Review report

Ida Karkiainen (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened to Jan Eliasson's winter talk in December. He spoke about the importance of words and quoted from Dag Hammarskjöld's Vägmärken. One of the milestones had etched itself into Jan Eliasson's mind. It reads as follows:

"Respect for the word is a primary requirement in the discipline through which a human being can be fostered toward maturity – intellectually, emotionally, and morally. Respect for the word – its use with the strictest care and in incorruptible inner love of truth – is also for society and the human race a condition for growth. To misuse the word is to show contempt for the human being. It undermines the bridges and poisons the springs. Thus, it sets us back on the long path of human becoming."

Jan Eliasson argued that this is a stern warning from Dag Hammarskjöld, but perhaps more justified than ever. In a world with fluid boundaries between lie and truth and, not least, in a time of polarization and absence of dialogue and will for conversation and consensus, the words have a strong significance.

Words are exactly what we are doing in the Committee on the Constitution. It is also what our review, which we hereby submit to the Chamber of the Riksdag, consists of. They are words that are balanced, weighed, discussed, and argued. We have turned and twisted their meaning. We have sometimes discussed "shall" or "should" for many minutes, but it is because the words mean something. They have a weight, especially in the review work.

What does the Committee on the Constitution do then? What is our scrutiny aimed at? Well, we were established in 1809 to be a part of the power of oversight and to conduct scrutiny of the government. A wise government reads our positions and takes to heart what we say. We exist to represent the people in the Riksdag, and the Riksdag has the task of scrutinizing the government. That task, as I said, we have had for over 200 years.

Madam Speaker! There was a time when the Committee on the Constitution's reviews were somewhat more influenced by the different camps of block politics. We are actually in agreement even this year, but there was a time when there were reservations from either one side or the other.

Madam Speaker! Oisín Cantwell wrote a scathing editorial in June 2013. I quote: "The Constitutional Committee's press conference on this year's reviews of the ministers' performance of duties was almost parodic. Nine quarrelsome figures without any real power did what they could to win political points."

Madam Speaker! This was a time when Andreas Norlén from Moderaterna and Björn von Sydow wanted to settle things when they took up their positions as chairs in the Committee on the Constitution. They soon reached the conclusion that the situation with a number of block reservations in the review was not a good arrangement. It did not look serious for a committee that since 1809 has had the constitutionally anchored task to, on behalf of parliament, review how the government's work is conducted.

Madam Speaker! We in the committee cannot say that something is wrong when it is a Moderate-led government and then say that the same thing is right when it is a Social Democratic-led government. We have maintained the tradition of trying to reach a consensus and a well-balanced conclusion, precisely to emphasize that the Committee on the Constitution's review is not a partisan review, but a review that concerns how the government and its ministers have followed the rules that exist for how government work should be conducted according to, among other things, our constitutions.

There are therefore no block reservations since ten years back. There are also no guarantees that it will continue in that way, but it is up to the members of the Committee on the Constitution and our parties to reach that conclusion.

I can state that as long as we in this constellation have sat in the committee, we have maintained that it is an important order to hold fast to. I can also state that we Social Democrats managed to unanimously criticize the government when we sat in a governing position. The question is whether the current government parties manage the same thing. The answer so far is yes.

Madam Speaker! How has this year's review progressed? For this spring review, we have received 40 KU-petitions from the members of Parliament. Of these, we have reviewed 32 cases. As we have previously announced, we have had to table those concerning the national security advisor with regard to ongoing legal proceedings. This also applies to the cases concerning the actions of the Minister for Civil Defence and his contacts with the Energy Agency in connection with an appointment. In that case, the trade union ST has sued the state, and we are awaiting the legal process.

Furthermore, we have tabled the matter regarding the former government's management of the AP funds as well as the current government's handling of Lantmäteriet's security deficiencies in order to have more time to complete the investigations. Additionally, we decided not to proceed with 4 KU-reports, considering that these were more in the character of entries in the political debate and had been difficult to investigate constitutionally.

Of the 32 reports we have reviewed, we have found deficiencies in six of the cases, and in an additional six cases we make statements containing observations or comments more in the spirit of a good auditor. The members of the committee will account for these in more detail, so to avoid repetitions, I, as chairman of the committee, will not go into them.

I still want to comment on the question of whether the government is better or worse than usual. How long is a string? It is impossible to say. No review year is like another. The number of reports and the content vary. Regarding the number, the Committee on the Constitution has had between 18 and 48 reviews each year over the last twelve years. Regarding deficiencies, that has also varied.

Madam Speaker! I shall conclude. In a strongly polarized world where brutal wars and conflicts rage and where populism, authoritarian leaders and propaganda are spread on a scale we have not previously witnessed, we show that it is actually possible to cooperate politically and safeguard our democratic institutions, not least in a time when we see how hatred towards politicians escalates. This applies to the horrific shootings in the USA but also to the improper intrusions that have occurred in ministers' residences here in Sweden.

In this context, the members of the Committee on the Constitution have, in a constructive spirit, been able to reach common conclusions on how the government has conducted its work.

Madam Speaker! There is a well-known TV program that is not entirely unlike the Constitution Committee's work when we sit there around the long committee table and look suspiciously at one another and wonder if someone is a traitor or loyal. Do we trust each other, and will we stand by our words?

Many hours of work lie behind our positions, and that is precisely because we are careful with our words. We know that words have significance, especially when our words become guiding and practice-creating for the future. We thus demonstrate continued responsibility for the importance of the Committee on the Constitution. We safeguard the trust in the Riksdag's oversight power and, ultimately, for the Riksdag, parliamentary democracy.

For this, I would really like to thank the members of the committee for a constructive cooperation. At times we have had an intense, but respectful, debate. I also want to take the opportunity to thank our secretariat, which assists us members in our work in an immensely meritorious way.

Madam Speaker! With this opening statement in the debate, I hereby submit the Committee on the Constitution's review report to the Riksdag and propose that it be added to the records.

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

Michael Rubbestad (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution is, as is well known, the Riksdag's oldest committee. The mandate to review the work of the government and the ministers can, as has been said, be traced all the way back to the beginning of the 1800s.

In the year 1809, Sweden faced an entirely new situation. The royal power had been abused, and confidence in the government had been completely eroded. Therefore, the Riksdag decided to create a permanent control mechanism, which became one of the results of the Instrument of Government of 1809.

What was first a committee for constitutional issues became the Committee on the Constitution, with a clear thought: the State should be monitored continuously and not only during the regular parliamentary sessions, which at that time were held every five years.

Two levels of control were established: legal review and assessment of responsibility. The KU should ensure that the ministers' decisions were both formally correct and politically responsible. But during the 1950s, the committee itself noted that the political part of the review had begun to play out its role. The focus needed to be shifted from party-political criticism to actual administrative review.

With the constitutional reforms in the 60s and 70s and the introduction of the vote of no confidence, KU's role became even clearer. It is about securing administrative law, constitutional obedience and correct exercise of authority, not about reviewing the government's policy. KU is a committee that stands between law and democracy.

The final step towards the KU that we have today was taken, as our chairman just mentioned, only perhaps ten years ago. At that time, party politics were set completely aside, hopefully once and for all.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes a formulation can provoke more discussion than the context from which it is taken. Such was the case with the debate article that three of the government's ministers, together with the Sweden Democrats' party leader Jimmie Åkesson, wrote in November 2024.

It is the committee's task to assess how the government communicates with the authorities and not what the government wants to achieve with its policy. But let us not get stuck in semantics, but let us look at the reality that hides behind the words.

The article was written when Sweden carried deep wounds from the legacy that the new government took over in 2022. It was inflation, an electricity crisis, gang violence, lack of growth, healthcare queues, and a school in free fall. And not least: a citizenship that in practice had lost its value.

It was against that background that the Tidö parties presented a number of reforms and proposals aimed at making Sweden function again. These reforms are not isolated proposals, but they are extensions of the Tidö agreement which constitutes the foundation of the government cooperation. It is an action plan to rebuild a country in crisis. Let me briefly elaborate on some of these reforms.

Sentencing more criminals is only the beginning. We must also be able to carry out the sentences. Therefore, the government and the Sweden Democrats are making a historic investment in expanding the correctional services. But it is also, for the first time, about renting prison places abroad. The agreement with Estonia, which provides space for up to 600 detainees from the spring of 2026, is proof that they mean business. The capacity is being adapted to reality.

In the fight against gangs, special legislation is now being tested. That gangs infiltrate authorities, blow up apartment buildings, and instill fear in entire residential areas is something we can no longer treat with old methods. When it comes to the shadow society, we must ensure that those who lack the right to be here also leave the country.

Let us specifically pause at the issue of citizenship, that is, the part that KU has examined. For far too long, Swedish citizenship has become a formality – a document. It is no longer a symbol of belonging, loyalty, and responsibility. It needs to change. It is also an explicit part of the Tidö Agreement to strengthen the value of citizenship. The person who receives a Swedish passport shall be ready to be fully a part of Sweden, legally, socially, and culturally.

It was in this context that the perhaps most discussed sentence in our committee was expressed in the debate article: "To the extent that it is possible, measures shall therefore be taken to prevent more Swedish citizenships from being issued, until the new legislation enters into force."

In its entirety, the debate article is very clear. It is about a political direction of will, not an attempt to influence the exercise of authority outside the framework of the law. The Ministers have also been very clear in the KU's review that all measures shall take place within current law. The subsequent government mandate to Migrationsverket regarding a strengthened security perspective is an example of exactly that.

Madam Speaker! It is not the policy that is the problem, but the risk of room for interpretation. That is why KU's review is important. Good reforms require clear communication.

The other matters that the committee has had to examine during the year, we will develop further during the respective blocks in this debate. This applies to both the areas where there is agreement as well as those where more fundamental differences have become visible.

I would like to conclude by expressing my thanks to the committee members and the secretariat for the solid work behind this year's review. KU's review is a common concern, not only for the government or the opposition but for the entire Riksdag and, in the long run, for the entire Swedish people.

With this, Madam Speaker, I wish you a pleasant summer and thank you for the floor.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Chancellery for the work they have put in to put together the spring review report. It was perhaps not the simplest of tasks at all times. Many thanks for that!

I also want to thank the members of the Committee on the Constitution, both those whom I have worked very closely with and those whom we have met around the meeting table and had long debates with.

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend a special thanks to the committee's chair, Ida Karkiainen, for very good cooperation. There is a function of the Committee on the Constitution that perhaps is forgotten in the grander words about why consensus has such a valuable significance. It is the aspect that the governing parties, in the best of worlds, get the opportunity to build trusting relationships with one another. In the long term – for those who have been involved in politics for a long time – I believe this is very important for Sweden and the country's best interests. With these words, I would like to extend my special thanks to the committee's chair.

After the 2014 election, it was decided, as stated earlier here, by the then chairman and vice chairman to try to reach a consensus in the KU's review as a way to smooth out the party-political considerations that the review inherently contains. Now we once again have a unanimous spring review, and it is naturally a strength in the committee's work. One can imagine that it gives greater weight to what the committee chooses to state. It also gives greater value than if the statements had been characterized by party-political considerations and party-block considerations.

At the same time, the committee is, after all, a political assembly. We are eight different parties gathering around a table and, with different perspectives and through different lenses, looking at the handling of matters concerning the actions of the ministers and the government. Against that background, it is not unusual for the members to emphasize different parts of the matters and in the review depending on which perspective they have. It lies in the nature of the matter that the opposition emphasizes aggravating circumstances for the sitting government and ministers. It is equally obvious that we, who represent the government side, want to point to a more nuanced picture in the handling of the proceedings of the matter.

This is, therefore, a political assembly presenting a spring review where consensus has been reached. I shall take the liberty of commenting on some matters that arise in the following discussions and debates. I shall try to be brief, Madam Speaker.

A good example of having different perspectives around the table concerns the article on citizenship. It is probably no secret – no longer, at least – that it has been well-discussed during the spring review. A certain sentence reads in a certain way, but at the same time, there is a context to consider. We have slightly different views, but the committee has nevertheless concluded that a broken sentence, taken out of context, risked giving rise to ambiguity regarding the legislation. The committee highlights this as a deficiency. At the same time, we want to point out that the debate article in its entirety raised security aspects that should be considered in citizenship cases and that the article was intended to point out the need for future legislative changes, not to direct the Migration Agency's work in the individual case.

When it comes to the Institute for Human Rights and the nomination that took place there, we can state that there were relatively few proposals submitted, especially regarding persons with experience from civil society. The Government then appointed a person who had been nominated in a previous nomination process. The Committee says that it cannot be ruled out that the fact that only few persons with experience from civil society were proposed was a consequence of how the invitation was formulated. The Committee therefore considers that there may be reason to review the nomination process.

The next to last matter I want to comment on concerns the Climate Act. Even here, the committee has had a long discussion on how the notification should be handled. Should we review the Climate Act in only a formal sense or also in a substantive sense? We have reached a consensus that we should stick to the formal part of the Climate Act. The Climate Act is part of the climate policy framework that the Riksdag decided on in 2017. It sets requirements for how the government should plan and follow up its climate work. As mentioned, we have focused on the formal parts. We note that the government has fulfilled the requirements in the Climate Act when it comes to submitting climate reporting and action plans in the correct form and at the correct time. There is, therefore, no deficiency in this matter.

The last matter I shall comment on concerns the prisoner exchange. Nor in this matter has any deficiency been revealed. In the current matter, the committee makes the assessment that the question was of such a nature that consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee typically should have taken place, but against the background of the urgency that arose, the Committee on the Constitution has nothing to object to regarding the government not consulting with the committee in the current situation. As we said at the press conference, we are all, of course, very happy that Johan Floderus and Saeed Azizi were able to return to Sweden. Against the background of the developments of the last few days, those words carry significantly more weight now, even though they were naturally just as true then as they are now. The prisoner exchange is placed in a different light. We are, therefore, very grateful and happy.

With that said, I wish everyone a happy summer.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! One of the Constitutional Committee's most important tasks is, as several speakers before me have pointed out, to review the government's work. It is something that we have done for 200 years, and it is a duty. We who represent eight different parties that are currently elected to this Riksdag do not only have our own years behind us, but the committee has a long tradition, longer than one might imagine. It actually goes back to 1809, if I do not remember incorrectly.

Madam Speaker! April and May are months that those who are currently sitting in the chamber, that is to say the members of the Committee on the Constitution, easily miss. I met not so long ago a comrade who spoke about what a wonderful season spring is. I said: Well, I haven't quite had time to reflect on that.

I believe it is something that I share with several in the chamber. Just in the spring, one of the finest times of the year, the Committee on the Constitution sits in long and very many meetings. We might notice that it begins to bloom out there. And suddenly, summer is here. Yesterday was an incredibly warm day. I realized: Just that – now it is summer.

This year has been difficult. There have been long and many discussions. It may have been the hardest year so far. But, Madam Speaker, at just this time of the year, we always feel that way in the Committee on the Constitution.

I have a bad habit of procrastinating, that is, putting things off even though I know what negative effects it will have. Yesterday I sat and googled a bit and came across this thing about defense mechanisms and unconscious psychological strategies that one creates to cope with reality and maintain a satisfactory self-image. It was with recognition that I read about the different defense mechanisms that exist: denial, repression of memories, and preferably a bit of humor. It is probably also something that we in the Committee on the Constitution use in different ways at this time of year. Regarding things that felt very difficult a few weeks ago, we can now feel: That wasn't so hard, was it?

Since approximately 2014, we have had the tradition of reaching an agreement, becoming a united committee, and providing a united review report. But honestly, it is not that simple, even if we are standing at a press conference and appear to be somewhat in agreement. During the spring, it has been such that one has met the committee more often than one's family, for better or worse. Just like every year, it has been an incredibly intense and heavy review. Without the KU's secretariat, I do not think it would have been possible to arrive at a united report. This year's review is the seventh I have participated in. As mentioned, every year I am unsure if we will be able to maintain that habit, which we have nevertheless had for a number of years. It is a success that we also this year, through joint efforts, actually managed to find that unity and safeguard the tradition that we have established and which is KU's role – to assess governments, regardless of political color, on the same grounds.

We also adhere to a path we jointly chose a few years ago regarding the review of statements by ministers, so-called statement cases. 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 that path, there are a number of cases this year where we have not initiated any review.

We can also see that this is having an effect – that there are more referrals to the committee that have a greater constitutional value, I would say, than when I entered the committee. I interpret that as a signal that other Members of Parliament have perceived the choice of path.

In this year's review, Madam Speaker, we have processed 32 reports and found deficiencies in six cases. But at least as important are all the other matters where we express ourselves and make various types of observations. It concerns deficiencies and points of concern as a good auditor, but also the matters where there are positions and arguments from the committee – and sometimes repetitions of what the committee has previously said about similar matters historically.

