Review report

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag's power of oversight is a fundamental part of a functioning democracy. It is upheld through the institutions of questioning, both oral and written, and through the KU's investigations. The rules regarding the KU's investigations are relatively few. How the committee work is conducted is largely determined by the committee itself. There is therefore a great responsibility on the committee to, in good spirit, design working methods and procedures so that the committee can live up to its task as a constitutional oversight body.

It follows naturally that the opposition constitutes a driving force in the scrutiny of the government. Over the years, a culture and a practice have therefore developed in the committee that safeguards the minority's interests in the investigative work. This order is necessary to ensure that the scrutiny matters are illuminated from all sides and that the Riksdag's power of control functions as intended.

It is therefore regrettable and deeply sad that this year's review of the Tidö Government has been characterized by something else. It began with the Tidö parties preventing the opposition from requesting documentation from the chancellery's non-political officials to determine what in the Landerholm affair could be reviewed without affecting the legal process against Landerholm himself.

Let me be clear here: The judicial process must take its course. It is the courts' task to determine whether Henrik Landerholm has broken the law. But KU's task is different. We do not investigate the former security advisor; we investigate the Prime Minister and the government and whether they have performed their jobs.

It is therefore about issues that lie outside the legal process and which concern political responsibility and the government's internal handling, for example why a damage assessment was not registered for 673 days and whether the government has truly lived up to the requirement for prompt processing of public documents. After many and many a JO review with subsequent criticism, we have nevertheless examined these issues and concluded that the government has clearly fallen short.

Examples of what we, on the other hand, have not been allowed to review are how the security incidents were reported internally, what information the Prime Minister received and when, whether any measures were taken, whether the relevant regulations were followed, as well as questions regarding the purely political handling, for example, why the Prime Minister's own press chief assisted the former security advisor in the obviously misleading communication regarding what had happened.

Madam Speaker! It is obviously serious that the Tidö government chooses to prevent political accountability in perhaps the biggest security policy scandal Sweden has ever had. But it is perhaps even more noteworthy that one then followed up by unilaterally deciding which other matters in this year's review should be subject to public inquiry and which ministers should be called.

The result was that in the AP-funds case, eight people were summoned, ranging from former ministers and secretaries of state to CEOs of the AP funds. At the same time, the opposition was denied the right to summon the Prime Minister in the Somalia case and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence in the Land Survey case. It is an action that has meant that we have not been able to ask important and relevant questions for the oversight work in two of the politically most difficult cases.

Madam Speaker! Despite this, the committee succeeded, after much toil and great effort from everyone, in reaching a unanimous report – something that many of us during the process did not necessarily believe would be possible. For this, everyone should receive great praise.

But it is not enough when one then followed up by deviating from the principles and assessment grounds that had for a long time been guiding for how we report the results of KU's review work. Once again, old practice was broken, and the Tidö parties opposed reporting criticism in several cases despite the review having shown clear deficiencies.

Most noteworthy is this, perhaps not entirely surprising, precisely in cases where we were also not allowed a full review, i.e., the Somalia case and the Lantmäteriet case. Here it can be stated that the cases, even though it is easy to understand why they are politically difficult and sensitive for the government, are relatively simple from a constitutional point of view.

The Government governs the realm in accordance with Chapter 1, Section 6 of the Instrument of Government. The responsibility that follows from this is not optional. When the Government enters into international agreements and gives authorities assignments to implement these, governance, coordination, and follow-up must function in such a way that the Government's decisions can be executed. The deficiencies that have emerged in the review concern the Government's governance and administration and its responsibility to ensure a correct implementation of decisions made. Also, the Government's internal information management and preparation of issues with significant security policy consequences, as well as the Government's responsibility to ensure that relevant measures have been taken, fall under this paragraph.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: It is certainly true that no government appreciates being scrutinized. But every government should understand the value of being scrutinized.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! In March 2025, a unanimous Committee on the Constitution decided to shelve the review of the Prime Minister's actions in connection with the security incidents involving the former national security advisor Henrik Landerholm, with reference to the ongoing legal process. As recently as September 11, 2025, after a new decision on shelving, the Committee on the Constitution's then-chair, Social Democrat Ida Karkiainen, stated the following: "As long as we do not have a legally binding judgment, we also cannot make a decision on how we shall proceed with the review." She further added: "Otherwise, we cannot fulfill a review of the whole, and we believe that would be unfortunate in this case."

It was, therefore, two principles that motivated the continued shelving, namely to await a legally binding judgment and to ensure the possibility of reviewing the case in its entirety.

A month later, when Jennie Nilsson had taken office as the new chair, these principles no longer seemed to be decisive. A legally binding judgment still did not exist. Nevertheless, the committee chair wanted the issue to be addressed again.

If the need for a legally binding judgment and a complete review of the whole was decisive on September 11, why were these principles no longer decisive a month later?

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mauricio Rojas for the question.

Naturally, Mauricio Rojas chooses to pick out quotes, taken out of context and at different points in a process, and interpret them. For those interested in what was said at the press conference held when the matter was tabled for the first time, it is clearly evident that both the chairperson Ida Karkiainen and the vice-chairperson Louise Meijer agreed that the tabling that was done was based on the fact that the issue had become the subject of a legal process. It was stated that a new decision needed to be made after the first court of instance had delivered its ruling. Then, it could be more clearly determined which questions fell within the scope of the legal process and which questions did not.

It has never been the KU's task or role to actually investigate Henrik Landerholm. The KU's task is to investigate the government and the Prime Minister and whether they have done what they should regarding the security scandal.

What the united opposition thought and wanted at the end of the year, when we were to prepare this year's review, given that there was a judgment and that there was a clear way to view this, was to obtain a non-political civil servant basis regarding which questions were possible to review without affecting the legal process. It was precisely that request to obtain that basis that Mauricio Rojas and the Tidö parties said no to.

If that underlying material had been produced, we could have clearly seen whether or not it was possible to demand political accountability in perhaps the biggest security policy scandal Sweden has ever had.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! A principle is usually defined as a firm conviction that serves as a starting point for how we make decisions. But it seems that principles, from a social democratic perspective, function in a different way.

I am convinced that such an approach damages the credibility of the Committee on the Constitution. The Committee should not tailor its decisions based on electoral tactical considerations. Much less should one express oneself in a hardly flattering way regarding those members who are not prepared to accept such a shift.

In this context, I want to quote what the member said in February 2026 regarding the committee majority's refusal to resume the review of the Landerholm case: "To speak plainly, it is an obvious cover-up by the Prime Minister's side of the politics."

On the question of whether she believed the Prime Minister had given orders regarding this, the member replied: "I cannot say that, but either one acts on someone's orders, or one seems to lack confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to handle such an investigation."

Such statements from the chairman of the Committee on the Constitution do not contribute to strengthening the committee's work or its credibility. I would like the member to comment on this.

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

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mauricio Rojas again for the question.

I can state that the most guiding principle for the Committee on the Constitution's work should be that we shall always review what can be reviewed of a sitting government. It should be particularly important in an election year. It should be in everyone's interest that the voters, when they go to the polls, have also had all the questions raised during a review clarified. It is a principle that the Tidö parties have chosen to depart from.

I can also state that it is quite obvious that when the opposition is denied the opportunity to obtain information on what can be audited and what cannot, they naturally become upset, disappointed, and shocked. You are violating a previous principle in a way that has never happened before.

Mauricio Rojas is apparently offended that we are communicating what has happened, and that is for Mauricio Rojas to deal with. I can only state that either one received orders to cover up the investigation, or those members of the committee who are in Ulf Kristersson's political government support did not believe that he would be able to withstand the investigation. Regardless, it is serious.

