Review report

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the floor! "Thank you for the floor" is actually a fine concept. It is not everyone who gets the floor. In fact, the right to express one's opinion is being suppressed and restricted in more and more countries.

It is not everyone who dares to speak out either. Journalists do it, but self-censorship is increasing and the free, independent media is decreasing.

It is not everyone who is careful with their words. We in the Committee on the Constitution are. I will return to this.

Madam Speaker! A few days ago we celebrated Sweden's National Day. Why it is specifically on June 6 is a constantly recurring question. It is for two reasons. On June 6, 501 years ago, Gustav Vasa was elected king in Sweden. This resulted in Sweden breaking away from the Kalmar Union with Denmark and Norway and again becoming an independent country with its own king and a new royal dynasty, the House of Vasa.

The second reason, which perhaps interests us in the Committee on the Constitution more, is that the Riksdag on June 6, 1809 signed the form of government that laid the foundation for modern Sweden. It meant more power to the people - more democracy after a period when the monarchy had been able to decide almost everything itself. And, dear listeners, it was a newly established Committee on the Constitution that worked out that form of government. The committee received a permanent place in the Riksdag's work and was also given the mandate to review how the government complies with the laws and rules that regulate government work.

We have performed this mission for over 200 years. When we stand here now, it is both a historical heritage that we manage and pass on, and a democratic tradition that we carry forward.

Let me move on to this year's review. As you know, we submit two review reports every year – one in the autumn which is more administratively oriented, and one in the spring regarding the ministers' performance of their duties, based on the KU reports that Members of Parliament have submitted regarding this.

It is important to emphasize that none of these reviews concern how the government has acted from a political point of view. It is not this that we are reviewing, but rather the formal side of the government's work that is being reviewed.

In the committee, we have a special task. It is about both having a great integrity when it comes to scrutinizing how the government parties conduct themselves and also rising above the current day's party politics.

Madam Speaker! No audit year is like another. The number of reports and their content vary. Regarding the number, we can say that the Committee on the Constitution has had between 18 and 48 reports each year over the last twelve years.

This year and this spring, we have examined a total of 29 cases. We have found deficiencies—it is this that is usually interesting to find out—in five of the cases. In twelve cases, we make statements that do not point to deficiencies but rather to more constitutional findings.

The issues in this year's review are different, but some broader strokes can still be discerned.

Many matters concern climate policy and its handling. It possibly reflects where the political debate has been located at some point during the past year. The committee has found deficiencies in three matters where the Minister for Climate and Environment is responsible. Two of them concern statements, including the incorrect statement regarding when the climate action plan was to be submitted to the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! Short preparation times are also something that the Committee on the Constitution and this year's review highlight. For the Committee on the Constitution, which is a watchdog when it comes to the quality of legislation and the integrity of parliamentary processes, this is a very interesting issue. We have not found any deficiencies in this year's review but want to remind again that we understand that politics sometimes needs to move fast, but deadlines should only be deviated from when it is absolutely necessary. Legislation must maintain a high standard, and short preparation times can affect the quality.

Madam Speaker! It is also one of the government's main tasks to manage the administration. It must be done carefully, responsibly, and with respect for the regulatory framework that applies. Some of the matters we have examined concern exactly this.

A matter concerns the relocation of a director-general. There, the committee points out the importance of documentation being maintained so that no disagreements arise regarding what applies. The committee also notes that it is ultimately the minister's responsibility to ensure that voluntariness for a relocation prevails and, if not, to consider a formal relocation according to the Act on Public Employment, which has not occurred in this case.

We have also previously reviewed a similar matter, in 2019, where the committee also noted that it is unfortunate that one does not have a similar view of the voluntariness.

Madam Speaker! An issue that also concerns administrative matters and received a lot of media attention concerns the so-called Tidölönerna. There, the committee can state that it is of great importance that there is a well-functioning government power. It benefits from the fact that there is a government offices whose employees are employed on objective grounds such as merit and skill and contribute with competence regardless of which political orientation the government has. This is also something that state employees place a great value on - not to be politicized. It also creates the integrity that is needed towards politics and the distance of respect between politics and administration that needs to exist.

We note that the introduction of the Time Wages was something that could have meant that the administration was politicized, and which many noted was an unfortunate introduction. We cannot, however, blame the government for this. We have had inquiries where the head of the administration has accounted for how this has proceeded. Several of these representatives have also noted that it was unfortunate.

The university boards are another matter that we have examined. It is important to safeguard academic freedom. It is important that the university boards have a very independent role – a more independent role than, for example, the boards in many other agencies. Academic freedom must be safeguarded through this. Therefore, we have also found a deficiency in the Minister for Education's handling of the shortened appointments in the university boards. The notification regarding this arrived, according to the committee, at an unnecessarily late stage.

Madam Speaker! If you listeners to this debate think that we in the chamber seem a bit tired today, you are likely making a completely correct observation. Many of us have worked intensively on the EU election campaign for several months while simultaneously carrying out the parliamentary work. And we in the Committee on the Constitution have worked long and well on the report that we are debating and presenting here in the chamber today.

In conclusion, I would like to say that our review contributes to making the government's work better. It is my and, I believe, the committee members' firm conviction. We are also aware that a solid and serious review that results in consensus allows us to be more practice-creating, which we hold in high regard.

This report contains, as stated, no reservations. Many hours of work lie behind our positions, and it is because we are careful with our words. We know, in fact, that words have significance, especially when our words become guiding and practice-creating for the future.

On behalf of the entire committee, I would like to extend a big thank you to the secretariat for their professional and objective support. Thanks also to all members for their constructive, serious, and committed work!

With this opening statement in this debate, I hereby submit KU's review report to the Riksdag. I propose that it be added to the records.

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

Matheus Enholm (SD)

Madam Speaker! This year marks 215 years since the Instrument of Government of 1809 was introduced and 50 years since it was replaced by the current Instrument of Government. KU is therefore not new-born, regardless of whether one measures it in years or whether one measures it in centuries.

As a Conservative, I naturally honor long-standing institutions, especially when they function as well as KU does. In KU, we have once again reached a unanimous review report this year. For this, I would like to thank my colleagues in the committee and, of course, the committee's competent and fantastic secretariat.

The matters that KU has had to review this year, we will elaborate on during the respective blocks addressed in this debate. However, I have some general observations that I would like to share.

Regardless of which government we have had, it seems there has been a problem with directors-general.

A few years ago, the KU had a case where we examined the then Social Insurance Minister Annika Strandhäll and the deficiencies surrounding the relocation of the Director General of Försäkringskassan. The deficiencies concerned, on one hand, that the Minister could not substantiate the reasons for the relocation, and on the other hand, that the Minister's and the Director General's accounts of what had happened did not align.

Now, approximately the same thing has happened again, but this time it concerns the Director General of the Radiation Safety Authority and the Minister for Climate and Environment. KU therefore notes once again that the documentation needs to become better to ensure the handling and so that what actually occurred can be followed in hindsight.

Madam Speaker! The principle of employment based on merit and skill also emerged 215 years ago, albeit formulated somewhat differently. It links to another matter that the KU has investigated, namely that of the so-called Tidölöner.

The vast majority of civil servants in the Government Offices are not politically appointed. They retain their employment regardless of changes in government or party political composition. They are employed based on the principle of merit and skill and assist with investigations and materials for the government regardless of political color. This is, of course, a good arrangement that contributes to a well-functioning governance of Sweden.

Due to how the wage directives were designed, it was however suspected that the wage setting of these would have elements of party politics.

KU has now examined this and noted that both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Civil Affairs have deplored the unfortunate in what occurred.

If there had been any deficiencies in that handling, the government cannot be blamed for this, because it is not the government that handles those issues. Both the Prime Minister and the head of the agency have been very clear that there has been no political influence in the salary directives.

An institution that is even older than KU is the principle of public access. It has existed with us in various forms ever since the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766.

In the 1700s, thoughts and ideas were primarily spread via printed matter. The public records were, of course, no exception.

Now, 258 years later, documents arise and enter mostly electronically, for example in the form of SMS. Information technology has taken enormous leaps just in recent years. There is a large number of digital platforms where one is expected to participate in the debate. It is therefore not strange or even remarkable that above all the younger generation views electronic communication differently than an older person does or perhaps what an important, but still 258-year-old, principle does. We must view and apply the principle of public access from the perspective of the society we live in.

It is against this background that I want to say something about matter G20, the Minister for Climate and Environment's deleted SMS messages, and the statement that all cabinet ministers delete their SMS messages.

Social development brings challenges when the application of the regulatory framework for public access to official documents clashes with modern information technology. My colleagues will elaborate more on this during the debate, but I and the committee note that we must constantly be in harmony with the development. KU will likely review the ministers' use of, among other things, social media going forward.

With this, I would like to once again thank you for a well-executed review and pass the floor to the next speaker.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Chair of the Committee said that we might look a bit tired. We do, after many long meetings. I have lost count of how many hours have been required for eight parliamentary parties to reach these common conclusions. This is what eight parliamentary parties managed to agree on in the midst of a European election movement. This possibly leads to the second reason why we might look a bit dark under the eyes. There was an election vigil last night. I believe there were many who sat and watched carefully at every new decimal that successively ticked in. That is what we politicians do.

When democracy is in full swing, it is exciting. That the voters cast their votes in the ballot boxes plays a major role. But the Committee on the Constitution works in broad agreement regardless. It is a fantastic strength in our work. It has been a constant for over 200 years. We strive for consensus and for seeing things in the same way. It is about that the basic rules regarding how our country is governed should be the same regardless of who is in power. We must agree on the rules of the game in our democracy. It is absolutely crucial, Madam Speaker, for the legitimacy to be protected in the system that we have.

KU's role is in that respect completely indispensable in the system we have. There is, from the other side of the water, as we usually say, that is from the Government Offices, a great interest in our conclusions. As recently as yesterday, on election day, I encountered in a campaign a minister who had many questions about how we had reasoned and how we had arrived at the different conclusions, not with the aim of passing judgment on our conclusions but with the aim of listening and receiving guidance on what we had observed. It is something that I think is an important sign of health in our Swedish democracy.

We have an important task as a committee, and it is a task that I know we all take very seriously. It is about to scrutinize and to do so in an objective and correct manner, and about reaching an agreement and showing that we reach an agreement in a time when it is very difficult to reach an agreement across party lines.

In this report, we have provided several sharp pointers and identified deficiencies in the government's work. In no fewer than five cases, deficiencies have been pointed out. In addition to that, several important observations have been made, which have been described earlier.

I will not delve into every single one of those. I just want to mention that an important factor when it comes to our review is also what is reported to the Committee on the Constitution. It is those reports that are on our table that we base our spring review on. Therefore, it is important that we receive good reports that raise important constitutional questions. Then we have the opportunity to review in a good and thorough manner.

I would like to say that there are several such reports, and we have conducted very interesting reviews. It does not mean that everything is always a deficiency, but it can mean that we get to look at the depth of an issue that otherwise would not have been properly scrutinized.

One such question is the question of the so-called Tidölöner, which have been mentioned earlier. Another is the question of the crisis management after the traffic stop on the E22 during the snow chaos. The crisis management on the ground left a great deal to be desired, and quite relevant questions are naturally being asked: How has the Government Offices handled this based on the task that the Government Offices has?

Could a better job in the Government Offices have improved the situation on the ground? We have not been able to find that in our review, but the question must be asked and investigated – otherwise, it remains unanswered. Much of that is also the task of the Committee on the Constitution: to find answers to the questions that would otherwise have been left unanswered and to give the voters and the public a deeper insight into how this country is governed and how executive power is exercised than they otherwise could have received.

The Committee on the Constitution has particularly important powers to look into issues in depth, and perhaps that is among our most important tasks. All those who claim that the Committee on the Constitution is toothless should consider that in the Committee on the Constitution's review, new things are discovered in principle every year that otherwise would not have been disclosed to the public in the same way, because no one else has this role to compile, review, and look into issues in depth. The journalistic activity obviously has an immensely important task within the framework of its work, but KU is unique in its role.

Madam Speaker! I will not delve into particularly many matters, but this year's climate of cooperation in the committee bodes well for the future. I believe we have good conditions to continue to shoulder this very important task together in a way that gives reason to be proud and that those who, like me, are deeply fond of our Swedish democracy can have hope for the future.

Cooperation in democracy- and constitution-related issues between parties and across block boundaries is important. We have a tradition of having very broad coalitions in this country when we act in constitution- and democracy-related issues. It is something that the Moderaterna always stands up for and always wants to safeguard. We see it as a necessity for the legitimacy of our Swedish democracy.

The Committee on the Constitution is a good example here. We need more of the KU spirit in Swedish politics. I believe we can all in the committee agree on that. At the same time, I understand that it might not be the easiest for everyone to truly digest what this entails when one has not previously been a part of it oneself.

I myself was relatively skeptical when I entered the Committee on the Constitution several years ago; I thought perhaps it was a bit on the toothless side. But that was, Madam Speaker, before I truly saw the effects of our work and what it leads to. It was before I saw in depth how important the task is and what important results our review reaches.

What is interesting to convey in a media landscape are conflicts and areas of friction. When politicians who are raised in such a culture sit down and try to reach an agreement, it is not done without some friction either. But we can be proud that we have done it.

I cannot vote in favor of the committee's report, even though I would very much have liked to do so. We have already decided on this in the Committee on the Constitution. But I can warmly recommend the report for reading, not only for ministers but also for curious members of society who want to know how the government has fulfilled its task.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Just like previous speakers, I am very pleased that we are standing here, even if we might be a little tired for several different reasons.

One of the Committee on the Constitution's most important tasks is, as has been said, to review the government's work. That is what we as a committee have done for over 200 years.

This year's review is the sixth that I am participating in. Before each time, I am personally a bit uncertain about whether we will succeed in maintaining the habit that the committee has acquired over the recent parliamentary terms: to find unity across the boundaries between parties and between the majority and the opposition and to deliver a review that all parties in the committee stand behind after everyone has constructively contributed to our discussions, which are many and long. It is no secret that we can often stand far apart when we begin our discussions, even if it does not appear so right now as we hand over our unanimous report. The path to unity simply goes through long committee meetings.

I am very pleased that KU has also succeeded this year in submitting a unanimous report. It is a success and a strength for us as parties that, through our joint efforts, we safeguard the tradition we have now established and safeguard KU's role to assess governments, regardless of political color, on equal grounds. It is also, just as previous speakers have pointed out, a strength that we do so in an increasingly polarized environment.

We are also holding to the path we jointly chose last year regarding the review of statements by ministers. We have chosen to limit our review to statements where there is a constitutional basis and a value for us to initiate a review. Based on this choice, there are three reports this year where we have not initiated any review.

We did this after a development occurred over time where more and more reports to the committee primarily concerned statements made by ministers and where the committee was invoked as some kind of judge. Not infrequently, a KU report was also seen as a reason for a minister not to speak at all or not to answer questions from, for example, the media, while awaiting the committee's assessment, which could sometimes come over a year later.

Madam Speaker! I note that the signal to the other Members of Parliament seems to have been received. Last year there were ten reports of such a nature that we chose not to comment. This year there are only three.

The number of submissions to the committee, however, has not decreased to any such extent. It can obviously vary from year to year, but this year there are, nevertheless, 29 submissions, which is approximately the same number as the previous year. Hopefully, they are both more interesting for us in the committee to work with and more interesting for the Riksdag and government from the perspective that our statements and positions can become more guiding.

In this year's review, we have processed 29 reports and found deficiencies in five cases. But at least as important are the ten cases - twelve, I believe the chairman said - where we issue statements and make various types of referrals.

One can, of course, wonder what it is that Members of Parliament choose to report. It is, just as previous speakers have pointed out, a reflection of the debates of the time. We come as a committee some time later. We see in hindsight what was relevant last year or the year before and which areas of interest were highlighted in the media or hotly debated in the Riksdag.

In recent years, it has, for example, concerned nuclear power – it was a rather long tail for us in the committee during last year's review. The pandemic took a very large amount of power and time in the committee's reviews over several years. In this year's review, one could say that social media is an issue that has sparked many discussions internally in our committee. Justice and climate issues are also often topical and lead to reports.

One might think that this is a bit unfair towards the ministers who work on precisely those issues. Which ministers are it that do not receive KU reports but perhaps should have? That is what I think about when I sit in my chamber. What is it that we in the opposition do not choose to report? It can also apply to the majority - it is not so common for the government parties to choose to report their own ministers, but I could certainly imagine encouraging that. What I am reflecting on is what it is that we do not get our hands on in the committee and do not get the opportunity to scrutinize, because I believe that the scrutiny we do in the committee is so important.

I have not intended to go into individual cases in this part of the debate, but after a few years in the committee, I can nevertheless state that there are certain cases that recur in the committee's review, for example those cases concerning the EU Committee. It is often a matter of tight time margins, the government has an information advantage over the Riksdag, and it is of course important that the Riksdag receives the influence it is intended to have through the arrangement we have with the EU Committee. Especially considering that there were elections to the EU yesterday, it feels at least relevant that the arrangement we have to gain influence in EU matters also works in practice, not just in theory.