All this is what the committee expects governments, regardless of color, to obviously adopt. What we examine is, in fact, the power of oversight, the relationship between the Riksdag and the government, how the government handles various government matters, the ministers' performance of their duties, and the government's responsibility for the administration. In upcoming debates, we will also delve more into specific matters. All this is things that the committee has looked at – and we do not do it for just one year, but we actually have a more than two-hundred-year tradition of doing so.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! What we are debating here today is, therefore, the spring review of the government and its ministers. It is an important review that we conduct every year and which is intended to see if the government and its ministers follow the constitutional framework. When that is not the case, we point out what has been lacking and also speak about how seriously we view these deficiencies.

The result of the review is a report of just over 220 pages. As has been mentioned earlier, we have during the year handled 40 reports that have been made to the committee. Some of them have dropped along the way, for since a couple of years ago we in KU have as a practice not to treat certain statements at all if they, by their nature, do not have any constitutional hook.

It means that regarding a statement from a minister that has been reported to the KU, based on the situation in which it was made and the content of the statement, we can conclude that the statement should be addressed in the political debate and not in a constitutional review. Such matters are dismissed, plain and simple. It is a practice we introduced a couple of years ago. I would say that it has been a success, because in that way we in KU can focus entirely on those matters that actually have some constitutional aspect.

Among them are, of course, also statements that ministers have made, something I will return to in a later speech during this debate. Naturally, it is important that ministers are objective in their statements and stick to the facts. It is not a free pass for a minister to say whatever they want without the KU demanding accountability.

Madam Speaker! Some matters have also been tabled for various reasons, which was mentioned here initially. One that the Centerpartiet has reported and which KU did not manage to complete during the spring concerns the government's handling of serious security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet. As recently as in May, new information emerged in the media regarding how Lantmäteriet failed in the handling of security-classified information.

By that time, we in the KU had already held a hearing with Minister Andreas Carlson and also received a number of written responses from the Government Offices. But after Expressen published new information about Lantmäteriet in May, new questions arose regarding how the government acted when it became aware of the serious deficiencies at the agency. The matter thus grew gradually and even at such a late stage that we did not have time for necessary investigative measures and were forced to table it. Continuation in that matter will therefore follow next spring.

There are additional matters that have been tabled. As the chair mentioned initially: When a legal process is ongoing that could affect our review, KU tables the matter. This is, for example, the case in the review of the government's handling of the former national security advisor Henrik Landerholm, who is indeed indicted for a crime. That matter is therefore also tabled, and here too, the continuation in KU must follow after the indictment against him has been tried in court this autumn.

Madam Speaker! I just said that we have received 40 reports this year. Among them, there are also several that have concerned practically the same issue and have therefore come to be handled jointly. After such mergers, some deferrals, and a few write-offs, we have ultimately landed in 26 cases where we have formulated positions during this spring review. As has been said here earlier, we have agreed that we have found deficiencies in 6 of these cases. In addition, we make statements regarding the handling in a further number of cases.

I also want to emphasize that all the matters where the KU has a position are part of the KU practice that the government must adhere to. There are, therefore, formulations in almost all the positions in our report that are well worth for the government to consider in the work ahead.

The positions we have landed on are supported by all parties, as has also been stated here earlier. This means that we finally reached an agreement in the committee this spring as well – but not without some turbulence, it should be added, which has also been evident from several of the previous entries. As usual, we have had many and long meetings, more than any other committee in the Riksdag, and during these, the discussions in certain matters have been very protracted.

It is a challenge to take off the party-political hat and put on the constitutional one, but that is how we must work in this committee if we are to be able to reach an agreement. KU's scrutinizing eyes should not have any ideological glasses on, something that has proven to be easier said than done. As recently as a few weeks ago, we had still not reached an agreement, and it was unclear whether we would be able to do so. But then, it finally happened.

I am quite sure that it would not have been possible without the extremely skillful management that the committee's secretariat provides us members with. Therefore, I would like to extend a warm thank you to everyone at KU's secretariat, who I know have worked hard during the spring, as well as everyone in the committee. It has led to us having a solid final product to hand over to the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! We live in a highly polarized time. For my part, I believe that a highly polarized debate climate – where politicians choose to play on the emotions of the electorate and gladly use their time in the spotlight for a kind of entertaining performance instead of presenting factual, 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 also attribute certain negative personal characteristics to political opponents, it actually fosters hatred and threats and is directly harmful to democracy.

In just the last week, we have unfortunately seen several incidents both at home and abroad that demonstrate a dangerous development. Our own Foreign Minister has been attacked in his own stairwell, and from the USA, where polarizing language and crude personal attacks have become commonplace in politics over the last decade, several democratic politicians have been shot in their homes during the past weekend.

These are admittedly individual incidents, but even such incidents can be expressions of the state in which a society finds itself. Against that background, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of us in this committee, as we have managed to do so far, continuing to strive to maintain a respectful tone and conduct a factual argumentation. It is necessary for us to be able to stand here united at all in the future. To succeed in that, a consensus on the basic rules of the game for democratic dialogue is required – and that all members, regardless of party affiliation, are prepared to sign off on them.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have now for three years had the honor of working in the Committee on the Constitution. During the two years before this mandate period began, I had the pleasure of collaborating with my predecessor here in the committee, Tuve Skånberg, in the Christian Democrats' security committee. I noticed then that he often arrived very late to our committee meetings, which started at one o'clock on Tuesdays. When he finally arrived, he often had not had time to eat lunch.

This is something I myself have now had to experience during this period, similar to my colleagues. As several have pointed out, there have been very long meetings and quite demanding discussions, and also a very large amount of material to gather thanks to the work that our fantastic secretariat has done, for example, in producing similar cases from the Constitutional Committee's history.

Speaker of the Riksdag Andreas Norlén is also well acquainted with what is required in the Committee on the Constitution. He himself was involved in setting the standard for how the assignment should be carried out, in close consultation with his presiding colleague Björn von Sydow, whom several speakers have mentioned.

KU differs from other committees in the Riksdag in that it is not primarily political preferences and majority decisions that are intended to govern the committee's outcome in the investigations. Instead, the committee strives for unanimous conclusions based on what laws, ordinances, and internal guidelines say about the Government Offices' work and how the individual ministers are expected to act. What is investigated is to what extent they have followed these guidelines in the specific case. In the investigations, we also lean on how KU has assessed similar cases previously, all with the aim of making objective assessments as far as possible that maintain a consistent line over time.

At the same time, everyone realizes that the KU is not a court with entirely objective lawyers or lay judges. We members have diverse backgrounds and are all active politicians from eight different parties, something that is difficult to completely detach oneself from and which has also been mentioned in previous statements. Members from different sides contribute to identifying mitigating and aggravating circumstances in a case. This, in combination with the increasingly rich source of wisdom from previous assessments each year, the office's extraordinary and always objective competence, and the ambition to arrive at a unanimous assessment, creates a very special dynamic that ultimately leads to a balanced product.

Madam Speaker! I will not prolong the debate here with philosophical reflections, but I thank both the Chancellery for an extraordinarily good substantive and administrative support and my committee colleagues for the long and spirited discussions which, after many hours of negotiation and searching for the lowest common denominator, have resulted in the product we are debating today.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the floor! The results of this year's audits have, as is known, already been presented, and today's deliberations have, at least for me and obviously for many others, more the character of reflection and contemplation. When I began writing this, I already got stuck on "thank you for the floor" – thanks to the Speaker who developed those thoughts without me having the slightest idea at the time. I myself was leaning towards the French "merci pour la parole," which actually does have something to do with the entire speech. We will settle for the word, but I assume we can interpret it as the whole.

Many of the words I have with me here have already been used, but I am not ashamed to use them once more and go into some reflections that I have had.

It must naturally be said that the pace of the review work itself has been high this year, sometimes very high. For the smaller parties in the committee, this places quite large demands on both focus and free time in the calendar. I remember that at some point I said to myself with a sigh that next year I will not book anything else during April and May.

With that said, this is also an excellent opportunity to thank the committee's secretariat for fantastic help, well-structured documents, and the understanding and patience that have been shown to us all with unwavering professionalism. Thanks also to all other members for constructive discussions, critical questions and, in at least some cases, consensus. Without you, this would not have been possible.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag's power of oversight is regulated in the Instrument of Government. It concerns the Committee on the Constitution and our audits, but also questions and interpellations, motions of no confidence and indictments against ministers, as well as the Riksdag's authorities, the National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. These instruments are, in some sense, under our control and supervision, but from the perspective of society, there is naturally a much broader anchoring that is absolutely indispensable. I am thinking of civil society organizations, of the education system in its entire breadth, and of the work that millions of people put into healthcare, care, schools, companies, and administrations. Ultimately, it is the citizens who, through free elections, choose their representatives.

A somewhat different dimension of the same discussion concerns the interests of minorities and the right to be heard. We have an item in this year's review that concerns exactly this, and, as already stated, for it to work and for the free formation of opinion that we safeguard to be able to take the place it deserves, structures, knowledge, and support are required that make this possible. I will return to that item in a later speech.

Madam Speaker! A state is indeed defined by its borders and its territory. But it is also possible to describe a state through its way of organizing its administration. The Parliament's power of oversight is part of that picture as well as, I would say, the forms of cooperation that are created over a longer period and which contribute to legitimizing the relationship between the Riksdag and the government and thus also, in some sense, between the Riksdag and the citizens.

I will return in a later speech to both the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on EU Affairs and matters concerning how both these committees function for anchoring and mandate. We have three matters that have a connection to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on EU Affairs.

There are, I believe, reasons to continue paying attention to how these relations function and to what extent members of the respective committees feel they are involved to a degree that is reasonable, and when it concerns conditions that at times may lie outside the government's possibilities to influence. There are, I believe, good reasons for continued audits to be conducted also with an overview as a goal and not just with individual cases in focus.

Madam Speaker! Two matters have been tabled – or actually four, two of which are for reasons related to preliminary investigations and secrecy. The more public issues have been tabled so that they can be revisited as soon as possible during the next parliamentary meeting. These concern, on the one hand, questions of whether the previous government improperly influenced the AP funds to invest in Northvolt, and on the other hand, questions about the security flaws that have been noted at Lantmäteriet. Both matters are urgent, and the committee chose in both cases to table them to provide the opportunity to receive answers to further questions. There are, I assure you, no connections between the two matters.

In the following three speeches, I will focus on a smaller number of matters. Common to several of them is that they concern issues that are of importance for our society's sustainability. I am thinking of the fish in the oceans, trawling, and predators just as much as on issues regarding trust in our companies and institutions, and not least on the minorities and the indigenous people, the Sámi. I will also be able to take up some of the issues that were mentioned during the introduction. Not everyone is as lucky as we in the small parties, who automatically get several opportunities to put forward our cause and speak.

With this, I would like to thank you for the words in this first round.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! In this opening statement, I shall be very brief. I will not go into any individual matter, as we will have the opportunity to do so later during the debate.

The committee's report reflects extensive and well-balanced work that mirrors the committee members' open and constructive attitude. The committee's chair, Ida Karkiainen, and its vice chair, Louise Meijer, deserve to be particularly highlighted in this context.

My greatest recognition, however, goes to the committee secretariat. The support that the committee receives from the secretariat staff is invaluable. I find it difficult to imagine that we could have achieved the result that is now reflected in the review report without their knowledgeable and constantly available assistance.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when the institutions of democracy are questioned in many places, when facts are not taken as truth and when the rule of law is no longer self-evident. The time can be perceived as granular and without structures.

In this era of populism, institutions that are to protect openness and transparency, as well as rules that are to protect us from rapid, ill-considered decisions, must be safeguarded. It was no coincidence that the 2020 constitutional law investigation proposed that it should become more difficult to change the constitutional laws. For us Social Democrats, it was a major step to make such a departure from the principle of popular sovereignty lauded by Olof Palme, but our assessment is that the protection must increase for the foundations of democracy.

It is unfortunate when, in this time, deviations are made from wise Swedish traditions such as broad majorities for the funding of public services and the design of the electoral system. Our time requires, just as other times marked by anxiety, not more but less conflict around the core of democracy.

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

The Committee on the Constitution's review is important. We safeguard the rules that are a guarantee that decisions are made after careful preparation and consultation with referral bodies in order to obtain the best possible decision basis. We also review that decisions are pushed through in a manner that a legally mandated social order presupposes. Sweden shall be governed under the laws, even though speed and power often tempt politicians.

It is important that the forces that have historically taken responsibility for and safeguarded democracy have the strength to withstand the forces that challenge the foundations of democracy. This applies to both the "everyone-must-be-included" Social Democrats and the "it-must-pay-to-work" moderates.

I will comment on two matters that I believe have bearing on the perspective in my introduction. The first matter concerns the question of whether the Foreign Affairs Committee should have been summoned before the prisoner exchange with Iran, the second is the Minister's statements regarding the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases.

According to Chapter 12, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government, the government may, by grace, remit or mitigate a criminal penalty. The institution of grace has a long tradition – "to grant grace in criminal cases, mitigate life sentences and restore honor and property forfeited to the Crown" it was stated in the Instrument of Government from 1809.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall, according to Chapter 10, Section 11 of the Instrument of Government, be kept informed about matters of importance within foreign policy. It guarantees that both the head of state and the Riksdag are kept informed. The Committee shall be convened as often as necessary and, if possible, before decisions are made.

Of course, the question of exchanging a person convicted under international law for an innocent Swede who has quite obviously been detained to be a bargaining chip is such a question. The Committee on the Constitution makes the assessment that the question was of such a nature that the Foreign Affairs Committee should have been consulted if it were possible. KU however makes the assessment that the circumstances were such that it was not possible. KU does however remind that the rule is that the Foreign Affairs Committee shall be heard before a decision.

The principle of legality is enshrined in Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government and means that all exercise of public power, including by authorities and courts, must have support in the legal system, i.e., laws and other regulations. The principle ensures that authorities cannot make arbitrary decisions or take measures without legal support, which is a fundamental principle for the rule of law in Sweden. When Ebba Busch, Ulf Kristersson and Johan Pehrson expressed themselves in a way that could be perceived as that the Swedish Migration Agency should apply the new law before it entered into force, it was therefore an overstep that challenges the principle of legality.

What the KU has now done with this spring review is important for Sweden to be governed according to laws and regulations. Developments in the world around us show why this seemingly not so disruptive matter is important for safeguarding a law-bound social order. The alternatives are visible in the world around us.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the investigation report KU20, we deal in the section Certain issues regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag with four matters, two of which concern the government's consultations with the EU Commission.

To provide some background, the role of the EU Committee is to be a forum for consultation and information. Unlike the Riksdag's committees, the Committee does not prepare proposals for Riksdag decisions. To obtain a direction for how Sweden should act in the issues to be discussed, the Government consults with the EU Committee before each meeting in the Council of the European Union. Sometimes ongoing negotiations require that the consultation takes place in a way other than through a physical meeting, for example over the phone, so that the Government can quickly obtain a new mandate from the Riksdag if the conditions change.

It is therefore the EU Committee that gives the government a mandate for the EU negotiations. Even though the government is not legally bound to follow the mandate in a strict sense, the Committee on the Constitution has previously established that the government may only deviate from the committee's mandate if there are very good reasons for it.

This interaction between the Riksdag and the government within the EU work is, to say the least, a delicate balancing act that rests on practice, agreements, and established guidelines. Every year, the Committee on the Constitution usually receives reports concerning just this dynamic. During this review period, two such matters have therefore been handled.

The mandate that the government obtains from the EU Committee covers both the issue itself and the negotiating space available, which for me relates to the matter concerning the Minister for Rural Affairs' actions in the Council on the issue of fishing quotas.

Before the negotiations in the Council, Peter Kullgren stated that the government's position was that the quotas for herring and sprat should be reduced, even though Sweden stood relatively alone among the other countries concerned in having a restrictive stance. The Minister simultaneously emphasized the importance of having flexibility in the negotiations, as the Council makes decisions by qualified majority and an overly strict mandate risked reducing Sweden's opportunity to influence the outcome.

The Chair of the EU Committee noted that there was agreement on the goal of protecting the Baltic Sea's fish stocks, while the discussion in the committee primarily concerned the strategy to achieve this. The consultation concluded with a statement that there was support from a majority in the EU Committee for the government's position.

In the end, Sweden did not succeed in getting its position on lowered quotas through, and the council instead agreed to increase the quotas. According to the Minister for Rural Affairs' assessment, however, the quotas would have become even higher if Sweden had voted no to the compromise, as several other countries wanted to see significantly higher levels. In my view, it is a failure for European cooperation rather than a deficiency in the Minister for Rural Affairs' handling of the negotiation.

To constitutionally review something as sensitive as diplomacy is difficult. Therefore, it is important that the committee focuses, as we have done in this case, precisely on the formal review of the matter and thereby avoids making subjective assessments regarding negotiation techniques and outcomes.

