of the government parties' election promises, and it was therefore important for the government to have electricity support in place as soon as possible. The country's households were under heavy pressure from high electricity prices, and the electricity support made a real difference for many families.

Against that background, one must have a great understanding that the government wanted it to go fast. This was not a matter that one wanted to take at a snail's pace, but here it was to go at top speed, like a racing motorcycle. That said, it is naturally also the case that a forcing of legislation in the way that has occurred should only occur in exceptional cases.

The committee has, for example, noted that the deadlines for the referral bodies and the Council on Legislation became very short given the significance and complexity of the bill. The committee has therefore emphasized the importance of upholding both the preparation requirements of the Instrument of Government and the Council on Legislation's review - this in order to create conditions for quality in the legislative work.

In the case at hand, however, the Committee on the Constitution, as the preparatory committee, has previously stated that the preparatory material was sufficient to be able to take a position on the proposals. The proposal is based on two different memoranda from the Government Offices. The Committee on the Constitution considers, however, that it cannot be ruled out that the preparation of the first memorandum could have been initiated earlier. Thus, one might have been able to limit the need for urgent preparation.

It is not the case that the committee has concluded that the preparation could certainly have been started earlier. The committee has not been able to draw such a far-reaching conclusion from the available material.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I also want to mention something regarding two reviews concerning the Prime Minister.

One of the reviews concerns the appointment of a national security advisor. Given that Sweden faces the greatest foreign, security, and defense policy tests in modern times, everyone recognizes the importance of quickly getting a national security advisor in place in the Government Offices.

The committee has examined how the appointment was handled, and it has not prompted any statement from the committee's side. Regarding the question of potential conflict of interest in the appointment, the committee has also had no reason to object to the Prime Minister's assessment. The review therefore does not prompt any criticism from the committee.

The second review in the matter concerns the appointment of a State Secretary. In this case, the committee's review has focused on whether the case processing was in accordance with current regulations and whether the government decided within the scope of its powers. Nothing has emerged in this review either that the committee had reason to comment on.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! In this section, we are dealing with reports concerning the government's handling of certain matters, and I intended to touch upon some of the matters we have reviewed in this chapter.

First, I intended to address the matter I mentioned in the introduction, namely the preparation of the bill on secrecy for the electricity support. There, KU emphasizes, first and foremost, the importance of upholding both the preparation requirements of the Instrument of Government and the review by the Council on Legislation. Through these, conditions are created for quality in the legislative work. The importance of the government also obtaining the information and opinions needed during the preparation of government matters, even in urgent cases, is also something that KU has previously emphasized. This increases the conditions for the measures taken in various bills to become as accurate and effective as possible.

In this case, unfortunately, several referral bodies, both regarding memorandum one and memorandum two, have abstained from responding to the referrals because they have, at least in some cases, considered it to have been too short of a time. Personally, I ask myself whether these cases have been sufficiently comprehensively illuminated in the proposition, since almost a quarter of the referral bodies in both cases have not responded to the government's proposition despite having been asked.

KU has several times previously stated, so also this time, that if the referral bodies are to have a real opportunity to submit well-considered views, they obviously must not be given too short a time at their disposal. As the previous speaker has pointed out, we can observe that in some cases the time has been very short, especially considering the implications and complexity of the legislative proposals.

In our position, we state that it cannot be ruled out that the preparation of the first of the two memoranda with legislative proposals could have been initiated earlier, which in that case could have limited the need for this urgent preparation. We also note that the short timeframe also meant that the Riksdag's processing of the bill was affected through both shortened motion time and shortened time for preparation. The committee therefore emphasizes that legislative proposals with such a short time until entry into force should only be submitted in exceptional cases.

Even though the preparation, given the proposed effective date, needed to deviate significantly from normal preparation routines, just a few extra days could have made a marked difference for both the referral bodies and the Council on Legislation, as well as the internal work in the Government Offices in processing the comments on the proposals.

Personally, I think this is a matter that demonstrates the importance of the referral system. As I have said in the committee several times before, the referral system is also an important basis for the parties' positions when the government submits a bill, which makes it important for all parties in the Riksdag that we have a well-functioning referral system.

I will now move on to another matter, which concerns the appointment of the national security adviser. KU has also reviewed that process and notes, among other things, that no public advertisement was made before the recruitment, even though this was a non-political position and not a political one. In that regard, the procedure sometimes differs. The Government judged in this case that a direct recruitment was required to promptly get the national security adviser in place and that this was in accordance with current practice. However, it can be stated that it is more desirable – I believe everyone in the committee agrees – specifically when it concerns the appointment of non-political officials, that it occurs openly and transparently, even if there were certain special circumstances in this case. This part of the review does not give reason for any statement by KU.

However, we note the question of conflict of interest that was raised, particularly in the media, on account of the Prime Minister's private relationship with the security advisor. The decision to employ the security advisor was made at a government meeting where the Prime Minister was the chairperson and the presiding minister in the matter. We have questioned the Prime Minister on exactly this matter, and he stated then that he made the assessment that the relationship was not of such a character that his impartiality could be questioned and that there was therefore no reason to refrain from participating in the decision.

KU has no objections to this assessment, but I believe we are all aware of the media discussion that nevertheless arose in connection with this decision. Therefore, we still point out that in situations like this, one can always consider the possibility of abstaining from participating in a decision in order to thereby create a greater safety distance.

The last matter I intend to touch upon briefly is the phase-out of the climate bonus. Previous speakers have touched upon the importance of avoiding a rush. I will not go into polemics - these are obviously matters that we can debate in other contexts - but there was still a certain rush when the government issued a press release the day before and said: Tomorrow is the last day to buy, for example, an electric car and receive a climate bonus.

We note that the government has the possibility to act in this way. We have no comments on the order of the various decisions, even though it could have appeared in the press release that this was a proposal to be decided by the Riksdag. We naturally consider it important and valuable to inform the public in situations such as these, but there are actually no obstacles whatsoever for a government to make bad decisions. However, we do not debate those here; we debate those in other matters and in other contexts.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating matters under the heading "Handling of certain government matters". In that section, we find six matters of very diverse character. Several of these do not prompt any statements at all from the KU's side. But in one of the matters, deficiencies are pointed out, and that matter is, in my opinion, of great principled interest. A couple of my colleagues in the committee have already spent some time on it. It concerns the review of the government and Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch regarding how the handling of the electricity support for households was managed, or more specifically, how the preparation of the legislation proceeded when the government chose to classify information about the electricity support as confidential.

The government parties promised during the election campaign rapid support to households as compensation for the high electricity prices, which soared last year as a result of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. When the new government took office, it immediately decided to task Försäkringskassan with handling the payment of the electricity support to the country's households. It was a task that Försäkringskassan received only a couple of days into November last year. Then it took until the end of that month before the government began work on a memorandum regarding confidentiality rules for these electricity supports.