Another question that is often recurring is what the timeframes look like in different parts of the legislative process. I will return to those questions in the later debates.

I also, of course, want to extend a big thank you to the committee, and above all, I also want to thank our fantastic secretariat that we have at our disposal. Without the secretariat, we would definitely have had a much harder time reaching an agreement, and without revealing too much about our work in the committee, one can also state that we sometimes get stuck in our discussions. When they become too protracted, it is a huge advantage for us that we can ask our secretariat to come with a new proposal for the next meeting, which should have captured all the different inputs and nuances that we members of the committee have "flown out" from us without always having written them down. In some way, our secretariat manages, through fantastic work, to find the nuances and perspectives that we have requested. In short, we would not have managed without our secretariat.

I do not submit any motion here, but I say thank you very much and will return later.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Just as several have said here in the speaker's chair, we are perhaps a bit tired today. That is certainly because many of us were awake late yesterday due to the vigil. But it can also be because when we submitted our joint report a couple of weeks ago, we had worked hard and intensively.

We have long meetings, and we have long discussions. Unlike many committees, we have meetings that go on and on, and we have discussions that go on and on. That is probably why we can land on a joint report.

It takes time to reach a consensus, and it takes effort to reach a consensus, but we have succeeded again this year.

It is an important review we conduct every year, and it is intended to see if the government and its ministers follow our constitutional framework. When that is not the case, we shall point out what has been lacking and speak about how we view this and how serious it can be.

The result of the review is a report of just over 220 pages. It is extensive reading that I, as well as Erik Ottoson, warmly recommend the interested citizen to take part in. How have we in KU reasoned, and how have we arrived at what we have arrived at?

The committee has, as several have pointed out, handled 29 reports during the year, and we have found deficiencies in five cases. We have also made joint submissions in twelve additional cases where we see potential for improvement, things to work on. We constantly strive for us and the government to do the job even better.

I will not go into these matters in my opening statement, but I will return to them in subsequent statements. However, I want to point out, as someone has done previously, that three matters have actually fallen away along the way. They have concerned statements that some minister has made. The reason why we in KU have chosen not to bring them up for assessment on the merits within the scope of our review, but have left them without further action, is that they have concerned statements which, by their character, have no constitutional basis.

Here, I want to emphasize the great work that we in KU did last year when we developed a model to be able to dismiss cases, that is, not to process them on the merits but instead to dismiss them. So we can do that in cases where we conclude that a KU-reported statement from a minister, based on the situation in which the statement was made and based on the content, is rather a statement that should be addressed in the political debate. Of course, it is important that ministers are objective in their statements and stick to the facts. We also process a large number of statements in this year's report, but it has happened that reports have been submitted to KU that actually have no constitutional substance.

Last year we landed on that we want to curb a development where reports to the KU risk being used to gain media attention in an issue when there has been nothing constitutional to attack. We did that work so that the value of the KU actually scrutinizing and commenting will not be eroded. It is therefore pleasing to see that most of the reports we have received for this year's review hold up.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to take this opportunity to extend a warm thank you to the committee's secretariat, which, with its professional handling, has assisted us members during the course of the work. The secretariat has played a large part in us having a solid final product to submit to the Riksdag. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the committee for well-executed work.

Our discussions have often been intense, sometimes even heated, when arguments have bounced between us. But it feels good to stand here and sincerely say that the discussions in the committee have been conducted in a respectful tone. I have experienced an ambition from everyone's side to move forward in our assessments in order to eventually reach a common result. It feels particularly good when I, like many with me, otherwise experience that the tone in the political debate is becoming increasingly harsh. Unfortunately, today we often see a very heated political debate climate. This applies in Sweden and in other parts of the democratic world, in the USA and in a majority of countries in Europe. For my part, I believe that a harshly polarized debate climate where politicians choose to play on the electorate's emotions and gladly use their time in the spotlight for a kind of entertaining performance instead of presenting substantive, perhaps not always so entertaining, arguments is not something that benefits our democracy in the long run. When politicians do not shrink from direct personal attacks, and even attribute certain negative personal characteristics to political opponents in order to gain advantages for themselves and present themselves in a beautiful light, it fosters hatred and threats and is directly harmful to our democracy.

In the election campaign that has just concluded ahead of the election to the European Parliament which took place yesterday, I have met many voters who have expressed that they cannot endure the political debate. They think that it is often irrelevant. Such comments are a poor grade for us politicians. If we face mistrust towards us politicians, perhaps in the long run we face contempt for politicians. Then it becomes difficult to gain legitimacy for the work we do in our daily lives in our various political assemblies. It is a work that is rarely particularly glamorous but rather concerns discussions and tough negotiations to achieve results to deliver to our voters. If we lack legitimacy for that work, we have a serious democracy problem.

Madam Speaker! That is why it is good to stand here as a member of the Committee on the Constitution and speak about how we have a deliberative tone in our committee and that we try to reach a consensus. It is one of many welcome features in the political landscape, namely that we politicians can weigh substantive arguments against each other and, despite ideological starting points, in several cases find our way to compromises. My hope is that we can continue to work in this constructive way in this KU-spirit during the coming years. We would gladly let this spirit reach beyond the KU meeting rooms. If we are to succeed with this, we must have a common view on the basic rules of the game for the democratic dialogue, and all members, regardless of party affiliation, must be prepared to sign off on this.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is now the second year that I have had the privilege of participating in the work of the Committee on the Constitution. It differs in many ways from the work in ordinary committees - not least by the fact that one, as we have heard previous speakers describe, strives to achieve consensus across party and bloc boundaries.

The purpose itself is to examine to what extent the government and the ministers adhere to Sweden's fundamental laws, that is to say the constitution, and the regulations and provisions that have been developed in the Government Offices. For the committee's assessments to be credible, they need to be as objective as possible and consistent across changes of government and parliamentary terms. It is, of course, a learning and responsible task, and it relies on continuity both among the members and within the offices.

I would like to initially express my thanks to the very competent secretariat and its work in producing, with great integrity, the basis for the committee's assessments, but also for the good atmosphere of dialogue between the committee members, which allows us, despite diametrically opposed political positions, to arrive at common positions.

Previous speakers have spoken about the interest that the committee's work generates in the Government Offices, for example, but also in the media. In the rest of my speech, I want to proceed from the perspective of an editorial, which I think highlights the committee's work well.

In connection with KU's press conference regarding this year's audit report, Martin Tunström notes in an editorial in Barometern under the heading "KU strengthens both government and parliament" that the number of reports has decreased, perhaps as a result of last year's criticism of "malicious reports against the government."

The committee chair Ida Karkiainen is quoted with the words "There must be a legal hook," as she "reminded that the committee's review of the government is legal. The political debate takes place elsewhere."

Tunström states: "Much water has flowed around the Parliament House since the KU appeared as a political workshop where everyone viewed the matters through party-politically colored glasses. The opposition saw the KU as an arena to get at the government."

Tunström further notes: "The culture in KU is liberating in a time of polarization and where it can be considered that a climate crisis prevails in the Riksdag."

To continue referring to Tunström: "The KU findings shall not be diminished. But none of the shortcomings that the committee notes bear the mark of a scandal or will in themselves lead to any major outcry among the electorate. - - - But it is worth pointing out that there are no matters concerning ministerial governance or that any minister anticipates court decisions by commenting on guilt or the question of punishment."

Tunström continues: "Even the 'freed' cases deserve to be highlighted. There are still examples of reports that primarily aim for attention. Where the much-discussed hook is completely absent. On the editorial page, we noted the Social Democratic drive against Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson (KD), who was reported to the KU after the chaos during the New Year's weekend on the E22, where cars stood still for over a day. As expected, no criticism whatsoever is directed at Carlson in the report."

The author notes that there are also "matters that management experts and lawyers plow through out of interest. This concerns, among other things, questions about how fast-tracks in legislation are compatible with the preparation requirements that exist. Even if the government is spared from criticism, the committee's careful wording can contribute to improved future processes. That is where the KU plays a role, even if those decisions never make headlines."

Tunström summarizes: "The Committee on the Constitution thus continues to strengthen its authority as a political free zone where objectivity and principle-mindedness prevail. And it is somewhat of a quality marker, despite the political nature of the government's scrutiny, even though the number of reports is few and the identified deficiencies even fewer."

With that summary, I thank you for the floor this time. As a previous speaker, I recommend the report for reading.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not without a sense of relief that I stand here today. I have looked forward to today's debates regarding KU20 and the Committee on the Constitution's spring review. We have lived with this for several months, and now we are finally here.

Just over a week ago, the 29 matters that the committee has had to take a position on this year were presented. They were turned over and twisted, questions were formulated, replies were reviewed, and ministers were called for questioning. All of that is already known. But after having digested comments from the media and others, and after having gained some distance from the issues, it is now time to summarize and perhaps also in some sense look forward.

Madam Speaker! As several have pointed out here, we in the parties have in recent weeks had an energetic and concentrated focus on EU issues ahead of the election of members to the European Parliament which concluded yesterday. The more formal questions regarding how decision-making in Brussels and Strasbourg takes place have perhaps not been at the top of the agenda in the debates. I recall that the Riksdag's role in the EU cooperation has also not been a major talking point. But I still think that on a day like this, the day after, there may be reason to reflect somewhat on it, now that we have all been out among our voters more than during ordinary summer weeks.

It is not entirely uncommon that people one meets or who are perhaps interviewed in radio or TV news express that too much is being decided in Brussels. Is it not tobacco and burning branches in the garden that are the civil rights that many think can just as well or better be managed at home?

When Sweden became a member of the European Union nearly 30 years ago, it meant that the Riksdag's right to make decisions in certain matters was moved to decisions in Brussels by parliament and council. In order to maintain the Riksdag's influence over policy to some extent, the EU Committee was established, where the government can and is expected to consult with the Riksdag in EU matters.

It is a somewhat awkward system, I think, partly because European countries are simply not the same and, for natural reasons, have different views on, for example, deadlines.

We have this year examined two such cases, which concern fishing issues - which in themselves are a complicated chapter with quotas, scientific research and fishermen and community organizations that rarely or never have the same opinion on the challenges we face.

Last year we had two other matters, one which concerned railways and one that summarizes part of the problem - making information and knowledge available at a time that gives the members of the Riksdag's EU Committee a reasonable chance to take a position and anchor it in their parliamentary groups.

We also have, somewhat in parentheses, a matter for next year concerning the number of predators in Europe and in Sweden. But we will have to talk about that next year.

Common to all of these is that the communication between the Council, the Commission, the Government Offices in Sweden, our Swedish representation in Brussels, and the EU Committee is sensitive to delays and ambiguities. These are issues that the KU actually cannot scrutinize, which means that the audits become somewhat limited and sometimes result in our officials in both Brussels, at the Government Offices, and in the EU Committee becoming victims of circumstances that may have been created by the hesitation of the chairing countries or, for that matter, by negotiating positions that are locked or documents that are not produced and distributed in time before the meetings.

I was at Våxtorps marknad on Friday, a little south of Laholm. It is a fantastic event where all of southern Sweden's "knallar" gather. In all honesty, I do not think the reasoning would have helped me in the discussions there, as they were about completely different things. It would still be valuable to at some point review the process of documentation to and from Brussels and see if there are potentially opportunities for improvement within that part of the system that we have control over.

Madam Speaker! There was a long exposition here regarding the relationship with the European Union, so I thought I would take up something significantly simpler: that things are described as they actually are. The committee has repeatedly spoken about the importance and necessity of the fact that what the ministers communicate in various ways must be correct.

We have expressed great understanding that it sometimes, for example in debate situations and question periods where answers are required directly, does not always turn out completely correctly, but the requirements placed on prepared presentations should be even higher. Several such matters are subjects of this year's audits, and we will return to them later. If one were to say something more general about them, it is perhaps still that there are errors and presentations that do not meet the standard and where it actually was not necessary to compromise on correctness.

I pointed out in connection with the press conference, when we presented the review, that if it had been a public company showing a presentation with the heading "Ten new reactors," it could have been fined for misleading the market.

With this said, I want to say that we have a generous attitude towards errors in debates and other more pressured contexts, even if it means that a task that is actually incorrect gets spread. We are only human, any of us.

With this said, it is of course my hope that the number of cases regarding statements will decrease, not because our parliamentary and party colleagues are not alert when inaccuracies occur, but because the number of unnecessary inaccuracies and ambiguities will actually decrease. We have enough problems with disinformation and fake news without the government having to add to them.

Finally, with this said, we have also spoken about the government's responsibility for the administration. There, we have a couple of pressing matters that I intend to return to in a following debate.

In summary, my strongest impressions—of course without disparaging others—are about the relationship between the EU, the government, and the Riksdag, and about the fact that what is said or presented as prepared statements must be correct and preferably over-clear rather than open to different interpretations. I know it is difficult, but we must move in that direction.

Several of us have spoken about the value of the consensus in the committee. I naturally join them and thank both colleagues and, not least, the secretariat - this extraordinarily professional secretariat without whose help we would not have made it through this.

I sometimes think about how we have debates that are mostly a series of speeches, while other committees have debates that are filled with interjections and other things. Then one must know that we have these interjections throughout the process. Therefore, the meetings become very long, so actually there is no major difference. But it is nice that we can reach this agreement, I think.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here again after many months of work to once again forge a unanimous report regarding the scrutiny of the government. A colleague wondered if the most effective way to scrutinize the government really is to spend many hours at our long table in the KU's session hall and turn and twist every single issue and every single word. The answer is yes.

Even though this year's review report, like last year's, is somewhat mild, the process is incredibly important. That we in the Swedish Riksdag, the country's highest decision-making body, have a well-oiled and well-practiced process for reviewing the government's exercise of power is important. That there is an instance with authority and unity that can speak out strengthens our democracy. It is important when it really matters.

Madam Speaker! Just as my colleague Gudrun Brunegård wants, I would like to quote the editorial writer in Barometern: "The culture in KU is liberating in a time of polarization and where it can be considered that a climate crisis prevails in the Riksdag." He continues: "Even if the government is exonerated from criticism, the committee's careful writings can contribute to an improved future process." He concludes with: "The Committee on the Constitution thus continues to strengthen its authority as a political free zone where objectivity and steadfastness prevail." It is a very fine judgment that I hope both my colleagues and KU's fantastic secretariat will take to heart. I also take the opportunity to thank you all for a good cooperation during this year's review.

Madam Speaker! This year's review contains both large and small matters, just as my colleagues have already accounted for, and we will soon address the reviewed matters in more detail. Our review is based on the reports made by Members of Parliament, and just as before, the reports also reflect the issues that have been in focus in the political debate. This year's review therefore has, among other things, a major focus on climate and environmental issues.

Finally: Something that has been less prevalent this year than previously is KU-reports concerning statements. Last year, we pointed out that we had seen an increased number of reports that were more about a judgment of a statement within the framework of a political debate rather than a statement that needed to be scrutinized from a constitutional perspective. We marked this by not investigating that type of case – a new approach for the Committee on the Constitution. We can state that it had an effect, as the committee this year has only had to dismiss a few cases concerning statements within the framework of the political debate. I interpret this as that the signal we sent during last year's review has actually been heeded by our parliamentary colleagues.

I take the opportunity to send yet another small signal to our colleagues in the Riksdag. We are approaching summer, or "reading break" as it is usually called in my children's schools. They do not say summer break but reading break, which is very good. I suspect that it won't be a huge number of students who will be lying in a hammock reading KU's report, but I think and hope that one or another Member of Parliament will take it with them to their summer cottage and lie down and actually contemplate what we have spent so much time arriving at. One learns an incredible amount, and it is well worth the reading.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! I will touch upon an aspect of the scrutiny matter concerning the so-called Tidö wages at the Government Offices, namely that those who work with issues related to the so-called Tidö Agreement shall have higher wages. My colleague Mirja Räihä will further develop the matter.

In Chapter 7, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government, it is stipulated that there shall be a government offices to prepare government matters and to assist the government and the ministers in their activities.

In the Government Offices, there are a number of positions that are appointed politically, such as secretaries of state and political experts. This group has tended to increase over time, and they naturally have employment contracts that are limited in time and also have specific termination conditions. This is naturally so that the other officials of the Government Offices shall be employed without political considerations and without regard to political merits.

These officials shall be able to retain their positions during changes of government. The committee emphasizes that it is of central importance that this arrangement is maintained. A government's support can quickly disappear when parties reconsider their positions, and in that case, the Government Offices must be able to serve a new government.

December agreements, January agreements and the Tidö agreement come and go - and can be broken. To then have a wage process where, as has been the case now, the politics of a certain political basis is prioritized in wage setting can lead to a new government having less confidence in the neutrality of the Government Offices. It is thus a particularly serious transgression that has been committed. It can also lead to the politically appointed staffs being forced to increase at the ministries.

It is important that the officials at the Government Offices can trust that politics does not govern their salaries, and it is important that the opposition can trust that the Government Offices can serve a different government.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have come to the annual debate on the Committee on the Constitution's review report KU20. In my speech, I will focus on a specific matter in chapter 3 Certain questions regarding the government's responsibility for the administration, namely the salary process within the Government Offices.