The Committee on the Constitution's final assessment is therefore that the Minister for Rural Affairs acted in accordance with the mandate that had been anchored in the EU Committee.

When it comes to the prisoner exchange, I would like to refer to the deputy chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, Louise Meijer, who gave an exemplary speech on exactly that, which I can agree with.

Otherwise, I refer to the written report.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now discussing certain questions regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag. We have reviewed four cases within the area. There is a risk that I will repeat a bit of what has been said earlier, and I apologize for that.

One of the matters concerns the Finance Minister's handling of an interpellation response. The final version of the Finance Minister's interpellation response was not sent to the Riksdag as it should be according to routine, whereby the interpellator, who had only received the preliminary response, stood as a question mark here in the chamber when the final response was read out, which is understandable.

The Ministry of Finance immediately adjusted its routines in order for this not to be repeated again. Purely constitutionally, there are no requirements that answers to interpellations must be distributed before the debate, but the practice is that they should be. Here, the Committee on the Constitution has found that this is a deficiency, but a minor one in my assessment.

Madam Speaker! Another matter concerns a so-called note, or a non-paper, which Member Lindahl recently accounted for. This report to KU could, in my assessment, likely have been avoided if a good dialogue had taken place at the EU Committee meeting that preceded the negotiation.

Furthermore, documents for the EU Committee's meetings often arrive late. This means that the members of the EU Committee have to review documents quite close to the EU Committee meetings. This is generally nothing that the government can be blamed for. It is important to point this out in this context.

Madam Speaker! In the matter concerning the Minister for Rural Affairs' actions in the council regarding the issue of fishing quotas, I would like to point out some important facts.

Many of us feel concern for the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, for example when it comes to herring and cod. In the current review case, it concerns the question of the government's negotiations in the EU Council regarding herring and sprat.

Sweden's position, which was anchored in both the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and the EU Committee, was to work for a more cautious approach than the overall direction in the Commission's proposal. The Commission's proposal was increased quotas. Sweden was the only country in the negotiations for reduced quotas.

In that situation, there are two choices. Either one acts actively in a negotiation and pushes for their position, or one leaves the negotiation and lets others finish. The latter option would most likely have resulted in significantly larger fishing quotas than what became the outcome.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the Council of Ministers participated in the negotiations and contributed to limiting the increase of the fishing quotas for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea.

Madam Speaker! Another matter within the area of certain questions regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag concerns a notification regarding consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee before a prisoner exchange.

The motion aims at whether the Prime Minister has respected the constitutional provision regarding the obligation to keep the Foreign Affairs Committee informed.

Madam Speaker! In all foreign affairs of greater importance, the government shall, before the decision, consult with the committee, if so can be done.

On Saturday, June 15, 2024, five ministers are sitting at Rosenbad ready to make a decision in a prisoner exchange case. An opportunity has rapidly arisen that could mean that imprisoned Swedes in Iran can come home. The sequence of events that the KU has been made aware of occurs on a scale of hours and minutes.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious to me and to the committee that in this situation there was no room to summon the Foreign Affairs Committee for deliberation.

I am immensely happy that Johan Floderus and Saeed Azizi have been able to return home to their loved ones. The Foreign Affairs Committee could not be convened in this urgent handling where the sequence of events simply did not allow for it.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to fishing quotas, it can only be stated that the government is indeed not formally bound by the EU Commission. It is, however, important that one expects the government not to represent an opinion that stands in direct conflict with what the EU Commission has expressed.

During the consultation, Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren stated that the government's starting point was that the quotas for herring and sprat fishing would decrease. It also emerged, however, that there was probably little support for such a position, and therefore he and the government did not want to enter the negotiations with what he himself called red lines.

It is noteworthy in this context that the compromise reached by the Minister for Rural Affairs ultimately involved increased quotas for herring and sprat fishing. An important point that the Committee on the Constitution wants to emphasize is that renewed contact with the EU committee is possible. That was not something that was done in this case.

Madam Speaker! We have a government that places great value on the significance of citizenship. People often speak about the importance of language. Personally, I have heard it said that if one asks a question about bears and wolverines, it is not to be considered a question about wolves. I believe there are very many who would agree with me on that very statement.

When the EU Committee handled an ancillary issue called Large Carnivores regarding a note named The re-evaluation of the Annexes of Habitats Directive as regards certain Large Carnivore Populations, this very issue became relevant. The note in question concerned large carnivores – including wolf, but also bear and lynx – and that the protection status for these should be lowered.

The Secretary of State for the Ministry of Rural Affairs received a question that literally read: ”Can you tell us why the protection for lynx should be lowered?” To that, the Secretary of State replied: ”This refers to wolf.”

In the follow-up question from the member, it was stated that it also explicitly says bear and wolverine, and that it also says something sweeping about larger predators. To this, the Secretary of State replied, and I quote again: "We perhaps should not have an extensive wolf debate."

Madam Speaker! In this regard, I want to be very clear. I am personally of the opinion that lynx and bear are not wolf. I want to be very clear here in the chamber today, so that no one in the future shall have that impression. If I were to decide to debate lynx and bear in the future, it is therefore not about wolf.

I would like to go as far as to say that I speak for the entire Vänsterpartiet parliamentary group on this specific issue. It was, admittedly, a member of Miljöpartiet who asked the question in the EU Committee, in that case regarding lynxes. I do, however, hope that we can get clarity on whether other Miljöpartister, like myself, consider that lynxes are not wolves. The questioner does not seem to think so, if I read the excerpt from the EU Committee's minutes correctly, but it is of course foreign to me to put words in others' mouths – with the exception of Vänsterpartiet's members. There, I can only say this: We consider that lynxes and wolves are not the same thing. I can guarantee that. And in line with the committee, I consider it important that questions posed at the EU Committee's meetings are answered as completely and clearly as possible.

Madam Speaker! Interpellations in the Riksdag are one of the most important tools that we members have to be able to scrutinize the government and demand accountability. There is an opportunity for the government to send written answers in advance to the members before the interpellation debates. It is an approach that has in principle become practice. It is almost a practice that some would see as law, even though it is not. We members of the Riksdag take the government seriously, and the answers that the government sends before interpellation debates are subject to careful study. It is therefore important that they correspond with the answers that are submitted in the chamber. It is also something that the government agrees with.

I must therefore say that I was very surprised, almost like a question mark, when I, in an interpellation debate earlier this year, experienced that the answer I had received in advance did not at all correspond with the answer that was delivered in the chamber. It was for the most part completely different, even in its content. Even the sitting Speaker, who is also sitting here today, stated and commented that it was the case.

The Minister for Finance has stated that it was a mistake, and now we know that measures have been taken to ensure that something similar does not happen again. But I would still like to add that I have consulted with the Government Offices, and as far as the Government Offices know, this is something that has never happened before. One could actually say that this incident has made the Minister for Finance, Madam Speaker, and myself a part of Sweden's history, and in that way, we are also unique, perhaps forever. Together with the committee, I hope that it remains that way.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I am convinced that the member and the KU member also have a Swedish heading on some of the matters treated in the EU Committee.

Everyone is aware that English quotes should preferably be translated so that everyone can take part in them.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I shall now say something about the matters that the KU has investigated concerning the government's relationship with the Riksdag. It concerns four matters in this section.

Just as last year and several years before that, the government has been reported to the KU for how it has acted towards the Riksdag in EU matters, which several previous speakers have touched upon.

The procedure that applies to the handling of EU matters is that the government, before its meetings at the EU level on various issues to be negotiated there, 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 somewhere over there in Brussels. No, 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. That is precisely why transparency is so important in how the government acts in various individual issues when the ministers meet their ministerial colleagues from other EU countries at the 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 negotiations and consultations on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea – an issue that to the highest degree affects us Swedes, not least now when coastal fishing in the Baltic Sea and the stocks of sprat and herring are directly threatened. It may feel extra urgent to point this out here at midsummer time, when we count on being able to serve herring on the midsummer table. We shall have to see if we can maintain that tradition moving forward, if we succeed in saving the Swedish herring and sprat.

Madam Speaker! In August last year, the EU Commission presented a proposal for a regulation which, among other things, concerned the fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea and which then concerned the quotas for catching herring and sprat. Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren had a consultation with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture on how the government should act during the negotiations in the Council on this issue. This was followed by a consultation in the EU Committee. The Minister emphasized that the government's starting point was that the quotas for herring and sprat should not increase but decrease compared to current quotas. However, that was not the result of the negotiations, but the quotas actually increased.

KU notes that Sweden failed to gain traction for its position that the quotas should be reduced. This created much debate after the results of the negotiations became known, namely that the minister had actually voted yes to a proposal that increased the quotas. The question that KU has had to examine is whether this was compatible with the mandate the minister had with him from the Riksdag when he sat down at the negotiating table.

KU concluded that the Minister for Rural Affairs has indeed acted based on the mandate as it was formulated at the meeting of the EU Committee. But against the background of the fact that discussions and different perceptions arose regarding which mandate the Minister for Rural Affairs had with them to the negotiations, the committee reminds that the government always has the opportunity to seek renewed contact with the EU Committee.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that the KU has looked at and which previous speakers have touched upon is a note regarding the protection status for bear, lynx, and wolf. I do not intend to dwell much on these three specific animals, but I move on to speak about the fact that a note is not subject to a decision in the Council but is only posted as an information point. Therefore, there was no obligation for the government to initiate a consultation with the EU Commission. At the same time, any positions put forward by the government within the EU, for example in a note, should be compatible with positions that have been anchored in a committee or in the EU Commission.

As I said, we only talked about bear and lynx when we had lengthy discussions in the committee, that is, during the spring negotiations on this matter. We did not talk about wolf, because it was quite obvious that it was a position that was in line with previous positions from the government, but we focused very much on bear and lynx.

It was, as Samuel Gonzalez Westling pointed out here earlier, precisely at the EU Committee meeting that the exchange became such that there was actually an unclear answer from the State Secretary who was present instead of the Minister at the EU Committee meeting. Much due to how the words fell, uncertainties arose regarding what the note was actually about.

Here, KU emphasizes the importance of questions posed at the EU Committee's meetings being answered as completely and clearly as possible, again in the name of transparency.

Madam Speaker! Finally, there is in this section one of the matters in which the KU has found a clear deficiency. It concerns how Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson acted in connection with an interpellation that she answered in the Chamber at the end of January this year. It concerned the so-called reform space that exists in the government's budget process. Before the interpellation debate in the Chamber, a written answer had been submitted from the Ministry of Finance. It differed significantly from that which the Finance Minister provided during the debate itself.

It is important to emphasize here that the inquiry institutions have an important function within the parliamentary system through the opportunities they provide the Riksdag for information, debate, and oversight of the government. Therefore, it is naturally important that these institutions function as they should, and a decisive prerequisite for the institutions to do just that is that the ministers respect current regulations and practice.

The regulation that exists regarding interpellations prescribes that the departments shall have routines that ensure that the final version of the interpellation answer dispatched to the Riksdag's Chamber Office matches the answer provided here. The routine was not followed in this matter, and therefore KU finds that the minister has failed in this regard.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! In this section, the committee deals, as the heading says, with certain issues regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag. In our representative democracy, there is a division of roles between the Riksdag and the government that is important to maintain. I will here describe a couple of the matters in more detail. Several other members have raised the same matters, so it will unfortunately be a certain repetition.

In the matter of the Minister for Rural Affairs' actions in the EU Council of Ministers regarding the issue of fishing quotas, the committee does not point out any deficiency, but the KU assesses that the minister has acted based on the mandate that was anchored in the EU Committee.

During the consultation with the EU Committee, the Minister for Rural Affairs described that the government's starting point for the negotiations was that the fishing quotas for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea should not increase but decrease compared to current quotas. At the same time, he emphasized that Sweden was relatively alone in such a restrictive stance. The hope was that a Swedish restrictive stance could serve as a counterweight and in this way contribute to keeping the quotas as low as possible.

In this type of EU decision, qualified majority applies. It was therefore important that the government should have the opportunity to influence the decision as much as possible. Therefore, the Minister for Rural Affairs argued that he was not prepared to enter the negotiations with a rigid mandate full of red lines.

We can observe that Sweden did not succeed in gaining support to reduce the quotas. The negotiation in the Council instead led to an increase in the permitted catch volumes of herring and sprat. At the same time, it appears that the Minister for Rural Affairs makes the assessment that the quotas would have become even higher if Sweden had voted no to the compromise proposal, as all other Baltic countries wanted significantly higher quotas.

During the Committee on the Constitution's inquiry, the Minister described that the position from other Baltic Sea countries instead was to increase the quotas for herring to the maximum permitted levels in the multi-year plan for the stocks of cod, herring, sprat, and lesser-spotted goosefish in the Baltic Sea, which was also in line with the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

After several rounds of negotiations, where other countries tested Sweden's position starting from the highest part of the range deemed to be long-term sustainable, the final negotiation result landed at the lowest level in the range. These levels are thus deemed to be long-term sustainable by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. A contributing cause to this negotiation result was Sweden's restrictive position. The Minister for Rural Affairs described how he said no to level after level as the other countries tested them on him. Without Sweden's actions, the quotas would have thus been even higher.

In the committee's conclusion, we remind the government of the possibility of renewed contact with the EU Commission. The matter is not judged to be any deficiency.

Madam Speaker! I also want to comment on the matter regarding the information to the EU Committee concerning a note on the lowered protection status for large predators, which has also been addressed here previously. Nor is this matter judged to be any deficiency.

It is therefore about a so-called note, or non-paper, under the heading Other matters at the consultation before the meeting with the Council for Agriculture and Fisheries, where Finland wanted to obtain the support of the EU Commission and the EU Member States to lower the protection status for large predators, namely wolf, lynx and bear, in the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives.

The note welcomes that the Commission in December 2023 proposed that the international protection status of wolves should be lowered from "strictly protected" to "protected", based on new data regarding increased populations. The note further states that even other large predator populations in certain areas no longer require strict protection measures. The note therefore urges the EU Commission, in cooperation with experts from – I regret that it is now another English expression – Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, which translated into Swedish becomes approximately European Initiative for Large Carnivores, and with the Member States to identify such populations of large predators that have a favorable conservation status in order to enable a change in the populations' protection status. It was therefore not about a decision in the immediate sense but about a request to produce a research basis.

At the Environment and Agriculture Committee's meeting on 18 January 2024, the State Secretary informed about the note, as well as at the EU Committee's meeting the following day, 19 January 2024, and that Sweden intended to stand behind the note. He emphasized that it is in line with the policy that the government pursues and which has previously been presented in the Committee.

The Committee on the Constitution notes that the note in question was posted as an information point. Consequently, there was no obligation for the government to initiate a consultation with the EU Committee. At the same time, any positions put forward by the government within the EU, for example in a note or in some form of discussion paper, should nevertheless be compatible with positions that have previously been anchored in a committee or in the EU Committee.

The part of the note concerning wolves has previously been the subject of information in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and consultation with the EU Committee. When it comes to bears and lynx, the question of protection status has not previously been the subject of deliberation with a committee or consultation with the EU Committee. However, in 2013, the Riksdag adopted a decision on an overall and long-term goal for predator policy that includes conservation status for bears and lynx. The Government has emphasized that what is stated in the note is not incompatible with that goal. Furthermore, the note's specific focus was on the wolf's protection status, which is why the Government supported it.

The committee shares the government's assessment that the content of the note in the part concerning bear and wolverine is not judged to be incompatible with the Riksdag's overall and long-term goals for predator policy. Without classifying the matter as a deficiency, the committee nevertheless wishes to emphasize the importance of questions posed at the EU Committee's meetings being answered as completely and clearly as possible. A good dialogue between the government and the EU Committee is in both the government's and the EU Committee's interest.

The Committee also wishes to emphasize that it is important that the EU Committee receives background material and documents as early as possible. Documents concerning the heading Other matters on a Council agenda often arrive late, which the government cannot control. In this case, the note is dated 17 January. The documents reached the EU Committee the following day, meaning the day before the meeting was held. The Committee assumes that the government will, as far as possible, work towards good time margins in order to facilitate the Riksdag's participation in the matters.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I note that the English expression here was translated. I am grateful for that.)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall see if I can stick to Swedish all the way.

The Riksdag has, as I said in my previous speech, a relationship with the government that in some respects shall be structured and predictable and provide the opportunity for accountability. I will return to this also in this context.

All members, as is known, have the opportunity to ask oral questions to the ministers here in the chamber. We can also send written questions, where we usually receive answers within a week, and we can request interpellation debates, which are also to take place within a certain timeframe. As many members have experienced, it is perhaps more often associated with delays or even ministers canceling at short notice. It is, of course, not good at all.