It is quite obvious that this is not the only thing the Tidö parties chose to do. They then proceeded to ensure that we could not fully scrutinize a number of other matters according to the same pattern. Ultimately, it can be stated that Sweden's oversight power did not tolerate a Tidö government.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's task is one of the Riksdag's most important. According to the Instrument of Government, the committee shall review the ministers' performance of their duties and the government's handling of government matters. It is a legal and constitutional review – not a political one.

This is an important principle. Citizens must be able to trust that the power of oversight is exercised objectively, impartially, and with a starting point in the constitution. The Committee on the Constitution shall not judge whether the government is pursuing a good or bad policy, but the Committee on the Constitution shall judge whether the government follows the rules and principles that apply to the exercise of government power.

In several cases that the committee has reviewed, a public debate is taking place in parallel in the Riksdag chamber, in the media, and among the general public. We see this in cases regarding the government's support for Ukraine, regarding Sweden's obligations under international law in relation to Gaza, and in several other reviews where the committee, after extensive investigation, has found no grounds for criticism.

It does not, of course, mean that the questions lack political significance. But it is not the Committee on the Constitution's task to decide on political differences of opinion. When constitutional boundaries are blurred in favor of party-political objectives, there is a risk that confidence in the oversight power will be eroded.

At the same time, this year's review shows that the Committee on the Constitution fulfills an important function when real deficiencies are highlighted. The Committee, for example, makes important observations regarding the handling of public documents within the Government Offices, the security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet, and certain ministers' handling of shareholdings and conflict of interest issues. In those cases, the Committee has done exactly what is its task, namely to identify and highlight constitutionally relevant deficiencies when such occur. That is how the oversight power is supposed to function.

The Sweden Democrats will also continue to stand up for a constitutional review based on facts, legal assessments, and established practice. We will safeguard the power of oversight, but we will also safeguard the boundary between constitutional review and party-political campaigning.

When the Committee on the Constitution is used to win political points, the citizens lose something significantly more important, namely the trust that the scrutiny of government power is conducted objectively, impartially, and with the constitutional laws as the starting point.

I also need to hereby address what our Social Democratic committee chairman accused the majority in the committee of, namely that we have prevented a thorough review of the so-called Landerholm case.

The Sweden Democrats, with the rest of the majority in the committee, uphold the principle that we shall maintain an arm's-length distance when there are ongoing legal proceedings and we have simultaneously received requests for review from Members of Parliament. This principle exists so that we do not exhibit political eagerness. From the political side, we shall not overrule the legal proceedings that take place in our society when they concern matters and things that come up for review in the committee.

I stand by the decision I have made during this parliamentary term and in this review. I must clarify that this review case is, therefore, tabled, but it will still be brought up for consideration in the committee and receive the attention that the weight of the case deserves.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by extending a warm thanks to the committee's secretariat for the extensive work behind this year's review report. It is a large number of cases, many of them both detailed and complicated, that have been prepared during the spring. It certainly cannot always be easy to summarize everything that we in the committee express during our many and long meetings, Madam Speaker. A big thank you to the secretariat for a well-executed job!

I also want to thank all colleagues from all parties in the committee. We have, as I have returned to, different political starting points and different views on parts of the process and on how certain individual matters should be valued. But despite the differences of opinion we have and the sometimes tough discussions we have had, which have led to the report we are discussing today, it is still my view that we have done so with an understanding that we have different starting points in the analysis and that we have all seen the value of good collegial work in the committee. It is important and valuable.

Let me now mention some of what we agree on. I note that previous speakers actually only commented on what we did not examine. I intended to comment on what we have examined and what we have agreed that the committee needs to direct criticism towards.

All parties in the committee stand behind the descriptions and the committee's positions in this year's 40 review cases as they appear in the report. I still think it is worth underlining that.

For those who are following this debate but perhaps are not so well-versed in the committee's work and the annual review of the government, this can be clarified. After the committee has reviewed the so-called KU reports that have been received, the committee makes a written description and a position for each matter. These are then collected into a joint report. It is that report that we are discussing here today.

Similar to many previous years, there is also agreement regarding the entire report. As we could observe, it required a lot of work and a lot of compromising to achieve this. I believe it is important to emphasize that.

Madam Speaker! We in the committee also agree that there are deficiencies in five cases. This includes criticism both of ministers in the current government and of ministers in previous governments.

The first of these five matters concerns the disclosure of public documents. The principle of public access is a fundamental pillar of our democracy. It is one of the most important principles for ensuring that citizens can monitor power and that the state is transparent.

When the release of public documents takes an unacceptably long time, it is a deficiency. The Government Offices, which we criticize in this case, must also lead by example before all other authorities and before the entire Kingdom of Sweden. The Government Offices must have routines that ensure prompt processing, regardless of which department it concerns and regardless of which government is in power.

The second matter concerns Lantmäteriet. There, the committee notes that although an exchange of information occurred between relevant authorities, the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure did not ensure that the Ministry of Defence had current information at an earlier stage. In matters concerning security and society-critical information, the chains of information must function.

The third item concerns Northvolt and a former minister's statements. The committee notes that the statement risked being perceived as an informal steering signal to the AP funds. It is an important marking.

The Swedish administrative model is based on clear lines of responsibility, and there must not arise any ambiguity as to whether agencies or independent bodies are expected to act in a certain way based on messages from ministers or be perceived as a questioning of the agencies' independence.

We also note deficiencies in matters concerning ministers' shareholdings and conflicts of interest. Rules and routines in this area exist for good reason. They must be followed.

Finally, it concerns the matter of the indexing of the assistance allowance, where two representatives for the government have provided completely incompatible information. The government's statements must be coordinated, correct, and also feasible to follow. That was not the case in this instance, and therefore the committee expresses justified criticism. It is substantive criticism on a constitutional basis that we Moderates stand behind.

It is the KU's task to point out constitutional deficiencies when such exist. We do so as well.

Madam Speaker! I also need to highlight the parts where we and the opposition do not share the same view. For us Moderates, it is, as mentioned, central that there must be a constitutional basis for the committee to be able to direct criticism at the government and the ministers.

The problem arises therefore when the opposition members distance themselves from the focus on legal review and administrative practice in favor of using the committee as a platform for party-political criticism against the sitting government in a number of additional matters in this year's review, in addition to the five that I have commented on earlier.

We consider that when the opposition dislikes the government's policy – whether it concerns, for example, the streamlining and reforming of the aid policy or the migration policy – it is very unfortunate if one then tries to describe this as shortcomings in a constitutional sense. The committee must distinguish between political debate and political differences of opinion on the one hand and constitutional scrutiny on the other.

The Committee on the Constitution's task differs from the other committees in the Riksdag, where day-to-day political conflict is more naturally present. KU must stick to its fundamental task, that is, back to basics.

That an opposition wants to convey criticism of the sitting government in various ways is expected and obvious and occurs continuously, of course, in the other committees of the Riksdag. But for the Committee on the Constitution, with its unique role to scrutinize the government, special requirements are nevertheless imposed. The Committee on the Constitution's strength lies in its integrity and in that the committee scrutinizes the government based on constitutional principles and practice, not based on party-political starting points.

If KU is reduced to yet another arena for ordinary partisan conflict, the committee's authority risks being weakened, and that would be unfortunate. It is the scrutiny that suffers, and ultimately it is democracy in Sweden that suffers.

Madam Speaker! In this year's review, the opposition has also, in a separate statement, criticized parts of the process. They argue that they have not received certain assessment bases and that they have not been able to call all the ministers they wanted for questioning. I would like to say something about this.

In this case, we perceive that the opposition is thereby distancing itself from the starting point of maintaining distance from issues concerning ongoing legal processes in order to avoid influencing them or coming into conflict with them. That is not the path we shall take in Sweden.