Since Försäkringskassan was to handle the payments of the electricity support, the authority needed to collect data from outside regarding how much each household had consumed, and such received data would, according to the main rule, become public documents and public. The government, however, considered it urgent that these data should be subject to secrecy. By the time it was decided to look into introducing changes in the secrecy legislation, the clock had been ticking until the end of November, and then the government thought it was very urgent to move forward with this bill - a bill which, it must be remembered, was therefore not necessary in itself to pay out money to the households. It was the government that chose to subject these data to secrecy, and then this change in the legislation needed to be made.

Mr. Speaker! The bill on secrecy, for which work was initiated at the end of November, was sent out for consultation in December, and at that time, the government gave the referral bodies only a few weeks to respond. During that time, the referral bodies were thus expected to manage to analyze the proposal, which, even if it was not so extensive in terms of number of pages, nevertheless contained many complex issues and involved proposals for deviations from our constitutionally anchored principle of public access. This resulted in that a large number of referral bodies, closer to 30 percent, actually did not even submit a response.

A bit into December, the government then discovered that Försäkringskassan also needed access to the households' so-called installation ID to be able to calculate and pay out the electricity subsidies. When this was discovered, they pulled out yet another memorandum with proposals for changes to the secrecy legislation. When that proposal was then sent out for consultation, the consultation bodies in practice only had half a day to respond. This meant once again that a large number of consultation bodies, closer to 30 percent, did not even submit a response.

After the second referral round had concluded, the Council on Legislation received the proposal for consultation and then issued a very critical opinion, which my colleague Hans Ekström touched upon here earlier, regarding how the preparation of the bill had proceeded.

Mr. Speaker! KU thus finds deficiencies in this matter and concludes that, regarding the preparation of the two memoranda, it cannot be ruled out that the government could have initiated the preparation of the first memorandum earlier. Already at the turn of October/November 2022, it should have been clear that Försäkringskassan needed to obtain information on households' electricity consumption.

If the work on the memorandum had been started earlier, one could to some extent have limited the need for such an urgent preparation as was subsequently discussed. In order for referral bodies to have a real opportunity to submit well-considered views, it is of course a prerequisite that they are given time to do so. Here, the KU notes that the deadlines for the referral bodies and for the Council on Legislation were very short given the significance and complexity of the bill.

KU does not take a position on the question of the need to have the legislation in place by a certain date. The Government has said that it wanted to adhere to a timetable and that this affected the fact that the referral periods became short. But KU states that regardless of the timetable, having only a few extra days, as it now turned out to be, would also have entailed a significant difference for both the referral bodies and the Council on Legislation.

That it became so short on time also meant that the Riksdag was given very little time to process the bill. Here, the KU emphasizes that it can only be relevant in exceptional cases to submit bills to the Riksdag with such a short time until the entry into force as was the case now.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by emphasizing the importance of the government – this one and future ones, regardless of political color – adhering to the course we have historically had in Sweden regarding how laws are developed. In that regard, the referral system has a central importance. Rushing forward to quickly produce new legislation is not a sustainable alternative.

Repeatedly deviating from the established procedure regarding referral rounds and time for referrals, as has actually been done in this case, is not a wise way forward. We need a comprehensive illumination of legislative proposals in order to pass laws here in the chamber if the laws are to achieve the effect we want to accomplish. In times when politicians tend to deliver simple answers to complex questions, this feels extra important.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this chapter, with the heading "Handling of certain government matters", among other things, the actions of former Minister for Development Cooperation Matilda Ernkrans are examined regarding deductions on international aid.

After Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine in the spring of 2022, millions of Ukrainians fled, both within the country and to other countries in Europe. The Council of the European Union activated the so-called mass exodus directive. Sweden's government immediately thereafter, in March 2022, made appropriations of 9.2 billion kronor for aid for that reason, based on the Swedish Migration Agency's forecast for the large reception of refugees in Sweden.

The large sum of money that was withdrawn without warning primarily affected civil society organizations. In some cases, it concerned over 40 percent of their previously allocated grants, as the core support to the multilateral organizations had already been paid out for the year. When it later turned out that the refugee flows to Sweden were not as extensive as the initial forecasts had shown, a portion of the completed deductions was paid back in two installments: 1.3 billion in June and an additional 2.9 billion in August.

The review that the Committee on the Constitution has conducted shows that the calculations made are within a level approved by the OECD-DAC framework. The Committee therefore concludes that they have been made in accordance with the applicable framework and adjusted when new forecasts were received. The review therefore gives no reason for any statement by the Committee.

Under this chapter, the handling by Housing Minister Andreas Carlson of the state investment support for the construction of rental and student housing is also examined. In order not to drown in details, it can be briefly described that the Committee on Civil Affairs in the Riksdag concluded in December 2021 that the support was poorly designed and that it did not solve the fundamental problems with housing shortages and queues in the rental market.

The Committee on the Constitution notes, therefore, that the initiative to phase out the investment support was taken by the Committee on Civil Affairs and that the Riksdag has since continued to phase out the investment support through budget decisions.

Since the Committee on the Constitution reviews the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters, we do not, therefore, make any assessment of these decisions, which have been made by the Riksdag. We note, however, that the current ordinance remains in force, despite the investment support being abolished. Similar conditions exist in other areas. KU therefore intends to, in the future, conduct a more overarching review of how this type of ordinance is handled.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the government's and Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari's phasing out of the climate car bonus, similar conditions prevailed. The bonus was paid out on a monthly basis. It is the Riksdag that decides on the state budget one year at a time. The government announced in connection with the presentation of the budget bill that the climate car bonus would be phased out. However, one could simultaneously have informed the public that the decision on abolition would be made by the Riksdag.

Under this chapter, the review of the government's and Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch's handling of a matter regarding confidentiality in electricity support is also presented, which several speakers have touched upon earlier. The matter was handled under great time pressure, and several departments and the state agency Försäkringskassan were involved.

The timeline was due to the government's aim to make a decision before Christmas so that the support would reach electricity customers during February, when electricity costs are at their highest. The purpose was to alleviate the effects of the high electricity prices. It was therefore primarily a citizen perspective that lay behind the urgency to produce the current legislation as soon as possible.

On December 7, it emerged that Försäkringskassan needed to receive part of the information regarding the individual electricity customers, and on December 15, it emerged that the installation ID would also be subject to secrecy. Even though the department had taken preparatory measures as far as possible, it meant that the referral times for both the referral bodies and the Council of State referrals were significantly shortened.