In a submission to the Committee on the Constitution, it was requested that the committee should review Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and the handling of the salary revision for non-political civil servants in the Government Offices. The submission stated that within the Swedish administration, there is a good tradition of separation between political and non-political civil servants, where the latter provide independent basis and enable smooth changes of government regardless of the government's party-political composition.

According to a news article, non-political officials in the Government Offices claimed that the annual salary review had elements of what could be called political influence. This is a serious allegation, and it is therefore good that the Committee on the Constitution has reviewed the matter thoroughly.

It is of central importance that the order within the Government Offices, with non-political civil servants who are to act beyond party-political commitments and personal agendas, remains intact. According to the committee, a government office where employees are hired based on merit and skill and contribute their competence regardless of the government's political direction is beneficial for a well-functioning government power in both the short and long term.

The political leadership needs to take into account that a clear majority of the officials employed in the administration are precisely non-political. Only a few positions, such as state secretaries, political experts, and appointments within the Tidö constellation's coordination office, are appointed politically. This will be a delicate balancing act where the government has a great responsibility to avoid greed in matters such as the Government Offices' salary process.

When it comes to the salary directives within the Government Offices and the report to the Committee on the Constitution that initiated this review, it has emerged that a dialogue regarding these directives has been held with the political leadership, after which the head of administration decided on them.

During a political review in the autumn of 2023, it was discussed how the wage process should support the agency's competence supply and the government's reform agenda. Specifically, the Tidö Agreement was mentioned as an important area. Despite this, the administrative head emphasized that there was no direct political signal to include this in the directives. The administrative head has taken measures to clarify the directives precisely to reduce the risk of misunderstandings.

It is fundamental that wage directives cannot be suspected of being politically colored. The committee has noted the views from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Civil Affairs and has not found that the Prime Minister has acted inappropriately in this matter. The political leadership has, therefore, stayed on the right side of the regulatory framework and the expectations that exist.

The committee has not found any evidence showing that a political steering of the wage process has occurred. The fear expressed in various news articles, by trade unions, and by political parties was therefore, happily enough, entirely unfounded. The potential shortcomings that have been pointed out are of such a nature that it does not fall to the committee to comment on them, precisely with reference to the risk of violating the line that I mentioned earlier in my speech.

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a privilege to live in an open, scrutinizing democracy, and I think it is a blessing to be a member of the Committee on the Constitution. We should be proud of our constitution here in Sweden - the constitution that regulates Sweden's system of government.

We can also be proud of how we work in the Committee on the Constitution. It is indeed we in KU who have the task of controlling the government, and we also have the task of reviewing the ministers' performance of their duties. This spring, we have devoted ourselves to reviewing just ministers as reports have been received. If a minister has been reported to KU, it is we who review whether the report has any substance or not – is there any deficiency in a constitutional sense, or is there not?

Madam Speaker! I intend to mention some of the matters that we have reviewed. I can state initially that none of these reports or subsequent reviews have given reason to suggest that there was any deficiency, but sometimes certain reviews provide guidance. This can, for example, concern the exchange of information, time margins, or the Minister's clarity in various statements.

I will begin with time margins. A report to the KU concerned whether the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, failed in his duty to consult with the EU Commission regarding the objectives for establishing fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea. The Government has a responsibility to inform the committees regarding ongoing EU work and in this way create conditions for them to be involved in matters.

In this case, the government expected that the handling of the chairmanship would allow information to be provided to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture before the continued processing. No one can manage to deliver a position before one has received the underlying material from the EU that one has to adhere to. The government expressed criticism of the time-pressured procedure and also requested more time. The takeaway here is, therefore, to work to create good time margins at the EU level.

I continue with clarity. This was about Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari and the entries in the government's budget regarding emission calculations. The complainant argued that the calculations regarding emissions are incorrect and that the figures are misleading.

When the Minister was questioned by us in KU, a clarification emerged regarding how these calculations were to be interpreted, as well as that the climate reporting is objective, correct, and provides a fair picture. The Minister also stated that there may be reason in the future to be even clearer in the wording in order to reduce the risk of misunderstandings.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to speak about the exchange of information, and now it concerns the traffic standstill on the E22 at the beginning of January 2024. A severe snowstorm caused several to drive off the road, many became stuck, and traffic came to a halt. The reporter argues that coordination was lacking and that the government's actions, or rather the lack of actions, did not work.

The investigation revealed, however, that the relevant departments kept themselves informed and that the relevant ministers received information. What can be noted is that Trafikverket did not contact the Government Offices regarding the incident. Instead, it was the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure that contacted Trafikverket. It is important, especially in crisis situations, that the government receives full and proper information from the relevant authorities.

In summary, it is my and the KU's hope that even matters without deficiencies - in these cases, they concern information exchange, time margins, and the Minister's clarity in various statements - can and will lead to improvements in the future.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! One of the matters concerns the so-called Tidölöner. This began in an article in Dagens Nyheter on November 30, 2023, where it was stated that the annual salary review at the Government Offices was underway and that the administrative head's office had previously sent out the salary directives to the heads of the departments.

According to the article, it appeared from the directives that the Government Offices should specifically prioritize certain employees. The article also states that the local employer and employee organizations during the autumn had reached an agreement on the wage process where political priorities were not included.

The head of negotiations for Arbetsgivarverket stated to Dagens Nyheter in another article that the assignment for the political civil servants is to carry out the government's policy, but that it can be perceived as unfortunate to, as in this case, refer to a concrete political agreement. The head of negotiations further said that when it is pushed in this way, it can give the impression that one wants to influence the role of non-political civil servant, and that it is unfortunate.

This ultimately resulted in a report being submitted to the Committee on the Constitution, requesting that the committee review Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and the handling of the salary revision for non-political civil servants in the Government Offices. The Committee on the Constitution has investigated the matter and, in connection with that, has been able to establish the following: A government office whose employees are employed on objective grounds, such as merit and skill, and who contribute competence regardless of the government's political orientation, is, according to the committee, to the benefit of a well-functioning government power both in the short term and over time.

The committee has been able to ascertain that a dialogue regarding the wage directives is being held with the political leadership and that the direction is being coordinated at an overall level. It is thereafter the head of administration who decides on the directives.

It has emerged that when the direction was aligned during the political review in the autumn of 2023, it was discussed how the wage process would contribute to the agency's competence supply and thus to the implementation of the government's reform agenda. Following the political review, additions were made to the wage directives. Among other things, the Tidö Agreement was cited as an example of an area where it was considered particularly important to ensure the competence supply and thus the organization's goals. The administrative head himself stated during the Committee on the Constitution's inquiry that there was no political signal that the Tidö Agreement should be included in the directives.

The Prime Minister has also been questioned by the committee. He has stated that as Prime Minister, he is the head of the agency Government Offices and has an overall responsibility for the agency's operations. This means that he is responsible for ensuring that there are regulations and routines for the agency's work. It also means a responsibility to ensure that Government Offices can, in a purposeful manner, handle not only the government's political reform work but also employer issues and other administrative tasks.

According to the committee, it is of fundamental importance that the salary directives in the Government Offices cannot be suspected of including criteria of a partisan nature. The Administrative Director has himself emphasized that measures have been taken within the Government Offices to clarify the purpose and content of the salary directives. The committee therefore notes what has been stated by the Prime Minister regarding the unfortunate circumstances in this context. The potential shortcomings that have been pointed out are of such a nature that it does not fall to the committee to examine these further, as the committee's task is to examine the government.

Madam Speaker! The Government made a decision on the budget bill for 2024 on 15 September 2023 and submitted it to the Riksdag on 20 September. In the bill, there is an appropriation for the consumer area within expenditure area 18 Social Planning, Housing Supply and Construction and Consumer Policy. The appropriation may be used for expenditures for state grants to civil society organizations that in various ways promote consumers' interests and for standardization work. It appears from the bill that approximately 7 million kronor are allocated to the appropriation for 2024, which can be compared with approximately 14.5 million for 2023. For 2025 and 2026, the appropriation is estimated at approximately 1.5 million kronor and 0 kronor respectively.

This specific expenditure area was addressed by the Committee on Civil Affairs, which had the following to note regarding the handling of the matter: There is reason for the committee to remind of the importance of the government reporting how appropriations are used and what results have been achieved. This also applies to appropriations that are being phased out.

This in turn led to a referral to the Committee on the Constitution, where it was requested that the committee should review the government's handling of the reporting of results in the budget bill for 2024 regarding measures in the consumer area. The committee has investigated the matter and has been able to state that the government in the budget bill shall provide an account of the results achieved in the operations in relation to the goals decided by the Riksdag. As the committee has previously emphasized, it is of the utmost importance that reporting to the Riksdag is as objective and correct as possible, and that the selection of information included in the reports meets the requirement that information to the Riksdag shall provide a fair picture.

The current review concerns the lack of reporting of results for an appropriation under liquidation. That an appropriation is being liquidated does not, according to the committee, in itself constitute grounds for omitting information in the budget bill regarding the results achieved in the activities that have been funded via the appropriation until now. At the same time, the committee notes that the specific design of the result information is not regulated, as it has been considered necessary to provide space for the government and the Riksdag to develop operationally adapted forms for this over time.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I now want to say something about the matters that the KU has investigated, which concern partly the government's relationship with the Riksdag, and partly the government's responsibility for the administration. In several of these matters, the KU makes recommendations to the government.

Just like last year, and several years before that, the government has been reported to the KU for how it has acted towards the Riksdag in an EU matter. The procedure that applies for the handling of EU matters is that before its meetings at the EU level on various issues to be negotiated there, the government must anchor its position on the issue itself in the Swedish Riksdag. This shall take place partly in the committee handling the issue, and partly in the Riksdag's EU Committee.

The EU is not some entity existing somewhere over there in Brussels, which there has been reason to emphasize repeatedly to the voters during the last few weeks ahead of yesterday's election to the European Parliament. The EU is politics that to a great extent affects us in Sweden and which we, of course, can and should be involved in influencing. For that very reason, transparency is important regarding how the government acts in various individual issues when the ministers meet their ministerial colleagues from other EU countries at Council meetings.

Even this year, KU finds grounds to issue a joint submission to the government regarding the handling of an EU matter. This year, it concerns a matter regarding deliberations and consultations on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea. This is an issue that to the highest degree affects Swedes, not least as the coastal fishing in the Baltic Sea as well as the stocks of sprat and herring are directly threatened.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of December 2023, the EU Commission submitted a proposal on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea. This proposal was then not raised at all at any Council meeting, but only in Coreper, which is the Council's preparatory body. There, a compromise proposal was approved on 20 December. From KU's review, it appears that this proposal was not subject to deliberation or consultation according to the usual process for EU proposals, i.e., in the Environment and Agriculture Committee and in the EU Committee. Instead, the committee and the EU Committee were informed by the Government Offices only the day after the approval of the compromise proposal.

KU notes that the time margins were very tight. KU also notes that the government requested more time from the chairship to have time to analyze the proposal and also expressed criticism regarding the time-pressured procedure.

That is why KU finds it difficult to see that the government could have acted differently than it did, but the committee still wants to point out the consequences it has for the Riksdag's influence over EU issues when decision-making within the EU proceeds in the manner that occurred.

KU has previously assumed that the government works to create good time margins at the EU level so that the Riksdag can be involved in the issues. Our review underlines the need for the government to work for that as well in the future.

Madam Speaker! Another of the matters where the KU submits a joint report to the government concerns how the government presented emission calculations in the budget bill. The government shall every year submit a climate report to the Riksdag, and that must include a report on the development of emissions. Naturally, it is of the utmost importance that the government's reporting to the Riksdag is as objective and correct as possible and that the selection of information included provides a representative picture. The matter we have examined concerns a writing on emission calculations where the way the government reported the emissions allowed some room for misunderstanding. Here we emphasize that greater clarity from the government's side could have reduced that risk.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I must also say something about a matter that several colleagues have already commented on and which received great media attention at the beginning of the year – this after the salaries at the Government Offices had been revised during the autumn. How that salary process took place caused some concern among the impartial civil servants in the Government Offices.

That we have non-political civil servants who perform their work regardless of political governance and based on the requirements of objectivity and impartiality as stipulated in the Instrument of Government is central to our administration. That is how the Swedish administrative model looks, and it is important that it is protected and remains intact. This in turn means that the employees at the Government Offices hold their positions on objective grounds, such as merit and skill, and that they shall be assessed on this basis during salary revisions. Contributing competence regardless of the government's political direction is, according to KU, to the benefit of a well-functioning government power.

The Committee wishes to emphasize in this matter the importance of that the wage directives cannot be suspected of including criteria of a partisan nature. The current arrangement, where the head of administration is responsible for the employer policy, should also apply in the future.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! This chapter covers the audits concerning the government's relationship with the Riksdag and those concerning the government's responsibility for the administration. I shall focus on one example from each section.

The first concerns the consultation and coordination regarding fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea. The petitioner requested an investigation into whether the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, had failed in his duty to consult with the EU Commission regarding the targets for establishing fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea.

The Committee on the Constitution notes that the government shall, according to the Instrument of Government, continuously inform the Riksdag and consult with bodies appointed by the Riksdag regarding what occurs within the framework of the EU cooperation. More specific provisions are found in the Rules of Procedure, which state that the government shall notify the EU Committee of matters to be decided in the various councils of the European Union. The government shall also consult with the EU Committee on how the negotiations in the council shall be conducted prior to the decisions in the council.

The Committee notes that the Commission's proposal for a regulation regarding the objectives for setting fishing opportunities was submitted on 6 December 2023. On 18 December, a compromise proposal was presented in the council working group, which was approved at a meeting of Coreper on 20 December.

It is the committees that are responsible for monitoring the substantive issues when discussions are held at the lower levels of the council structure, among other things through consultations with the government. Formally, it is the committees that request consultations with the government, but at the same time, the government has a responsibility to keep the committees informed regarding the ongoing EU work in order to thereby create the conditions for the committees to be involved.

In this case, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture received information only on December 21, 2023, which is to say after the proposal had been approved at the Coreper meeting. No consultation with the government took place before Coreper either. There have therefore been no opportunities for the committee members to submit views to the government, and that is unfortunate.

The committee notes that the time margins were very tight. The Government requested more time from the Presidency of the Council to have time to analyze the proposal and expressed criticism regarding the time-pressured procedure. The committee finds it difficult to see that the Government could have acted differently than it did, but the committee nevertheless wishes to point out the consequences when decision-making at the EU level proceeds in this manner. With such significant deviations from the normal decision-making procedure, the scope for anchoring in the Riksdag becomes strongly limited.

The committee has previously stated that it assumes the government works to create good time margins at the EU level so that the Riksdag can be involved in the issues and now emphasizes the need for this to also occur in the future.

Madam Speaker! The second matter I mentioned briefly in my opening remarks. It concerns the handling of the traffic standstill on the E22 in connection with a severe snowstorm in January. It affected many people and was discussed heatedly when it occurred. The petitioner requests that the handling by the government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing be reviewed. The efforts to get people off the road took time, and the closure of the road did not work well. According to the petitioner, the coordination and cooperation between the authorities seem to have been lacking. The petitioner also poses a number of questions about what measures the government took, whether the crisis management was activated, whether the group for strategic coordination, GSS, was convened, and so on.

The committee has, in its investigation, posed questions to the Government Offices, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, and the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure. Furthermore, the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing, Andreas Carlson, has been questioned by the committee.

Swedish crisis preparedness is based on three principles: the principle of responsibility, the principle of equality, and the principle of proximity. The person who is responsible for an activity under normal conditions shall also do so during a crisis. The organizational structure shall be the same as far as possible during peace, crisis, and war. A crisis shall be managed at the lowest possible organizational level. Within a geographical area, a regional responsible body is responsible for direction, prioritization, and coordination before, during, and after a crisis. The County Administrative Board and the municipality are responsible at the regional and local levels, respectively, while the government and central authorities are responsible for measures at the national level.

Each department is responsible for having a crisis management plan and a crisis management organization. During a crisis, the departments receive and forward alarms, which in turn alert those concerned within their own organization, call in personnel for duty, and contact and cooperate with authorities within their area of responsibility. The Prime Minister's State Secretary leads the crisis management work and assesses the need for coordination within the Government Offices and can, if necessary, convene the group for strategic coordination, GSS, which consists of State Secretaries in the departments whose areas of activity are affected.

In this case, the committee notes that the current incident on the E22 on January 3-5, 2024, had major consequences for traffic on the road. In the severe snowstorm, accidents and traffic stoppages occurred, and a large number of road users became stranded.

Our review shows that the relevant departments kept themselves informed about the incident and that the relevant ministers received information. It has not emerged that the authorities requested any directives or any other decision from the government.

The Committee notes that Trafikverket did not contact the Government Offices. Instead, it was the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure that contacted Trafikverket.