As recently as a year ago, as Mauricio Rojas noted, a unanimous committee decided to table a matter of this nature. That which the opposition then saw as obvious and right and correct and completely decisive is now being condemned in loud words. The only difference – the only change in substance that has occurred – is that there has now been an acquitting judgment in the lower instance, the district court, but still not a legally binding judgment because the judgment has been appealed.

It is very regrettable that the opposition in the committee no longer stands behind the principles for the Committee on the Constitution's review that there has been an agreement on until now.

As we in the majority write in our special statement, we stand by the position that the review in the case in question shall be resumed when there is a legally binding judgment. It is about safeguarding the rule of law and the principles that have for a long time guided the Committee on the Constitution.

Furthermore, we interpret the opposition in the committee as criticizing that certain ministers in the current government have not been called for questioning. It must then be clarified that the majority argued for also questioning ministers from previous governments in the review regarding Lantmäteriet, because previous governments had been aware of Lantmäteriet's security deficiencies for at least six years but chose not to act. This was strongly opposed by the opposition, and the committee ultimately chose not to expand the circle of those called precisely because we from the majority side also wanted to guard the unity that has been so important for the Committee on the Constitution for a long time.

Madam Speaker! That the scope of an inquiry is given boundaries in terms of time horizon and scope is therefore nothing unusual. It occurs regardless of whether the motion was made by a member of the parliamentary majority or whether the motion was made by a member of the parliamentary minority.

It should also be added that KU's investigations are largely carried out through written questions to the Government Offices and the individuals directly affected by the investigations. The committee's ability to summon individuals is a complement to this and should not be used as some kind of sanction or for party-political media exposure.

Madam Speaker! The Moderates' line is clear. KU shall review the government fully. KU shall direct criticism when there is a constitutional basis for it, as in this year's five cases. But we must also safeguard established principles and practices, respect ongoing legal processes and last but not least distinguish between constitutional review and party-political criticism. That is how KU best fulfills its task, Madam Speaker.

In this speech, Ulrik Nilsson (M) and Gudrun Brunegård (KD) concurred.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! The introductory chapter is perhaps a bit more exciting this year than in previous years. This year's spring review of the government is the eighth spring review I have participated in. In this year's review, we have dealt with 40 reports made to the committee. As usual, the reports concern diverse subjects and different ministers, even if both some ministers and some themes are recurring.

I have made a small observation – perhaps on the sidelines: In previous years, during the time I have worked in the committee, the committee has always had a number of matters concerning the EU Committee and the anchoring of the government's position there. This year, no such reports have been submitted. I would like to believe that it may at least partly be due to the fact that the current chairman of the EU Committee has previously sat in the KU. He may have taken our discussions with him to the EU Committee. And – who knows? – perhaps the Government Offices have taken note of the KU's previous positions regarding just such matters. I usually have a small chapter specifically about the EU Committee, but this year, there simply won't be such a thing.

Madam Speaker! The purpose of KU's reviews of the government is precisely that one should take note of KU's positions and statements. It is part of the Riksdag's oversight power to see whether the government and ministers have followed the rules that govern the government's work.

We in the committee proceed from various KU reports that members of Parliament have submitted. The committee investigates primarily by sending questions to different parts of the Government Offices in order to get a picture of what has happened. At a later stage – it is perhaps that which most often arouses media interest – a number of ministers are called for questioning. Thereafter, in the normal case, when the committee has gathered as much information as possible, the committee spends a great deal of time discussing what can be interpreted from the investigation material, i.e., what we can reasonably conclude. Can we conclude that there are deficiencies? What other observations do we make that should be noted for the future?

In a number of cases, the committee also notes – it may be difficult to believe – that the government has actually acted in accordance with its mandate. A wise representative to me in this committee used to remark that it is not forbidden for a government to have bad and stupid policy as long as it is prepared in accordance with the Instrument of Government. For us in KU, it is of great importance that we succeed in distinguishing between what is KU's task to review and what is bad policy. It is perfectly fine for us in the opposition to criticize bad policy, but outside of KU's review.

Madam Speaker! For over a decade, the committee has succeeded in reaching a consensus regarding the KU's audit report. The higher purpose of this is that governments of different colors shall be judged on the same grounds. We have collectively considered that there is greater weight behind the KU's statements when all parties both praise and condemn a government's or a minister's actions. The basis for this laborious work of reaching consensus and unity in the assessments of the government is a large dose of integrity among all members of the KU. It naturally costs something to criticize one's own government as a representative of a governing party. But it can also be difficult to handle the expectations that a member who has filed a complaint against the government may have that the complaint should lead to criticism from the KU. Integrity, therefore, needs to exist on both sides.

Madam Speaker! This year, the committee did not reach its goal. Personally, I think it is regrettable and that it is a failure for all of us. Who bears the blame, we are obviously in complete disagreement about.

Madam Speaker! Various perspectives have already been presented in this debate. The Speaker will surely hear more, which will probably clarify how far apart we stand on certain issues. Regardless of this, I know that all those involved have spent an untold number of hours on this year's review.

Madam Speaker! Last week, the newspapers were filled with headlines about a major row in the committee. I would like to nuance that image a little. We are far apart in certain assessments, but overall, throughout the entire process, we have been able to maintain a good tone towards one another. At the meeting after the so-called major row, everyone shared a piece of a cake that a member had baked to express their thanks to our eminent secretariat.

Madam Speaker! We did not, as mentioned, get all the way there regarding our assessments this year. In my opinion, this is due, at least partly, to the fact that we perhaps ended up in a time crunch despite having taken measures to avoid ending up in a time crunch.

One must nevertheless not forget, as previous speakers have pointed out, that our positions in the review report are common. What we disagree on is how some of them should be interpreted. Is it a deficiency or not? It is not the case that the Tidö parties and the opposition have different positions. We start from the same texts but interpret them differently – in a way that has not occurred previously during my time in the committee. Above all, this perhaps creates problems for the media that are to interpret what we are actually saying. SNS's democracy report, which came earlier in our [session], considers that KU's reviews could be made clearer. It is considered that in our endeavor to seek consensus, we obtain positions that are difficult to interpret and watered down, and that we instead could perhaps grade KU's assessments. It is very possible that this is something that should be considered for the future.

Madam Speaker! How did we end up here? We have heard three versions here earlier, and there will probably be four more versions after me. Here follows my version.

In my opinion, the process has been different on a number of points compared to previous times. Submissions to the committee have been handled in different ways. Some have been broadened beyond what was stated in the submission, in other cases, parties have been urged to supplement their submission with a new submission. In previous years, the focus has been on the sitting government – this year, the majority in the committee has wanted to focus on the previous government.

What has particularly grated on me is that the committee majority has completely ignored the unified opposition's need to have hearings in certain matters. Instead, the committee majority, which represents the government base, decided which ministers should be called for hearings and in which matters they should be questioned. This action has resulted in the opposition, in several matters, not being able to ask the questions that we have considered important and relevant for the oversight work.

In previous years, all parties in the committee have been more concerned with ensuring that all parties feel they have been given the opportunity to ask the questions they need answers to. Furthermore, the committee's majority has this time chosen to summon additional former ministers for questioning on short notice so that the questioning of the Prime Minister does not come last, as is otherwise customary.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the process of the committee's work, the majority has claimed that this only concerns matters regarding the former national security advisor and that there is an ongoing legal process there. But a claim does not become truer because it is repeated several times, Madam Speaker. The criticism regarding the process that comes from us in the opposition also concerns other matters than this, including the matter concerning security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet.

In the House, we in the opposition have been denied an independent assessment basis from the committee's secretariat regarding certain review matters. I can state that the basis that the committee has received regarding the relationship between tabled matters and legal processes literally reads: "In summary, it can be said that no general rule for how the committee should proceed in situations of the kind that have now been touched has so far been found. The situations must be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

In the memorandum that has served as a basis for handling the tabled matters, it is stated that the committee has made different choices at different times. There is therefore not a completely clear line as the government parties claim.