In the latter case, with the second memorandum on secrecy for facility IDs, the referral period was only from late afternoon on Friday, December 16, to lunchtime on Monday, December 19. From the government's side, people called around on Friday to warn that the referral was on its way. A referral meeting was also organized on Monday to give the referral bodies the opportunity to submit comments on-site or digitally. Of the 33 referral bodies, 24 responded to the memorandum.

The committee cannot, however, rule out that the work on the first memorandum could have been started earlier, in order to thereby have a less pressured timetable. The referral bodies and the Council on Legislation could, in that case, have been given a few more days to analyze the proposal and its effects.

In this context, it is also worth mentioning that the Committee on the Constitution, as the preparing committee, saw no reason to take further preparatory measures and considered the basis sufficient to be able to take a position on the proposals.

The committee does not address in its review the need to have the legislation in place by a certain date, but the committee emphasizes that it can only be relevant in exceptional cases to submit proposals to the Riksdag with such a short time until the entry into force as was the case now.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Within the scope of the heading "Handling of certain government matters," there are six different reviews, and I believe that all of them have already been able to be ticked off. These include, among others, the phasing out of the climate car bonus in November last year and the appointment of a national security advisor and a secretary of state, as well as the preparation of the bill on the secrecy matter regarding electricity support.

I thought I would leave both employments there. It seems to have gone well for both of them, even though one can state that probably much more has been written about the one who left their job as State Secretary than the one who got the job as security advisor.

The issues regarding electricity support and the climate car bonus are such that they actually affect many people. I will begin with the electricity support.

The death penalty was, as everyone remembers, closely linked to a campaign promise that it would be in place on November 1, 2022. With a generous interpretation, one could say that it was so in that sense that there was an idea of how it could be implemented. Then reality set in with demands for solutions on how the whole thing would work in purely practical terms and whether it was necessary to classify all the many millions of cases as confidential.

When these mills had finished grinding, not much time remained for the preparation within the Riksdag for legislation according to the intentions of the Instrument of Government. The referral periods thus became short and the criticism accordingly. During that time, many millions of electricity customers waited for the payments. With rising prices on almost everything, the electricity support became an important contribution to the finances of many families and single-person households.

There were two aspects of the electricity support that made it complicated, namely the confidentiality and the payment system itself. The committee asked many questions about this and, of course, also received answers from the Government Offices and the Minister for Energy and Industry himself.

From my party's point of view, we were, as is known, initially concerned about an electricity subsidy with a distribution policy dimension. It is not subject to scrutiny in any way, but we would have gladly seen that secrecy was avoided in order to at least in hindsight enable a scrutiny of how the subsidy functioned.

However, we, like the committee as a whole, were not entirely comfortable with the time it took. This led, as a matter of fact, to an extremely short time for the referral bodies at the final stage, all with the well-intentioned purpose of ensuring that the support actually reached the customers' accounts. We could, however, not entirely free ourselves from the thought that it could have been done differently, especially during November 2022. This eventually led to the statement of deficiency that now exists.

Hopefully the review covers sufficient information so that similar potential situations in the future can be handled with these experiences as a basis.

So, a few words about the climate car bonus, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the political assessment that the climate car bonus would no longer play any such role for the transition to electric cars, the information about the decision still came very surprisingly for many. We all know someone who based their plans on at least some kind of bonus, even for cars purchased during 2022 and perhaps also during 2023, and who simply had to rethink.

The argument that the great urgency was to avoid a rush feels somewhat counterproductive in this context, because the very idea of the bonus was that more people should choose to buy electric cars. But I can leave that aside for this time.

I can also understand the problem and the challenge that was faced shortly before the budget bill for 2023 was to be presented, to have to set some kind of cutoff date for the support to electric car buyers because it had now been decided. But, as I touched upon earlier, communication has not taken place simply because a press release is published. The uncertainties that arose the following day and which in one stroke changed the market for both sellers and buyers could likely have been avoided.

With this said, I want to say that the committee's report is unanimous. We all stand behind it. What I am speaking of now is rather to be seen as a background description to the valuable discussions we have had and as an input to what became the final report.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise two matters under this point that are not seen as shortcomings of the committee but are difficulties that governments encounter. It concerns when support should be phased out, especially if it is surrounded by different time aspects that one needs to adhere to. This applies to both the investment support for rental and student housing and the climate car bonus.

Money is allocated annually in the budget, and those interested in receiving the support can actually only count on it remaining one year at a time. Some supports, however, remain year after year and can therefore be taken a bit for granted if nothing else is communicated.

The climate bonus is regulated in a decree which states that support may be granted depending on the availability of funds. In the budget proposal for 2023, the government stated that the climate bonus would be phased out and proposed that funds for 2023 should be allocated for outstanding payments and orders that have already been made.

To alert those who were in car queues, the government published a press release stating that the climate bonus would not be granted to those who purchased or ordered a climate bonus car after a certain date. The Riksdag later decided in accordance with the government's proposal. Subsequently, the government amended the ordinance on the climate bonus.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Committee on the Constitution have no comments on the order of the various decisions. The Government could have advantageously stated that the final budget decision is taken by the Riksdag. It is, however, not a deficient handling of the matter, but rather it is valuable for the public that they were informed in advance in the way the Government did.

Nor neither was the handling of the investment support deficient. However, the committee has noted that when phasing out support and similar decisions regulated by ordinances, it sometimes occurs that these ordinances are not updated. We will return to this within the framework of a more comprehensive review.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say a few words regarding the review of the appointment of the national security advisor. The Committee on the Constitution has not found any deficiencies in the handling of the appointment but has nevertheless devoted quite a lot of time to reviewing the appointment more closely. The Prime Minister also had to answer a number of questions in the hearing in May regarding the report that was made to the Committee on the Constitution.

When the Prime Minister hired Henrik Landerholm, it caused speculation about conflict of interest in the mass media. These speculations are, of course, the origin of the report. Daily newspapers wrote about potential conflict of interest. One such article was in Dagens Nyheter with the headline "Experts: Kristersson's recruitment could be cronyism". The reason, according to the newspaper, was the close friendship between the Prime Minister and the national security advisor.

The employment was also not preceded by expressions of interest from others who may possess the competence for the position. This is not wrong in itself, and other governments have made appointments in the same way, even though the procedure is not common at the Government Offices.

Mr. Speaker! The committee has not examined the national security advisor and his competence, but rather the preparation of the matter and how the appointment has proceeded.

The committee has in previous reviews stated that even though the Administrative Procedure Act is not formally applicable to government matters, it is very important that provisions on conflict of interest are followed at the Government Offices. The Government Offices' ethical guidelines prescribe that the rules shall be applied with a margin of safety if there is any doubt.

Furthermore, the committee has previously stated that there should not even be grounds to suspect that anyone in the government or at the Government Offices is favoring, for example, themselves or someone close to them. The committee has concluded that this has not been the case regarding the employment of the security advisor.