The Committee wishes to emphasize that in crisis situations, it is important that the government receives full and adequate information from the relevant authorities. The review gives no reason for any statement from the Committee.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now on the matters themselves. Some of the matters that I had intended to speak about have already been touched upon, but in that case, we shall take them once more.

Initially, I would like to speak about the matter that we call G19, which concerns emission calculations in the budget bill for 2024.

When I sat down to write this speech this evening - not last night, but an earlier evening - a message arrived on my phone from Omni. The headline spoke of a new UN report stating that the 1.5-degree goal is expected to be passed during 2028 according to WMO, World Meteorological Organization. UN Secretary-General António Guterres likened humanity to the meteor that once wiped out the dinosaurs. It is not just that we are in danger - we are the danger, he said.

I think there are connections to what we are talking about here: emission calculations in the budget bill for Sweden - one of the 195 countries that signed the Paris Agreement. It could, for all intents and purposes, be interesting to compare with how the other 194 countries formulate their ambitions and make their calculations, but that is beyond the scope of this statement. Provided that we accept the starting point that our greenhouse gas emissions have a decisive significance for global warming, the question of how one's budget ambitions are perceived is, of course, a piece of the puzzle that is not without significance.

With a constructively critical approach – an approach that is sometimes internally in KU called "the good auditor" – it is our task to point this out. In this specific case, it concerns a text and an inserted diagram as an illustration.

From the text, one can get the impression that the total increases in emissions as a result of the significantly reduced reduction obligation, which was implemented according to the government's election promises, would be limited to the order of magnitude of 5-6 million tons for the period 2024-2030. In reality, that sum refers to the calculated increase in emissions caused by the reduction obligation's lowering for the year 2030 and nothing else. This can be understood if one simultaneously studies the diagram that is inserted in the text.

This is a way of reporting that has been used previously, and it has passed among others the Climate Policy Council without comment.

Madam Speaker! Nevertheless, there are naturally – in light of the news about the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degrees and the meteor – good reasons not only to do what is most necessary from a political formal perspective. There is plenty of research that speaks of the importance of inclusion to manage the green transition. Accessible communication is an excellent tool to support that process and a condition for it to succeed.

Madam Speaker! Let me also devote a few words to a completely different issue, namely deliberation and consultation within the EU regarding fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea, and for that matter also in other European seas and along the continent's coasts. In this case, it is about the government's consultation and communication with the EU Committee, that is, with the Riksdag's tool for commenting, discussing, presenting views, and participating in the formulation of Swedish positions and negotiating positions in the EU.

The matter concerns the fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea which were changed with very short notice ahead of a meeting in the European Council in December 2023. The KU matter concerns whether State Secretary Peter Kullgren, in this context, partly placed the EU Commission in an almost impossible situation, and partly contributed to a decision that can be described as bad or very bad for the Baltic Sea's stocks of herring and sprat.

KU cannot audit the handling of matters within the EU, for understandable reasons. We simply have to assume that the government, in this context, did the best possible with the situation, purely formally. At the same time, it is of course deeply unsatisfactory that urgent and relevant views from the Riksdag cannot be communicated to the government and discussed in a reasonable manner, perhaps because forces and actors beyond our oversight influence the work and the development.

I will, of course, follow this and other matters a bit extra going forward and would like to see the committee and others in different ways highlight how the EU committee can potentially continue to develop for better participation.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, the distribution of mandates to the European Parliament was decided, and I suspect that one or another of us is a bit tired today after staying up late last night to watch the election results.

Parliament is only one of the legs that the EU stands on. Another leg is the Council of Ministers. In the Council of Ministers, all member states meet and negotiate common positions regarding the proposals that the EU Commission puts forward. Then the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament meet in a trilogue to reach an agreement.

Before a Council of Ministers meeting, the responsible minister needs to anchor the Swedish position in the Riksdag. A recurring theme for the KU's audits concerns precisely the relationship between the government and the Riksdag regarding the anchoring of EU issues.

The number of issues we solve by cooperating within the EU is large and sometimes very complex. When both the 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 running into ditches before one finds the steady course forward that everyone agrees on. Things and matters can, in other words, happen along the way – sometimes quickly and sometimes in the last second.

As a government, one 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.

Madam Speaker! In this year's review, we have handled a question regarding consultation concerning fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea, which is an example of when the time margins have been tight for anchoring. The Committee on Environment and Agriculture received the information for the first time on 21 December 2023, that is, after the proposal had been approved at an internal meeting within the EU cooperation. No deliberation with the Riksdag took place either before this internal meeting in Coreper, as it is called. There have thus been no opportunities for the committee members to submit views to the government, which is very unfortunate.

The government has, however, expressed criticism regarding the fact that the matter was expedited in the negotiations taking place in the Council of Ministers. It is difficult to see what the government could have done differently, but with such significant deviations from the normal decision-making procedure, the scope for anchoring is strongly limited. Therefore, we emphasize once again that we assume the government is working to create as good margins as possible so that the Riksdag can be involved in the process.

Madam Speaker! A great advantage of sitting on the Committee on the Constitution is that one gets to learn many new things as we delve into different matters. This year, for example, we have improved our knowledge of how to perform different emission calculations. In the climate report that the government submits to the Riksdag every year, one can follow the development of emissions. There, in full accordance with the climate policy framework, the emissions in specified target years are reported: 2030, 2040 and 2045. These are point targets, but they can easily be confused with targets for accumulated emissions.

Of course, it is good to be extra clear in the reporting, especially when there are different ways to report. In the current case, however, we have not found anything that indicates that any errors have been committed.

Finally, a few words on the review of the handling of salaries in the Government Offices, which several of my colleagues have touched upon: It is both important and obvious that recruitment as well as salary setting occurs on objective grounds, such as merit and skill, and that the non-political civil servants in the Government Offices are and remain precisely non-political.

During the preparation of the wage directives this year, a discussion arose due to unclearly formulated wage directives. It is unfortunate. This is the view of both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Civil Affairs. The committee has, however, not found that the government or the Prime Minister has acted inappropriately in this matter.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! For my part, I will confine myself solely to the matter we call G16 regarding the salary process at the Government Offices. It may be due to a purely personal interest and professional background.

The Prime Minister was reported to the Committee on the Constitution following articles in Dagens Nyheter when some non-political civil servants alerted that they perceived salaries were being politicized at the Government Offices. Even the trade union ST, Statstjänstemannaförbundet, reacted strongly. The reason was that the Tidö Agreement had been included in the salary directives as an example, as was said afterwards, but which was perceived by the employed civil servants as a salary criterion.

It is emphasized in the motion that there is a good tradition within the Swedish administration of a distinction between political and non-political officials, where the latter provide independent basis and enable smooth changes of government regardless of the government's party-political composition. According to an article in Dagens Nyheter, non-political officials in the Government Offices testify that the annual salary review has taken on elements of what one could call a politicization.

It is stated that it appears from the salary directives within the Government Offices that there is an intention to prioritize persons who specifically work with implementing the Tidö Agreement. One official has even been informed that higher salary increases are not to be expected because the official does not work with the Tidö Agreement's priorities. In the motion, it is requested that the committee examine whether the management is in accordance with the applicable regulatory framework.

This matter has truly been examined in very many different ways. After the report, the committee sent questions to the Government Offices on how this could have happened, and the committee has held hearings with both the Director General and the Prime Minister. In addition, a written question has been answered by the Minister for Civil Affairs, and an interpellation has also been answered by the Minister for Civil Affairs. In both cases, the Minister for Civil Affairs states that this year's salary directive prioritizes, as in previous years, skilled employees in the Government Offices who have performed well and achieved requested results within all areas of activity. It is important that it concerns all areas of activity.

Madam Speaker! According to the committee, it is of fundamental importance that the salary directives in the Government Offices cannot be suspected of including criteria of a partisan nature. The Tidö Agreement or previous agreements, such as the January Agreement, should not be able to be a criterion for salary setting.

The wage directive is a pure employer directive. But it must, of course, be reflected in the wage criteria. This applies in particular when wages are set in wage-setting conversations individually with each person. In that case, it is even more important that there is clarity and that every official at the Government Offices knows what is required of them and that no misunderstandings arise.

The current arrangement is that it is the head of administration who is responsible for the employer policy, and the committee says that this should also apply going forward. The head of administration pointed out during the inquiry, however, that the wage directives were unclearly formulated through the current addition and that the process could have been handled better, or, to repeat what the head of administration said, that the process failed.

The Government Offices' salary directive states, among other things, that salary formation and pay setting shall contribute to the achievement of the organization's goals and that the organization is conducted efficiently and rationally. Furthermore, it is stated that salary shall be determined on objective grounds such as responsibility, the level of difficulty of the work tasks, and the requirements associated with the work tasks. Skill and results in relation to the organizational goals also affect the salary.

When the committee chair started the debate this morning, she said that words are important. That brings us to how the salary directive was formulated from the beginning. It says as follows regarding when one intends to prioritize skilled employees: The employer intends to pay particularly attentive skilled employees who work within parts of the Government Offices where the supply of competence is judged to be particularly important to achieve the organization's goals and requirements and to assist the government in the implementation of its political priorities as they are expressed in the government statement and the Tidö Agreement. It perhaps would have been good if it had said "such as" or "for example". Then it would have been clear that these are examples. As the text was in the directive, it was not clear.

According to the committee, it is of fundamental importance that the salary directives in the Government Offices cannot be suspected of including criteria of a partisan nature. The current arrangement is, as I said earlier, that it is the head of the administration who is responsible for the employer policy. This must also apply going forward.

The Director General stated during the inquiry that the salary directives were unclearly formulated through the current addition. The Director General further stated that measures have been taken within the Government Offices to clarify the purpose and content of the salary directives. That is good. It is very good that this debate has been held. It will be a lesson for the future for how the negotiation work should be conducted even within the Government Offices.

The committee also notes what has been stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Civil Affairs regarding that it was unfortunate in this context. However, the potential shortcomings that have been pointed out are of such a nature that it does not fall to the committee to examine these further. The committee has not found that the Prime Minister has acted in an inappropriate manner in this matter.

The committee considers that no further statement is needed. However, the committee sends a greeting further that the state's wages must also be managed in a way that ensures every employee knows what applies to them.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand if it may appear to some listeners, both here in the chamber and perhaps also on TV, that we enjoy congratulating ourselves on a job well done. I believe that is a correct observation, but it is also not unreasonable.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the committee for the cooperation during the year and, of course, also the secretariat. It has, as usual, contributed profitably with knowledge, experience, and guidance.

I also want to say something about a matter that some have already touched upon. Some may be tired, others are happy, and others are relieved by the result of yesterday's election to the European Parliament.

I note that the Riksdag elected in 2022 and the government that subsequently received the voters' confidence to govern this mandate period were elected in an election where the voter turnout was 84 percent. It was a decrease from the 2018 election by a couple of percentage points.

In this election, I am incredibly disappointed that voter turnout has decreased again compared to the election to the European Parliament in 2019. What we have done during this year, both in the Riksdag and in the committee, naturally has a greater democratic legitimacy because the turnout was 84 percent compared to an election where only half of the Swedes participated. I note that and think it is sad.

During this section of the scrutiny debate, I intend to comment on some of the matters a bit more closely. I will begin with the matter concerning the appointments of members to boards for colleges and universities.

The report targeted the fact that the government, only days before the decision was to be made, suddenly changed the conditions for the assignments by shortening the mandate periods from 3 years to 17 months.

The committee has, during the review, requested written answers regarding the motives for this as well as how the process has been handled up to and including the decision. In addition, the committee, during a hearing with Education Minister Mats Persson, further questioned the handling.

The Government and Mats Persson have both before the decision and in our review emphasized the changed security policy situation as the primary basis for their actions.

The committee however noted in its position that the notification regarding the shortening of the mandate period could have been issued earlier than it was, at the end of April 2023. The committee argues that such a handling would have enabled better anchoring with the parties involved, as the decision and the minister's handling caused upset and concern among the highest representatives for nearly 40 colleges and universities. It is unfortunate that the government's relationship to academic freedom came to be questioned, as I believe Ida Karkiainen was touching upon in her opening statement. An earlier notification regarding the changed conditions could possibly have resulted in fewer controversies.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has also examined the government's and specifically Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari's handling when the then Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Nina Cromnier, was asked to leave her post. As the committee notes, and as has been mentioned earlier during the debate, the government does indeed have the right to move a Director General, but one must also comply with the provisions in the Act on Public Employment.

The committee's review in the matter has shown two completely different pictures of whether the relocation of Nina Cromnier was voluntary or not. This also became clear during the questioning of Romina Pourmokhtari, where her picture of the proceedings differed significantly from Nina Cromnier's picture. In such a situation, it would naturally have been desirable for documentation to have been available that could clarify the process. Unfortunately, however, the committee is forced to conclude that the sparse documentation that exists is insufficient to meet basic requirements that should be able to be set in such a process.

The Committee also notes that in the event of a relocation of a director-general, it is incumbent upon the Minister to ensure that the conditions for the relocation have been clarified and that they have been clarified for the head of the agency. In light of what has emerged in the review, Minister Pourmokhtari has not fulfilled this.

Madam Speaker! The committee has further examined the government's handling of proposals regarding electricity support to companies. I have at some point said that I have never been so pleased with the committee's timelines as in this matter. The matter concerns a question that partially resembles a matter we examined last year. It concerns the question of the preparation of confidentiality regarding electricity support to consumers, and both processes ran partially in parallel.

In this year's review, the committee notes that it cannot be ruled out that the preparation of both memoranda and the draft regulation text could have been initiated earlier. In that way, questions regarding regulation and also the responsible authority could have been considered and handled at an earlier stage.

The Committee emphasizes, however, in its position, that even if that had occurred, the preparation would have needed to deviate from standard routines. But we also maintain that all extra time that would have been freed up for the referral bodies would have been of value. The quality of legislation depends on the preparation process and the opportunity for referral bodies and the Council on Legislation to carefully review and provide comments for the government's continued handling.

Madam Speaker! The last matter I would like to comment on concerns the review of the national standard for social assistance. Regarding the disclosure from the committee, I must admit that the report aroused some interest when we received it because the complainant targeted all responsible ministers for the issue since approximately 2006.

It is about how the government has handled the determination of the national standard for social assistance. The committee's review has shown that the government, in addition to the Swedish Consumer Agency's price and consumption surveys, also considers its own forecast for the consumer price index. The Social Services Ordinance states that the national standard is based on the former, namely the Swedish Consumer Agency's price and consumption surveys.

The Government has in its responses in the matter maintained that the regulation does not exclude that other underlying documents can be taken into account before the Government establishes the national standard and that the handling does not differ from previous years. The Committee considers that it is an appropriate procedure that all underlying documents and calculations used in the determination are presented, this in order to create clarity and predictability regarding how the Government establishes the national standard.

Just as the report itself aroused interest at the beginning of the review, it continued to arouse interest throughout the preparation. Many of the committee members may not have been fascinated, but in any case, were very interested in how the process and the procedure could have proceeded for so many years. It is actually about transparency regarding support to some of the most economically vulnerable and weak in our country. Personally, I doubt, Madam Speaker, that such a murky arrangement would have been accepted if it had concerned the calculations of certain tax deductions.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! After a customarily work-heavy spring for the Committee on the Constitution, this year's reviews have been concluded after many hours of discussion, and at times almost debating, with strong wills and emotions on both sides, as is proper.

I will also not be less than to congratulate ourselves on a well-executed job, because I think for the most part that we in the Committee on the Constitution succeed very well in remaining objective with sound analyses. It is naturally not always the easiest, as we are all to some extent subjective beings with a wide range of ideological and political convictions. But in true Committee on the Constitution spirit, I think now, when we can allow ourselves a look back, that we have once again succeeded very well with the task.

I would like to thank all the pleasant colleagues in the committee – and by that I really mean everyone, like-minded people as well as political opponents – for your contribution to a mostly very cooperative working atmosphere through not always obvious matters. Our respect for one another can probably bring some envy from other committees, I guess.

I must also, of course, warmly thank the Riksdag's most competent office, without whose invaluable assistance our work would take many times longer, if it were even feasible. A big, warm thank you to you – you know who you are!

Madam Speaker! With some risk of a little repetition, I will also dwell on a couple of matters that we consider to be the primary matters under the heading Handling of certain government matters etc.

One of the reviews, for which we have just heard an account, concerned a report where the government decided to shorten the period of appointment for members to the boards of colleges and universities. The period was reduced by somewhat more than half, from 3 years to 17 months, which, according to the complainant, could risk making it difficult for the boards to familiarize themselves with the institutions' activities and worsen the conditions for more long-term strategic work.

The justification given by the government, i.e., the three government parties Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna, was expressed as that the government would be able to replace members somewhat more easily. The complainant considered that this could be perceived as an indirect threat that the appointment will not be extended if one does not perform one's work duties in a manner desired by the government.

The Minister for Education expressed in a press release that in this fragile security policy situation, it was important to have a shorter permit period than usual to ensure a certain degree of security policy competence. He referred to reports from, among others, the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) which warn of infiltration within our educational institutions from foreign powers such as China, Russia, and Iran. There were also other red flags, which have been noted in the media, regarding for example foreign guest researchers who have subsequently been shown to have connections to their governments.