Madam Speaker! The committee's review is, as stated, part of the Riksdag's power of oversight. Other parts of the same power of oversight are the members' opportunities to submit written questions, to use the interpellation tool, and to participate in the Riksdag's question time. Complaints regarding the members' various tools for exercising the power of oversight are unfortunately recurring. It is naturally of the utmost importance that these tools function as intended, otherwise the Riksdag's power of oversight is depleted.

Madam Speaker! In this year's review, we have dealt with a report pointing out that a minister, during a chamber meeting, only answered two of four interpellations. The reason given was that the workload was high.

We in the committee note that the question institutions fulfill an important function and that it is of the utmost importance that they function satisfactorily. It is therefore crucial that the ministers only in exceptional cases and if there are special reasons refrain from answering an interpellation or question and that delayed answers are avoided as far as possible.

Madam Speaker! Another theme that I believe I can discern is the actions of ministers that touch upon what is usually called corruption. In any case, it is usually called that when it occurs in other countries. It has, for example, emerged that many positions in the Government Offices had been advertised on an iPad that only a few had access to.

In the response to the committee, the Government Offices state that this iPad had been used during a number of recruitments. Exactly how many is unclear, but most of the employments have in any case concerned positions covered by exceptions. However, not all, and the committee notes that the recruitment process under review has involved deviations from the applicable regulatory framework. The law has thus been broken.

One can take comfort in the fact that this procedure has not been applied since the spring of 2024. As a matter of chance, Madam Speaker, it was precisely then that a note was hanging at the County Administrative Board in Stockholm, something that was noticed. Then it occurred to them that they had their own note at the Government Offices in the form of an iPad.

We in the committee naturally assume that the order that is now stated to apply, i.e., that the law is followed, is maintained.

I know that I have exceeded my reported time, but it is also the case that I have forgotten to register for the other sections and therefore will only be allowed to speak for four minutes in the upcoming sections. It will be a bit of give and take.

In conclusion, questions regarding shareholdings and conflicts of interest have also been noted in a number of our audits. One audit has concerned the Prime Minister's responsibility regarding questions of shareholdings and conflicts of interest, as well as the Civil Minister's participation in government decisions.

We note that the Prime Minister is the one who appoints the ministers and also has the right to dismiss ministers. In these cases – which in other countries are often called corruption; here we might call it something else – we can in any case note that this government's ministers have repeatedly, in different ways, traded shares in a manner that does not follow our regulatory framework. They have not reported it in a timely manner, they have sometimes recused themselves during government meetings, sometimes not.

Regardless of whether one has, formally or not, broken the rules, it is naturally problematic that there is ground to suspect that one is in some way trying to benefit oneself instead of looking out for Sweden's future and well-being.

We in the committee emphasize that it is important that a minister works to ensure that public trust is maintained. There must be no reason to suspect that a minister chooses to favor themselves or their relatives.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I note that the speaker exceeded their allotted time by over 50 percent.

Everyone who signs up for the speakers' list in time has the right to speak. It is only if one has not done so that there is a limitation. There is therefore no "give and take".

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! This is a special morning. Perhaps some were up already at four o'clock and watched the football match, perhaps some did like I did and turned off all notifications on the phone, refused to watch it and caught up on the match this morning. However one watched the match, it is a day of joy today!

Against that fund, we shall also discuss the Committee on the Constitution's review report. Perhaps that will make the content of the debate a bit friendlier and happier, or else we will become more competitive and see the other as a sharp opponent. The day will show where we land.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's annual review debate holds a special place in Swedish parliamentary history. For more than 200 years, the Committee on the Constitution has had the task of examining whether the government has followed the constitutional laws and the laws. It is a formal review. It is not about whether a policy is desirable, but whether it is legal and lawful. It has therefore been described as a political review on a legal basis.

More than ten years ago, a conscious, proud endeavor began in this committee. The then chairman Andreas Norlén and vice chairman Björn von Sydow decided to break what they called the historical curse, that is, the time when KU was dismissed as irrelevant because the conclusions were always guided by the members' party books instead of by the constitution.

They wanted KU to speak with one voice, and they succeeded. For many years, there has been almost full agreement on the committee's report in its entirety. By being in agreement in KU, the committee has, brick by brick, year by year, built a fine-meshed constitutional practice that has remained firm, regardless of who is currently governing Sweden. In a time of increased polarization, in a world that feels increasingly uncertain and shaky, KU has succeeded in being a counterforce that has provided calm, stability, and respect for the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! It is against the background of this proud heritage that we stand here today. And that is why I stand here with a measure of melancholy and seriousness, but also personal reflection. We must ask ourselves the question: Was KU's review 2025/26 the year when the Committee on the Constitution could no longer put the constitution before the party?

We must dare to be honest with each other in this chamber. The aftermath we saw in the media after this year's review was presented on Tuesday is a failure for the committee.

Madam Speaker! What is deeply ironic and strange is that the person who actually reads the printed report will not find a single reservation. We have put in an enormous amount of hard work during the spring, and we actually managed to reach an agreement on the substance. But instead of safeguarding that result, what happened was what the media called a major row over how the truth should be presented to the Swedish people.

Instead of allowing the joint press release that for a decade has helped the public and the media to interpret when the committee actually considers that the government has fallen short, because the compromises in the texts sometimes become convoluted, it was set hard against hard. The answer to why we ended up here requires no quarrelsome tone, but it requires an absolute measure of truth.

Madam Speaker! The broad consensus has historically rested on two foundations. The first is an opposition that manages to restrain the temptation to use the KU's texts as a partisan political weapon or a means for cheap personal attacks, an opposition that understands that a nuanced remark carries a greater institutional value than a thundering war headline.

The second foundation for the consensus is that the governing parties have the democratic maturity and the political courage to examine themselves and that the current governing parties place respect for the form of government, the parliament's power of oversight and the opposition higher than the desire to protect their own government office from uncomfortable publicity at all costs.

When we later enter the individual parts of this year's review, it will be clear to those listening, or to those reading the documents, that it is precisely this second foundation that has failed this year. Therefore, the responsibility rests heavily – very heavily – on the Tidö parties. The will to protect ministers from clarity became more important than the committee's oversight mandate.

Madam Speaker! If we continue on this path and retreat into the partisan divisions of the past, we open the door for future governments to completely dismiss KU's criticism as ordinary political bickering. In that case, we have deliberately dismantled the Riksdag's most important oversight power.

The Center Party will not be a part of that. The Center Party will today, and all other days, continue to prioritize objectivity, the rule of law, and the heritage of 1809 over the partisan game. We deeply regret Tuesday's debacle, and we will do everything to find our way back to the constitutional compass that Sweden so much needs in the time we live in.

With this said, I want to extend a big and heartfelt thank you to the Committee on the Constitution's incredible secretariat. Throughout all of this, they have maintained their composure and dignity in a way that has impressed far beyond the Committee on the Constitution's own meetings. I also want to thank the entire KU, with the chairman and vice chairman at the forefront. Despite differences of opinion and harsh words in the media, we have throughout all of this been able to distinguish between the issue and the person. It is still something to be proud of today.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! As has been evident from the previous speakers' remarks, the Committee on the Constitution has had an unusually long, extensive and partly complex process with this year's review of the ministers' performance of their duties.

We started already before Christmas and have had more inquiries of ministers and other officials than usual, at least during this parliamentary term, in order to shed light on the issues. Some ministers have also had to come back as not all questions could be asked before the work in the chamber of the Riksdag was to begin for the day and other public meetings had to conclude. The volume of documents has also been exceptional, as has the fact that many of them have been classified and could only be read on-site at the office.