The review shows that it was the Secretary of State who was responsible for the recruitment of the national security advisor. The decision was made at a government meeting where the Prime Minister was presiding. The Prime Minister answered in the inquiry that he judged that his relationship with the security advisor was not such that his impartiality could be questioned.

Mr. Speaker! The committee sees no reason to question the Prime Minister's assessment, but with that said, there were also no obstacles preventing the Prime Minister from refraining from participating in the decision. By doing so, he could have maintained a greater security distance. The committee considers, however, that the review otherwise gives no reason for any statement.

It was a small accompaniment, Mr. Speaker.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In such contexts, we members of the committee often remind each other of the Constitution Committee's age and of the fact that KU is usually considered to be the world's oldest still-functioning committee. And here, in times of jubilee and close to June 6 - which we do not celebrate solely because Gustav Vasa was elected king but also because the 1809 Constitution was adopted - it might be appropriate with a small quote.

I read here from § 107 in the 1809 Instrument of Government:

Should the Committee on the Constitution note that the members of the Council of State, collectively or one or more of them, in their deliberations on general measures and steps, have not observed the kingdom's necessary benefit, or that any Secretary of State has not performed their trust office with diligence, zeal, skill, and energy, shall the committee then have the right to announce such to the kingdom's estates?

This circumstantial, but rather beautiful, language has in modern democracy been essentially transformed into: "The Committee on the Constitution shall review the ministers' exercise of their duties and the handling of government matters."

And that is pretty much what we are doing now. I intended to highlight two matters.

The first matter concerns the appointment of a secretary of state to the Prime Minister. Circumstances - which were discovered later - regarding the current secretary of state's background resulted in the appointment process itself becoming the subject of a report and subsequent review.

The committee notes that the Secretary of State is a senior official in the Government Offices, and it is of great importance that those who are employed as Secretary of State have a personal suitability for the assignment and that such an office holder inspires confidence.

In the case at hand, the Prime Minister had conversations with the prospective State Secretary before the decision on the appointment was made. A security clearance was also conducted.

In the review concerning the formal side of the handling of the matter, nothing has emerged that the committee finds reason to remark upon. In this case, it can therefore be said that KU has indeed administered a principle over 200 years old.

The second matter also concerns a question regarding the process of the employment itself. The Prime Minister has been reported for conflict of interest when he allowed the recruitment of a new national security advisor. The Prime Minister and the new security advisor have, in fact, had a friendship relationship. The Prime Minister himself has emphasized that direct recruitments of this type are not the standard procedure but that the possibility has been used in accordance with the rules also by previous governments.

In the case in question, the government made the assessment that a direct recruitment was required to promptly get the national security advisor in place and that this was in accordance with current practice. The review in this part does not prompt any statement from the committee. KU however makes some principled statements, which I would like to convey to the chamber.

The committee has previously stated that even if the Administrative Procedure Act is not applicable in a formal sense to government matters, it is very important that the provisions on conflict of interest are followed in the Government Offices. The Government Offices' ethical guidelines prescribe that the rules shall be applied with a margin of safety if there is doubt as to which situations they cover.

Furthermore, the committee has previously stated that there should not even be grounds to suspect that anyone in the government or in the Government Offices is enriching themselves or someone close to them, that is, approximately the same principle of misconduct and malice that existed already over 200 years ago.

Audit Report Certain questions regarding the exercise of duties by ministers (Chapter 3)

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Free and open debate is the foundation for a well-functioning parliamentarism and a democratic society. This includes both the statements of political representatives, ministers, prime ministers, and members of parliament, as well as the critical scrutiny from the side of the parliament of what lies behind what is presented.

In the section I want to account for here, there are reports collected which primarily contain statements by the Prime Minister and the Ministers of State both in the chamber of the Riksdag and in other media contexts. There are also a number of other matters concerning the Ministers of State's exercise of duties in other respects.

It concerns reports such as the Minister for Education's handling of his shareholdings in connection with his appointment as Minister for the Government, the Minister for Energy and Enterprise's statements regarding an iron and steel project, the Prime Minister's statements partly regarding a weapons system, partly regarding Sweden as a fossil-free industrial nation, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs' statements regarding Turkey. The reports that have been received are based on both the end of the previous parliamentary term with previous governments and the current parliamentary term with the right-wing government.

The Committee on the Constitution chooses to focus on the constitutional aspects and does not primarily make assessments of the factual content itself or, for that part, how one views historical events. Questions regarding what the statements are based on and whether there has been a basis for what has been presented are those that are guiding for the review. This does not, however, mean that the review work as such, based on the more summarily handled cases, differs compared to others. Even if some reports on statements by ministers are treated under a summary heading, the review is based on customary preparation. It can also be emphasized that every member has their self-evident right to submit a report to the Committee on the Constitution for review.

The reports in question have been handled in a thorough manner in the form of written questions and answers to these in correspondence with the respective departments. In some cases, follow-up questions have been asked in written form and answers have been received, and in some of the cases, the matters became the subject of a public hearing both with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and with Energy Minister Khashayar Farmanbar.

Regarding the report against the Prime Minister's statement in his first government declaration, which was delivered in this chamber on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, that Sweden during the 1980s became one of the world's first almost fossil-free industrial nations, the assessment is that a deficiency exists.

A report was submitted to the Committee on the Constitution stating that the claim was directly incorrect, and a review was requested regarding its compatibility with the requirements for objectivity in the Instrument of Government. The Committee has also on several occasions emphasized that it is a self-evident starting point that the statements of ministers and the Prime Minister should be correct.

The committee has in previous reviews emphasized that a government statement should be seen as a general statement of intent and, from that perspective, cannot be attributed any legal effect. This does not, however, exclude requirements that the factual information provided must be correct and well-substantiated. Factual information provided in government statements is carefully prepared, and therefore it should reasonably be requested that it be based on facts.

Mr. Speaker! In the committee's position, we maintain that the statement was part of the government's declaration. That means it cannot be compared with rapid exchanges of remarks in debates or with answers in interview situations.

In the review, it has been submitted to the committee that the Prime Minister based his statement on a report from the Swedish Energy Agency and that this was to be seen as part of a broader reasoning. This did not appear in the government statement, however, and based on this, it cannot be regarded as anything other than a deficiency. According to the committee's assessment, the risk of misunderstanding could probably have been avoided if the Prime Minister had been clear about what he intended in the statement.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to Minister for Education Lotta Edholm's handling of her shareholdings in connection with her appointment as Minister, it can be stated that the committee has on several occasions previously reviewed precisely questions regarding shareholdings or other questions related to secondary occupations. There is a prohibition against this in the Instrument of Government.