The decision that the three government parties made was intended to only apply for the current parliamentary term. It was not a permanent change. The decision was not well received, however, as we just heard here, and led to letters of protest and a joint appeal from a number of rectors at the country's colleges and universities who very critically warned of a dangerous development that was considered capable of posing a threat not only to the institutions' independence but, in the long run, also to academic freedom.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution considers the timeline in the entire process to be problematic. The notification that the members were to be appointed for a shorter period than usual came very close to the government's decision. In this way, the nominating persons were given very little time to inform the proposed members about a halved mandate period.

The Committee considers that the information regarding a shortened mandate period could have been provided at an earlier stage, which would have provided an opportunity to anchor the handling and the motivation in a clearer and more transparent manner with the parties concerned, while simultaneously clarifying the safeguarding of academic freedom in the context.

Mr. Speaker! Another much-discussed motion that the committee found to be insufficient was the relocation of the Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Nina Cromnier, which was so exemplary accounted for here a few minutes ago.

The complainant reacted to the fact that the individual had been moved from their post before the appointment expired, against the background of the State Secretary asserting that the Director-General had performed their job exemplarily, done what the government had requested, and in no way fallen short in their mandate.

According to the State Secretary to the Minister for Climate and Environment, a director-general was needed who could handle applications regarding specific nuclear power, which prompted the decision to separate the director-general from their assignment.

Our state authorities have, for the most part, an independent position but naturally fall under the government's authority to ensure its policies. The government has the possibility to move a head of an authority under the Act on Public Employment if it is considered necessitated by organizational reasons or for any other reason with regard to the authority's best interests.

In the review, the department has asserted in written answers to questions from the Committee on the Constitution that the director-general accepted this transfer to the Government Offices. The relevant minister has also explained to the committee that there was consensus and that there were no indications that the director-general opposed this.

Mr. Speaker! This is where the facts diverge.

The Director General has explained in her report to the committee that the move occurred against her will and that she was in a situation where it was a completed fact that she would leave her role as Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. This, whether voluntariness existed or not, has become a central part of the review.

Certain documentation exists during the course of the matter, but this documentation cannot, according to the committee, be considered complete enough to meet the requirements. The importance of documentation in the dialogue between a head of an authority and the Government Offices cannot be overstated, especially in matters where there are differences of opinion, such as in this case a matter concerning the removal of a director-general from their post.

With this, the committee's last debate day of the year, I thank you and take the opportunity to wish everyone a very pleasant summer.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The section we are now debating concerns eight specific audits, of which I intend to focus on three.

The first is a matter where a unanimous committee finds that there have been deficiencies in the government's handling - and it is actually not about one government but several. The review concerns what kind of basis the government had when it annually established the national standard for social assistance.

As is known, those who cannot provide for their own needs or have them met in any other way are entitled to assistance from the social welfare committee. The national standard is the part of the assistance that is the same throughout the country, and the government decides on its level annually.

In the Social Services Ordinance, which is otherwise decided by the government, it is stated that the calculation of the national standard shall be based on Konsumentverket's latest price and consumption surveys. During the committee's review, we have concluded that the government instead made a collective assessment of available material. In addition to Konsumentverket's latest price and consumer surveys, the government has also taken into account the government's forecast for the consumer price index for the current year. Thus, it can be stated that the government has taken into account other things than what is stated in the ordinance that the government itself decided on.

The committee does not consider this to be a good arrangement and has therefore stated that in cases where the government describes in a regulation what the national standard is based on, it is, according to the committee, an appropriate arrangement that the different bases normally used are presented in that regulation, even though the wording in the Social Services Ordinance does not exclude that other bases and calculations than those from the Consumer Agency may also be considered.

Mr. Speaker! The committee has, in its statement, therefore not had any views on which basis the government has used for its calculation of the national standard. Nor have we had any view on the size of the national standard. On the other hand, the committee considers it a deficiency that there is a formulation in the Social Services Ordinance that does not entirely clearly correspond to how the calculation has been carried out in practice.

In this context, I want to be clear that this is an arrangement that seems to have applied at least since 2006. It is therefore a long series of governments that are affected by the deficiency that we have identified.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter of a principled nature is that which is taken up under point 2.8 in the review report. From Chapter 13, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government, it follows that every Member of Parliament to the KU can raise a question regarding a minister's performance of duties. In this matter, Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer was reported for the handling of the matter regarding the proposal for security zones.

The report was made in January 2024. At that time, no bill regarding security zones had been submitted to the Riksdag. The preparation was still ongoing in the Government Offices.

The committee has noted that the review of the ministers' exercise of duties and the handling of government matters is, by its nature, retrospective. It is thus an ex post facto control of how government power has been exercised from a constitutional point of view. The committee has therefore not made any assessment of that which is raised in this report.

The lesson of the position is that it can be wise to have a little patience before making a report to the Committee on the Constitution, in any case if one wants an investigation and is not just interested in the media attention that the report itself can give rise to.

On that theme, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about a matter that received some media interest when the report was made, namely the matter of agreements in connection with Sweden's application to Nato.

At the NATO meeting in Madrid on 28 June 2022, the then government signed an agreement on behalf of Sweden between Sweden, Finland, and Turkey. The agreement covered a number of measures that Sweden was judged to need to take by reason of Sweden's NATO accession. For example, the conditions for Swedish military equipment exports were addressed. The agreement also included measures that Sweden had already intended to implement. One such measure was the tightening of terrorist legislation. No government decision was made prior to the signing of the agreement.

The committee has, in its review, concluded that the agreement in Madrid was a political declaration of intent which did not entail a binding obligation for Sweden as a state and consequently was not such an international agreement as referred to in Chapter 10 of the Instrument of Government. The committee has therefore found no reason for any statement. In plain terms, this means that the committee does not consider that the government has failed in its handling.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I intended in this part of the debate to bring up three of the matters where we have found deficiencies.

One matter is what the previous speaker has touched upon, namely the one regarding the determination of the national standard for social assistance. As stated earlier, it is somewhat special because the report was directed against the then social minister Göran Hägglund as well as all subsequent ministers in that position, i.e., from 2006 until today – almost 20 years. One point I want to highlight that has emerged in the responses we have received from the department is that it was actually Maria Larsson and not Göran Hägglund who was responsible for precisely these matters in 2006.

We in the committee receive answers to many things when we ask questions. Sometimes it can be the case that a report targets a minister, and then it was another minister who had the responsibility for the issue almost 20 years ago.

What we have looked at in the review is precisely what basis the government had when it established the national standard for the subsistence support. It is the part of the subsistence support that is common for the entire country and which is intended to cover costs for, for example, food and clothing. It is an important part of our common safety net and exists for those who, for various reasons, have ended up in great vulnerability. And in order to receive subsistence support, it is required that one has personally done everything in one's power to secure one's own livelihood.

In the preparatory works for the Social Services Act and the ordinance, it is stated that the level for the national standard shall be based on Konsumentverket's latest price and consumption surveys. In our review, it has emerged that when the government establishes the national standard over several years, it has also considered other things than just Konsumentverket's surveys, for example, the government's forecast for the consumer price index, KPI. Most recently this year, it can be noted that when the government communicates about the national standard, it writes on the website that the increase of the national standard corresponds to the Ministry of Finance's KPI forecast.

We in the committee consider it appropriate that the government reports which underlying data are used so that it becomes more predictable and clearer how it proceeds when the national standard is established. One can, just as Peter Hedberg did earlier, ask how it is that this has not been noticed earlier. Could another form of deduction or contribution in some way have gone under the radar for as long as this seems to have done?

I truly welcome that we in the committee have had good discussions on this issue. I truly hope that the government will take this to heart and simply clarify. As the previous speaker has pointed out, it is not the level that we in the committee review, but rather that there should be clarity and transparency. One could think that there was a deficiency here. That is what the KU at least thought.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter we have examined concerns the relocation of the Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. We have looked specifically at whether the relocation took place voluntarily, as the government has claimed. But the now former Director General gives a completely opposite picture. It is deeply unsatisfactory that the pictures differ so much.

According to us in the committee, it is the responsible minister's, in this case the Minister for Climate and the Environment Romina Pourmokhtari's, responsibility to ensure whether voluntariness prevails and, if that is not the case, instead consider a formal relocation according to the Act on Public Employment, LOA.

We also remind of the importance of documenting the dialogue, in order to clear up any potential misunderstandings and also actually for our own sake. We in the committee shall, if a matter is referred to us for review, be able to follow any authority dialogues and other documentation that exist.

We in the KU consider that the documentation available in this matter does not meet the requirements that can be set. If the documentation had existed, it would also have been clearer and simpler to see whether there was a common picture or not, especially when it comes to voluntariness.

Another matter that previous speakers have also touched upon concerns the government's appointments of board members at the universities. The review shows that the nominating persons who were tasked with preparing proposals for external board members were appointed by the government in June 2022. They received information, as they should have, regarding the assignment both during 2022 and in January 2023, and subsequently submitted their proposals to the relevant departments.

In April 2023, however, something happened. At that time, the nominating persons received information from the departments that the proposed board members to the educational institutions would be appointed for a shorter period than usual, and they were asked to inform the nominees about this. Two days later, the government made a decision to shorten the terms of office to the boards.

The Committee notes that the announcement that the members would be appointed for a shorter period than usual was made very close to the government's decision. This meant that the nominating persons had very little time to inform the proposed members.

We had an inquiry with Education Minister Mats Persson, where he explained the late notice by stating that the need for competence in security issues in the boards became increasingly relevant during the preparation. A collective assessment was made based on the generally deteriorating security situation and the problems that reports from, among others, Säpo, Must, and the Total Defense Research Institute pointed out. The committee notes, however, that those reports were published in February and March 2023. Similar information has also been present in previous reports. Against this background, we believe that the notice could have been submitted earlier than it was.

In the context, another question we asked the Minister for Education concerned the reactions that this led to. Our universities are special; they are not like just any agency. There, academic freedom is also an important factor. One image I have is that Mats Persson said in our hearing that it is something he guards very highly. In that case, it is somewhat unfortunate that it caused such reactions within academia. This has since been clarified, according to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker! I apologize, but there are two more matters that I would like to mention briefly. I may have to shorten it a bit, as I realize that I have already spoken for too long. But this block is one of the blocks where there are very many interesting matters that have given rise to much debate in the committee.

I just want to mention something briefly about the electricity support for companies. The committee notes there that all the time that could have been freed up so that the referral bodies could submit comments - it was very short on time - would have been valuable.

The preparation that took place also deviated somewhat from how the committee considers it should be at best, i.e., a coherent process that facilitates an overall understanding and a unified assessment. I believe that other speakers, both before and after me, will go into that matter more.

I had intended to say something even regarding the matter of preventive stay bans. But I will simply do as some of the previous speakers and recommend that any listeners read our report. One can start with the summary. Then one will probably get a good picture of that matter as well.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have now reached the items gathered under the heading Handling of certain government matters. It is a heading that perhaps does not provide much guidance as to what can be found there. But just as the previous speaker pointed out, there is much of interest in the section. Furthermore, in the table of contents, there are eight matters of very diverse character, and among them are three where the committee has found that the government has fallen short. Several of my colleagues have touched upon this earlier.

I first intend to highlight the government's removal of the Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. She was forced to leave her post during the last year, and in connection with her sudden departure, many questions were raised regarding what had happened and what lay behind this change in the authority's leadership. A report was submitted to the Committee on the Constitution, which led to our review.

First, I want to emphasize how unsatisfactory it has been that we in the committee have tried in retrospect to sort out what happened but have not been able to do so to the extent we wanted, this despite the fact that we have both submitted written questions to the former Director General and held an oral hearing of the responsible Minister, Romina Pourmokhtari. Their versions of the sequence of events differ significantly, and documentation that could support either of the versions is missing.

It is permissible for a government to move a director-general from his or her post, but it is of course nothing that can be done lightly. The government needs to base such a decision on objective reasons and considerations. Furthermore, there is a difference in the handling depending on whether the government and the head of the agency agree on a move or not. The question of whether a move has occurred voluntarily or not is therefore completely central.

In this case, we in the KU can state that according to the responsible minister, the parties were in agreement regarding the director-general's move from the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority to the Government Offices, but the former director-general states that was not the case. When we reviewed this in retrospect, there was no documentation that could clarify the decisive question of whether they were in agreement or not.

In this matter, we emphasize that it is the responsibility of the responsible minister to ensure that there are conditions to move a head of an authority and also to ensure that there is voluntariness from the head of the authority's side. In this case, documentation that can clarify this is missing, which we believe is a deficiency.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter where we have found deficiencies is the government's appointment of members to the boards of universities and colleges, which several of my colleagues have touched upon. That matter was prompted by the fact that the government last spring decided that the period for which these board members would be appointed would become significantly shorter than before. It sparked a number of reactions within academia, because the announcement came very suddenly close to when the members were to be appointed.

We in the KU (Committee on the Constitution) note that the notification that the members would be appointed for a shorter period than usual was given very close to the government's decision. This meant that the nominating persons had very little time to inform the proposed members. KU considers that the notification that the mandate period was to be shortened could have been given earlier than what occurred. That would also have made it possible to better anchor the handling with those who were affected.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to mention a couple of matters in this section where we in the committee are sending a joint submission to the government. These are a couple of matters concerning the government's handling of legislative proposals. They concern, on the one hand, electricity support for companies, and on the other hand, preventive stay bans. In both cases, the government has been in a great hurry to produce the proposals, and this has led to shortened time for the preparation and handling of the legislative proposals.

Of course, there can sometimes be reasons for the government to proceed faster with legislative proposals than established practice prescribes, where the referral bodies are supposed to have three months to analyze and comment on the proposals. But the government must also keep the quality of the legislation in mind. We have a referral system and a requirement for preparation for a reason, and that is that we want to achieve accurate and comprehensively illuminated legislation where the consequences of legislative proposals are carefully analyzed.

That rushing through legislation should be an exception and only occur when it is necessary. It is also up to the government to plan its work well to avoid such situations. In other cases, we risk getting legislation that does not meet a sufficiently high quality. That was actually what the Council on Legislation was concerned about regarding the bill on electricity support for companies. It was considered that the handling in the case in question challenged the order that should be followed if new laws are to maintain a sufficiently high standard.

Mr. Speaker! In the review concerning electricity support to companies, we in the KU have concluded that it is not ruled out that the government's preparation could have been initiated earlier than what occurred. Furthermore, at an earlier stage, the government could have considered questions regarding what regulation was needed and which authority should be responsible for the management of electricity support to companies when it was subsequently to be paid out to companies. It was not until January 2023 that it was concluded that Skatteverket would be the responsible authority, even though the process internally within the Government Offices regarding the electricity support had been started already after the election in the autumn of 2022.

In the case of the memoranda prepared regarding the electricity support for companies, there were also two parallel proceedings. Two different memoranda were prepared – one at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and one at the Ministry of Finance. We in KU emphasize that organizing the work in that manner should only be done in exceptional cases. The starting point should be that the preparation of an issue takes place in a coherent process in order to facilitate an overall understanding and to make a unified assessment.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Under the heading Handling of government matters etc. (chapter 2), I want to highlight precisely the handling of proposals regarding electricity support for companies. That was the matter Malin Björk concluded with. It is a matter that has caused much discussion in our committee, but which did not lead to any deficiency being pointed out.

Like, for both matters regarding the handling of the bill on preventive stay bans and the preparation of the bill on security zones, one can use a subheading about fast-tracks. These are matters where the government, for various reasons, has seen such a great need for rapid preparation that it has departed from the usual timeframes for different stages of the legislative process.

Getting the electricity subsidy for businesses in place was one of the government's highest priority issues. The work was carried out expeditiously but with consideration for the preparation requirements that apply. As background to this urgency, I would like to remind of the situation during the winter of 2022-2023 when electricity prices skyrocketed. Many companies, especially in energy-intensive industries, had difficulty paying their bills and were on the brink of bankruptcy. Not least in my regions in northern Småland, with many foundries, the danger was obvious that several of the very largest employers would not survive. The complainant is in this case critical of the design and handling of the electricity subsidy that the government developed. The complainant also refers to the Council on Legislation's criticism regarding, among other things, that the short preparation time affected the quality of the legislative product.

The committee has, for its assessment, obtained memoranda from the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and the Ministry of Finance. Minister for Energy and Enterprise Ebba Busch has also been questioned by the committee.

According to the Instrument of Government, there is a general requirement for preparation of government matters. Necessary information and opinions shall be obtained from relevant authorities and, to the extent needed, also from municipalities. Associations and individuals shall also be given the opportunity to comment to the extent needed. Most often, the referral processes are written, but it occurs that the government obtains views orally.