One of this year's review matters concerns precisely the order of an interpellation debate. Practice says that the member who requested the debate and had the formal grounds reviewed and often clarified by the Chamber Office shall receive the Minister's first and direct answer in writing the day before the debate, so that the member can prepare further remarks.

This is a reasonable order of things, one might think, and like all other routines, it should of course be reviewed from time to time. The world outside can change. In this case, it concerns a response from the Minister for Finance which, at the time of the debate itself, turned out not to be the same as the Minister had submitted in advance.

Now I got the impression that the member who received the different answer simply resigned himself to the situation and was able to carry out the debate largely as planned. The whole thing can possibly be labeled as a mistake on the part of the Government Offices, but nevertheless, KU has found it appropriate to take it up.

Good so, I think. It is good that practice and agreed routines are maintained and not allowed to decay. I imagine that no one lies sleepless over this, but the committee's reminder of the importance of following routines is part of our review.

Madam Speaker! The Government is responsible for Sweden's foreign policy, but the Riksdag has both a Committee on Foreign Affairs and the two committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the EU Committee, where the Government anchors its policy on foreign affairs. Both committees have, as has been stated several times, appeared in this year's review, the latter in a couple of questions regarding predators and streaming quotas respectively.

The EU Committee has its special challenges, in such a way that the government shall therefore anchor the positions that Sweden represents in the European cooperation in the union. These positions are sometimes based on material that is distributed late, but where the committee is nevertheless expected to do as well as it can at a late stage.

The report regarding predators, primarily wolves, but also lynx and bears, was based on a note, a thinking paper, a non-paper, or "une note," as one might say in Brussels. It is therefore not a matter of a decision basis, and consequently, it was raised under the item Other matters.

The report also concerned the note's actual decision-making power, whether it might be allowed to become larger than it should be regarding the protection status of the large predators, and whether it is reasonable that a note under the heading Other matters should be guiding and binding for new policy in the area. The Minister explained during the KU's inquiry that the government's policy regarding the wolf population's size and protection status is the same as before and that the status for lynx and bear could come to be changed if new data shows that the number of animals is increasing.

I thank on behalf of the entire Green Party my colleague from the Left Party, member Gonzalez Westling, for his concern regarding our ability to tell the difference between a dog and a wolf. I believe I can say with great certainty that we can!

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution examines mechanisms, communication channels and conditions – but all based on our laws. An investigation can lead to criticism, for all its parts, but perhaps even more importantly, in the best case, also to improvements in routines based on consensus.

For my part, I still find it important to always also relate the legal and constitutional nature of the matter to what it actually concerns. What I mean is that if it is about fishing quotas, we can discuss the formal conditions for negotiating from one point of view or the other. That is okay. But it is difficult without also taking into account the significance of the decision, if what in this case jeopardizes the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea for a long time to come.

We already have the following wording in Section 2 of the chapter on the foundations of the constitutional order in the Instrument of Government: "The public shall promote sustainable development that leads to a good environment for current and future generations."

The other countries around the Baltic Sea that are members of the EU have similar formulations that to varying degrees speak of protection for the environment and of conserving resources for future generations.

Madam Speaker! I understand that for this year's matters, which have concerned partly fishing quotas, partly predator status – or if one prefers, the amount of herring in the Baltic Sea and the number of wolves in Sweden – it is necessary to discuss details regarding what has been said, who said what, and which figures have been used. The Minister repeated on several occasions during the KU's inquiry that when it comes to potential hunting of lynx and bear, more data was needed, and if these data are correct, perhaps the protection status for these animals can also be lowered from strictly protected to protected.

But somewhere it chafes that our most fundamental perceptions, as expressed in the constitutions of the countries around the Baltic Sea, still fail to capture the values that fish in the sea and animals in nature constitute. Economic growth is all well and good, but it cannot bring back fish or extinct animals.

There are discussions about the rights of nature being held among researchers within the legal field. They are also central concepts for many indigenous peoples and minorities all over the world. I think it may be worth taking knowledge of them seriously, as well as actually trying to understand such prerequisites, in order to better be able to reach common solutions that are perceived as just. We have a way to go on that path, and I do not believe we will see this this year or next year. But perhaps we can at some point in the future have that kind of discussion.

Finally, Madam Speaker, regarding the Foreign Affairs Committee. The notification to KU stated that such a significant change in practice as a prisoner exchange should have been preceded by a consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee. Here, words and perceptions are slightly at odds; from the government, it is argued that there simply was no time for it, while the opposition is not entirely convinced that was the case.

The committee notes that under all circumstances it is worth noting the opportunities for consultation that the Foreign Affairs Committee entails. It cannot be replaced by, for example, consultations with the party leaders. The possibilities for confidentiality and secrecy are extensive and the number of members is small, so the risk of leaks should be insignificant. It shall be a formal consultation with minutes and notes that make it possible to trace for future researchers in the field.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! At this time of year, the procedure is that we in the Committee on the Constitution present our extensive review work based on all the reports received from Members of Parliament. In some cases, we present that there is a deficiency in the government's actions, and in a few others, it may be more about making some observations as a good auditor, which in turn can be lessons for the future. Regardless of the terminology, positions and underlying data should be seen as important tools in the government's work moving forward.

Madam Speaker! I shall here raise a number of matters in our review based on the importance of the government anchoring its positions in the Riksdag before EU negotiations.

In Sweden, there is strong popular support for EU cooperation. It usually stands at just over 60 percent in opinion polls. Since Sweden became a member 30 years ago, support seems to have increased further. A large part of this, judging by everything, is based on the fact that EU issues generally have a good anchoring in the parliamentary work, both in the various committees and in the EU committee functioning for that purpose.

In principle, every decision to be taken in an EU context passes through the Swedish Riksdag. In the EU Committee, the government's positions are anchored and discussed ahead of the ministerial meetings in Brussels.

During a visit that the Committee on the Constitution carried out earlier in the parliamentary year in Brussels, both Sweden's ambassador and representatives in the Commission and the Parliament emphasized the significance and the strength it entails to be able to refer to the parliamentary anchoring. It is not solely a question of the government's position, but it rests on a broad base of the Swedish people and thus has a more long-term character. Therefore, the government's responsibility to manage preparations for negotiations is important to follow up.

In the review work, some reports have been submitted regarding how the government relates to the EU Commission. One of the reports to the committee has resulted in that Rural Affairs Minister Kullgren's actions in the Council on the issue of fishing quotas have been scrutinized. We have listened to some reflections on this. The starting point before the negotiations with other countries was that the quotas would decrease, not increase. The background is the situation prevailing in the Baltic Sea. The serious situation is also confirmed by my own contacts with both researchers and small-scale fishers along the coasts of Skåne and Blekinge.

The government's position before the negotiations was that the fishing quotas for herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea should not increase but decrease compared to the current quotas, and the government would push to reduce the quotas by 55,000 tonnes. Even though Sweden was alone in this line in the negotiations, it was the Riksdag's and also the government's clear instruction before the negotiations to enter with this starting point.

The decision after the negotiations did, however, mean that the total allowable catches for central herring and herring instead increased by 108 percent and for Baltic herring by 21 percent. And Sweden stood behind this.

The task that KU has had to review is, however, not the issue itself, but rather how the minister acted externally and how he behaved in relation to the mandate he received from the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! In this matter, we have submitted written questions to the department. These were followed up with an open hearing with Peter Kullgren. During the hearing, Kullgren was asked to account for the negotiations, and he informed that decisions on fishing quotas are made by the council by qualified majority and as a package.

He described the negotiations as those where the quotas were constantly being pushed up by the other Baltic countries. If Sweden had said no to the offer that was put forward, it would have led to at least another 15,000 tonnes of fish being taken out of the Baltic Sea. That the reduction that was sought instead became this significant increase, he justified by saying that it could have been even higher if he had not agreed to the level that was reached as a consensus.

Madam Speaker! In this context, there may be reason to emphasize what is put forward in the committee's position: that the government has the opportunity to seek renewed contact with the EU Commission. This has occurred during ongoing negotiations at previous occasions. It is possible – even likely – that Kullgren, if he had described the situation as it unfolded in the negotiations, would also have received the EU Commission's acceptance for his line.

What can, however, be said to be decisive for the notification resulting in just a pointing out – as a good auditor said, as we mentioned earlier – and perhaps not a stated deficiency, is what I see as being the summary that the Chairman of the EU Committee made in connection with the deliberations. That conclusion was that Sweden would take a restrictive stance and work to keep the quotas as low as possible and that it would not solely be about a reduction.

Kullgren also interpreted, regardless of previous commitments made in the Riksdag, his mandate in such a way that this sought-after reduction could instead result in the increase that occurred.

I still want to say that lessons can certainly be drawn for future occasions. Ministers have, as stated at previous occasions, also re-established contact with the EU Committee to obtain support in certain issues.

Madam Speaker! The committee has also reviewed the government's information in the EU Committee regarding a note on lowered protection status for large predators. Previous speakers have also accounted for that.

It is emphasized in our review report that documents concerning other issues on a Council agenda often arrive late. The Government cannot always control this. However, the committee assumes that the Government, as far as possible within the framework of EU cooperation, works for good time margins, in order to facilitate the Riksdag's participation in the matters.

Also in this context, we want to emphasize the importance of anchoring decisions in order to have a strong anchoring and the opportunity to act with strength in EU contexts.

Madam Speaker! A deficiency was also raised, which we have pointed out, regarding the Minister for Finance's handling of answers to interpellations. The routine of submitting a written draft of the answer to the Riksdag before an interpellation debate, we believe, contributes positively to how the question system functions. It is a good practice that should be maintained.

From the review we have conducted, it appears that the draft written response sent to the Riksdag before the relevant interpellation debate did not correspond with the answer that the Minister for Finance later gave in the Chamber. It is emphasized that this was due to an oversight within the department.

Practice was set aside. There is reason to consider this before future work. We landed on the conclusion that it was a deficient action.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! I will comment on two matters in the review. Both are judged by a unanimous committee to be deficient matters.

I will, however, begin with a quote: "The Renmark Committee's first partial report, Hunting and fishing in reindeer grazing lands, has been on consultation and it is now clear that the criticism is extensive. This includes, among other things, criticism from authorities, municipalities, interest organizations as well as Sami organizations and representatives. The Government will therefore not proceed with the investigation's proposals."

– The criticism has been significant and it is clear that a rethink is needed here. The government intends to appoint a new investigation of the reindeer husbandry act with new directives as soon as possible, says Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren.

The government's intention with the upcoming referral is that the Renmark Committee shall be phased out. Thereafter, the government intends to appoint a new investigation of the Reindeer Husbandry Act. The purpose of the new investigation is to work out long-term sustainable proposals that have broad anchoring both among those affected and in the Riksdag.

It is this that has given rise to the KU report that has been submitted.

Madam Speaker! The first matter I shall speak about concerns the reason why the government has handled the consultation law towards the Sámi in connection with the announcement that they would discontinue the reindeer land investigation. In a press release on November 7, 2024, the Minister for Rural Affairs announced that the government's intention was to discontinue the investigation and that the government would also not proceed with the proposals that were in the partial report.

The Consultation Act is important for the Sámi people, as the indigenous people they are. They shall have the opportunity to consult with the government or authorities in matters concerning their livelihoods, language, and cultural heritage.

An invitation to consultation was sent to four organizations on November 11. Three of the organizations declined consultation because they perceived the government's press release as indicating that everything had already been decided. The organizations perceived the press release as irrevocable. Thus, the Sami organizations were offside, to use sports terms.

The preparatory works for the consultation law state that the deadline shall be reasonable and that the consultation shall be conducted in good faith. This means that the consultation shall be characterized by sincerity and honesty.

The committee considers that it does not contradict the purpose of the law that the government has formed an opinion before the consultation takes place, but that it is a prerequisite that the outcome of the consultation does not appear to be predetermined. The committee further notes that there is a difference between how the press release and the invitation to the consultation were formulated. This caused those invited to perceive that the decision had already been taken.

Review Report Handling of certain government matters etc. and Certain questions regarding the government's responsibility for the administration (chapters 2 and 3)

Madam Speaker! The Committee further notes that it would have been appropriate to send out the request for consultation before or at least at the same time as the press release to avoid misunderstandings. The Committee also notes that there are reasons for the Government to consider both when Sámi representatives are invited to consultation and how the Government phrases itself in the communication.

Madam Speaker! The second matter I shall speak about concerns the lack of a gender equality analysis when the government submitted a proposition regarding the cash payment. The analysis was produced in the regulation that specified the amount limits. The government argued that it was not possible to conduct the analysis before the limits were actually decided.

But there was a tapering-off model in the bill. A significant reduction in the compensation takes effect after 100 days of unemployment. That part of the bill should have been analyzed from a gender equality perspective before the bill was laid on the table of the Riksdag.

The committee considers that bills should be well-elaborated and have detailed problem and consequence analyses. For that reason, consequences for gender equality need to be reported as extensively as possible.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that there were limited possibilities to conduct such a scrutiny when the amount limits were not on the table. The committee believes, however, that the analysis should have been made for the part of the bill that specifies the new tapering model in the unemployment insurance.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! The spring review is complete, and I would like to begin by thanking all the committee members for their solid work. I would also, of course, like to extend a big thank you to the secretariat for their patience and invaluable guidance.

As several of us have previously mentioned, we have processed a total of 32 reports received from various Members of Parliament. The committee has found that certain deficiencies occurred in six of these cases. I intend to mention some of our cases – two where we have found deficiencies and two where no deficiencies have occurred.

A submitted report concerns the winding down of the Renmark Committee, which my colleague Mirja Räihä has just accounted for. More specifically, it concerned whether the provisions in the Consultation Act have been followed as intended.

Consultations were carried out with Sami representatives, so in a purely formal sense, the government has not fallen short. Regarding the selection of the Sami representatives who were consulted, the committee also has no objections.

The problematic aspect of the matter stems from a press release that was sent out before the consultations. The Government stated there that it intended to phase out the committee but also that consultations would be conducted. The wording in the press release led to some Sami representatives declining consultation, as it was perceived that the decision had already been made.

In terms of timing, the request for consultation was sent out two working days after the press release. This, in combination with the design of the press release itself, unfortunately opened the door for the misunderstanding that the decision had de facto already been taken, even though that was not actually the case.

As previously mentioned, we in the committee believe that it would have been desirable for the request for consultation to have been sent out earlier, or at least at the same time as, the press release. We also believe that the content of the press release could have been designed somewhat differently to avoid misunderstandings.

This is absolutely a deficiency. It can be noted that the Sami representatives who participated in the consultations had no objections to the government's declaration of intent.

Madam Speaker! Another review where we have found deficiencies concerns the appointment of board members to the Institute for Human Rights. According to the Act on the Board of the Institute for Human Rights, the board shall include members with expertise in the field of human rights and experience from civil society, the judiciary and legal practice, as well as research and higher education. Within each area, there shall be two members.

The Government is obliged to request proposals for board members from the institute's council, the Swedish Bar Association, as well as universities and colleges. Even though the Government is not formally bound by these nominations, board members should be drawn from the nomination list to the greatest extent possible.

In this case, the government considered that among those nominated, a candidate with sufficiently qualified experience from civil society was missing. This led the government to look back at previously nominated persons, and the government took the decision to appoint a person with the desired background from that list.

We in the committee consider that the reason there were not enough proposals from qualified individuals with the right background may be a result of how the invitation itself was formulated. There are therefore grounds to review the nomination process itself. We emphasize that the board members should be drawn from those nominated and that this is of importance for the institute's independence. The possibility of appointing other persons shall be interpreted very restrictively.

Madam Speaker! Another matter we have examined as a result of a few reports is the government's compliance with the Climate Act. No deficiency in itself has been identified in the matter, but we as a committee have made certain observations.

The Climate Act contains a number of requirements for the government regarding planning, monitoring, and reporting to the Riksdag concerning climate policy work. The complainants claim that the government's climate goals will not be met and that the climate policy action plan does not meet the requirements of the Climate Act.

Our review shows that the government has followed the requirements in the Climate Act regarding what it should do when it comes to the forms for the submission of the climate report, the action plan, and also the content of the climate report. Additionally, there are things in the law that should be included in the action plan. The information requested there is therefore not mandatory but can certainly in their own right be considered highly desirable. We have a similar previous review from 2021. There it is stated that the action plan does not have to contain information that is not mandatory, but that these recommended pieces of information should also be addressed in order to achieve a broad treatment of climate policy in the Riksdag.

We in the committee assume that the government, in its continued work, will design both climate reports and climate action plans in such a way that they provide the Riksdag with the broadest possible basis. If the government is of a different opinion than various expert bodies and authorities, they must clearly state the reasons for this. We therefore found no formal deficiency in the matter, but the committee submits some recommendations and observations.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about a received report that we have reviewed regarding the handling of potential circumvention of sanctions against Russia. Even here, there was nothing that we express as a deficiency, but I think the matter deserves a few words despite this. It is a very topical matter in our restless world.