Without revealing too much about the committee's internal life – some glimpses have emerged here during the day – it has been obvious from the start that this year's work has been largely influenced by the fact that there is an election in the autumn. Already at the beginning of the autumn, we could read from the media that there was an agenda to defy previous decisions regarding the shelving of certain review cases, decisions that had been made to maintain a distance of respect for cases that are the subject of an ongoing legal process.

The committee's work with other matters has, however, provided ample opportunities to delve into documents and other written material. The Government Offices have, in the usual order, assisted with background material and answers to questions. Furthermore, records of many hours of hearings have provided the committee with an extensive amount of material to base its analysis and its position on. In addition to what is contained in the public documents, the committee also had a few hours of hearings on confidential parts in certain matters.

Despite the somewhat convoluted process, it is with great satisfaction that we can state that the committee is in agreement on all formulations in the report. On the other hand, it is deeply regrettable that the committee members have not succeeded in agreeing on how the assessments made should be categorized – whether a matter is judged to exhibit some form of deficiency or whether the committee's formulations should be interpreted as that no deficiency is demonstrated but that the committee makes certain recommendations to the Government Offices for the future. However, for some matters, it appears that the investigation gives no reason for any statement from the committee. If there is agreement on these.

Madam Speaker! Even though the introduction of the report contains a summary of all matters, I shall wait until the respective sections to comment on the audits themselves, i.e., contrary to how a previous member chose to allocate their speaking time here during the day.

The committee's vice chairman Mats Green has accounted well for the matters where the committee has noted obstacles and for the trade-offs that have been made. I therefore thank you for the floor during this section.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I realize with a certain degree of concern that I am no longer new to the Committee on the Constitution, but rather somewhere in the middle. Oh well – experience can be an asset, the opportunity to think differently another.

I have listened to six or seven speeches so far and have reflected on them quite a bit. I am fairly certain that we in the opposition can also distinguish between political opposition and constitutional rules. I do not believe that either the vice-chairman or anyone else needs to be worried about that. Others have mentioned the more than ten-year consensus. In that respect, it is not the report that is a problem in this case, but the so-called "big row," which I may perhaps return to a bit later.

We have collectively handled around 40 reports under increasing time pressure, all made by members during 2025 or in some cases already in 2024. According to the vice chairman, five of the reports, one-eighth, have led to some form of views of a critical nature. It is not that many, considering what the members who submitted them perhaps had hoped for. On the other hand, it may be that the reports in many cases are made on premises other than the purely constitutional ones or that the constitutional weight in them is weak; I can imagine that there are some reasons for that.

Madam Speaker! I would like to add some perspectives regarding the right we have as members of Parliament to scrutinize the government through written and oral questions, interpellations, and in serious cases, motions of no confidence or reports to the KU. Of course, it is such that these tools must function in a good way. I share Jessica Wetterling's irritation over cancelled interpellations and would like to add the partially meaningless answers one often receives when asking questions. That is truly not good from a constitutional perspective. I cannot say that it has been very different with other governments, but this really deserves to be taken seriously. When the members of Parliament ask questions, they should be treated seriously.

A rule of thumb that I have carried with me since my previous professional activities is that the hardest thing about communication is that one believes it has taken place. Communicating is so much more than posting messages on a website or writing posts on any of our social media. This may have something to do with the fact that a few, three decades ago, it became more fashionable to communicate than to inform. Information managers quickly and amusingly became communications directors, and information officers became communications strategists. But the responsibility for the information itself, the data that can be compiled, shared, and become knowledge, perhaps did not quite keep up.

If a minister learns that the activities within one of the agencies under that specific department are experiencing problems that have not previously come to the government's knowledge but which appear quite serious, I believe there is an obligation to act on that information, regardless of whether it has been shared in passing or by someone at the director-general level.

Another angle of the same issue is when ministers, possibly via a state secretary, actively refuse information. ”No paper trail” has rather become a catchphrase – epic or viral it would perhaps be called today. The Committee on the Constitution has on repeated occasions informed governments of different colors and color combinations that it is good to have documentation. That can also apply to this investigation, I think. With today's technology, not least AI, we can store incomprehensible amounts of information and moreover search through it in a good way. From that point of view, there is no reason whatsoever to refrain from receiving information.

Madam Speaker! To continue on the track already taken: We also have information that is communicated, that is, shared, in such a way that it can be misunderstood. We have such a case also this year. A party leader, as well as Deputy Prime Minister, announced via social media that it could be a good idea to move Sweden's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. It is, of course, entirely up to a party leader in a governing party to have a different opinion than the government. It is the Foreign Minister's statements that are considered to have a special weight. The Swedish line is that a two-state solution is the goal and that a move of the embassy to Jerusalem would signal that a two-state solution would not be desirable. This can cause problems, as you understand.

But the most important thing, Madam Speaker, is that the committee's task to point out deficiencies on a constitutional basis and submit proposals for improvements has failed during the course of the review. Thus, for the first time, we have recorded decisions that the opposition shall not be able to take part in material or conduct inquiries in order to complete urgent reviews.

It is of course clear that even opposition parties understand that it is inappropriate to pursue scrutiny matters during ongoing legal proceedings, and this also applies to the issue of the Prime Minister's responsibility for the former security advisor Landerholm's actions as just security policy advisor. I understand that this is sensitive. But that one does not allow the opposition to request the committee's secretariat for a review of which aspects of the questions are relevant, with or without trials, is noteworthy.

Madam Speaker! We did not reach all the way. It is very regrettable, but perhaps it can still be used for something constructive. In the autumn, it is a new committee that will take up space in meeting rooms and inquiry halls, such as the second chamber hall and the first chamber hall. It is, as I see it, impossible to continue on the path we were forced to take this year. If one wants to return to a work characterized by a genuine will to look at the constitutional aspect, the new committee may perhaps be allowed to work with that for a time at the beginning of the autumn.

In the Green Party's party program, there is nothing about this. But if I take out my green compass, I can easily see that I and we would stand behind such a line. I stand on the same side as Member of Parliament Demirok and say that what we are most concerned about is to continue the work and regain the trust that we may have lost during this year.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! Crónica de una muerte anunciada, Chronicle of a Death Foretold, is the title of a classic novel by Gabriel García Márquez. It could also be the headline for the development that led to the Constitutional Committee's long-standing unity in the assessment of review cases going to ruin.

Madam Speaker! It all began in October 2025, when the Social Democrats and the other opposition parties chose to change sides regarding the review of the Prime Minister's actions in connection with the security incidents involving the former national security advisor Henrik Landerholm.

On March 13, 2025, a unanimous committee decided, according to the minutes, to "table the matter pending ongoing legal proceedings." As recently as September 11, 2025, the then chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, Social Democrat Ida Karkiainen, stated: "As long as we do not have a legally binding judgment, we also cannot make a decision on how we shall proceed with the review." She further added: "Otherwise, we cannot complete a review of the whole, and we believe that would be unfortunate in this case."

These were, therefore, the two principles that, according to the committee chairman, justified the continued shelving: One shall await a legally binding judgment and ensure the possibility to review a case in its entirety.

A month later, when Jennie Nilsson had taken office as the new chair of the committee, these principles no longer seemed to be decisive. A legally binding judgment still did not exist. On the contrary, the district court judgment had been appealed, and the court of appeal had announced that the case would not be taken up until late 2026. The conditions that, according to the committee's previous chair, justified a continued shelving had thus not changed. Nevertheless, the committee's new chair, with the support of the other opposition parties, wanted to change the previous shelving decision.