Upon taking office, the Minister was a board member for a school group that operates 25 preschools and seven primary schools and also owned shares in the company.

During previous reviews in 1992 and 1993 of ministers' holdings of securities, conflict of interest, etc., the committee pointed out that the Instrument of Government does not contain any explicit provision regarding the Prime Minister's responsibility for ensuring that ministers fulfill the requirements in the Instrument of Government. The Ministry of Justice has also issued a memorandum with information on the regulations regarding secondary occupations and conflict of interest for ministers.

Regarding the current case with the school minister's shareholdings, the minister stated in Dagens Nyheter that she resigned from her board position with immediate effect and would sell her shares on the same day.

The committee has, based on the preparation that has been carried out, the questions we have asked and the answers we have received regarding the handling as such, no objections to the manner in which the Minister for Education handled her involvement in a school group in connection with her appointment.

In general, it can be stated that there is reason to constantly raise questions about side occupations and involvements in business or organizational life that can lead to questioning of an individual minister's or elected official's credibility.

While engagement in society is enriching and important, it is necessary to constantly ask how different assignments can be perceived from an ethical perspective. No objections exist in this individual case, which is emphasized once again, but these are issues to constantly include in the political work, not least from the perspective that private or independent actors have significant roles in both municipal and regional as well as state activities.

Mr. Speaker! In the questioning of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the Committee on the Constitution, reports regarding statements about Swedish nuclear power were also handled. It concerned a report against the Prime Minister's statement that the Social Democrats, in total lack of stance, had dismantled Swedish nuclear power.

Those who have followed the political debate in Sweden over the last 50 years know that the nuclear power issue has been central. In the hearing with the Prime Minister, these questions were raised, and it was emphasized there that the factual information was based on the fact that the reactors were shut down on commercial grounds.

The energy policy agreements from 2016 and 2009, which several parties have entered into, were also emphasized, as well as the statements made, not least by the chairman of Vattenfall's board, regarding business assessments as the background to the decisions. This was highlighted in the questioning of Ulf Kristersson.

It can also be pointed out that with the then Minister for Energy Khashayar Farmanbar, questions were raised regarding statements about construction time versus production time for offshore Swedish wind farms.

It should be emphasized that ministers and elected officials in leading positions have a great responsibility for how the debate is conducted. It is, however, the committee's view that statements that have the character of posts in a debate and in the public conversation should be visible within the framework of this.

It is these constitutional contexts that KU has focused on in this spring's review work, and therefore no other assessments of the statements are made beyond the reasoning presented in the position paper itself.

With these words, I would like to thank for a good cooperation with the committee's members and the secretariat.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The spring review is complete, and it has been an unusual review period as we have reviewed both the previous government and the current one.

In the investigation report KU20, there are two matters I want to highlight today. These are two matters raised by my party where the Committee on the Constitution has identified deficiencies. They are two matters that show how the then-government's ministers were ignorant when it came to facts.

First, we have the matter where the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde made a statement regarding arms exports and expressed herself in such a way that the listeners were left with the impression that a legislative change was required before a potential export of war materiel to Ukraine could take place.

It was in the program Agenda on SVT on February 13, 2022, that Ann Linde gave misleading information about the Swedish export control regulations for war materiel when it came to arms exports to Ukraine in the conflict with Russia.

That the then Minister for Foreign Affairs provided incorrect information that arms exports to Ukraine were made impossible by the Swedish export control framework was, in such a sensitive security situation, extremely serious. Export of war materiel to Ukraine would constitute a clear signal from the Swedish side to Russia regarding all nations' right to decide for themselves over their own security policy.

Ann Linde said: We cannot suddenly say that just because there is a conflict now, we are going to change our arms export rules.

But this is not in accordance with the Swedish regulatory framework for export control of war materiel. In the Swedish regulatory framework, there are unconditional obstacles that make it impossible to export war materiel under certain circumstances. These unconditional obstacles are described in the government's proposition 2017/18:23 in the following way:

"Permission for export or other international cooperation according to the War Materiel Act shall not be granted if it would conflict with an international agreement that Sweden has acceded to, a decision of the UN Security Council, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or the European Union, or against rules of international law regarding export from a neutral state during war (unconditional obstacles)."

None of these obstacles were met regarding the export of war materiel to Ukraine. Regarding the possibility of exporting war materiel to states that are in conflict, these obstacles are not unconditional. It is described as follows in the same proposition:

"Permission for the export of war materiel for combat, or for other international cooperation concerning war materiel for combat or other war materiel, should not be granted if it concerns a state that is in an armed conflict with another state, regardless of whether a declaration of war has been issued or not, a state that is involved in an international conflict that can be feared to lead to armed conflict, or a state that has internal armed unrest."

Thus, there are no unconditional obstacles to exporting war materiel to a state that is in an armed conflict. The bill also expresses the importance of making a holistic assessment where all factors are weighed and where Sweden's foreign and defense policy plays an important role.

There are also examples of export licenses being granted where conditional obstacles existed. In 2003, export licenses were granted in connection with the USA's and the UK's participation in the armed conflict in Iraq. At that time, a holistic assessment was made, and the nation's own interest took precedence.

The Foreign Minister's statement that Sweden must change its regulatory framework to enable the export of war materiel to Ukraine was therefore incorrect in relation to both the regulatory framework and how it has been applied previously regarding exports to states participating in an armed conflict. The Committee on the Constitution also notes in its review that the previous government has fallen short.

Mr. Speaker! The second matter is that the then Minister for Environment and Climate, Annika Strandhäll, during an interpellation debate stated that it is significantly easier to construct new nuclear power in Sweden than is actually the case.

Around the world, interest is higher than it has been in a long time in building new nuclear power, as it is one of the few planned power sources that is fossil-free. Above all, interest is growing for small modular reactors, SMR, where the main advantage is that they are easier to build where the electricity demand is and that they reduce the need to expand the power grids. In Europe, there is hope to have such commercial reactors in operation as early as 2028. It can therefore go fast from idea to action once political decisions are made.

But regarding the competition conditions for new nuclear power in Sweden, the then government displayed a certain lack of knowledge. The then Minister for the Environment, Annika Strandhäll, attempted to present in the Riksdag that there were no obstacles to building new nuclear power. The reality, however, looked different, as it was forbidden to build new nuclear power in 287 of the country's 290 municipalities and completely forbidden in the electricity price area that has the highest electricity prices in southern Sweden. This is something that our current government is now addressing by reviewing the regulatory framework.

But that was not what was said in the interpellation debate on 19 April 2022 when the then Minister Annika Strandhäll said as follows: "There are no obstacles today to building new nuclear power, whether with traditional technology or with the new technology called small modular reactors, SMR, which is still in the development stage."