The reporter points out that even though exports and imports with Russia have decreased, Swedish exports to countries in Russia's vicinity have increased. These countries, in turn, have increased exports to Russia, which for understandable reasons can be perceived as worrying.

I assume that all parties in this assembly are united regarding the handling of sanctions against Russia and that we are working closely with the EU so that the purpose of these sanctions is truly fulfilled.

In our review, it emerges that the government has given assignments to authorities and taken various measures to erase irregularities. This includes proposals for legislation.

It is naturally of the utmost importance that we and our EU colleagues – at least the majority of these countries – create a common front against Russia's aggressions. I place great value on the government's consistent actions and on the opposition's support in this matter.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you and wish everyone a nice summer.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The section we are now debating concerns eleven specific audits. I intend to focus on a couple of them.

Initially, I would like to comment on a report against the former Social Democratic government regarding the appointment of a member to the board of the peace research institute Sipri. In April 2021, the then government decided to appoint a Russian citizen as a member of Sipri's board. The appointment was made on the recommendation of Sipri's board itself.

In May 2024, Expressen revealed that the person in question had close ties to Vladimir Putin and his regime, including as an advisor to the Russian Security Council.

In a referral to the Committee on the Constitution, it was requested that the committee should review the government's appointment in light of the person's connection to the Russian intelligence service.

The Instrument of Government states that when preparing government matters, necessary information and opinions shall be obtained from the relevant authorities. Furthermore, if necessary, opinions shall be obtained from municipalities and associations of private individuals. In everyday speech, we call this the preparation requirement.

From a memorandum from the Government Offices, it appears that board members are appointed by the government according to Sipris statutes based on proposals from Sipris board, the research college, or the local workers' organizations. Furthermore, it appears that information regarding the proposed board members is obtained from Sipri. No significant consideration was made by the government regarding including additional candidates.

Neither from the information conveyed by Sipri nor from what emerged during the internal preparation within the Government Offices did it appear that there were grounds to question the candidate. Against that background, the committee has decided not to make any statement regarding the review. It is therefore not a deficiency.

The fundamental question that is nevertheless raised is to what extent the Government Offices can rely on the nominations they receive and how far the Government Offices' preparation requirements extend, that is, to what extent the Government Offices need to conduct its own investigations regarding the proposed candidates.

If the Government Offices had conducted a more thorough preparation in this specific case than what was now carried out, one might perhaps have been able to prevent a person with close ties to Vladimir Putin's regime from being appointed as a board member in Sipri. Perhaps the Committee on the Constitution can at another occasion conduct a more general review of the preparation requirements in appointment matters, as it is fairly common for the government to make appointments on the proposal of various external organizations.

Madam Speaker! An issue that has attracted a great deal of media attention is the review of the government's compliance with the Climate Act. I suspect that it is a subject that will also recur later in today's debate.

The climate policy framework consists of three parts, namely the climate policy goals set by the Riksdag, a climate act, and the establishment of a climate policy council. The long-term goal is that Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2045 at the latest, to subsequently achieve negative emissions. In addition, there are interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

The Climate Act contains provisions on the government's climate policy work, what the work shall aim for and how it shall be conducted.

A unanimous Committee on the Constitution has concluded that the government has followed the requirements in the Climate Act regarding what it should do concerning the forms for the submission of the climate report and the action plan, as well as the content of the climate report. The Committee on the Constitution has, in addition, chosen not to conduct any detailed analysis of the outcome of the government's design of the climate policy according to the objectives in the Climate Act, simply because it cannot be the Committee on the Constitution's role to evaluate past policy. The Committee on the Constitution's task is to review on constitutional grounds, not political ones.

Regarding the content of the climate action plan, I would like to mention that it has been reviewed and processed by the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, which did not comment on the reporting. The Committee on Environment and Agriculture considered that the work presented in the action plan, including the decided plans and measures that the government intends to take, is well-balanced and that the described policy could gain broad support in various groups across the country.

Later, someone from the rostrum will surely point out that the Climate Policy Council, in its review, has made the assessment that the climate action plan does not meet the requirements of the Climate Act, which, moreover, also applied to the action plan presented by the previous government during the last term. The government has, however, been clear that it does not share the Climate Policy Council's assessment in this part. As I mentioned earlier, the Committee on the Constitution has chosen not to make any assessment of its own in this part.

It is worth noting in this context, however, that the government has decided on several assignments to strengthen the agencies' analytical capacity, develop the work with emission inventories and socio-economic models, and produce guidelines regarding climate impact assessments and the cost-effectiveness of climate policy. Prior to the preparation of the 2023 climate action plans, the number of agencies tasked with preparing background material for the action plan was also increased.

Here, the Climate Policy Council has noted that the government, since the first climate policy action plan was developed, has taken several steps to improve the impact assessments of the political measures that have been decided. It is a good grade for the government.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I had intended to mention something about the Renmark Committee and the consultation law that has been discussed here earlier. However, two speakers before me have already raised that issue. To avoid repetitions, I therefore refrain from that part.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! When we are to debate the Committee on the Constitution's positions in 32 different matters, there is a risk that there will be some repetitions. I must apologize for that.

But one thing that I noted the previous speaker did not say anything about – I actually had not intended to say anything about it either – concerns the matter that the committee calls G6 plus 34, which concerns the government's compliance with the Climate Act. The review that we have conducted in our committee is the formal one, while the substantive assessment is handled by the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, which the previous speaker also accounted for. But he missed saying that the Committee on Environment and Agriculture might not have been entirely in agreement. I just wanted to add that.

Madam Speaker! In this section, matters concerning the government's handling and responsibility for the administration are addressed. Therefore, I intended to begin with some of the matters in which we have found deficiencies. The committee has, as stated, reviewed the government's consultation in connection with the dissolution of the Renmark Committee. The committee, which had a mandate, among other things, to investigate a proposal for a new reindeer husbandry act, was appointed after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Girjas case. The decision to dissolve the committee was therefore a matter that would, of course, be subject to the law prescribing that consultation shall take place with Sami representatives in matters that may be of particular importance to them.

Madam Speaker! As my representative in the Committee on the Constitution used to say, it is not forbidden to make bad decisions. The KU's review concerns whether the matter has been presented from the government's side, regardless of what one may then think on the merits. In the actual issues themselves, eight parties usually disagree.

On November 7, 2024, the government announced through a press release its intention to phase out the committee. In the introduction to the press release, it was stated that the government would not proceed with the investigation's proposals. It also appeared that consultation with Sami representatives would take place. This also occurred barely a month later, in the beginning of December. At the end of December, the government made the formal decision to phase out the committee.

The request for consultation was sent to the Sami representatives only a few days after the government's press release. The request stated that the government expressed that it does not intend to proceed with the commission's proposals and that the government intends to disband the committee. Three of the four Sami representatives who were asked for consultation declined because they perceived that the decision to disband the committee had already been made and finalized.

We in the committee believe that it does not contradict the purpose of the Consultation Act that the government has formed an opinion and formulated a position prior to a consultation. But for the consultation to be able to be carried out in good faith, which is what the law prescribes, it is a prerequisite that the outcome of the consultation does not appear to be predetermined.

We also note that there is a difference between how the press release and the invitation to the Sami representatives were formulated. The request for consultation was sent out after the press release. It can therefore not be ruled out that this, in combination with the design of the press release, had significance for why several of the Sami representatives perceived the consultation as unnecessary.

The Committee therefore considers that it would have been appropriate to send out the request for consultation before or at least at the same time as the more generally directed information in the press release, and that the information should be in harmony.

In addition to this, we emphasize the importance of a consultation being conducted in good faith. The Government therefore needs to consider, in the future, both when in time Sami representatives are invited to consultation, and how the Government formulates itself in communication in matters concerning the Sami in relation to the Consultation Act.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the KU has examined the bill on a new unemployment insurance and the lack of analysis in the proposition regarding the consequences for gender equality. Even though the committee notes that the amount limits to be applicable for the right to unemployment insurance are not regulated in law but in ordinance, and that the possibilities to already in the proposition assess the economic consequences for gender equality between women and men were limited, we emphasize the importance that propositions should be well-elaborated with detailed problem and consequence analyses. Analyses of a bill's consequences for gender equality should therefore be reported as extensively as possible when it is deemed relevant, and no analysis of the new model's consequence for gender equality was made in the proposition but at a later stage.

Madam Speaker! The last review matter I shall speak about in this part is the appointment of board members to the Institute for Human Rights. According to the Act on the Institute for Human Rights, the institute's board shall include members with expertise in the field of human rights and with experience of qualified work from civil society, the judiciary, the legal profession, as well as research and higher education. From each of these areas, there shall be two members, and the government shall therefore request proposals for members from the institute's council, the Swedish Bar Association, as well as research and higher education.

In the preparatory works for the law, it is emphasized that the special nomination procedure is a central part when the institute's board is to be appointed. The Government is not formally bound by the proposals submitted, but normally, board members should be drawn from the circle of the nominees. Since the Institute for Human Rights is an independent agency, the nomination procedure is somewhat complicated but very important in order to safeguard precisely that independence.

Of the persons who were proposed, according to the government, few had experience of qualified work within civil society. The government therefore, on its own initiative, conducted an inventory among persons who had previously been proposed for the board and appointed one of these. Even though the government, as stated, is not formally bound by the proposals that are submitted, board members should according to the committee normally be drawn from the circle of the nominees. This was thus not done, which led to strong reactions from the institute's board.

The committee argues that it cannot be ruled out that a reason for only persons with experience from civil society being nominated was a consequence of how the invitation was formulated. There may therefore be reason to review the nomination process.

The committee makes no independent assessment of the experience of the proposed persons but still wishes to emphasize that the starting point is that the board members are drawn from the circle of nominees and that, with regard to the institute's independence, it is central that the scope for appointing other persons is restrictive.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! When one comes after several other speakers in the debate, there can be a lot of repetitions, which will surely be noticed.

In the section we have now reached, there are three matters where the committee finds that the government has fallen short. Furthermore, there is one matter where the KU makes a joint submission to the government which I think is interesting to highlight on a principled level, namely the review of the government's compliance with the Climate Act. I will return to that shortly.

But first, I want to take up one of the matters where the KU has found that the government has fallen short in its handling. It concerns the Institute for Human Rights. It is a young agency that was established only a few years ago, and before that, Sweden unfortunately belonged to the small group in the EU that did not have an agency that lived up to the international criteria that apply for having an independent body with a mandate to protect and promote human rights in the country.

The arrangement we chose in Sweden when we finally established an agency with this mandate was to place it under the government. Such an arrangement – with an agency that is to act completely independently but is under the government, i.e., under the executive power – places special requirements on how the agency can live up to its independence. Therefore, it is stipulated that the institute shall be led by a board and it is regulated how the board members shall be appointed. The members shall have expertise in the field of human rights and experience of qualified work from civil society, the judiciary and legal practice, as well as research and higher education. From each of these areas, there shall be two members, and the government shall request proposals for members from the institute's council, the Swedish Bar Association, as well as universities and colleges.

In the preparatory works for the law, it is emphasized that the nomination procedure is a central part of the appointment of the institute's board and that the government should normally recruit board members from the circle of nominees. What happened when new members of the board were to be appointed last autumn was that the government deviated from that process by bringing in persons who were not nominated and appointing a person who had previously been proposed for the board.

KU considers it a deficiency that the government acted in this way and highlights that there may be reasons to review the nomination process. KU also emphasizes that the starting point is that the board members are drawn from the circle of nominees. This is particularly important to safeguard the institute's independence, which is necessary if Sweden is to live up to the requirements that international bodies place on an institute that protects human rights.

Madam Speaker! An issue that has taken up a lot of time in the committee this spring and led to protracted discussions is one where the Center Party acted as the reporter. We reported both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate and Environment after the Climate Policy Council and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency directed criticism at the government and its climate policy, which was not considered to live up to the requirements of the Climate Act.

After KU's many and long discussions during the spring, we were finally able to agree on a position. What we land on is that, within the framework of a constitutional review, we look at whether the formal requirements in the Climate Act have been met. In the review, we address questions regarding the government's planning, follow-up, and reporting, and we note that it is absolutely fundamental that the government meets these requirements so that the Riksdag can, in a systematic and recurring manner, be able to assess the political direction and, in the long run, be able to take a stand on whether the proposals for measures put forward by the government are sufficient. Our review shows that the government has followed the requirements in the Climate Act regarding what it is to do when it comes to the forms for the submission of the climate report and the action plan, as well as the content of the climate report.

We do not comment on Section 2 of the Climate Act, that is, the provision stating that the government's policy shall be aimed at reducing emissions and rest on a scientific basis. We do not therefore examine this and say neither yes nor no as to whether the government lives up to what is written there. That is to say, we in the KU can neither say that the government follows nor that it breaches just this paragraph.

Madam Speaker! KU also notes that there are requirements in the Climate Act on what a climate action plan should contain. In that part, the Climate Policy Council has made the assessment that the action plan does not meet the requirements of the Act. Admittedly, the information requested is not mandatory to include in the action plan, but KU emphasizes that a broad treatment in the Riksdag of climate policy presupposes that the action plan also contains such information as it should contain according to the Climate Act.

We make a clear joint submission to the government that we assume that the government, in its continued work, strives to ensure that climate reports and climate action plans are designed in such a way that they provide the Riksdag with the broadest possible basis. Furthermore, KU emphasizes the value of the reports from expert bodies and authorities that are prepared within the framework of the climate policy work and that it is important that the government, if it makes a different assessment in any part, explains the reasons behind this in its reporting to the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to say a few words about another matter in this section where the KU has found deficiencies. It was when the government chose to phase out the so-called Renmark Committee. The KU is critical of how the government chose to act towards the Sami representatives when it decided to shut down the committee. A news item was released in a press release. Only a couple of days later, an invitation was sent out to the Sami representatives to participate in a consultation on the matter. It is a consultation that the government is required to have according to the Consultation Act. Several Sami representatives perceived this as if the matter had already been decided, because the press release had been issued beforehand.

KU concludes that it would have been appropriate to send out the request for consultation before or at least simultaneously with the more generally oriented information in the press release. Furthermore, it is important that the information in such a press release is in harmony with the information in the request sent to Sami representatives regarding consultation. Here, according to the committee, there are grounds for the government to in the future consider both when Sami representatives should be invited to a consultation, and how the government phrases itself in the communication regarding matters concerning the Sami, in relation to the Consultation Act.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I also wish to dwell on the matter of consultation in connection with the winding down of the Renmark Committee.

Since March 1, 2022, the government shall conduct consultations with Sami representatives in matters concerning the Sami people in accordance with what is stated in the Consultation Act. The decision to phase out the Renmark Committee was such a matter, which could have special significance for the Sami. According to the Consultation Act, the government should therefore consult the Sami representatives who wished to be consulted before decisions were made in the matter.

On November 7, 2024, the government announced through a press release its intention to phase out the Renmark Committee and appoint a new investigation. The press release also stated that Sami representatives would be invited for consultation. Two working days after the press release, on November 11, 2024, a request was sent to several Sami representatives regarding whether consultation was desired in connection with the government's intention to phase out the Renmark Committee.

Three of the four requested Sami representatives declined consultation, referring to their perception that the decision to phase out the committee had already been made. One Sami representative approached on their own initiative with a desire to participate in a consultation, which was also conducted. The consultations were conducted on December 2 and 3, 2024. The Government made the formal decision to phase out the Renmarkskommittén on December 19, 2024.

The Committee notes that the deadline for responding to the consultation was relatively short. At the same time, according to the preparatory works, the deadline for matters of a simpler nature may be significantly shorter than the one month that normally applies. In this case, the request was sent out three weeks before the consultation was held. The Committee notes that the deadline was not stated as the reason for declining the consultation. The reason was instead that it was perceived that the decision to phase out the committee was already finalized.

The law does not contradict the fact that the government has formed an opinion and formulated a position prior to a consultation. The law says that the party obligated to consult, in this case the government, shall state its reasoned position in the matter. However, in order for the consultation to be able to be conducted in good faith, it is a prerequisite that the outcome of the consultation does not appear to be predetermined.

In this case, there is a discrepancy between how the press release and the invitation to the Sami representatives were formulated. The review has revealed that the intention of the press release was not for it to be perceived as the government having already made a decision in the matter, even though several Sami representatives did come to perceive it in exactly that way.

It cannot, however, be ruled out that the fact that the request for consultation was sent out two working days after the press release, in combination with the design of the press release, had significance for several perceiving it as unnecessary. It would have been an advantage if the request for consultation had been sent out before or at least simultaneously with the press release and if they had been in harmony.