When the majority did not accept this shift, a regrettable suspicion began regarding the motives behind a continued postponement. As an example, I want to quote what the committee chair said in February 2026 about the majority's refusal to resume the review of the Landerholm affair: "To speak plainly, it is an obvious cover-up by the Prime Minister's side of the politics." To the question of whether she believed the Prime Minister had given orders regarding this, she replied: "I cannot say that, but either one acts on someone's orders, or one seems to lack confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to handle such a review."

With such a tone, it is hardly surprising that we ultimately landed where we did when the review cases were to be assessed. Serious accusations were made from both sides, and it was no uplifting picture of the Committee on the Constitution that was conveyed at the parallel press conferences just a week ago. There is reason for everyone involved to reflect, as it is the Committee on the Constitution's reputation and credibility that is ultimately at stake.

Madam Speaker! It is said that one should not cry over spilled milk, and there may be some truth to that. We cannot undo what happened a week ago, but we can reflect on it.

In an important report from SNS Demokratiråd, published in March 2026, the following is written about the Committee on the Constitution: ”To counteract party-politically driven disagreement regarding the review is important both for KU's ability to contribute to the constitutional legal development and for the accountability of the government. KU's criticism carries more weight and provides a stronger contribution to practice when one speaks with a voice across party lines. The more one can avoid splitting based on party loyalty, the more one also contributes to long-term strengthening of the norm that it is the constitution before the party that applies in KU.”

This observation leads us to what I would like to call the KU's Achilles' heel. It was already summarized in 2006 by the political scientist Olof Petersson in the following way: "The KU members find themselves in an impossible dual role. On the one hand, they are to provide an elevated, statesmanlike scrutiny of constitutional democracy. On the other hand, they are party politicians driven by an in itself legitimate endeavor to maximize votes in upcoming elections. The problem is that short-term party tactics often dominate at the expense of constitutional principles."

It is this dilemma we are tasked to handle. That we failed to do so a week ago is, in my opinion, difficult to dispute.

Madam Speaker! There are two questions that arise after this failure. The first is whether there is any way back to the unity in judgment that the committee exhibited for a long time. The second is whether it is even desirable.

The answer to the first question is uncertain in these politically polarized times, but I am convinced that there is a genuine will among my committee colleagues to rediscover such an order.

The answer to the second question is considerably more complicated and deserves reflection. The already quoted report from SNS Demokratiråd is very appreciative regarding the consensus in the committee but simultaneously points out a non-trivial problem: ”When KU speaks with one voice, its words carry more weight, but even more important, of course, is what is actually being said. A more dubious way to create consensus can be to become vaguer in one's criticism, which gives the compromising parties the opportunity to make different interpretations of what one has actually reached.”

The man adds: ”The risk is that the pursuit of unity leads to compromise products in a bad sense, that is to say, diluted and difficult-to-interpret positions.”

Our latest review illustrates, in my opinion, both of these risks.

Madam Speaker! I must admit that I am ambivalent regarding the demand for unity, especially when it comes to the assessment of the cases under review. I prefer a clear and well-founded argument over near-total non-committal vagueness. To strive for unity in the assessments at all costs can, in the long run, be a way to make the committee's work irrelevant.

Furthermore, I want to point out that dissenting opinions also occur in our most respected judicial instances: the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. This admittedly happens less frequently in a consensus-oriented country like Sweden than in, for example, the USA, where dissenting opinions are a common feature in the rulings of the American Supreme Court.

Madam Speaker! My conclusion is that well-founded disagreement can very well be both important and healthy. Therefore, I am hesitant to give unanimity a kind of sacred status.

How this will develop moving forward is, as said, uncertain. But regardless of whether the future is characterized by greater unity or greater disagreement, I want to emphasize one thing: We can disagree in many different ways, and it is of crucial importance for the credibility of the Committee on the Constitution's work and the weight of its positions. We can disagree in the way we did a week ago. In that case, we all lose, and above all, the institution that we have been entrusted to manage loses. Or we can disagree in a respectful way without questioning each other's motives or ridiculing each other's arguments. It is this lesson I hope we all draw from what just occurred in our committee.

Last but not least, I want to thank the office for the fantastic work it does. Without it, the committee's work would not be possible.

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) agreed.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! The so-called Somalia affair is much rewritten and debated in the press and other media. The affair has been quite difficult to scrutinize and difficult to oversee for us in KU and is now difficult to describe due to the amount of material – not least the large amount of classified material, which we, for obvious reasons, cannot go into here. This means that the discussion will necessarily be heavily limited.

The Somalia issue touches many different dimensions. It touches the preparation of matters, the management of the administration and the independence of authorities. It touches Sweden's relations with foreign powers, the requirement for consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee, and not least the government's major restructuring of the aid policy.

The core issue is still the agreement that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, via the ambassador, has made; that which at the same time is not an agreement – at least not in the way the Instrument of Government describes an agreement. The conceptual confusion regarding what it was, this non-agreement, this non-accord, is actually total. Was it an agreement, a contract, or an agreement of understanding? The answer to this question differs among all those involved in the matter – and sometimes even from the same person and the same authority. This lack of clarity regarding what type of cooperation agreement the ambassador has entered into has created confusion, and it has also negatively affected the governance.

The preparation of the matter has also been problematic. Particularly noteworthy is that Sida, which was a central actor when it came to realizing measures according to the agreement, had not been sufficiently integrated into the process. Sida's director-general became aware that the agreement existed only long after the process was complete. This unfortunately led to a Swedish official getting caught in the crossfire and being declared persona non grata – a very serious diplomatic tool.

Madam Speaker! The overall impression is that the Swedish public administration has not been coordinated in the execution of this vague agreement and that the dialogue between Sida and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has lacked preparation and steering. It is very unfortunate.

Of course, the government has full right to reform the aid policy and, for example, make it more transactional. It was also anchored in the Riksdag, and the KU notes that one cannot say anything about that. One can think what one wants about that policy, but the government has implemented it in a way that one can have views on. The government should have been able to consider whether it was not appropriate to also anchor it in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I want to mention that the KU has also in previous audits seen that the Foreign Affairs Committee is bypassed in various contexts. When one reads about the Foreign Affairs Committee, one can observe that the rules clearly state that it is not possible to replace consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee with anchoring in a committee or with party leader deliberations. The Foreign Affairs Committee as an institution shall be involved in important issues regarding Swedish foreign policy. I think that moving forward, that issue should also be monitored.

In summary, we can state that a more correct preparation and management could have eliminated many problems and provided greater clarity as to what type of agreement Sweden has entered into.

I have sat in the Committee on the Constitution for 16 years. When I entered the Committee on the Constitution, it was not characterized by unity. I have been part of that process. I can assure you that it is nothing to be ashamed of to sit in the committee and be ashamed of colleagues who would defend ministers, which they had party orders for, and clearly were ashamed of their positions.

I am glad to have been part of the process when, about twelve years ago, we initiated a discussion about trying to find another way to work together. It is not easy. The biggest challenge is for those who sit in the government. I have tried both roles, and I can assure you that it is not easy to criticize one's own Prime Minister during an election year. I have done it. That requires integrity. Often, perhaps that Prime Minister is more understanding of the actions than the staffs of young, hungry men and women around them. I do not know if you can recognize yourselves, but I believe that is the challenge, and it requires something.

I can only issue an appeal to the next set of committee members to, regardless of the election result, strive to be able to criticize their own, even if it requires a lot. I also believe that we need to strengthen the protection of minorities and in that way strengthen the minority's right to have material presented.

I would like to take this opportunity, in this my final speech in the Riksdag, to thank the KU's chancellery for all the fantastic help during these years. I want to thank the Riksdag's staff who have helped with all sorts of strange things throughout the years. I also want to thank my colleagues in the Riksdag for debates and cooperation on various issues.