According to the Instrument of Government, opinions from the Council on Legislation shall also be sought. The Council on Legislation's opinion shall concern how the proposal relates to the constitutional laws and the legal order in general, how the proposal's provisions relate to one another, how the proposal relates to the requirements for legal certainty, whether the proposal is designed so that the law can be considered to meet the purposes that have been stated, and what problems may arise during application. The responsible departments shall, when the bill is being prepared, take a position on the views expressed by the Council on Legislation. It shall appear from the bill how the Council on Legislation's views have influenced the bill's content. It shall also appear which views have been accepted. In cases where the Council on Legislation's views have not been followed, a clear argumentation shall be provided as to why.

A referral to the Council of Legislation or a government bill may need to be processed in great haste. This may, however, only occur in clear exceptional situations. Through the committee's review of the matter, the pressured timetable that prevailed in the process initiated by the previous government has been clarified.

The model proposed by Svenska kraftnät was changed through a decision by Energimarknadsinspektionen on 16 November. The Government then realized that the changed model was questionable from a state aid perspective. This was confirmed through close contacts with representatives of the EU Commission. On 22 December, the Government decided on a retake where Svenska kraftnät was tasked with developing a new model so that the bottleneck revenues would be used to finance emergency measures for businesses.

On 11 January 2023, the revised model was approved by the Energy Market Inspectorate, followed by intensive work in the Government Offices to develop the necessary regulatory provisions. It was also established then that the Swedish Tax Agency was the authority best suited to handle the payments of electricity support to companies.

Parallel to this, work was carried out to submit a notification to the commission regarding state aid approval. On 20 February 2023, the Government Offices referred two memoranda, and on 23 March 2023, the government made a decision on a referral to the Council of Legislation. A formal state aid notification was submitted to the commission on 4 April 2023. The bill with the legislative proposals was decided by the government on 18 April. The commission approved the state aid notification on 5 May 2023, and the legal provisions entered into force on 8 May. On the same day, the government decided on the necessary regulatory provisions, which entered into force the following day, i.e., on 9 May.

I now understand what Peter Hedberg meant by timelines and how important they are for one to truly visualize the whole thing.

The Committee emphasizes the importance of upholding both the preparatory requirements of the Instrument of Government and the Council on Legislation's review. In this way, conditions are created for quality in the legislative work.

As Malin Björk said, the committee cannot rule out that the preparation of the two memoranda and the draft regulation text could have been initiated earlier than what was now done. All time that could have been freed up for the Council on Legislation's review and the Parliament's processing would have been valuable. The committee understands the setup with two parallel procedures in the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and the Ministry of Finance, given the need for urgency that was considered to exist and which came to characterize the preparation. With that said, the committee agrees that the matter should not be seen as a lack of urgency.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Repetition is the mother of learning, it is said. For those who may be new, I will now tell a little about how I view two of the matters that several of the previous speakers have touched upon. It may possibly be helpful for those who choose the parliamentary website over the Lunchkot at this occasion.

It is primarily two matters that have engaged me more than others.

One matter concerns board members at educational institutions, which several here have already spoken about. The Government, on very short notice, had chosen to inform all persons who were about to be appointed as members at any of the country's educational institutions that their term of office would be reduced from 36 to 17 months. As a reason, it was stated that during the months preceding the decision, several reports had arrived regarding the serious national security situation, which of course includes activities at universities and colleges, and that they therefore wanted the opportunity to review and supplement or replace members with persons with special security policy competence. This was not particularly well received at the educational institutions, nor by either the nominating persons or the intended members.

A KU report was also quickly submitted with a request for an investigation into Education Minister Mats Persson's actions.

"The decision can only be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the competence of the current boards and the prevailing process for appointing these. In the long run, the decision risks posing a threat to the universities' independence and thus the possibility to critically seek new knowledge, consequently a threat to academic freedom." So wrote the rectors for all universities in an open letter to the government immediately after this became known.

I have had several conversations with representatives from both the nominees and the higher education institutions and the Swedish Association of Universities and Colleges, SUHF. In addition to the criticism regarding mistrust concerning the boards' and the higher education institutions' competence within the security policy area and the threat to independence and thus academic freedom, the handling itself also played a major role in the ongoing discussion. Also, the timing of the message to the proposed candidates has been in focus for KU's review.

Education Minister Mats Persson admitted in the inquiry that the timing was unfortunate and that the proposed members should have been given better notice, but argued that the occurrence of ever more reports and indications of a deteriorating security situation meant that decisions had to be made regarding a shorter mandate period.

From the university's side, it was claimed that issues regarding security, including information security, are normally handled within the organization and not in the board's work.

The committee's unanimous opinion was that the late communication with the nominees and, through them, also with the members, should be seen as a deficiency in relation to the rules that apply.

The matter as the notification was designed is finalized, but questions remain before new members are to be appointed or re-elections of old members are carried out when the 17 months expire this autumn. Instructions to nominating persons have been delayed and have thus created a certain concern among current members.

It is, of course, my hope that the experiences from this process contribute to reflection and new routines that better balance the requirements for security and academic freedom, as well as trust in the persons who have been asked and appointed to probe, question, and propose members.

Mr. Speaker! The second matter that has caught the attention of the Committee on the Constitution and myself is a report that a relocation of the Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority may have been carried out with some deficiencies in the handling. KU requested information from the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise regarding the process before, during, and after the decision to relocate the Director General to the Government Offices.

In the new energy landscape painted by the government parties, nuclear power, as is well known, plays a decisive role. The strategy for that transformation also, of course, includes the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and its prerequisites to shift from a focus on our existing power plants, which are over 40 years old, to contributing to the development of processes and organization to be able to build new ones. In that context, reflecting on whether the leadership and available competence are optimal is, of course, perfectly reasonable. But to the extent that that reasoning leads to a conclusion that it would be better in another way, that change must, of course, be managed in a correct manner. It is actually so self-evident that it would not need to be said.

The committee asked questions regarding this and received answers from the Government Offices. We also gave the director-general, who was eventually moved to the Government Offices, an opportunity to submit his view on how the whole matter had been handled. The accounts simply did not match, it turned out. One can naturally say that this is completely natural, but here it emerged that the perceptions differed regarding several issues and quite significantly.

The committee requested further information, including service notes from the meeting where the director-general informed the state secretary that they intended to carry out a relocation in order to be able to appoint a new management. These notes turned out to have been written approximately four weeks after the meeting. This is not prohibited in any way, but one knows for oneself how it works when one reads old things or is going to write something long afterwards.

The committee thus concludes in retrospect that the entire process was carried out without the minister, the Minister for Climate and the Environment, having participated in meetings or in any other way. This is not necessarily a deficiency in itself, but it is still up to the minister to ensure that the process was correct and that the agreement reached was truly mutual and voluntary. This is the basis for the committee thus classifying the matter as a deficiency.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A question that has been highly topical over the past year is Sweden's accession to Nato. It is a matter of scrutiny that has not yet been addressed here.

A matter regarding the Nato process was submitted, and we have examined it. It concerns the agreement that the previous government signed in Madrid and whether this was within the government's mandate to sign. The committee finds that the letter of intent was of a political nature and non-binding for Sweden and therefore finds no ground for criticism. The rest is history.

A matter that does, however, give grounds for criticism concerns the government's handling of the relocation of the Director General of the Radiation Safety Authority.

The Government has the right to move a director general from their assignment. This can occur with or without an agreement on relocation having been reached. KU has previously pointed out that it is very unfortunate if the impressions of whether there was voluntariness or not in a relocation differ and has pointed out the importance of having documentation where the voluntariness is evident so that any misunderstandings can be dispelled.

Documentation from the meeting between, in the case under review, the State Secretary and the Director General did not meet the requirements that can be expected, which is why we have decided to remind [them] of the importance of documentation that confirms voluntariness.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter that showed deficiencies was the handling of shortened mandate periods for members of higher education and university boards. In connection with the government announcing that, in order to ensure security competence in the boards, it chose to shorten the mandate period, a debate arose regarding academic freedom and arm's-length distance to the academies. The review shows that the announcement regarding shorter mandate periods could have been issued earlier. It could have cleared up any misunderstandings about the purpose of the decision, which arose in the subsequent debate.

An interesting matter to examine this year has concerned the national standard for social assistance. This is a matter that affects many people living on the margins, where every krona is important. The Social Services Ordinance states that the national standard is based on the latest price and consumption surveys from the Swedish Consumer Agency. The review shows that different governments over several years have also taken into account, among other things, the government's forecast for the consumer price index.

It is in few areas that it is acceptable for it not to be clear which underlying data are used so that a certain predictability can prevail. Therefore, it should continue to be clear which underlying data and calculations are used. In this way, it would become clearer and more predictable how the government establishes the national standard.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our legislative process can certainly be perceived as long at times, but thanks to the fact that the bills are illuminated from all sides, we also get laws of good quality in Sweden. Through referrals, authorities, civil society, and experts can comment on the proposals and contribute to making the legislation both better and more anchored.

The issue of preparation requirements and short referral periods has once again been the subject of our review, and even though there should be an opportunity for a government to expedite processes where it may be necessary, it is something that should be used very sparingly. Therefore, it is pleasing that in the autumn review, when we took a larger grip on the issue, we found that referrals with a response time shorter than three months have become somewhat less common. What has increased instead are referrals with a three-month response time, while the proportion that has had even longer response times has been constant over time. This is a positive development that we would like to see continue in that direction.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! KU has a unanimous review report - unanimous to the extent that all parties have agreed on where formal errors have been committed or where changed routines could have improved the handling. The unanimity does not necessarily cover the political assessments that underlie a government's handling of matters.

KU has therefore chosen to avoid becoming some kind of political judge. Even those who do not share the government's view on substantive issues are prepared to acknowledge that it is reasonable that the government we have in Sweden also has the opportunity to implement its policy with the help of what is at the government's disposal.

Mr. Speaker! Let me, against the background of this relatively general introduction or declaration, comment on two of the current matters. As several have said, if one is the last speaker, there is something we agree on regarding a certain risk of repetition, but hopefully there may be some nuance that can complement what has been said previously.

The first matter concerns the relocation of the Director General of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. The decision itself to relocate the Director General is precisely one of those political decisions that we shall not review in substance. Different parties may have different views on that, but the government must be the body that makes the assessment of whether there is confidence in the Director General's ability to implement the policy that the government wishes to implement.

When the government has taken that position and the decision is to be executed, there are in principle two alternatives: Either the director-general is separated from the assignment by both parties reaching an agreement, which is called voluntary resignation, or one must apply the routine as set out in the Act on Public Employment.

It is important here, especially if voluntary resignation is used, that it is clearly documented in a clear manner that the parties are in agreement and under what forms the whole shall take place. From the government, it is stated that the dismissal in the case in question occurred after an agreement, while the director-general denies that is the case and refers to that "there was no voluntariness or acceptance."

Documentation is missing here regarding which of these versions is the correct one. Words are pitted against words. If we stop there, the KU is therefore choosing to direct criticism at the fact that there was no documentation that clearly shows how the separation took place.

Mr. Speaker! In the matter regarding the appointment of members to boards at universities and colleges, the government was reported to KU for having decided on a shortened, in practice halved, mandate period for the members elected to the boards in our universities and colleges. The notice of the shortened period was submitted very close to the decision. The complainant raises two questions: firstly, whether it will be possible for those elected to first familiarize themselves with the operations and thereafter be able to actively contribute before the mandate period expires, and secondly, whether the decision on the shortened mandate period implies a restriction of academic freedom.

The government's motive for the decision is that they want to ensure that there is competence in the boards to assess security issues. The background that the government refers to is that in Säpos annual book, Must's annual overview, as well as in a report from the Total Defence Research Institute, it is emphasized, in slightly different wording, the risk that security-sensitive information could fall into the hands of foreign powers. FOI's report arrived on 26 April, and on 27 April the decision was made to appoint the boards but with the shortened mandate period. The government has also, after this, appointed an inquiry on how to work to ensure the competence in the boards.

Mr. Speaker! This leads us first to a finding, namely that the government's purpose was not to restrict any academic freedom. It appears clear that it was de facto about security issues. The need for security competence has also not, given the information that KU has been made aware of, been questioned by the committee. There are clear reasons to introduce requirements for security competence.

At the same time, this leads to another reflection. China's interest in exploiting other countries' research results is hardly anything new. Russia's ambitions to put its own interests before cooperation have gradually become increasingly clear, from the invasion in South Ossetia via Crimea to the full-scale war in Ukraine. Iran's ambitions and intentions have also been known for a long time.

The question must then be why no government has acted in this matter earlier - why wait until the boards are to be appointed?

This could have been noticed a number of years ago. Here, previous governments bear responsibility for the fact that this did not happen, but even for the sitting government, earlier action would have been desirable. It would have provided time to prepare the decision and thus avoid accusations of threats to academic freedom. In that regard, KU chooses to direct criticism at the government. It was not good that the decision came immediately upon the appointment of members.

Mr. Speaker! In both of these matters - the dismissal of a director-general and the election of university and college boards - KU has nothing to say on the merits. It is the government that assesses the trust in directors-general, and the need for security competence is well-motivated. What KU has views on and criticism of is the form. Decisions must be well-documented, and for the sake of clarity, there are always reasons to act sooner rather than later.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Mr. Speaker! Local self-government is an important part of Swedish democracy. That power should be as close to the people as possible ensures that political issues become concrete and understandable and gives democracy legitimacy.

The economy of municipalities and regions is entirely dependent on the number of hours worked in the economy. When these decrease or stagnate, the municipal sector faces problems. This, in turn, risks leading to extensive cuts in healthcare, elderly care, and school.

The government refrained from providing sufficient support for the shortfall in the municipal economy when it presented its budget. On the other hand, the Finance Minister later stated at a press conference regarding the municipal sector's economic crisis that there was a possibility to invoke extraordinary reasons and thereby proceed with a deficit in the municipal economy.

This was done without any legal assessment having been made regarding the possibilities of invoking special reasons. KU notes that the application of the regulatory framework for economic management in municipalities and regions is a matter for each individual municipality and region.

The urging to utilize the flexibility that was granted came to be perceived as the Finance Minister giving a general answer through his statement. As a former municipal council member, I can state that I would have perceived this as a viable path in a problematic time when the Finance Minister made this statement. The Finance Minister is responsible for this statement and its consequences.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Mr. Speaker! According to the Instrument of Government, the Committee on the Constitution shall review the ministers' performance of their duties and the handling of government matters. The review report is undoubtedly the most extensive report from the Committee on the Constitution. During countless committee meetings and two days of retreat, we have weighed words and discussed the information we have received, partly through our questions to the departments and partly through the inquiries that have been made. Words have been moved around and replaced, all to produce those precise sentences that summarize each review matter.

Just as the previous speaker said today, our work in the committee is made possible by very knowledgeable members from all eight Riksdag parties and our fantastic secretariat. Thank you!

To some extent divide the report as we now debate it in the chamber, it is divided into four blocks. Now it is time for block four: Questions regarding the minister's performance of duties.

We have, as we have said, examined 29 cases, and we found deficiencies in five of them. Two of these deficient cases belong in the category Issues regarding a minister's performance of duties, and I choose in my speech to focus on precisely these two. Both cases concern reports against Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari.

The first matter concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement regarding the need for new nuclear power. The statement was made at a press conference, and the review has revealed that the minister's intention was to exemplify how many reactors the electricity demand could entail. At the same time, it has emerged that the statement was not perceived as an example but as a new announcement from the government regarding a future need for a certain number of new nuclear reactors.

KU notes that the statement was made during the initial presentation and that a similar statement is also found in the press release that was published. Even the presentation slides shown at the press conference contain a point that reflects the statement. After the press conference, questions arose regarding the government's official position. KU notes that the communication has not been sufficiently clear but notes at the same time that various media outlets were contacted afterwards to clarify how the statement was to be understood.

The investigation further reveals that the press release was unpublished and replaced by an article in order to avoid misunderstandings. The handling gives KU reason to repeat what the committee has previously stated regarding changes and corrections on the government's website. KU notes that the minister has regretted that the routines were not followed and that she acted after becoming aware that this was not the case.

The second matter concerns Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari's statement regarding the climate action plan, which has been reviewed by KU. The Climate Act contains provisions regarding a climate policy action plan. According to this, the government shall every four years produce such an action plan. The committee notes that the minister's statement that the Climate Act states that the climate action plan "should" be submitted before the turn of the year was incorrect. In the Climate Act, it actually states that the action plan "shall" be submitted to the Riksdag the year after regular elections to the Riksdag have been held.

In the investigation, it has emerged that the minister, on the afternoon of the same day the statement was made, announced that the government would present the climate action plan before the turn of the year, which then also occurred on 21 December 2023. At that time, the Government's climate action plan - all the way to net zero - was presented. The government thus also followed the timetable that exists in the Climate Act.

With these words, I conclude my speech regarding this year's review.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall delve into some of the twelve review cases concerning certain issues regarding the ministers' performance of duties. In two of the twelve cases, the committee has found a deficiency, albeit a weak one.

The first concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement regarding the climate action plan. In a televised interview, the Minister for Climate and Environment stated that the climate action plan "should" be submitted before the turn of the year. This was obviously incorrect, as it is a requirement to submit the climate action plan every four years, the year after a regular general election.