The Committee wishes to emphasize that the intention of the Consultation Act is that dialogue takes place with Sami representatives and that the Sami are given influence over their own affairs. There are therefore reasons for the Government to in the future consider both when in time Sami representatives are invited to consultation, and how the Government formulates itself in the communication in relation to the Consultation Act.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! In a couple of previous speeches, I have spoken about the government's relationship to the Riksdag and about how words such as consultation, mandate, and understanding can be seen. I will continue with that now.

The government has a great responsibility for its relations with almost all agencies – JO and the National Audit Office are of course exceptions. They are part of our auditing and control functions. There is also a great responsibility towards our minorities and the indigenous people, the Sámi. One or possibly several cases in this year's audit have to do with this.

Madam Speaker! In recent decades, issues concerning minorities and indigenous peoples have received increased attention not only here in Sweden but in the Nordic countries and the rest of the world. When it comes to the Sámi, I can state that truth and reconciliation commissions have worked, are working, or are to resume work in Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Based on the stories that are presented, the documentation that has been presented regarding discrimination and abuses, and the history, there is every reason to take demands and proposals for confidence-building very seriously. The Consultation Act can also be seen in that light, I believe. It was added to guarantee the Sámi people influence in matters that concern them.

The report that the Committee on the Constitution has reviewed concerns the dissolution of the Renmark Committee. The committee had been appointed in 2021 with the aim of producing proposals for a new reindeer husbandry act. It gradually turned out that the differences in views among the various groups represented in the committee were greater than had been anticipated, and the work proceeded at a slow pace. A partial report published in 2023 received referral responses that reflect these extensive differences in views.

The government thus found that there could be grounds for a rethink, but instead of contacting the relevant Sámi groups for consultation and dialogue, it published a press release announcing its intention to phase out the committee. The committee's chairperson and secretariat were also informed at the same time, which naturally contributed to the perception that the decision had already been made. This led to predictable reactions where some found it unnecessary to participate in consultations because the decision appeared to have already been made. Consultations were, however, held a month later, after which the government made the formal decision on the phase-out.

Madam Speaker! The central point of the notification is that the consultation law speaks of the concept of "good spirit." Consultations shall be conducted in good spirit, as it is stated. The Committee on the Constitution interprets this as that even if one has an opinion on where a discussion should lead, for example to a decommissioning, it is necessary to approach the matter with respect for any other opinions that may exist.

For my part, I would like to add that if "confidence-building" is a goal in itself, then every conceivable proposal must also be weighed from that perspective.

Madam Speaker! The Institute for Human Rights was established only a couple of years ago, in 2022. The Institute is a national institution in a global context where the UN's so-called Paris Principles are fundamental. An institute for human rights must be completely independent in order to be able to monitor discrimination and compliance with laws for freedom and rights with confidence. It must be completely independent from any conceivable possibility of influence or impact.

In this year's review, there is a matter concerning how the appointment of board members has taken place. The institute's instructions include detailed descriptions of how it should proceed and which institutions have the possibility to nominate.

This year's matter concerns how the government chose a member other than any of those nominated and thus bypassed the rules the Institute has. This is not about any assessment of the individuals in question, but about the fact that the principles that the Institute for Human Rights has deviated from.

To me, it appears to be both a reasonable and simple solution to follow the instructions that exist. In doing so, any questions of this kind are avoided, and the integrity of the institute remains regarding the appearance of board members. I assume that instructions and order will be reviewed next time it becomes relevant in order to further clarify the importance of following the existing order for nominations.

Madam Speaker! The Climate Act is part of the climate policy framework together with the Climate Policy Council and the parliamentary-bound goals that have been set for climate policy for 2030, 2040, and 2045, which includes the so-called interim targets to reach net-zero emissions by 2045.

From the perspective of the Green Party, we, as one of the two reporting parties, wanted to test whether the Climate Act was fulfilled in its entirety, i.e., with the requirements found in the Act's Section 2, especially regarding whether the measures taken contribute to reducing emissions and whether the measures taken are based on scientific grounds and are evidence-based. KU decided, however, to focus on the formal questions regarding the content of the climate action plan and climate reports, as a kind of lowest common denominator – hence our specific statement in the review report.

It is of course not the Constitutional Committee's task to assess the design or content of the policy pursued in itself. But at some point, it must be possible to evaluate the results of it and to assess whether the policy pursued and the measures taken have led to a reduction in emissions and that the forecasts for reaching climate goals and interim goals are improved, and whether the measures taken are based on evidence and science.

I noted that Member Lars Johnsson thought that someone would probably bring up the climate action plan. I do not intend to do that. However, I want to mention that there are expert agencies that have also commented in various ways. It may be worth using their statements as a basis for any future assessment.

I don't actually think there is anything to choose from. There is no room to refer to mandates to lower gasoline and diesel prices or reduce the reduction obligation, in any case not without simultaneously continuing to work for reduced emissions. This was also presented at the press conference held just over a week ago.

For my part, I foresee that the discussion continues, even if such as the conditions of the expert agencies and that it cannot be ruled out that a new review may be requested, then of course with the experiences that have been made in the relatively extensive work that the committee has done this year.

Of course, questions about climate policy and climate goals should also be addressed in society at large, in all the forums we have available, on the newspapers' debate pages, on social media, at lectures and seminars, and not least in upcoming election campaigns and election work.

In summary, my view is that the Climate Act should be assessed as a whole, where the government's ability to deliver on the requirements in Sections 2–3 is also scrutinized. Not least, the expert agencies' analyses and evidence-based conclusions could have been weighed in for a more comprehensive review of the government's work with the Climate Act in relation to both long-term goals and established interim targets.

Regarding the committee's review concerning the formal parts of the Climate Act, regarding climate action plans and reports in budget bills, we agree but develop the position in the specific statement.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! In this part of the debate, I want to focus on the government's compliance with the Climate Act. There is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the law's goal formulations and, in the long run, how the climate policy framework is constructed. Based on this confusion, incorrect claims are being made that the government is not following or is even violating the law.

Madam Speaker! To clarify these fundamental questions, I would like to begin with a quote from the bill A Climate Policy Framework for Sweden, which the Riksdag adopted in June 2017:

"It is ultimately a political balancing act between demands for firmness and flexibility that determines how far-reaching powers and obligations future governments should be given – – – In the government's view, a sufficient degree of freedom of action can be maintained – while desirable continuity and long-term perspective are granted to climate policy – if a specific law is introduced that regulates certain fundamental principles as well as planning and monitoring systems. The regulation should appropriately be designed with some flexibility so that, for example, the goals for climate policy can be changed if necessary without the law having to be amended."

I want to emphasize some central formulations in the framework. It is about establishing basic principles and about combining firmness and flexibility. Therefore, the regulation should "be appropriately designed with some flexibility" so that certain goals can be adjusted without the law needing to be changed.

Madam Speaker! This well-balanced approach is clearly reflected in how the different climate goals are designed.

On the one hand, we have binding goals, where the word "shall" is used in the legislative text. One example is the long-term climate goal that Sweden "in 2045 shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, to subsequently achieve negative emissions." Another example is the EU goal for 2030: "Greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport shall be reduced by at least 70 percent by 2030 at the latest compared to 2010."

On the other hand, there are flexible goals where the word "should" is used. The interim targets for 2030 and 2040 are examples of such, and these can be adjusted without the Climate Act itself needing to be changed.

Madam Speaker! Compliance with the Climate Act is fundamentally about the government's work being based on the principles established in the Act, above all the long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. This is established in the Climate Act 3 §: "The government's climate policy work shall be based on the long-term, time-bound emission goal that the Riksdag has established." It is this long-term goal that shall be guiding in the assessment of the government's goal fulfillment. The interim targets are important tools, but it is not these that the compliance with the Climate Act should be evaluated against.

Madam Speaker! The decisive question is therefore: Is the government working to achieve the long-term net emission target? There can, of course, be different political opinions on how effectively this work is being carried out. Such a discussion, however, belongs in the general political debate in the Riksdag, especially in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture – not in the Committee on the Constitution's review. On the other hand, the Committee on the Constitution can review whether the government has followed the forms established by law for the climate work and whether the government has failed to take the measures that it itself has assessed as necessary to reach the long-term climate target. If that were the case, the government would fail to fulfill the requirements of the Climate Act.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to these more formal aspects, the committee notes the following: ”The review shows that the government has followed the requirements in the Climate Act regarding what it should do when it comes to the forms for the submission of the climate report and the action plan, as well as the content of the climate report.”

When we move on to the content of the climate work, we can ask the question: Is there anything that indicates that the government has abandoned the long-term climate goal or has not acted to achieve it?

Madam Speaker! During the committee's inquiry on April 8, 2025, Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari accounted for the government's work to comply with the Climate Act. According to the minister, the work is based on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's target scenario to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045. This scenario forms the basis for the climate policy action plan which, according to the law, shall be submitted to the Riksdag the year after a regular election, in this case in December 2023.

The Climate Action Plan 2023 includes around 70 proposed measures and is the first of its kind to concretely describe how Sweden shall reach the Climate Act's net-zero emissions goal by 2045. The plan aims to provide households, companies, and other actors with good conditions to make climate-smart decisions.

Complementary policies were also presented in the energy policy direction bill submitted to the Riksdag in March 2024. The purpose is to meet the growing electricity demand in the short, medium, and long term as well as to secure a secure and sustainable energy supply. A secure electricity supply is a fundamental prerequisite for industry, the transport sector, agriculture, and households to be able to transition. Here, the investment in fossil-free energy sources, including the government's initiative for new nuclear power, plays a decisive role. Without these initiatives, we will not achieve the climate transition. The real threat to the climate transition would be a government that takes counterproductive measures, which we have unfortunately seen evidence of in the sad history of Swedish nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! The second binding climate goal is the EU goal that greenhouse gas emissions from inland transport shall be reduced by at least 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010. Has the government abandoned this goal or refrained from acting to fulfill it? No. In February 2025, the Environmental Goals Commission presented a strategy to meet the EU's requirements, and in March 2025, the Transport Administration assessed in a memorandum that this goal is within reach.

Against this background – and much more could be said in this context, Madam Speaker – I contend that it stands beyond reasonable doubt that the government complies with the Climate Act and the climate policy framework. The government has both the will and a concrete strategy to achieve both the long-term climate goal and the EU goal that Sweden is committed to fulfilling.

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

Amalia Rud Stenlöf (S)

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time with war in our vicinity, gang wars in residential areas, and an ongoing climate crisis that affects the children today and generations to come.

The Committee on the Constitution shall review the government's work but not delve into political choices in substance. We are not to review whether the current government is truly working to solve all crises. Many times, our review is reduced to only being about semantics and conceptual definitions. The word consequence analysis can be mentioned more times in one of our meetings than the word vision.

The scrutiny mandate that the committee has is important for maintaining democratic stability. The government is held accountable on objective grounds. We review what has been so that what is to come will hopefully become better – so that decisions will be more strongly anchored, so that the relationship between the government and the Riksdag will become clearer and, not least, so that everyone who lives in our country, including the media, shall have the opportunity to access the basis and material to read up and ask questions themselves.

At the same time, we in the Committee on the Constitution are members of the Swedish Riksdag, not auditors from some large external auditing firm. We must remember to put things into their context. Therefore, I intended to do just this before I move on to specifically mention anything regarding the review matters concerning the government's compliance with the Climate Act and the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement on the effects of the reduction obligation.

Madam Speaker! When one looks out at the world right now, it does not look very bright. Fewer countries are defined as democracies, and more and more parliaments are led by authoritarian forces which, besides restricting the freedom of women, homosexuals and minorities, also have something else in common, namely that they completely disregard the role of the climate issue and people's impact on global warming.

It is quite easy to distinguish governments based on whether they have or do not have an active climate and environmental policy. Sweden stands out right now, but not as one of the countries leading the way in the climate transition. On the contrary, we in Sweden stand out right now precisely because emissions here are increasing.

So it has not always been that way. It is now almost 30 years since Göran Persson launched the vision of the green folkhemmet with the goal that Sweden should become the first country in Europe to systematically build an ecologically sustainable society. In 2009, Sweden decided to reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2020. In 2015, Sweden signed the Paris Agreement, which has since had great significance for Swedish climate and environmental policy.

The latest milestone, which perhaps is one of the most important, was when seven of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag in 2017 adopted the climate policy framework, which also includes the Climate Act that we in the Committee on the Constitution have reviewed.

Madam Speaker! This leads me to the review report on Sweden's Climate Act. The review that the Committee on the Constitution has conducted on whether the Prime Minister and Sweden have followed the Climate Act is highly relevant for the committee to undertake, as in recent years Sweden's government has received massive criticism from the Climate Policy Council, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fiscal Policy Council, to name a few.

The Climate Policy Council's criticism is scathing. The Council argues that the action plan developed by the government does not meet the requirements of the Climate Act as it ignores the interim targets for 2030 that the Riksdag has established and as emission forecasts and timeframes are missing. The Climate Policy Council simultaneously notes that there is also no strategy in the action plan to reach the interim targets for 2040.

The Fiscal Policy Council argues that the government is missing targets for future emission reductions and that a coherent strategy to reach the targets for 2030 is lacking.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution notes in its review that the government has followed the formal "shall" requirements in § 4 and § 5 of the Climate Act, but that the government has not formulated the climate policy in such a way that it corresponds with the "should" requirements in § 2.

The Committee also wants to emphasize the value of the government using input from expert bodies and authorities and that, if the government makes a different assessment than an expert body, it is important that the government states the reasons for this.

Madam Speaker! To those who are not familiar with what all the paragraphs of the Climate Act refer to, I would like to say that the climate and environmental policy that the government pursues can be compared to a really bad date – you know, one of those that starts with the person showing up late to the date, without an apology, only talks about themselves, does not make an effort to ask any questions and – perhaps worst of all – daydreams and thinks about someone else during the entire date.

The government is not reaching the climate goals for 2030. It does not listen to experts such as the Climate Policy Council, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency or, for that matter, the Fiscal Policy Council. It is also clear that it is more important to follow the Tidö Agreement than the climate agenda in its entirety.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the scrutiny matter concerning the Minister for Climate and Environment's statement on the effects of the reduction obligation.

The report that formed the basis for the committee's review is based on the fact that the Minister for Climate and Environment chose not to present both of the emission scenarios that Naturvårdsverket had prepared for the government. I want to emphasize that it is Naturvårdsverket that has the government's mandate to prepare the basis for the government's climate reporting.

When the minister, at a press conference, presented the proposal on the new reduction obligation, she chose to only present the scenario that was more favorable for the government as the main scenario. When journalists then asked about the source for the calculations, they were told that it was the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's calculations that the assumption was based on.

The Minister for Climate and the Environment stated herself during the inquiry that she had not been involved in discussing the materials that were prepared for the press conference. What choices a minister makes before a press conference are not for the Committee on the Constitution to decide on, but the committee simultaneously wishes to emphasize the importance of transparency when it comes to which calculations form the basis for the government's materials.

Review Report Handling of certain government matters etc. and Certain questions regarding the government's responsibility for the administration (chapters 2 and 3)

Madam Speaker! No previous government has received as many KU reports regarding climate and environmental policy as Ulf Kristersson's government has. I hope that the Committee on the Constitution will be spared from reviewing those types of matters in the future. It is not about us in the committee having less to do, but it is about our common future, our children's future and the future of coming generations, and about them not having to live in a world where the climate has been forgotten. The government needs to change its climate and environmental policy very quickly.

Certain questions regarding the exercise of duties by ministers (chapter 4)

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It has been emphasized on several occasions earlier during this debate that the work carried out by the KU is both extensive and time-consuming. It therefore feels good that we, here near Sweden's normal height point at Riddarholmen, have reached the climax of our work through this review debate. We are now entering for landing by debating the concluding part, Certain questions regarding the ministers' performance of duties. I would like, just as previous members, to make some points regarding what the review has resulted in.

The committee has, among other things, noted a deficiency regarding Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch's statement on social media concerning a legislative change regarding anonymous witnesses.

In the autumn of 2024, the committee reviewed the ministers' use of social media. The committee noted that the ministers' communication today takes place through social media to a greater extent than previously. Furthermore, the committee could observe a discrepancy between the Government Offices' steering documents regarding the management of social media accounts and the actual management.

On Ebba Busch's Instagram account, an incorrect caption was published regarding a controversial and fundamentally important legislative change in the criminal policy area. Through the publication of the incorrect caption, parts of the information about the new law became misleading. Precisely because more and more of the ministers' communication takes place via social media, it becomes even more important that what is published is factually correct. The committee notes that the minister is responsible for publications regarding the government's policy on her account, and the committee assumes that she ensures she has routines in place to ensure that she can take this responsibility.

Madam Speaker! We have also handled a number of reports regarding animals, nature, and climate. These are obviously important issues that engage people, whether it concerns lynxes, bears, or wetland restoration. One report against the Minister for Climate and the Environment concerns her statements on trawling in relation to the government's marine environment bill and that she, according to the report, at both a press conference and in interviews gave an incorrect picture of the content of the bill.