Despite the fact that the Minister in some measure adjusted his position later in the speech, it is noteworthy that the Minister's statement was not correct, and even here KU considers that the former Minister has fallen short.

Interpellations are a question instrument and a part of the Riksdag's power of oversight. It is important that these instruments function satisfactorily. Unlike entries in a debate, answers to interpellations are well-prepared and should be more deliberate. Therefore, higher requirements are also placed on the content of the answer being correct.

It has been an intense spring with all the reviews, but we have worked well together in the Committee on the Constitution. I look forward to the upcoming parliamentary meetings.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If I had a wish list of what we should debate, it would not include questions that concern politics but primarily questions that move the debate forward and deepen and clarify it. We all strive, Mr. Speaker, for a debate that is correct and clear but also lively and interesting. That is precisely why it is so important to keep the requirements we can place on the debate separate from what I personally think. It is not my opinion that should govern the position, but it is actually the formal requirements.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, it is the case that the Committee on the Constitution's review report is not like a football result that is to be reported to Sweden on how it went for the different sides. It is also not a situation where it is appropriate to beat the big drum in all instances, but rather it is the case that we benefit from a balanced and reasoned position and a weighing of pros and cons. And I think, overall, that we have actually succeeded with this.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall move on to commenting on some matters, and it will be in both directions.

Let me begin with a number of matters concerning Sweden's relations with foreign states, that is to say, the areas where the government's prerogative, i.e., the right to govern foreign policy, is at hand and therefore higher requirements are placed on what the basis and background look like for statements to be able to be made.

But these are also matters where there is a trade-off between the language of diplomacy and the language of politics. A diplomat may be interested in keeping a communication open, while the political debate is often much more condemnatory and clear, and it is much easier to take unambiguous positions. I believe one must weigh this and understand the requirements of diplomacy, even if one does not necessarily agree with every part of how something is formulated but would like it to be sharper.

We have three such matters. We have the Prime Minister's statement on a weapons system, which is submitted without any further comments from the Committee on the Constitution. We have the Foreign Minister's statement on Turkey, where it can be stated that there is a basis for the statement. This does not mean that all members must immediately share the view that exists. But there was a basis, and it is well-motivated in the diplomatic context.

We also have the current Foreign Minister's statement on arms exports to Ukraine. There I thought, I must admit, it was much simpler before we had a hearing with the Foreign Minister. But when the analysis is deepened and one sees more and more arguments, it also becomes harder to be categorical. And perhaps that is our purpose – to precisely weigh the pros and cons against each other.

I thought, to tell the truth, that it was a clarifying inquiry to the extent that the reasons for having a cautious stance were actually accounted for. When we in the report state that there were reasons for precisely a cautious stance, I could almost go so far as to say that they were perhaps even quite good.

Since it is unfortunate that, in its context and as it was uttered, it could be perceived as that a legislative change would be required further ahead. But there is nothing more to state than just the fact that the risk of a misunderstanding should have been considered a bit more clearly.

Then there is, Mr. Speaker, another type of matter that some have been involved in, namely those that are prepared and carefully planned. Perhaps the government statement is one of the documents that is absolutely most processed, weighed on a gold scale and evaluated in every smallest detail. But it is at the same time also a document that constitutes a combination of factually presented information and political justification. It is perfectly understandable if everyone in the chamber does not share the political motives for a writing in the government statement. One should therefore weigh what is information and what is politics in it. We shall not make an assessment of the political.

We can observe that there was a basis for the Prime Minister's statement on fossil-free industrial production in the government's statement. Not everyone needs to agree with the conclusions of the basis, for that is politics. But there was a basis for the statement. It was, however, unfortunate that it nevertheless became a discussion about the basis rather than about the political content. There is reason to emphasize and highlight this very danger of misunderstanding.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, I would say that overall we give a fairly good grade. Democracy and debate are functioning well. The manner of expression in the debate is confident and good. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since we are not going to make a decision on this, I would like to conclude by saying that I truly look forward to us being able to continue together on the good path to gradually improve the debate climate and the content of the debate and clarify the politics. It benefits Sweden, and it benefits Swedish democracy.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! In this final debate for the day, which concerns KU's spring review of the government, we are addressing the chapter with the heading "Certain questions regarding the exercise of duties by ministers." It is the chapter in the report where most of this year's complaints have been gathered. More specifically, 17 of the cases are found here. And of these 17 cases, all except one are such that a minister has been reported to KU because of something the minister has said. In the vast majority of those cases, the complainant argues that the statement in question was not correct.

Some of my colleagues in the committee have already touched upon the matters in this chapter where the KU has found deficiencies; there are three in number. These are matters concerning statements made by former Minister Annika Strandhäll and former Foreign Minister Ann Linde, as well as a statement that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson made here in the chamber when he delivered his government statement in the autumn. These are, therefore, statements that the KU has found both a constitutional basis to examine and found deficiencies in. In addition, there are a further handful of statement matters that the KU has found constitutional grounds to examine but where we have not found deficiencies.

But the most interesting thing in this chapter is what is under the last subheading, "Certain reviews of statements by ministers". It is a collective KU that in this year's review chooses to set out on a new path by in practice rejecting ten of this year's KU-reports because they do not contain any constitutional aspect that would make them subject to review by KU. Several of us have said it, and I say it again, just as in my first speech here today: This is a very important step, and it is very pleasing that we take it together. I feel proud to be in KU this year, as we actually take it.

Mr. Speaker! It is of course relevant for the KU to examine certain statements by ministers, for example, those where a minister, by commenting on a certain issue, risks violating the principle of the prohibition of ministerial rule and thereby risks affecting the independence of courts and administrative authorities. Such statements are important and correct for the KU to examine. But in recent years, we have seen a large increase in the number of reports regarding ministers' statements, and those have been reports concerning whether a statement was factually correct or not.

Of course, it is important that ministers do not deviate from the truth in their statements and do not distort facts. But to, as the development has become, use KU as a political punching bag and accuse political opponents of spreading falsehoods is actually not good for trust, neither for KU nor for politics in general. Therefore, in this year's review report, we have landed on not commenting on this type of matter and not making assessments of these reports, which amount to ten in number.

We emphasize that KU's review is constitutional, not political, and is focused on legal control and administrative practice. It follows from this that the review of ministers' statements should be delimited to cases where constitutionally justified requirements can be placed on the statements. This applies, for example, when ministers speak in connection with question periods and interpellation debates in the Riksdag, as this indeed takes place within the framework of the Riksdag's power of oversight.