However, we can note that the minister corrected his statement a few hours later, which is good. Otherwise, there is nothing to add to the matter.

Mr. Speaker! The second deficiency concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement regarding the need for new nuclear power.

At a press conference concerning measures for existing and future nuclear power, the Minister stated that at least ten new nuclear reactors would be needed by the year 2040. This information was also published on the government's website. The information was later removed from the web and replaced by new information, but without an explanation of the reason.

There are, of course, routines for the publication and de-publication of information on the government's website. In the case at hand, these routines have not been followed, which the committee has found to be a deficiency.

The statement about ten new reactors was used as an example to describe the magnitude of energy and electricity needed to build up our electricity system. My personal entry into this - I am an old nuclear engineer - is that we likely need more nuclear power than ten new reactors in the future. I hope that we soon see the first spade in the ground for new nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! There are some other review matters that I choose to raise.

It concerns, for example, the Minister for Climate and Environment's handling of documents received as SMS. The report concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment's handling of his SMS conversations. It primarily concerns SMS conversations that the Minister has had with certain business leaders which the Minister has deleted or sorted in accordance with the Government Offices' routines.

The committee has not found that the minister has done anything incorrect. Thus, the committee finds no reason to make any statement.

Furthermore, it concerns the Foreign Minister's use of a social media platform. The complainant targets the Foreign Minister's handling of sensitive information on the platform X. The complainant questions the appropriateness of the Foreign Minister's information management on X and wonders about its potential consequences for Sweden's security and foreign policy. During the review of the matter, it has emerged that the Foreign Minister has not handled information covered by the Security Protection Ordinance on X. The committee further notes that, in general, one cannot control what content different senders transmit on different media platforms.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, several of the matters concern statements by ministers. In none of these statement matters has the committee found any deficiencies. An appeal to the members of the Riksdag is that we need to have a little greater understanding that it can sometimes go fast in the choice of words and other things, especially when speeches are not prepared and perhaps are to be given on the fly. This applies to ministers, and it applies to us. We are, as is known, not machines, so sometimes it goes fast and incorrectly.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! On October 7, Hamas carried out a despicable terrorist attack against Israelis, where over 1,000 people were murdered and several others were taken hostage. The act was condemned unanimously by the rest of the world, and we are all deeply moved by the horrific events that occurred. All violence against civilians must and shall be condemned.

That Israel has a formal right to defend itself after that attack is an indisputable fact - at least in Sweden, no one has had any doubt about it. But however horrific the attack against Israel was, Israel's response was initially at least equally ruthless. It did not take long before the death tolls on the other side among civilians, women, and children far exceeded the initial death tolls on October 7.

Months later, there is no one except the most heartless and cold-blooded who can have a different opinion than that what is currently happening in Gaza is an ongoing genocide. Even though the committee wants to emphasize that it is not to judge whether Israel's actions in any respect have been proportionate or not, I do not want to leave this rostrum without having this said myself. The violence in Palestine must come to an end. A permanent ceasefire must be implemented, and the occupation must cease.

It is, however, as said, not the war itself that the Committee on the Constitution has had to review, nor the government's overall management of it. The Committee on the Constitution has had the task of reviewing Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's statement regarding the concept of proportionality, more specifically at the Nordic Council meeting in Oslo on November 1, 2023. Even though other statements made by the Foreign Minister are mentioned in the review, it is therefore only the statement at the Nordic Council that has been reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! In response to a question from a member of the Nordic Council on whether the Foreign Minister considered an attack from Israel two days earlier against a refugee camp to be proportionate, the Foreign Minister responded, among other things, as follows:

"Israel's response is proportionate. As the government has said, Israel has a right to defend itself militarily against Hamas's terrorist attacks, and that is what was intended with this term. But as I said, we have also said that Israel's legitimate response must be in accordance with international humanitarian law. The assessment of proportionality in this regard must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances prevailing."

The Committee on the Constitution held an inquiry with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, where he among other things pointed out that there are two different ways to use the concept of proportionality. One concerns when violence may be used. The rules for this are found in general international law. They are found in the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, and they are found in the exceptions to this. The other concerns the meaning in terms of how violence may be used according to humanitarian law.

When the Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked whether there were grounds for reflection and whether he could have been clearer in his statements to reduce the risk of any misunderstandings regarding what he meant by the concept of proportionality, he again underlined that in the context being discussed, the concept of proportionality had at all times been clear from the government's side. The difference between having the right to defend oneself and how one does so has at all times been clear.

The Committee on the Constitution has therefore stated in its position that the concept of proportionality is used both when it concerns the question of whether a right to self-defense exists and when it concerns whether actions are taken in accordance with international humanitarian law.

The Committee also notes that the International Court of Justice in The Hague has taken up a case brought by South Africa against Israel regarding the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

As the committee has stated previously, ministers, like other citizens, have the right to make statements in various contexts, but special considerations may need to be taken when it concerns statements in the area of foreign policy, as foreign policy differs from other policy areas. Diplomatic considerations place special requirements on caution and nuance, while at the same time the language used must be correct.

The committee's current review has focused on Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's use of the term proportionality in a reply at the Nordic Council meeting on November 1. From the statement, read in its entirety, it appears that the Foreign Minister did not intend to comment on whether Israel's actions had been proportionate in the sense intended within international humanitarian law and that he sought to clarify what was meant.

Against the background of the special requirements placed on statements by the minister responsible for foreign policy, the committee wishes to remind of the importance of ensuring that the foreign minister's statements are formulated in such a way that they do not lead to misunderstandings. Even if the statement in question cannot be considered misleading, it can be noted that it has come to be perceived in different ways in the political debate.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have now reached the final debate of the day regarding the KU's spring review of the government. The debate concerns a chapter with the heading Certain questions regarding the ministers' exercise of duties. It is here that most of this year's reports have been gathered, specifically twelve of the matters we have commented on this year. The majority of them are such cases where a minister has been reported to the KU because of some statement the minister has made, which the reporter claims was not correct.

Here are two cases where we in the KU have clearly pointed out deficiencies in a minister's actions. Both of these cases concern statements made by Minister Romina Pourmokhtari. That it is precisely the Minister for Climate and Environment who accounts for the majority of the cases where the KU has found deficiencies this year should be seen in light of the fact that many reports have been made against her specifically during the past year. This, in turn, is a result of there having been a great focus on climate and environmental policy. The policy that the government has pursued in this area has faced a considerable amount of criticism from many different sides, a criticism that has, among other things, concerned lowered ambitions.

Centerpartiet is behind one of the reports to the Committee on the Constitution (KU) against the Minister. It concerns a statement made when she was a guest on TV4's Nyhetsmorgon in December last year, a time when many were impatiently waiting for the government's climate action plan. In the interview, the Minister was asked when this plan would be presented but gave no clear indication of the timing. She was then continued to be pressed by the hosts regarding the timing, as the plan is supposed to be delivered to the Riksdag according to the Climate Act the year after the regular election – the time was therefore running out. The Minister then stated that the plan, according to the Climate Act, should arrive before the upcoming turn of the year. This statement was directly incorrect, as the law on this point is mandatory with a "shall" requirement; the timing for delivery from the government's side is not optional.

After the minister was reported to the KU, she corrected her statement. But of course, it makes no difference when it comes to how the KU assesses the statement itself. A minister must speak factually correctly. A report to the KU should not be required to point out that something has been incorrect. In this case, there was also no room for different interpretations of the minister's statement. Therefore, it is seen as a deficiency in the minister's actions.

Mr. Speaker! The second matter where we in KU have found deficiencies in Minister Romina Pourmokhtari's actions concerns a statement made at a press conference, which has been mentioned earlier by colleagues here. It was a press conference where there was talk about the projected electricity demand and what it could entail regarding the number of new nuclear reactors. At the same time, a PowerPoint presentation was shown showing that the electricity demand corresponded to ten new reactors, which would be built before 2040. The statement came to be perceived as a new announcement from the government regarding a future need for nuclear reactors, i.e., new policy. The same statement that was made during the presentation at the press conference was also included in a press release that was published.

After the press briefing, questions arose regarding the government's official position concerning the need for new nuclear power. Subsequently, the press release was unpublished and replaced by an article. This occurred, however, without following the procedures that apply for changes and corrections on the government's website. There are clear procedures for such corrections. That the procedures were not followed constitutes a deficiency according to KU.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the two matters I have mentioned, where we have found these deficiencies, there are in this section of the report a further handful of matters where KU makes a joint submission to the government. I would like to mention a couple of them.

A matter concerns how Minister Romina Pourmokhtari has handled documents received as SMS. Here, the committee emphasizes that SMS are documents that must be taken into account and handled as public documents. When it concerns such documents, it is important that careful considerations are made even during archiving and that archiving occurs in accordance with applicable regulations and decisions. This can be a good message to include, as more and more of the communication that reaches the government's representatives comes via, for example, SMS.

The Foreign Minister has also been the subject of our review in a couple of matters. One of them concerns how the Foreign Minister has used the social media platform X, formerly Twitter. Here, the committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that information covered by secrecy is handled in a secure manner. During the review, it was revealed that the Foreign Minister had a private account which simultaneously contained information that he is Sweden's Foreign Minister. This was a private account that the Government Offices, therefore, did not manage, but he did himself. However, by the title Sweden's Foreign Minister being stated, there is a risk that the account was perceived as his official account. Therefore, the committee has particularly noted that there are recommendations developed by the Government Offices for how ministers should manage their accounts on social media. The committee advocates that these be followed.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this chapter, there are a number of matters based on statements by members of the government. Last year, the Committee on the Constitution decided to make a distinction in the assessments depending on in what context the statement was made. The purpose was to remove the petty complaints, to use Martin Tunström's term in Barometern.

A minister, like all other citizens, has the right to make statements. However, given a minister's special position, particular caution may need to be observed. A minister's statements are expected to be correct, not least when the minister answers questions from members of the Riksdag within the framework of the Riksdag's power of oversight, that is, during interpellations and written questions. These answers are well-prepared. During the Riksdag's question time, however, the questions are not known to the minister in advance. Consideration should then be taken that the answers, unlike answers to interpellations and written questions, shall be given without time for reflection.

As an example of such matters, the statement by Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson regarding the subsidies for wind power can be mentioned. Her answer could be interpreted as that wind power had received subsidies of between 60 and 100 billion kronor through the electricity certificate system. That information actually concerned the costs for all types of renewable power in the electricity certificate system. Had she been clearer in her answer, the risk of misinterpretation could likely have been avoided. The review did, however, not give reason for any statement by the committee.

The same applies to Energy and Business Minister Ebba Busch's response during a question period regarding the outcome of the electricity support to households in southern Sweden and how it related to the EU's state aid rules. The Minister replied that the government would return to the state aid assessment and that a notification of state aid had been sent to the Commission. However, it was a preliminary notification that had been sent to the Commission. Nor did this matter give reason for any statement by the committee.

Mr. Speaker! This section also contains, as we have heard earlier, the question regarding Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's use of the term proportionality on November 1, 2023, as an answer to a question about proportionality in Israel's warfare regarding attacks against the refugee camp in Jabalia. According to the UN Charter, the term proportionality refers to a country's right to self-defense in the event of an armed attack; the self-defense shall be proportionate to the act of aggression. Within international humanitarian law, however, proportionality means that the military significance of an attack must be proportionate to the risks that the civilian population and civilian property are exposed to. The committee's review shows that the Foreign Minister, in his main statement at a meeting with the Nordic Council, did not address the situation in Israel and Gaza. In his answer to a question afterwards, he uses the term proportionality in both of its meanings:

"Israel has a self-evident right to defend itself against Hamas's terrorism and indiscriminate rocket fire. Equally self-evident is that Israel's legitimate response must be carried out in accordance with international law and particularly international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law aims to limit the suffering of the civilian population and all parties in a conflict. All parties must follow this."

After that, he repeats, in other words, the two meanings of the concept:

"Israel's response is proportionate. As the government has said, Israel has a right to defend itself militarily against Hamas's terrorist attacks, and that is what was intended with this concept. But as I said, we have also said that Israel's legitimate response must be in accordance with international humanitarian law. The assessment of proportionality in this regard must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances prevailing."

The Committee wishes to emphasize that it is not to judge whether Israel's actions in any respect have been proportionate or not. That will be done by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But the Committee notes that the Foreign Minister has used the term proportionality in both of its meanings. From the statement in its entirety, it appears that the Foreign Minister did not intend to comment on whether Israel's actions were proportionate in the sense intended within international humanitarian law and that he sought to clarify what was intended. The Committee wishes to remind that special requirements are placed on a Foreign Minister that statements are formulated in such a way that they cannot lead to misunderstandings. The statement in question cannot be considered misleading, but it has come to be perceived in different ways in the political debate.

Of a different character are statements in connection with press conferences on a specific issue. As an example, one can take when Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson, at a press conference, presented proposals in the budget bill for 2024 regarding state grants to municipalities and regions. She said the following then:

"But one can also use the flexibility that exists in the regulatory framework itself. It is about the result equalization reform, and it is also about, as several municipalities and regions are now doing, invoking special reasons."

This could be misinterpreted as an urge for municipalities and regions to act in a certain way, which would have violated municipal self-government. However, generally urging the municipal sector to use the flexibility that exists in the regulatory framework and thereby use examples cannot be considered to be in conflict with municipal self-government. Such urges should, however, be made with some caution so that they are not perceived as instructions to municipalities and regions to interpret the legislation in a certain way.

Mr. Speaker! There are many more interesting matters in the review report, but I will content myself with mentioning these. Instead, I want to urge people to read this interesting document, approximately as thick as I am showing here in the speaker's chair.

Since this is the last debate that I know of that I will participate in today, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chamber Office and also the KU Office for good cooperation during the year. I wish you a very pleasant and refreshing summer.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are approaching the end of this review marathon, and I thank you for the opportunity to add something – likely repeat something that has already been said – and at best point out some common denominator that may need to be reminded of.

It is natural that Miljöpartiet has particularly sharp eyes for matters concerning climate and environmental issues, and we listen particularly closely when such issues are addressed at the government's press conferences, in question periods, and in debates. With this in mind, it is of course the case that the majority of KU reports from my party colleagues concern precisely these subjects, even though we have been involved in others. I intended to bring up two examples.

One example concerns a question asked to the Minister for Finance during a question period, and it was partly about subsidies for the expansion of wind power. The other example concerns the press conference that was actually supposed to be about the Radiation Safety Authority's partially new tasks in light of a Swedish large-scale investment in new nuclear power, but which ended up being about a task regarding ten new reactors.

The support for the expansion of wind power has, over the last 20-plus years, been managed as part of the so-called electricity certificate system. In short, it concerns the fact that wind power's share of those funds is, or rather has been, over 20 billion kronor, which in turn is around one-third, or one-fourth, of the total support amounts.

The Minister for Finance used the entire sum in her answer to a question on this in the Chamber, and she thereby implied that the support for wind power has exceeded 60 billion kronor, which prompted a KU report from one of my party colleagues. I have previously spoken about both that we are only human, and that statements in unprepared contexts are viewed with a bit more leniency, or between the fingers, but the ambition must always be that what is said shall be correct as far as possible.

In connection with the review, questions were posed to the Government Offices and the Minister for Finance regarding the basis for the statement, whereby it emerged that the Minister, in haste and through an oversight, had used the entire sum in the response where it should have been the part that actually concerned the wind power. This makes it difficult to reproach, according to the same thesis that we are merely human, but it is nevertheless unfortunate that it does not turn out correctly.

The second matter that led to a report concerned the press conference regarding the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. The presentation and the press release could be interpreted relatively intuitively as new policy from the government's side regarding the number of nuclear reactors. I have touched upon this earlier today, but I say it again: It is important that the communication shared not only with those who happen to be present but with virtually the whole world, albeit with the limitations that different translation programs may entail, shall be correct. It is obviously not good when the government, in its capacity as government and not party representatives, informs in a way that can be misunderstood. Being clear, if not over-clear, is absolutely necessary and takes precedence over any political points or messages. If an announcement can be interpreted as new policy within an area that concerns investments of hundreds or thousands of billions, it must be accurate, completely regardless of who is communicating.

The first matter did not lead to any comment regarding a deficiency from the committee's side, which the second matter did. My message is roughly the same; it is so important that it becomes correct as far as possible. I understand that one does not always say the right things at unprepared occasions, but nevertheless, it stands or falls with this. It is well known that if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes a truth. We heard it just the other day in an EU debate where someone expressed that the figure has been used in many contexts, but it does not help if it is not correct.

My hope regarding this matter is that it eventually reaches the government and also those of us sitting here, so that to the greatest extent possible, we are as correct as possible.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Just as my colleagues have previously accounted for, it is important that statements from ministers are correct and factual. A number of statements have been reviewed this year, and the majority have, as we have touched upon previously, concerned the policy area that has been most in focus during the year, namely climate and environment.

Among other things, we have examined a statement made by the Minister for Climate and Environment regarding emission reductions and found that there was a basis that could support the statement.