After completing the review, the committee can state that the Minister for Climate and Environment's statements were consistent with the political direction that the government has decided upon, but at the time of the statements, additional steps remained to be taken for this direction to be realized.

Audit Report Certain questions regarding the exercise of duties by ministers (chapter 4)

This, together with the fact that the bill was not available at the press conference, leads to a reminder from the committee: The norm should be that bills presented at a press conference are also available in connection with the press conference. Otherwise, there is a risk that both reporting and scrutiny of the government's policy will be hindered, especially in an area where the Minister for Climate and Environment himself drew attention to the issue by taking a dip in the Baltic Sea's brackish water.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, I would like to raise the review concerning a debate article regarding the application of the citizenship legislation signed by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister for Education. The following was stated there:

"Before the new requirements for citizenship are in place, there is reason to act against citizenship being issued according to the current legislation. Citizenship granted without the applicant meeting the expanded requirements constitutes a vulnerability for Sweden's security. To the extent that it is possible, measures should therefore be taken to prevent more Swedish citizenships from being issued, until the new legislation enters into force."

Madam Speaker! The committee has noted that the minister's intention was to announce political proposals aimed at future legislative changes, but since the content of the debate article referred to both the application of current legislation and the intention regarding future legislation, it risked creating ambiguity regarding the government's position on the application of existing legislation.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize something that we Social Democrats have had reason to return to in a number of instances during this review. We shall not, and have not attempted to, review the government's migration policy.

KU has examined whether the Prime Minister's various statements could be perceived as the government's position regarding the application of existing legislation and whether they could be perceived as governing or instructing for authorities.

From the review we have conducted, it does not appear that the statement in question has affected the Swedish Migration Agency's processing of citizenship cases. But I note, Madam Speaker, that Minister Busch, during the KU's questioning, admitted that there had been a discussion before the publication of the debate article about how the content could be perceived. It was a good questioning, where the Minister answered the members' questions in a substantive manner.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the inquiry with the Prime Minister in the same matter. As we said, we do not review the policy. However, that was what the Prime Minister meant, who devoted a considerable part of the inquiry to attacking the members' questions from a policy perspective. I mean that such conduct is inappropriate if this part of the oversight power is to be able to function well.

The committee has noted a deficiency in this matter. It is not acceptable to then attempt to reduce this to a stray sentence or similar. The formulations in the debate article and the responsibility for any potential ambiguity that could arise regarding the government and the principle of legality rest with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister for Education.

I also think it may be worth reminding that a couple of sentences from a Prime Minister can have an enormous significance. A Prime Minister has a platform and a responsibility that most others can only dream of. Or as the committee expresses it in its position: ”According to the committee, a government minister should in general be able to expect that an authoritatively expressed position on a matter concerning the exercise of authority against an individual or the authority's application of law could be perceived as a directive, even if the statement concerns an authority within another government minister's area of responsibility.”

Madam Speaker! With those words, I thank you.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are gathered here in the chamber to discuss the Committee on the Constitution's review report KU20.

The work in the Committee on the Constitution has functioned well during the fiscal year, and all parliamentary parties have taken responsibility for reviewing whether the constitutional part has been followed in the reports that have been submitted.

The block we are now debating concerns the ministers' exercise of their duties. There have been long discussions, where I can probably assert that no party is completely satisfied. This also includes the Sweden Democrats.

But we have ultimately reached a consensus in the Committee on the Constitution, and I will speak about some of the matters that we have reviewed during the autumn and spring. My colleagues will, as member Peter Hedberg has already done, go into other matters during the debate that I will not take up in my speech.

Madam Speaker! That our ministers have an open dialogue with the Swedish people regarding the proposals they have been mandated to push through is something that we should safeguard and encourage. It contributes to the voters seeing that their vote every four years actually makes a difference.

In one of the review cases, the committee has reviewed Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch's communication on a media platform. The communication concerned the new legislation regarding anonymous witnesses. This is a fundamentally important reform in order to be able to counter the grave, often organized, crime that we see spreading across Sweden. This is a crime that has been allowed to grow and expand in Swedish society for many years, but which the Tidö parties are now joining forces against by taking effective measures.

Madam Speaker! Social media is becoming an increasingly common way to communicate, and it is a way to reach more people with information. It is obviously of great importance that the information conveyed is correct, and it is perhaps of even greater importance precisely when it concerns future legislative changes.

The Minister's statement in this specific case concerns a post on social media where she released information regarding the new legislation concerning anonymous witnesses. In the text of the image, it was clearly stated what the law entails, but in the image attached to the post, the information was incorrect.

A minister has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the information conveyed is correct, and despite the publication being corrected, the Committee on the Constitution has concluded that there is a deficiency in the post that the minister published. I also want to draw the audience's attention to the fact that the graphic image had not been approved by the Minister for Energy and Industry, which is an explanation for why the published information became misleading.

The Committee on the Constitution has also looked more closely at a KU report regarding the Minister for Justice's statement about appointing an investigation into the introduction of visitation zones. Just as I touched upon in the case regarding the Minister for Energy and Business's statement on social media, outward-facing information and communication is something that is good and something that we should safeguard. That our ministers are transparent about the work being carried out contributes to an understanding of the democratic process that we have in Sweden.

The committee notes that it appears that an investigator was tasked to investigate and submit proposals on how we can allow the police to work with time-limited and geographical search zones. The assignment also included presenting the advantages and disadvantages of search zones.

This is overall a political proposal of great importance for crime fighting, Madam Speaker, which the Minister for Justice has also pointed out in various contexts. The police are now given an important tool to secure streets and squares, which we already see is yielding positive results in crime fighting.

The Tidö parties' policy makes a difference, Madam Speaker. Visitation zones will also protect citizens from grossly criminal individuals who, in parts of Sweden, create a great sense of insecurity, not least for residents in these areas. The Minister for Justice has acted correctly and transparently in this matter.

Madam Speaker! Two of this year's matters concern different ministers' statements regarding the Swedish Migration Agency's handling of citizenship cases. The first matter concerns the Kristdemokraterna party leader's statements in a newspaper interview. In this case, it is important to consider the whole and the broader context.

The interview referred to in the review was about values and the Christian Democrats' ideological starting points and not about government decisions or operational management. It is both reasonable and desirable that party leaders, even in a government position, participate in the public debate. Just as I have touched upon previously, we otherwise risk eroding the democratic dialogue.

The second matter on the same theme concerns the debate article signed by the Prime Minister, three cabinet ministers, and Jimmie Åkesson. The article contained formulations that some may perceive as being able to create uncertainties regarding the relationship to current legislation.

It is reasonable for ministers to also participate in the debate on migration and citizenship in their party-political roles, especially in matters concerning national security.

The committee has noted that a single formulation, if read in isolation, can give rise to misunderstandings. The Prime Minister was clear during the questioning by the Committee on the Constitution that what was intended in the article was within existing legislation.

In the current matter regarding the debate article, the Committee on the Constitution has not directed criticism at the political content of the article, not at the government's security policy ambitions, not at the mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency, and not at any minister's actions in a formal sense. The ministers have emphasized that the purpose was to mark the importance of a strengthened security perspective within the framework of current law and that formal governance would take place at a later time via a government mandate to the Swedish Migration Agency.

Madam Speaker! Let us raise the obvious: Sweden is in a serious security situation. For very many years, we have seen how persons with links to terrorism, organized crime, and foreign powers have been able to become Swedish citizens. It is not acceptable.

When the Tidö parties emphasize that the security perspective must be strengthened in the citizenship review, it is not only right, but it is necessary. We consider that there are no formal objections to the measures that the government later took to strengthen the security perspective in citizenship cases. The Committee on the Constitution has stated that the statements have not affected the Swedish Migration Agency's case processing and that the management of the agency has occurred through formally correct government decisions.

It is important to establish this: No law has been broken, and no ministerial rule has occurred.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Chairman of the Committee on the Constitution initially used a rhetorical model with the question of how long a rope is. I will not answer how long a rope is, but we can possibly instead speak about how long the rope is. Then there is something that can be described in words – it is this long that we are talking about. Then we can have different valuations.

That is something to take into account when considering how the Committee on the Constitution carries out its review. First, a report is submitted. Then, an investigation is initiated. One looks at what has occurred, what evidence exists describing it, and how similar cases have been assessed previously. In that stage, we are usually quite clear in our positions – that was wrong, that was right. But gradually, we enter another phase where we begin to problematize, discuss, and try to put ourselves in each other's shoes in order to, in that way, "synthesize" a picture.

I saw a joke picture on Facebook where two men were standing and examining a number. One stood on one side and said: It is a six. The other stood on the other side and said: It is a nine. Eventually, these mathematically minded people came to an agreement that it was 7.5 plus minus 1.5. It is a pretty good picture of how we reason.

But it is important what the words stand for. Words have meaning. When we have deepened and clarified the mindset, possibly even improved it a little bit for the future, we will, of course, make an assessment. Then it is perhaps more a question of intent or ambition than of what has actually occurred. We take part in the matters and handle them. We listen to each other and draw lessons.

Madam Speaker! I intended to comment, to some extent, on two of today's matters. The first, which I shall address in some detail, concerns the Deputy Prime Minister's communication on a social media platform. It is a case where one can say how long the rope is. That went wrong. It was not correct. In that case, one should say it and stand by it. Preferably, it should not go wrong, but when it does, we can also ask ourselves: Are we all flawless? Can this be excused? Can it be seen as a mistake, or was it done with intent? We have no evidence that the intention was to actually mislead. I also want to say that it is good that we have ministers who are human in their behavior and are not like machines. Furthermore, in this case, a correction has been made.

In the second matter, it has been significantly more complicated. Now we are at the meaning of the words. It concerns the debate article by the Prime Minister, the two Ministers, and the party leader. The formulation that has been the subject of very much discussion is: "Before the new requirements for citizenship are in place, there is reason to act against citizenship being issued according to the current legislation." It is a statement that it can certainly be claimed that someone misunderstood or could misunderstand and so on – we have the whole scale. We dug quite deep into the trenches in the discussion. But eventually, we could agree that there was a risk of it being misunderstood, but that we have no evidence that such actually occurred. There is also nothing indicating that the authorities actually acted in accordance with the statement.

Then we come to the question: What was the ambition? If the ambition was to influence the agency's actions, one should naturally be criticized for that matter and not just because the statement could be misunderstood. But it is not possible to prove that was the case. If the purpose instead was to demonstrate how urgent and important the matter is to address, which has been put forward from the government side, it becomes a different political stance. Even there, the question arises: How should we interpret it? I do not think I am revealing an all-too-great secret if I say that the opposition side leaned a bit more towards one side and the government side towards another in this matter. I believe everyone realizes that there is a political aspect, even if the assessment is to be as factually based as possible.

Madam Speaker! That leads me to the final assessment. As everyone has said, we must distinguish between what is politics and what is formality. Then, it is not a crystal-clear boundary. Precisely for that reason, we need to have this ability to handle words. It is not just a matter of reaching an agreement; the discussion deepens the analysis and the description of how we can better draw lessons for future management.

I welcome that we have a unanimous report, that we have been able to reach an agreement and that we all stand up for the central task of trying to understand – not just assuming what the purpose was but discussing the matters in substance and evaluating them. It is only then that the lessons will come.

How long is a rope? I don't know, but let us choose to measure the rope ends individually and not start with an assumption that leads to any belittling of others' ambitions. I believe that everyone involved in politics in Sweden wants well. I believe that everyone has a good purpose. Precisely for that reason, that rope deserves to be measured carefully.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by circling back to what the previous speaker just said about the image of a six or a nine that two people are standing and looking at and trying to interpret. It was something about that one could perhaps agree that it should be 7.2 or something similar. I am rather of the opinion that it is someone who has made either a six or a nine and who had the intention to write either six or nine. One of the two is, therefore, correct.

However, the fact that one of them is right does not mean that this cannot be interpreted in a different way. The responsibility for the interpretation lies with the sender. It is a heavy responsibility for a government to speak and express itself in a way that leaves as little room as possible for interpretation, so that no form of misunderstanding arises. It is also something that the Committee on the Constitution has a task to review. The Committee on the Constitution notes that it is necessary for the statements of ministers to be correct.

Madam Speaker! We are currently in a situation in the world where a genocide is taking place. It is a fact. Israel is currently engaged in the systematic persecution of Palestinians in Gaza. It is horrific, and it is something that is condemned by large parts of the world. It has also given rise to enormous protests around the world, not least at universities and similar institutions.

Following the fact that protests arose at universities in Sweden, the then Minister for Education Mats Persson was interviewed. In such an interview, it was expressed that universities have been forced to close. Later in the same interview, the statement was corrected to that universities have been forced to close their premises. How one interprets this is, of course, up to each individual. The Committee on the Constitution can state the following: It has not been the case that universities have closed in Sweden, but rather three universities have chosen to close some of their premises.

I leave that part and instead move on to Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, who criticized Vattenfall in connection with the company announcing that it did not intend to proceed with a wind power project at Kriegers flak. According to the Minister, her intention has been to present the facts.

The Committee considers it valuable that ministers participate in the public conversation and clarify and clear up any misunderstandings. It is, however, also important that the government is aware that it is the representative of the state's ownership and that it shall manage state-owned companies in a responsible manner. For that reason, the formulations used may need to be of such a nature that they do not risk unnecessarily damaging the credibility and business-mindedness of the state-owned companies.

Furthermore, Ebba Busch has published incorrect information regarding the government's policy on social media. The issue concerns legislation that makes it possible to use anonymous witnesses in court proceedings. In the original publication, it was stated that the plaintiff could testify anonymously, which is not possible according to current legal principles for natural reasons. When the error was noticed, the image was corrected, and Ebba Busch has stated that the error was due to a mistake in handling the post.

As has been mentioned here earlier, the committee has at previous occasions reviewed the minister's publications on social media, and it is not news that the minister themselves is responsible for the publications that occur regarding the government's policy. Therefore, the committee assumes that the minister ensures that there are routines in place to be able to take that responsibility.

When it comes to the issue of becoming a Swedish citizen, it caused some confusion among some when Ebba Busch, in an interview, reflected on the citizenship issue and that the Swedish Migration Agency needs to review the pace of some of the decisions it is making now because new decisions and a new citizenship test are on the way. In a debate article that she wrote under together with, among others, Ulf Kristersson and Johan Pehrson – also ministers in the government, one of whom is Prime Minister and thus head of government – a similar reasoning was put forward.

Even though Vice Prime Minister Ebba Busch gave the interview in her capacity as party leader, the committee considers that there are reasons to exercise some restraint in statements regarding an authority's handling of a case.

Regarding the debate article, where it was stated that there was reason to act against citizenship being issued according to the current legislation before the new requirements for citizenship are in place, it is necessary for the committee to remind that the government's management of the state administration is carried out through, for example, ordinances with agency instructions, regulatory letters, and specifically decided government assignments within the framework of current legislation. The government has done this at other times, for example through regulatory letters.

I will give such an example. The Swedish Tax Agency shall no longer report the tax error every year but every fourth year. If anyone is interested in what the tax error is, I can state that it concerns how much money the state loses as a result of people and companies declaring incomes and expenses incorrectly. This applies to both unintentional and highly intentional errors – or, as it is called in common parlance, tax evasion.

That the government does not want to know how much tax fraud occurs every year is certainly interesting, for lack of a better word, but I deviate from the subject there as just this has not been the subject of this spring's review. It does, however, show that the government nevertheless knows how to manage authorities, which in itself is good. It is not to be done through debate articles.

I would also like to mention that the Prime Minister's comment on what has emerged from the review, where he claims that he and the other ministers have acted in a correct manner, still leaves me with slightly raised eyebrows. It is not quite what one expected from the Prime Minister of Sweden after he received criticism from the Committee on the Constitution.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! In today's final debate on the KU's spring review, we are addressing the chapter in the report where most of this year's complaints have been gathered, specifically 11 of the matters that we have commented on this year. As I said earlier, we do have positions on all 26 matters included in the report.

The majority of the matters in this section are such that a minister has been reported to the KU because of something the minister has said, and where the complainant believes that the statement was not correct. In two of these matters, we in the KU have clearly found deficiencies in the minister's actions.

One statement was made, as mentioned earlier, by Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch on her Instagram account at the beginning of the year and concerned a new piece of legislation that entered into force at New Year. It was the amendment to the law that makes it possible, in certain cases, to testify anonymously during a trial in criminal cases.

It is far from a free-for-all for everyone to testify anonymously according to the new regulations, something I think is important to emphasize when I get the opportunity because it is difficult to let the public believe that everyone can now testify anonymously. That is not the case, however, but the cases where someone can provide a testimony without revealing their own name are carefully regulated and constitute exceptional cases in court proceedings.