It has been a great honor to represent my constituents, but I believe it is important that we remind ourselves that we represent all Swedes. The mission is greater than the party. The mission is greater than the individual constituents.

I regret the development we have seen in recent years, where institutions are threatened. It is important with parliamentary inquiries, to seek consensus and to listen to one another. It is important to listen to referral bodies, follow paper trails and find out the parts in the processes. Sweden's gold, trust, is at stake if we do not find out them.

We politicians are impatient. It is our dissatisfaction and our will for change that has led to our commitment. For that very reason, reflection and nuance are needed. I direct the appeal to both the incoming government parties and the opposition to take care of the Swedish gold.

Have a nice summer, good luck in the election campaign and thank you for me!

(Applause)

In this speech, Peter Hedberg (S) agreed.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's review is ultimately about something very important, namely to ensure that government power is exercised in accordance with our constitutional laws and constitutional principles.

In the first two chapters of this year's audit report, issues are addressed that in different ways concern the relationship between the government, the Riksdag and the administration. They concern how the government fulfills its responsibility towards the Riksdag but also how government matters are prepared and handled.

Let me begin with chapter 1. The Riksdag's power of oversight is based on the government being available for scrutiny. Interpellations and questions are not trivial matters. They are central tools for the Riksdag to be able to demand accountability from the government. It is therefore why the committee emphasizes that it is of particular importance that the ministers only in exceptional cases fail to answer interpellations or delay answers. The government must show respect for the oversight instruments that the Riksdag has at its disposal.

At the same time, it is important to note that the committee's task is not to review the government's policy but to examine whether the constitutional rules of the game are being followed. That perspective recurs throughout the report.

Chapter 2 contains a number of different audit matters but also several fundamentally important issues.

A particularly interesting review concerns the government's mandate to universities and colleges to participate in the development of the citizenship test.

For the Sweden Democrats, this is an important reform. Swedish citizenship should not just be a formality. It should be an expression of belonging to Sweden, knowledge of our society, and an understanding of the obligations and rights that come with citizenship. For many years, the Sweden Democrats have championed the issue of strengthening the significance of citizenship. Therefore, we welcome that the work on a citizenship test is now moving forward.

At the same time, it is not the Committee on the Constitution's task to assess the political content of the reform, but rather how the government has handled the matter. The Committee highlights here an important principled issue: the universities' independent position and the importance of ensuring that specific assignments do not encroach upon the institutions' core activities. It is a reasonable observation. However, the review simultaneously shows that the government had the right to issue the assignment. No constitutional objections regarding the handling have emerged.

Another review that deserves attention concerns the so-called agreement between Sweden and Somalia on aid and migration. Here, the committee notes that the agreement does not entail any legally binding obligations for Sweden, but that the government's management of Sida could have been clearer. These are important observations.

At the same time, the matter illustrates a larger principled issue. For a long time, Swedish aid has all too often been viewed as an end in itself rather than as a tool to promote interests and achieve concrete results in the recipient country. The current government has begun a realignment where aid policy is linked to a greater extent to Sweden's interests, migration policy, and requirements for reciprocity. The Sverigedemokraterna welcomes that development.

But that is also why it is important that the governance of the authorities is clear and that the distribution of responsibility between the government and the authorities functions well. When policy is changed, the administration must be able to execute it in a legally secure and efficient manner.

It is also the main lesson from the Committee on the Constitution's review of the so-called Somalia case. The majority in the committee views the position as a message to the government and not as a so-called case of deficiency. That one is dissatisfied with the migration policy is not a basis for criticism in the committee, and there are other ways to express such dissatisfaction than through the Committee on the Constitution.

Another important issue concerns the handling of public documents within the Government Offices.

The principle of public access is a cornerstone of Swedish democracy. When documents are not registered in a timely manner or when the disclosure of information is delayed, there is a risk that trust in the public sector is damaged. The committee's point regarding the importance of prompt processing and correct registration is therefore well-founded. Transparency is not an administrative preference. It is a democratic obligation.

We have also examined completely different types of issues, for example, the support for Ukraine, Gaza and various foreign policy positions.

It is natural that there are different political views on aid policy, migration policy, and foreign policy and on international conflicts. But the Committee on the Constitution's task is not to decide who is right in the substantive political issues. The Committee's task is to examine whether the government has acted within the framework of the constitutional rules and the order that applies to government work.

In several of these matters, the committee, after an extensive investigation, has not found grounds to direct criticism at the government. This demonstrates the importance of keeping political differences of opinion and constitutional assessments separate.

Another important part of the chapter concerns the government's preparation of legislative matters.

The Sweden Democrats have for a long time demanded more powerful measures against serious organized crime. At the same time, it is important that urgent reforms are also prepared in a legally secure manner. The committee points out that deviations from normal preparation procedures can sometimes be necessary, but that such exceptions shall be used restrictively. It is a wise balance. The state must be able to act quickly when social problems require it, but the quality of the legislative work must not be compromised.

What unites the matters in chapters 1 and 2 is, above all, the importance of functioning institutions. A government shall respect the Riksdag's power of oversight. Authorities and departments shall follow rules on public access and the rule of law. The legislative work shall be of high quality. And the Committee on the Constitution's review shall be precisely constitutional, not partisan. That is how we safeguard the trust in our democratic institutions and the weight that the Committee on the Constitution is actually intended to represent.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution, KU, has completed its spring review of the government.

For me, having sat in the committee for just over half a year, it has provided new insights into the KU's role but also the KU's importance for democracy – a democracy that we for the most part take for granted but which we all who live and work in Sweden have a task to nurture.

It can obviously occur to varying degrees. For me personally, it means that I engage in a political party and seek support to nurture the citizens' voice in a decision-making assembly. For others, it can be about using their democratic rights, for example by voting in elections, following the public debate, and expressing their opinions in a respectful manner.

The Committee on the Constitution has an important role in the Swedish democratic system by reviewing the government's work and ensuring that ministers follow laws, regulations, and constitutional laws. The review shall be conducted from a constitutional perspective, not a political one. In turn, it contributes to transparency, accountability, and control of political power, which hopefully strengthens citizens' trust in democracy.

Madam Speaker! The report we are handling today is, as in previous years, extensive and demonstrates the often profound and detailed investigations that KU has conducted. The investigations are primarily carried out by posing written questions in each case to the Government Offices and the individuals affected by the individual investigation cases. In a number of cases, hearings have also been conducted with ministers and other relevant persons.

In chapters 1 and 2 – Certain questions regarding the government's relationship to the Riksdag and the handling of certain government matters etc. which we are dealing with now, there are 13 matters. I intend to touch upon a couple of these.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the matter of Disclosure of public documents at the Government Offices, I would like to highlight the following: The right to access public documents is an important part of Swedish democracy. It gives citizens the opportunity to gain insight into the authorities' work and simultaneously contributes to openness, debate, and scrutiny of public activities. But for this right to function in practice, authorities must process requests for the disclosure of documents as quickly as possible. In most cases, the person requesting a document should receive a response on the same day. If the authority needs to investigate whether the document can be disclosed, it may, however, take somewhat longer.

This works to a large extent. It can, however, be stated that several of the relevant submissions should have been answered more quickly. In these cases, it simply took an unacceptably long time. I also want to emphasize the importance of registration, that is, archiving, to guarantee and facilitate the public's access to public documents. The Government Offices shall have an established capacity to handle requests for disclosure promptly, even when the pressure is high.

It is positive that educational initiatives have been carried out within the Government Offices and that new employees are being recruited to also be able to ensure in the future that the requirement for promptness in the Freedom of the Press Act is upheld.

Madam Speaker! I will now move on to the matter concerning Sweden's agreement with Somalia on aid and migration. The review in this matter is based on extensive material which partly contains information covered by secrecy. This leads to the fact that the committee's position and our way of handling the matter here in the chamber need to be kept at an overall level. The matter has also received great media attention both regarding the KU-reports and during the handling of the matter.