Regarding the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement on the need for new nuclear power, it can be stated that the communication led to questions. The statement was clarified afterwards, but the handling of changes and corrections did not follow the established routine within the Government Offices. We also note that the minister has expressed regret that the routines were not followed and that she acted when it came to her knowledge that this was not the case.

In a statement made in an interview situation, the Minister for Climate and Environment incorrectly said "should" instead of "shall" regarding the timing for the submission of the climate action plan to the Riksdag. That mistake was corrected on the same day. However, there is reason to point out this as a deficiency.

Mr. Speaker! Another statement concerned investments in climate adaptation. During a specific debate here in the Riksdag, the Minister based the statement on the appropriation levels that applied when the debate took place, i.e., the levels for 2023. New appropriation levels for 2024 had been decided at the time but had not been made public. These appropriation levels became public the day after the specific debate in connection with the submission of the budget bill to the Riksdag. There was therefore no reason for the committee to make any statement regarding this statement.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to climate and the environment, the war between Hamas and Israel has been in focus during the year.

The concept of proportionality has several meanings. On the one hand, it can be a question of the right to self-defense, and on the other hand, it can be used when it concerns whether actions taken are in accordance with international humanitarian law.

The review shows that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been well aware of how the concept can be used and has been careful to place it in the correct context in various statements made. Since special requirements are placed on statements by the minister responsible for foreign policy, the committee reminds of the importance of the Minister for Foreign Affairs' statements being formulated so that they do not lead to misunderstandings. Even though the statement in question cannot be considered misleading, it can be noted that it has come to be perceived in different ways in the political debate.

Mr. Speaker! A few words about SMS and social media.

That our ministers are accessible is very welcome. It is also important with openness and transparency, which our principle of public access guarantees. That which is a public document shall also be handled as a public document.

It was probably simpler before when, for written communication, one was referred to paper and pen. Both time and cost meant that the inflow of messages to a government minister was then much more limited. Today, one can easily and cheaply send an email, an SMS, a message in Messenger, Signal or Whatsapp, or a tweet to a government minister. The communication possibilities are many, and not everything that flows in should actually be saved. Some of it must be culled.

In the two reviewed cases, the Minister for Climate and Environment's SMS and the Minister for Foreign Affairs' message on the platform X, we find that they have handled the communication in accordance with all the rules of the principle of public access. However, we do make a minor side note to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take an extra look at the Government Offices' recommendations for handling accounts on social media.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as one of the last speakers in this debate and since this is my final speech today – this is somewhat of the Committee on the Constitution's send-off before the summer – I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Secretariat and my colleagues for the good cooperation during the review and throughout the year. I would also like to wish the Speaker, the Secretariat, and my colleagues a very pleasant summer.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's review work is truly multifaceted and spans virtually all policy areas.

I would like to draw attention here to a number of issues that have also been touched upon in previous speeches regarding the minister's exercise of duties. They concern climate policy, energy supply, the situation in the Middle East, and the handling of social media and communication tools in public discourse. Individually, these are extensive subject areas, but they have been highlighted in the review work based on specific statements made by the minister in the exercise of their duties.

A starting point when we in the Committee on the Constitution take on received reports concerning statements by members of the Government is that they shall be based on objectivity and be well-substantiated.

At the same time, there must be room for judgment based on the contexts in which the statements are made as such. Whether it concerns well-prepared press conferences, interpellation debates in the Riksdag chamber, or answers to written questions, specific requirements for objectivity and correctness are set. If it concerns, for example, TV or radio debates, interviews, or situations where statements cannot be prepared in the same way, the basis for judgment is generally different—even though, obviously, these contexts also may be judged individually.

Mr. Speaker! In this spring's review work, we have found deficiencies regarding two statements by Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari, on which I would like to offer some reflections here.

Let me begin with Romina Pourmokhtari's statement regarding the climate action plan. In two complaints, a review of the statement was requested. In the complaints, it is asserted that the minister provided incorrect information regarding current Swedish legislation in a television interview.

Regarding the legislation, it can be stated that in Section 5 of the Climate Act, there are provisions concerning a climate policy action plan. It also appears that the action plan shall be submitted to the Riksdag the year after a regular election has been held. The section further contains provisions on what the action plan shall contain.

The committee thus notes that the minister's statement that the climate act states that the climate action plan "should" be submitted to the Riksdag before the turn of the year was incorrect. It shall be submitted. That is what applies.

The Committee on the Constitution has, in the matter, in addition to written questions to the department, also held an open hearing of Romina Pourmokhtari.

In the investigation, it has indeed emerged that Romina Pourmokhtari, on the afternoon of the same day the statement was made, announced that the government would present the climate action plan before the turn of the year. This was also done, but without doubt in the eleventh hour during any of the last days in December.

The statement the notification relies on makes it impossible to avoid that this handling can be regarded as deficient.

Mr. Speaker! Another matter regarding the environmental and climate minister's failure to perform his duties concerns the statement on the need for new nuclear power.

The report refers to the press conference at the Government Offices in August 2023 where Romina Pourmokhtari stated that at least ten new conventional nuclear reactors are required by the 2040s to meet Sweden's future electricity needs.

Furthermore, it is stated that the State Secretary for energy issues at Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch is said to have stated in an interview in Aftonbladet that the government has not established goals or assessments at that level of detail.

It was also stated that the government, according to media reports, had removed a press release and replaced it with another without explaining why.

The basis for the review has included, among other things, a memorandum prepared within the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and an inquiry that KU held with Romina Pourmokhtari.

In the review, it has been emphasized in retrospect that the minister's intention was to exemplify how many reactors the calculated electricity demand could entail. However, it has emerged that the statement was not perceived as an example but as a new announcement from the government regarding a future need for a certain number of nuclear reactors.

KU notes that the communication was not sufficiently clear but notes that, in hindsight, various media outlets were contacted in an attempt to clarify how the statement was to be understood.

It further appears that the press release was unpublished and replaced by an article in order to avoid further misunderstandings.

The handling gives us in KU reason to repeat what we have previously stated regarding changes and corrections on the government's website. KU also notes that Romina Pourmokhtari has lamented that the routines were not followed. The conclusion remains that this is designated as a deficiency.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the deficiencies that I have accounted for here, the Committee on the Constitution in its review has noted a number of other results that I think can be mentioned specifically. These are observations where we have had a considerable amount of discussion and had to make a number of trade-offs, partly based on inquiries and partly based on written questions and memoranda that are included in the documents.

One of these matters is Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's use of the term proportionality in connection with a statement in the Nordic Council on November 1, some weeks after Hamas's terror attack against kibbutzim in Israel on October 7.

Since then, we have been able to follow daily the horrific developments in Gaza, where at the moment over 30,000, perhaps 40,000, people have lost their lives, where over 60,000 people are reported to have been injured, many of whom are women and children and patients in hospitals, and where hundreds of hostages are still being held captive by Hamas. It is an extensive tragedy unfolding, and many of us are strongly affected and engaged. There, the hope for peace must not be extinguished, and the efforts and work with this need to continue continuously.

The question of proportionality in the warfare from Israel's side has recently been actualized by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. In this case, it concerns international law and issues of international law. I therefore want to emphasize that the Committee on the Constitution's review and report have focused on precisely the concept of proportionality based on Foreign Minister Billström's statement at that specific time in connection with the Nordic Council's meeting at the turn of the month between October and November 2023.

It is not about any assessment from our side as to whether Israel's actions have been proportionate or not. This in itself is, as mentioned, a matter for international legal bodies.

Since special requirements are placed on statements by the minister responsible for foreign policy, the committee is reminded of the importance of ensuring that the foreign minister's statements are formulated in such a way that they do not lead to misunderstandings.

In this case, Billström stated in his response that Israel's actions were proportionate. Read in its entirety, it does indeed appear that the intention was not to comment on whether the actions were proportionate in the sense intended in international law, and that he nevertheless sought to clarify what was meant in the subsequent sentences. Even if the statement in question cannot be considered misleading when viewed in its entirety with the following reasoning and sentences, it can undoubtedly be stated that it has been perceived in different ways in the political debate.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's use of a social media platform, in this case X. In the review, the committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that information covered by secrecy is handled in a secure manner. From a freedom of the press perspective, we see no reason for any statement.

When it comes to the actual design of the minister's private account on X, a platform that is highly controversial in this context and which the EU Commission has also expressed concerns about from a security perspective, we can observe that it does not clearly appear from the account whether it is Tobias Billström as a private individual or as a party representative who is responsible. One can ask what, in that case, would be the difference. It is a balancing act to manage, and we want to emphasize the recommendations and the guidance that the Government Offices have developed for ministers' management of their social media accounts.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Of the twelve items contained within Certain issues regarding the performance of ministers' duties, I would like to comment a little further on two of them.

The first item is the Minister for Social Services' performance in legislative matters concerning children exposed to violence. Behind this long heading lies the question of when new legislation in the area can be expected to be on the Riksdag's table.

The Minister for Social Affairs stated in an interview that a bill should be submitted to the Riksdag during 2024, but that no timetable for this existed. The interview was published on January 5, 2024, in Dagens Nyheter. On January 16, the government presented the list of bills, where it appears that the bill Safer Homes for Children can be expected in September 2024.

In December, that is before the list of bills was submitted, the Minister for Justice gave a task to the Committee on Civil Affairs that the referral to the Council on Legislation and the bill in the matter would be handled during the spring with a bill in September. The Minister for Justice confirmed the same task in response to a written question on January 17.

This concerns different indications of time, and it is also somewhat unclear whether it concerns exactly the same proposition. Under all circumstances, it is evident that the Minister for Social Services' statement that there was no timetable does not correspond with the information provided by the Minister for Justice.

It should be noted that both ministers have indicated that the matter is underway and that they do not, apart from the question of the timeline, contradict each other in any way. It is unfortunate that two ministers collectively provide different information regarding the timeline, and it is in that part that the KU notes what occurred. It should be noted in this context that the Minister for Justice, whose department handles the legislation, has provided correct information in the matter. There should therefore be no major risk of uncertainties.

Mr. Speaker! An issue that is both complicated and "hot" concerns the Foreign Minister's use of the term proportionality in connection with the relationship between Israel and Palestine or Hamas. The background is that at the Nordic Council meeting on November 1 in Oslo, the Foreign Minister received a question about Israel's bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp and whether it was a proportionate attack or whether it should be seen as a war crime. To this, the Foreign Minister replied: "Israel has a self-evident right to defend itself against Hamas terrorism and indiscriminate rocket fire. Equally self-evident is that Israel's legitimate response must occur in accordance with international law and particularly international humanitarian law."

Mr. Speaker! This is not a simple issue to resolve as we are partly dealing with an ongoing conflict that is constantly evolving, partly with two different concepts of proportionality, and partly with a question of responsibility that must be decided by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Let us begin with the last part. Whether a war crime is present shall be examined exclusively by the ICJ, International Court of Justice, and it is therefore not appropriate for either the government or KU to express any position on that question. Furthermore, the question has been raised to the ICJ by South Africa at a later stage. Since the question of responsibility is a matter for the ICJ, KU has chosen to only examine whether the concept of proportionality has been used in a relevant and correct manner in the cited statement.

There is always a risk that one evaluates events in the light of what has occurred after the event. In the case at hand, we must examine the Foreign Minister's statement in light of what was known on November 1, 2023, and what was then known about the action in the Jabalia refugee camp. The almost daily examples of the horrors of war that we see should therefore not be included in the assessment, even though every feeling human being must react with disgust toward what is happening.

Mr. Speaker! So, regarding the concept of proportionality. Proportionality can be used in relation to international law. International law stipulates that a country subjected to an armed attack has the right to defend itself. In that respect – that is, the right to an armed response – Israel has acted proportionally, and therefore there is nothing to object to in the Foreign Minister's statement in that part.

The second context in which proportionality is used is in international humanitarian law. The level of the use of force must be proportional to the desired objective, and the civilian population shall be spared as far as possible. It is this question – the level of violence and whether the civilian population has been disproportionately affected – that the ICJ will examine.

KU has not been able to determine that the Foreign Minister has used the term in an incorrect way, rather he has been clear throughout that Israel in its response must act in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, there is reason to state that a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted more broadly, not least when statements concerning diplomatic relations may come to bind a Swedish position. Even against that background, it is of great importance that any statements are well-considered and correct. What the investigation shows is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs' statement gives no reason for comments in that regard.

In summary, it can be stated that the KU does not comment on the question of responsibility to be handled by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, that the Foreign Minister's use of the concept of proportionality has been both correct and relevant, and that there is no reason for criticism regarding the actions in the matter.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Even in this part, I want to mention some matters specifically. Just as previous speakers have touched upon, we are all talking about the same matters, so it will perhaps unfortunately involve some repetition this time as well.

The Committee has examined Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall's performance of her duties in legislative matters concerning children exposed to violence. In the report, it is referred that the Social Services Minister, in interviews and to the Riksdag, has either provided misleading information regarding various legislative matters or lacks detailed knowledge of both these matters and Swedish legislation. According to the report, she has given the impression that the government's announced legislative changes concern all children exposed to violence by a parent, even though they only cover children living in sheltered housing.

When the Social Services Minister's tasks are compared with tasks provided by the Minister for Justice, her actions, according to the report, also raise suspicions of both deficiencies in coordination within the Government Offices and a delay in the preparation of the cases in question. In the review, the committee notes that the Social Services Minister and Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer have provided different information regarding the continued preparation of this legislation. We also note that there was a timeline for the case and that it had been communicated by the Minister for Justice to the relevant committee.

Just as the committee has previously, and often, said when it comes to statements specifically, ministers, like everyone else, have the right to make statements in various contexts. If one is a minister, one however has a special position and should be somewhat more cautious, and a self-evident starting point is that a minister's statements should be correct. We note in the committee that there is a risk of creating uncertainty regarding how the work is coordinated between the different departments when ministers give different messages about the preparation of a matter. If it were the case that the Minister for Social Services, with their statement, intended a different matter than the Minister for Justice, this should have been clarified.

Mr. Speaker! Just as previous speakers have pointed out, we have also handled some matters concerning the Freedom of the Press Act, the principle of public access, and the right to access public documents. One matter we have examined concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment's handling of documents received as SMS.

I will try to go back to what I believe was the basis for this becoming a report from the beginning, namely an interview with Dagens industri which was published in a supplement called Di Weekend. There, the Minister for Climate and Environment stated, among other things: "I often have SMS contact with CEOs of large companies."

The disclosure led to the newspaper Aktuell Hållbarhet later requesting to be allowed to access these SMS conversations from the Government Offices. It then emerged that no such SMS conversation was available. In connection with a press conference, the same newspaper asked the Minister for Climate and Environment why none of the SMS messages to or from the corporate executives could be disclosed. She answered then: "All ministers delete their SMS messages frequently." She also said: "One has one's conversations and then one clears them out at regular intervals."

This probably raised questions for many because an SMS – just like email, letters, etc. – is a document. If it is kept by an authority, it is also, as a rule, public, and even documents that arrive to a minister in his role as a minister are covered.

After having reviewed the matter, we conclude that the regulations regarding public documents shall be applied in terms of content also to, for example, the ministers' SMS messages and content concerning a matter or any other issue to be handled by the Government or the Government Offices. They shall also be taken into custody and handled as public documents.

Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of making careful considerations when discarding public records and that all discarding is carried out in accordance with applicable regulations and decisions. The Minister's statement in the media regarding not only his own but also other Ministers' handling of SMS conversations is, according to the committee, relatively simplified and general and appears to have left room for misunderstanding and incorrect interpretation. We have also had a hearing in the matter with the Minister, and through his answers to the committee's questions, the Minister has elaborated on and nuanced the meaning of his statement.

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, the KU has also examined Foreign Minister Tobias Billström's use of a social media platform. In the review, we emphasize the importance of ensuring that information covered by secrecy is handled in a secure manner and state that additional requirements for handling apply if it concerns information that is also covered by security clearance regulations. Some such pieces of information, however, have not been relevant.

What has emerged in the review gives no reason for any statement from a freedom of the press perspective. Sometimes, however, we make other findings in our review, and regarding this specific matter, we have instead noted that it does not clearly appear that this is the Foreign Minister's private account on a platform, that is, an account he holds in his capacity as a private individual and not as minister.

Now I may leave my KU-role a bit and talk a bit about what impression I myself get, but it is a bit difficult when it does not clearly appear from the account whether it is the minister in the capacity of a private individual or a party representative who is the sender and responsible. The fact that the account both bears the foreign minister's title and is verified as an authority by the platform possibly makes it even harder to understand that it is a private account.

We in the committee note the recommendations that have been developed by the Government Offices for ministers' management of accounts on social media and naturally advocate that these be followed. But this is probably an issue that we in the committee will have to return to. It concerns accessibility and new technology. We are coming directly from an election campaign, which ended yesterday, and the desire from all parties to get their message out in the noise and reach the voters where they are is strong. All of this obviously provides new opportunities, but it also sometimes leads to certain difficulties – especially if one is to comply with the Freedom of the Press Act.

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)