Mr. Speaker! Sitting in the Committee on the Constitution is something I value greatly. It is a committee that has an important role and, as I said in my opening remarks, a committee where we have a respectful tone towards one another and actually try to rise above the so-called political bickering, look up, and look at the facts. But even during this year's review, we have sometimes ended up in protracted discussions in the committee about what is actually true regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power in Sweden. Many of the motions for statements made this year concern precisely this, Sweden's energy policy. And sitting in KU meetings and arguing hour after hour about which decisions were taken by which government and what it has actually meant for what our energy supply looks like today is not what I prefer to do in KU. Nor is it what I think we should occupy ourselves with in KU. Therefore, I am very pleased that we this year have landed on a statement that says exactly this: These discussions and debates shall be conducted elsewhere, in other forums.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that we in the KU will stick to the path we have taken and in the coming years will immediately be able to identify those reports that actually have no constitutional basis and deal with them summarily, as we do in this year's report – or even better, that such reports do not even reach the KU from the members of the Riksdag. In this way, we can focus on what is constitutionally relevant and also, in the long run, strengthen the view of the KU's role and hopefully thereby also increase confidence in politics as a whole.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! During this section, which concerns the performance of certain ministers' duties, I would like to begin by addressing the report regarding Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch's statement on the iron and steel project Hybrit. The review concerns how a statement in the newspaper Dagens industri relates to the Instrument of Government's prohibition against ministerial rule, regarding an ongoing case at the Swedish Energy Agency. In the interview, Ebba Busch says: "I would say that one is welcome to show what the alternative path is to remove 10 percent of Sweden's carbon emissions if the way forward is not with Hybrit and similar projects."

Ministers, like all other citizens, have the right to make statements in various contexts. The committee emphasizes, however, that particular caution is needed in certain respects, including in the matter of statements that could risk affecting the constitutionally protected independence of government agencies.

The statement in question was in response to one of several questions from a journalist. The entire interview was about the need for transition and increased energy production in general. Seen in its context, the Minister for Energy and Industry's statement cannot, in the committee's opinion, be considered to target a possible upcoming review of the Swedish Energy Agency or otherwise be seen as an attempt to influence such a review. The committee therefore does not point out any deficiency in this statement.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to take up in this context the statement by the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde regarding the possibility of exporting war materiel to Turkey. The statement was made in Agenda on February 13, 2022. Ann Linde said then: "We cannot suddenly say like this that just because there is now a conflict, we are going to change our arms export rules." This statement was therefore made eleven days before Russia's unlawful war of aggression against Ukraine, after a long period of Russian troop build-ups along the borders towards Ukraine, also on Belarusian territory. Since 2014, there has also been a Russian occupation of the eastern parts of Ukraine, and an armed conflict has been ongoing since then.

The Committee on the Constitution's self-evident starting point is that ministers' statements shall be correct. Our review shows that there is no prohibition against the export of war materiel to a state that is in an armed conflict with another state. The guidelines state that export licenses should not be granted if they concern a state that is in an armed conflict with another state, a state that is involved in an international conflict that may be feared to lead to an armed conflict, or a state that has internal armed unrest. That it is nevertheless de facto possible to make exceptions from this "should" was proven already a few weeks later, and it had also been proven during the Iraq War, when Sweden granted export of war materiel to NATO states.

Special considerations may need to be taken due to Swedish foreign, defense, and security policy. In the security situation the world was in when the statement was made, there was reason not to fuel speculation. The committee therefore considers that there were good reasons for the then Foreign Minister to emphasize that the possibility of a Swedish export of war materiel was not self-evident. There is, however, a risk that parts of the Foreign Minister's statement could have been perceived to mean that war materiel could not be sent to Ukraine without the rules first being changed. This was a shortcoming.

Violations have also been pointed out in this chapter in a statement by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and a statement by the then Minister for Climate and Environment Annika Strandhäll, which other speakers have taken up.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson was elected on October 17. We were all here and remember exactly how it happened. The following day, the new government was to be presented and a government statement was to be submitted.

Towards the end of the government statement, the Prime Minister says that Sweden already in the 70s and 80s became an almost fossil-free industrial nation, leading in the world. This not only surprised many, including the complainant, but was also perceived as a falsehood. And it led to a report to the KU. Sweden was then, just as now, dependent on a fairly extensive supply of energy from petroleum products, not least for transport but also for the associated industry when it comes to petrochemistry.

The Prime Minister has since explained the reasoning that it could have been implied that the statement referred to the fact that after the oil crises of the 70s, Sweden expanded nuclear power in southern Sweden and thus created an electricity supply that, in all material respects, is based on production of electricity that is, if not renewable, at least fossil-free.

I spoke a little bit at the beginning of the debate today about communication and about how it is not always completely clear that it actually reaches the recipient in the way one intended. Then there is another aspect of this that concerns what image one wants to create or that has been created. It's all in the optics, as they say in the USA, that is to say it doesn't matter so much what has actually happened or been said, but what is important is how it looks.

Without in any way claiming that it has been an intention - to establish an image - in just this case, I think that we should be vigilant about this going forward, regarding who says what and for what purpose. This is completely legitimate in many ways. We all do it. Everyone has at some point sold something on Blocket or written something about themselves in some profile. But it is when the line between truth and untruth is blurred and becomes diffuse that it becomes serious. If power derives from the people, it is of course unconditionally so that that which is presented to voters, amateur politicians in municipalities and regions, officials and members of Parliament shall be correct and nothing else.

I can imagine that we will see not only the Committee on the Constitution as representatives of such a view. I foresee that, for example, the media's fact-checks will become more frequent and more extensive in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Under the same heading, Certain questions regarding the minister's performance of duties, there are also discussions about the Foreign Minister's statements regarding Turkey, primarily in connection with the demonstrations carried out in connection with Sweden's application for membership in Nato. There are also statements here relating to Swedish arms exports to Ukraine. This has been addressed by other members of the committee.

They are of course important issues, and I look forward to continued discussions about what they have entailed, but that will likely have to take place outside the committee's walls, perhaps within the framework of future research projects.

Most importantly in this context are the relatively many matters that have, so to speak, been handled in a context. These are statements where the committee actually has nothing to contribute from a constitutional point of view. Different members, of course, have different opinions about what has been said – many have already testified to this – but that belongs to the characteristics of democracy. That is how it should be, and political issues must be resolved in the arenas that exist for that purpose.

In my very first post today, I spoke a little about the experiences I have had as a new member both in the committee and in the Riksdag. I absolutely agree with what other members have said here. I look forward to the continuation of the parliamentary term. Now we have gained momentum. We have set certain frameworks and guidelines for what we are going to do. It will be exciting, fun, and interesting to take part in the next Riksdag session of the Committee on the Constitution.

With this, I thank you for the floor one last time in this review debate.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will touch upon three matters during this concluding part. I would like to begin by stating that the review of Minister of Education Lotta Edholm's handling of her shareholdings in connection with her appointment as Minister showed that it was carried out in a correct manner.