The post that the Minister for Enterprise put up on his Instagram account even contained a message that someone who has been a victim of a crime could testify anonymously. But that is, of course, not the case, which has been pointed out here previously. A crime victim, i.e., a complainant, can never provide a testimony anonymously; it is not compatible with our rule of law principles. Ultimately, it is therefore, furthermore, in very few cases that this will be possible.

Admittedly, the minister corrected his statement on social media after there was some writing about the post, but that doesn't matter when it comes to how KU assesses the statement itself. A minister must speak factually correctly, and that did not happen in this case. Therefore, the statement is seen as a clear deficiency in the minister's actions.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that several have been involved in, and where the KU has found that several cabinet ministers have failed in their actions, is that concerning a debate article in Dagens Nyheter which was signed by all four party leaders of the Tidösamarbetet. Three of them are also cabinet ministers, namely Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, and Minister for Education Johan Pehrson, and have therefore been scrutinized in the matter.

The debate item concerned, among other things, citizenship and the measures the government planned to implement to make it more difficult to become a citizen in Sweden. It is not the issue itself that we in KU focus on, even though the questioning of Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson unfortunately may have ended up there, but what we are looking at are the formulations in the article – and as Member Ulrik Nilsson touched upon, we have truly delved into the formulations.

We in KU found that certain formulations in the article referred to both current and future legislation. It was particularly one sentence that several reacted to when the debate article was published, namely: "Before the new requirements for citizenship are in place, there is reason to act against citizenship being issued according to the current legislation."

KU considers that this wording risked giving rise to ambiguity regarding the relationship to current legislation. A minister must, in view of his special position as well as the Instrument of Government's provisions on the independence of authorities, exercise caution regarding statements that can be perceived as relating to the exercise of authority against individuals or the application of law. To this is added that a minister must generally expect that an authoritatively expressed position on a matter concerning the exercise of authority or the authority's application of law could be perceived as a directive from the minister. KU emphasizes that there is, of course, no room to act in conflict with the principle of legality. Taken together, KU therefore finds that the way the three ministers chose to formulate themselves in the debate article constitutes a deficiency in this matter.

Madam Speaker! In addition to the two matters I have mentioned, where we have found clear deficiencies, there are in this section of the report several positions where the KU has remarks that I believe the government should take to heart in its work moving forward. All of our positions constitute part of the KU's practice, which the government has to abide by.

A matter concerned the statements of Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch regarding the state-owned company Vattenfall and investment in wind power. She commented in a news article and stated, among other things, that Vattenfall did not have a grip on its affairs. According to the committee, it is obviously of value that ministers participate in public conversations and clarify facts. But the committee reminds that the government is the representative of state ownership and shall manage the companies with state ownership in a responsible manner. Formulations in statements that unnecessarily risk damaging a company's credibility and business acumen should therefore be avoided.

Another matter in this section where we have a position concerns a statement that Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer made on his social media after one of the government's appointed investigators submitted a proposal; it concerned the proposal to introduce visitation zones or security zones, as they came to be called, in Sweden. In a couple of posts on social media, the Minister of Justice stated that the government had tasked an investigator to see if a system with visitation zones could be introduced in Sweden. The committee notes that in the assignment it was stated that an investigator should investigate and submit proposals on how a system with such zones could be introduced – that is, how, not if.

Even though this is a single word that the KU has looked at, it is a word that has significance when it comes to how an investigation mandate is designed. Here, the KU states that the risk of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the Minister for Justice had formulated themselves more clearly regarding the design of the investigation mandate.

Madam Speaker! Since this is my final speech today in the debates on the spring review, I would like to, as I did in my opening speech, particularly highlight the KU's work and methods. What our committee works with and the spirit that the KU is characterized by, with attempts at consensus, plays an important role in today's political landscape. It is stimulating to sit in the committee that works with the constitutional rules that our democracy rests on and which follows how these rules are complied with by our government and its ministers. But at least as important for me is the opportunity to be in a political space where the ambition is to rise above what can be described as political bickering, focus on factual circumstances, and achieve results with broad support. Let us strive to continue working in the same spirit!

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will, just like some previous speakers, bring up certain matters that have already been discussed, but we each have slightly different perspectives.

I will begin with the section on the Ministers' statements regarding the Swedish Migration Agency's processing of citizenship cases. One of the statements under this heading was initially made by the Minister for Energy and Industry and the Deputy Prime Minister when she, in an interview, commented on the pace of the Swedish Migration Agency's processing of citizenship cases. The review shows that the statement was made in a context where she was interviewed in her capacity as party leader, not as a minister. The Constitution Committee normally does not comment on that type of matter, but we comment that there are certain reasons to exercise restraint regarding statements of that nature concerning an agency's case management.

What most have discussed here and what I will also dwell on is, however, the statement made by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Energy and Enterprise, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, and a party leader in a debate article. The article had seven points, one of which contained proposals regarding the citizenship legislation. One of the sentences in this point risked, when taken out of context, giving rise to ambiguity regarding the relationship to the current legislation, which the committee considers to be a deficiency. This concerns the latter part of the sentence which reads: ”Insofar as it is possible, measures shall therefore be taken to prevent more Swedish citizenships from being issued, until the new legislation enters into force.”

The Minister has emphasized in the review that the wording refers to measures within the framework of the current legislation. Immediately after these seven points, the Minister writes: ”These seven points will now be concretized and taken further within the framework of our established cooperation. Our common ambition is to proceed with political proposals as soon as possible, all the way into the 2026 election.”

This shows that the article was not intended as pressure against Migrationsverket, but rather the intention was to inform the public about upcoming government policy. The government also later gave a mandate to Migrationsverket regarding an enhanced security perspective in Migrationsverket's activities concerning citizenship. The committee reminds that the government's management of the state administration is carried out through ordinances with agency instructions, regulatory letters, and specifically decided government mandates within the framework of applicable legislation. The lack of clarity that the quoted sentence risked leading to is identified as a deficiency.

Madam Speaker! I shall also comment on the Minister for Energy and Industry's and the Deputy Prime Minister's statements regarding Vattenfall and investment in wind power. This review concerns whether the Minister, through her statements, has interfered in the operations of Vattenfall in a manner that conflicts with the state's role as a shareholder, and whether she, by making negative statements, may have damaged the company's credibility and business acumen.

The review shows that the statement did not constitute corporate governance but aimed to question the reasons that the company had stated for its decision to pause the wind power project at Kriegers flak, which Vattenfall stated were that the state would no longer cover the cost of connection to the main grid and that the company therefore no longer judged the investment to be profitable. The Minister emphasizes that her task is to present facts by, among other things, pointing out fundamental figures in Vattenfall's method of calculating capacity factors.

The Committee emphasizes that it is obvious that ministers participate in public debate, clarify facts, and clear up any misunderstandings. She is not responsible for issues concerning the current state-owned company but has a role as system manager, which includes having a dialogue with all actors within the Swedish energy system. No deficiency has emerged in the matter.

The co-submission made by the committee is that the government as a whole represents the state's ownership and shall manage companies with state ownership in a responsible manner. Formulations that could unnecessarily risk damaging a company's credibility and business acumen should be avoided.

With this, Madam Speaker, I also wish the Chamber Secretariat, the Committee Secretariat, and my colleagues in the Riksdag and the committee a happy and restful summer.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are now approaching the end of this marathon review report concerning certain issues regarding the ministers' exercise of their duties. You have heard about some of the questions in the last six or seven motions, and I will also repeat some of what has been said.

Let me begin with the Migration Agency's processing of citizenship cases and the government parties' focus on making it much more difficult to become a Swedish citizen. This focus is and was so strong that four party leaders jointly in November 2024 went out in a debate article and announced an intention to pause the issuance of new citizenships until a new law is in place.

The notification, which came from my party, pointed out, among other things, that citizenship matters are administrative decisions made by the Swedish Migration Agency and that, as in all other administration, they should occur as quickly and as simply as possible. No one has also pointed out that it actually affects a considerable number of people who, with all rights, have the opportunity to apply for Swedish citizenship. The absolute majority are not dangerous people.

I therefore note with some dismay that the Minister for Migration has commented on the committee's work with this notification by stating that it shows differences between "a government that offensively ensures that dangerous persons do not receive citizenship in Sweden and an opposition that spends its time reporting individual sentences in debate articles."

I do not comment further on this. According to other government members, I am also just a dummy or a troll.

This will simultaneously be a transition to a matter that drew some attention when the same minister, then responsible for aid issues, claimed that there were up to seven links in the mediation of aid funds from the government via Sida to recipients in the aid countries.

It turned out to be a single exceptional case, where two of the seven links refer to the government to Sida and Sida to the Swedish organizations that are responsible for the actual distribution of work and resources. In the normal case, we speak of two, three, or at most four links. That may be so. The government's tasks have been explained as being based on oral instructions from Sida. The Committee on the Constitution therefore points out that it is important that such oral instructions are also documented so that they can be traced in retrospect.

I have understood from reports in the press that there can sometimes be requests for "no paper trail", meaning no traces on paper. But it is, of course, and with what I have just said, nothing that I personally would support. It facilitates our joint work in KU if things that can be perceived in different ways are actually also documented, whether it concerns appointments and dismissals, trawling, citizenship or aid issues.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution has also examined the Minister for Energy and Industry's statement regarding the state-owned company Vattenfall and whether the company has had the competence to calculate the so-called capacity factor for different types of power in a, according to the Minister, correct manner.

It is of course the ministers' right to participate in the public debate in various ways. This should be welcomed rather than avoided, and it is a view shared by the committee members. But as a minister, one must probably be prepared for one's statements to be scrutinized, and the committee therefore notes that "formulations in statements that unnecessarily risk damaging a company's credibility and businesslike nature should be avoided." I naturally share that view.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this section of the audit report also contains a report regarding a press conference where information was provided about an upcoming proposition where, according to the press conference, the introduction of trawling bans in protected marine areas along the Swedish coasts would be proposed.

It did not, however, appear completely clear to the current media and others that the bill in question is a so-called direction bill with proposals that cannot be considered sharp in all respects. The fact that the bill was also not available at the press conference contributed to increasing the uncertainty about what it actually concerned.

This is about reducing the risks of misunderstandings. Of course, the simplest thing would have been to not have any press conference until the bill was in place. The committee also points out that it would have been valuable if the invitation had stated what kind of bill it was about, and that it would obviously have been better if the bill had been available at the time.

It is also my opinion that it should be practice to be able to provide the documentation in question and that the content is described correctly, both in connection with the invitation and during the presentation itself.

In the extent to which one can see any common denominator for these four matters, with or without criticism from the committee, it is, with all due respect, something that perhaps can be classified as fast but wrong.

With this said, I ask to be thanked for the floor this time. I will return shortly in another matter.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! In this part of the debate, I will limit my comments to a couple of the matters we are dealing with. I will not touch upon the committee's positions, which I obviously share, nor the matters' formal aspects, which are well addressed in the report.

Instead, I want to focus on the context in which the cases under review should be understood. Context is, as we know, a central part of hermeneutics – that is, the doctrine of how a text or a statement should be interpreted in a meaningful way.

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the context surrounding the statements regarding how new citizenships are acquired.

In this context, I would like to quote the Swedish National Audit Office's audit report, Migrationsverket's handling of citizenship cases, from March 25, 2025. It states, among other things, the following: "In the assessment of an application for Swedish citizenship, Migrationsverket shall examine whether the person meets the requirements of the legislation. The Swedish National Audit Office assesses that the routines in some parts are unclear and that there are deficiencies in both the decision-making basis and the processing system. One example is that Migrationsverket's assessment of residence is, in some parts, based on unreliable information. The same applies to the assessment of identity. In almost one-third of granted citizenship applications, the applicant cannot verify their identity."

Madam Speaker! According to the Swedish Migration Agency's statistics, approximately 410,000 new citizenships have been granted from 2020 up to and including March 2025. If we apply the Swedish National Audit Office's estimates, it means that in just over 120,000 cases, the applicant has not been able to prove their identity – 120,000 in just five years and three months!

This is obviously extremely concerning, not least from a security perspective. The most remarkable thing, however, is that this has been known for a long time without any effective measures having been taken to reduce the vulnerability that this entails for the country.

As late as January 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency was tasked by the government to tighten identity checks in citizenship cases.

It is also worth pointing out that the uncertainty surrounding identity often arises as soon as a person is assigned a so-called coordination number, which is given to persons who are not yet registered in the country.

In a prominent article from 2019, Dagens Nyheter reported that over 870,000 people who are not registered as residents in Sweden had been issued a coordination number in order to live and work here.

Of these, around 45 percent – that is approximately 400,000 people – had not verified their identity according to Skatteverket. This despite the fact that the Population Registration Ordinance states that this should only be permitted in exceptional cases.

Madam Speaker! Similar problems are found in several agencies. The citizenship cases are only the tip of an iceberg that, in the long run, risks favoring crime and threatening the country's security.

In another report from the Swedish National Audit Office – this time from June 2024 – the following is established: ”The authorities' processes, cooperation, and the government's governance do not, according to the Swedish National Audit Office's assessment, contribute sufficiently to ensuring that correct and unique identities are established, nor to ensuring that incorrectly registered or exploited identities are detected and rectified.”

Madam Speaker! This is unfortunately the alarming background to the statements that the committee has examined regarding the granting of new citizenships.

Now I want to move on to the background of the second review matter I want to comment on.

It concerns the statements made by the then Minister for Education, Mats Persson, regarding the difficult situation at many of our universities following Hamas's brutal attacks on innocent civilians in Israel on October 7, 2023, and the violent conflict that followed in the region. This led to various actions which, in some cases, escalated into threats and harassment, university premises being vandalized, and teaching being disrupted.

Madam Speaker! Let me illustrate the situation around May 30, 2024, the date when the interview with the Minister for Education mentioned in the committee report was broadcast on SVT.

On the same day, the online newspaper Universitetsläraren published the article Propalestinian protests at several educational institutions, where it appears that some educational institutions had chosen to lock the doors to several premises in order to protect the working environment. Three educational institutions had taken measures to limit access to certain buildings.

Three days later, on June 2, 2024, Sveriges Radio reported that Middle East researcher Anders Persson's office at Linné University in Växjö had been vandalized. In Expressen, Persson described the incident as "an antisemitic hate crime against me."

Two days later, on June 4, 2024, Upsala Nya Tidning reported on the reaction from the Rector of Uppsala University, Anders Hagfeldt, after protesters interrupted a graduation ceremony: ”Yesterday's incident leads to that only those who are to participate in the event will have access to the university building for the time being. We always want to be as open as we can, but must also protect our students and employees.”

On the question of whether university staff felt threatened by demonstrators with Palestinian flags, the rector replied: ”The right to demonstrate and freedom of speech are fundamentals in a democracy, but it is problematic when a group acts in such a way that others' freedoms are restricted. When people become afraid and we cannot keep open, I think the demonstrators have crossed a line.”

And on the question of whether the protests can frighten Jews who study or work at the university, he answered: "Unfortunately, the answer is yes."

Madam Speaker! That was the situation at several of our educational institutions during May and June last year. But it is important to emphasize that this is occurring during what can be described as the most serious wave of antisemitism in Sweden since the Second World War.

Just a few weeks after the Hamas terror attack, SVT Skåne was able to report: "Jewish youths are being harassed through slogans and graffiti. Antisemitism has flared up again in schools in Malmö."

And week after week – as noted in Inas Hamdan's report in Sydsvenskan – protesters in several cities have openly praised Hamas and chanted in Arabic that the state of Israel should be destroyed.

A couple of weeks ago, on June 5, 2025, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council published a report titled Antisemitic hate crimes.

A few days later, on June 11, Ulrika Knutson, chairperson of the Swedish Committee against Antisemitism, summarized the content of the report in an opinion piece titled It is a shame that Swedish Jews are being threatened with death.

She notes: "Hate and threats against Swedish Jews have increased significantly, following Hamas's attack against Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent war in Gaza."

Up to and including, as we know, a member of the Riksdag has contributed to spreading gross anti-Semitic hate propaganda.

Against this background, it may be justified to – as Susanna Birgersson did in Göteborgs-Posten on 4 August 2024 – ask the following questions: "How much longer will there be Jewish life in Sweden? – – – How many will continue to try to instill knowledge and pride regarding the Jewish identity in their children – when it is precisely that identity that makes them targets for harassment on Swedish schoolyards and in Swedish classrooms? How many will let the identity fade? How many will leave the country?"

This is the sad context of the statements by the Minister for Education that are addressed in the report. It can be stated that it was a mistake of the Minister to say that "one is forced to close some universities," even though it appears in the same interview that certain premises had been closed, which corresponds with reality.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that none of what I have said is intended to diminish the suffering that the Palestinian people have experienced during Israel's war against Hamas or to justify the actions of the Israeli state in this war.

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)