In my opening remarks earlier today, I placed great emphasis on the handling of statements of opinion, which the committee unanimously supported during this year's review. I hope that this can become a future way of handling those statements that should be reviewed within the context of public discourse and political debate rather than within the framework of KU's constitutional review.

Mr. Speaker! I will now limit myself to two statements that fall under what the KU should investigate. The first concerns the statement by the then Minister for Climate and Environment, Annika Strandhäll, regarding the possibilities for new nuclear power.

Annika Strandhäll's statement was made in the response to an interpellation. A response to an interpellation is indeed given within the framework of a political debate, but the response is also as much within a forum where the opportunity is given to speak to the point. Responses to interpellations are a part of the Riksdag's control of the government, where the ministers' answers to the members' written questions are well-prepared. Regarding the statement in question, the Committee on the Constitution notes that it was made in the response to the interpellation itself.

The current Minister for Climate and Environment stated in his response: There are currently no obstacles to building new nuclear power, whether with traditional technology or with the new technology called small modular reactors, SMR, which is still in the development stage.

The review shows that the statement does not provide a complete picture, as for example it is only in certain places that it is permitted to build new nuclear power. The Minister did nuance the picture later during the debate, but the answer should have given a more accurate picture of the actual conditions for new nuclear power than it did, and therefore the action is seen as a deficiency.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter of interest concerns the statement by the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde regarding the export of war materiel to Ukraine. Ann Linde claimed in an interview on SVT that Sweden's weapons export laws need to be changed so that Sweden can send weapons to Ukraine.

The statement was made only a few weeks before Sweden actually sent weapons to Ukraine. And despite there being great understanding that the Foreign Minister at the time could not promise that weapons would be sent, it should not have been left to the public's imagination that it was impossible without the regulatory framework being changed.

Sweden has very strict weapon export rules, but there is no prohibition against the export of war materiel to a state that is in an armed conflict according to the War Materiel Act. In the guidelines for war materiel export, it is stated that an export permit should not be granted if it concerns a state that is in an armed conflict with another state.

As I have mentioned, given the security situation the world was in when the statement was made, there were very good reasons for the then Foreign Minister to emphasize that the possibility of Swedish export of war materiel was not a given, but to say that it was impossible without first changing the rules is not consistent with speaking correctly and factually in my opinion. Even though we cannot take into account what happened after the statement when we conduct our review, it has become clear with all clarity that it has been possible to send weapons to Ukraine without rule changes.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of what I said in my first contribution today. Regardless of whether it concerns a statement that we have reviewed or not, we continue to expect that statements from both ministers and elected representatives shall be objective, correct, and based on facts. We all have a responsibility to safeguard our democracy and not to be swept up in a tone in the debate that, in the long run, can lead to a diminished trust in democracy.

With this, I thank you for the long and wonderful debate that we have had today.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am last in the debate on the Committee on the Constitution's review report regarding the so-called spring review. Much has already been mentioned in the debate, and I find no reason to repeat it. And in order to save time and possibly prevent someone from falling asleep, turning off the TV, or yawning their way through my speech, I simply choose to shorten it a bit.

I take the side of a serrated knife that shreds the consideration into pieces and therefore choose to dive into some pieces we have dealt with in KU since last winter.

Mr. Speaker! One of the matters concerns, among other things, Minister for Education Lotta Edholm's handling of her shareholding in a school group in connection with her appointment as Minister. The report to the KU states the following: The Minister for Education made stock market trades in connection with her own appointment.

It is important to emphasize here that, according to the regulations regarding insider crime, one cannot anticipate events and trade in financial instruments before the market has been informed. Had she divested her shareholding before the disclosure of her appointment as Minister for Education, she would thus most likely have committed an insider crime.

Thus, the Minister for Education acted correctly when she handled her commitments in the school group in connection with the announcement of her appointment as Minister.

Another matter that the KU has examined concerns the Minister for Energy and Business's statements regarding an iron and steel project. In an article in Dagens industri, Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch is interviewed regarding industrial initiatives in the so-called green transition, in this specific case regarding projects to produce steel fossil-free - for example, the Hybrit project.

The Minister for Energy and Business's statement is general and concerns the Hybrit project or similar projects, and her statement can therefore not be considered to influence the official reviews that were ongoing at the time of the statement and thus is not subject to so-called ministerial rule.

Mr. Speaker! In an interpellation debate on the enabling of construction of new nuclear power throughout the country, the answer to the interpellator is misleading and does not provide a truthful picture of the conditions for the new establishment of nuclear power in Sweden.

KU emphasizes that it is a self-evident starting point that statements by ministers should be correct, especially in, for example, the response to an interpellation which is part of the Riksdag's oversight of the government. The response to an interpellation could also have been prepared with the help of, for example, expertise in the Government Offices.

The current Minister for Climate and Environment, Annika Strandhäll, initially answered the interpellor that there are no obstacles to new nuclear power in Sweden.

The interpellator, however, has good expertise in the subject and points out that it is prohibited to build nuclear power in 287 of the country's 290 municipalities, as previously pointed out in the debate, and that one must also own a reactor to be allowed to replace this one. And thus, new actors are prevented from building new nuclear power in the country. Furthermore, it is therefore permitted with a maximum of only ten nuclear power plants in Sweden under current legislation. And it is prohibited to build new nuclear power in, for example, electricity area 4, because the Barsebäck plant may not be replaced, as the Environmental Code only grants permission to replace reactors that have been in operation after May 31, 2005.

The current Minister for Climate and Environment, Annika Strandhäll, finally makes a slight correction to her prepared answer to the interpellation but does not provide a fully accurate picture in the answer.

KU has found that this is a deficiency and points out the importance of accuracy in matters that are part of the Riksdag's oversight power, especially in prepared situations such as responses to interpellations.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to comment on some of the statements of fact that we have placed in the so-called "kappan", that is, section 3.8 of the committee report.

There are a number of statements of opinion with a common denominator: energy policy in general and nuclear power in particular. As mentioned by speakers before me in the debate, the KU has no task to determine what is right or wrong, what is true or false. The political debate must be decided in other forums, for example in this chamber, in debate articles, in question periods and the like.

Review Report Certain questions regarding the exercise of duties by ministers (Chapter 3)

But, as a former nuclear power engineer and, in this context, relatively expert in energy policy, I cannot help but make a contribution to the energy policy debate. If, in the debate, one focuses on the needs of the electricity system rather than pitting individual types of power against each other, it is my hope that we can see a more objective and fact-based energy debate in the future.

Finally, I would like to extend a thank you to all colleagues in KU and not least to the secretariat, which has succeeded in incorporating all the discussions into a well-balanced report.

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)