The government has presented a reform agenda for Swedish aid which, among other things, means that parts of the development aid can be conditioned in order to get recipient countries to cooperate with Sweden in matters regarding the repatriation of their citizens. This realignment is anchored in the Committee on Foreign Affairs and in the Riksdag, for example via the budget bill.

The agreement was not anchored in the Committee on Foreign Affairs for the reason that it was not judged to be a matter of great importance for Sweden in specifically foreign policy. One can, of course, have different opinions on that purely politically, but our task is to examine the constitutional.

The review has shown that the agreement does not include any legally binding obligations for Sweden as a state. It is not an international agreement in the sense of constitutional law, but rather an informal agreement without legally binding commitments.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the current matter, Sweden's agreement with Somalia on aid and migration, I would like to mention a part of the committee's position regarding the dialogue, coordination, and governance of the expert agencies. The review has revealed that the implementation of the agreement has not been fully coordinated in relevant parts of the Swedish administration. This concerns, among other things, the dialogue between the government and Sida as well as within the agencies.

When it comes to aid, there is a certain complexity as aid strategies – that is to say government decisions – are concluded, extended, or arise during the mandate periods, which in practice means that governments inherit previous governments' aid policy until it is changed. The Government changed the regulatory letter in May 2025, which enabled the current aid effort.

Regarding the issue of control and follow-up of the aid interventions, it is noted that each partner organization shall ensure that the support is used in a correct manner. It is also important that Swedish authorities follow and receive reports on the use of the aid in order to be able to take measures, if necessary, to prevent aid funds from being paid out in violation of the applicable regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! Overall, we have been able to identify certain parts that could have functioned better, but no formal errors have been committed. Thus, from our perspective, the review is not a deficiency but possibly the auditor's findings.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now moving more clearly into the specific review cases and will address what, among other things, concerns the handling of certain government matters. I intended to take the opportunity to not focus at all on what we agree on, as there has been a fairly clear handling in KU. I want instead to look more closely at the case that perhaps most clearly illustrates the challenges we face, namely the case concerning the review of Sweden's agreement with Somalia on aid and migration.

Today, from the rostrum, there is an attempt to pretend that it is about the government's policy and that it is about different opinions regarding the use of aid, how Swedish migration policy should be shaped, and who should or should not be deported, but that is not the case at all.

This matter is not about whether it is important that persons who have committed serious crimes or who have been denied asylum should be deported. Of course they should be. I do not believe there is anyone in this chamber who thinks otherwise. It is also not about the goals of migration policy.

Madam Speaker! This is entirely and solely about how the government exercises its power. It is about respect for the Swedish administrative tradition and the requirements for an objective, transparent, and legally secure handling.

When one reads the report submitted by the Committee on the Constitution, a concerning picture emerges. Just as has been said from the rostrum before, the majority of the documents we in KU have been made aware of are shrouded in secrecy and difficult for others to access, but we thus have a government that has entered into an agreement – or a contract, or an intention – with Somalia. The intention was to redirect 100 million kronor of Swedish aid funds to a project near the Somali Prime Minister's office in exchange for an increased return.

This has been done despite the expert agency Sida issuing well-founded warnings that this was a project associated with significant risks. Sida also emphasized the importance of extreme caution when cooperating with a country that we all in this chamber know is – according to international indices – characterized by weak institutions and widespread corruption. When taxpayers' money is to be handled under such conditions, exceptionally high requirements for transparency, documentation, and fixed structures are set, but KU's review shows with all clarity that the dialogue with and the management of Sida instead proceeded in a way that deviated from standard practice.

Madam Speaker! In a normal review debate in the KU that Andreas Norlén and Björn von Sydow laid the foundation for, such an investigation would have resulted in a clear and uniform conclusion. The committee would have jointly established where the boundaries lie for sound administrative governance and for the requirements for documentation. The deficiencies are established in the review report, and no one in the committee can deny them in substance. But what happened instead?

Yes, instead of providing the citizens and the Riksdag with that clear guidance and the norm-setting practice that is the KU's task, the position has been characterized by a linguistic willingness to compromise that becomes difficult to decipher. The actual deficiencies risk being hidden in the text. When we also have not even been able to agree on a common clear presentation for the media and the public, the voice of the oversight authority is weakened.

It is ultimately about something larger than the individual case. The Somalia case is principled; it is about how we maintain our institutions. In central parts, the government's handling has not lived up to the requirements for clarity, transparency, and accuracy that our administrative tradition demands – and the more difficult the external circumstances are, the more important it is that the formal rules are followed.

The opposition was therefore forced to submit a special statement in which we have clarified this. It is not common practice, but we were forced to do it. In its special statement, the opposition has been forced to write out what should have been the committee's common and self-evident criticism.

The matter is crystal clear: the government's handling of the Somalia case has been seriously deficient. One cannot bypass authorities, and one cannot ignore corruption warnings and shady written agreements. The rule of law places higher demands on a Swedish government than that.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! During this section, I shall comment on some of the matters the committee has examined and will begin with the investigation of the Minister for Energy and Industry's actions in relation to the interpellation system.

The institution of interpellations is a part of the Riksdag's power of oversight and gives a Member of Parliament the opportunity to submit interpellations and questions to a Minister regarding matters concerning the Minister's exercise of duties. An interpellation shall be answered within two weeks. If an answer cannot be provided within this time, the Minister shall notify the Chamber of the reasons for this. There is no formal obligation for a Minister to answer questions or interpellations, but it is among the exceptions that such does not occur.

The Government Offices' memorandum Interpellations, written questions and information to the Riksdag contains guidelines for the answering. It is stated there that, among other things, backlog, foreign travel and illness can constitute grounds for a response to be delayed.

It appears from the committee's investigation that the Minister for Energy and Industry's workload during the period in question was remarkably high. At the same time as energy talks with the opposition entered a very intensive phase, Northvolt had filed for bankruptcy, which prompted extensive work efforts with many unforeseen and urgent elements for the Minister for Energy and Industry.

It is emphasized in the response from the Government Offices that the Minister for Energy and Industry regularly books times for interpellation debates in the calendar, and she is keen to respect the times, as she considers the interpellation instrument to be significant. The current work situation did, however, mean that she had the opportunity to prepare only two debates on the day in question but, with short notice, was forced to postpone two other debates.

The committee emphasizes that the institutions of interpellations and questions are an important part of the Riksdag's oversight power. The committee does not object to the assessment that the Minister for Energy and Industry's workload was high at the time in question but emphasizes that it is of particular importance that ministers only in exceptional cases and if there are compelling reasons refrain from answering an interpellation or question. Delayed answers should be avoided as far as possible.

The matter is not judged as a deficiency, but this shall be seen as a message to the Government Offices.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Infrastructure and Housing's management of the Gotland transport and the high ticket prices during recent years has also been investigated. In the investigation of the matter, the committee notes that during the spring of 2026, the government commissioned Trafikverket to investigate what possibilities exist within the framework of the current ferry transport agreement to influence ticket prices during the ongoing contract period. In the autumn budget for 2026, the government has proposed a subsidy for travel to and from Gotland for persons who are registered as residents on Gotland.

The matter is not seen as a matter of deficiency.

Madam Speaker! On 4 December 2025, the government decided to repeal the ordinance on state grants for cooperative development. In a motion, it is requested that the committee review what preparatory material the Minister for Energy and Industry had for the decision. From the investigation, it appears that the government obtained an opinion from Tillväxtverket before it decided to repeal the ordinance.

The state budget is annual. The Riksdag therefore decides on a year-by-year basis whether funds should be allocated for a purpose. After the current regulation has ceased to apply, support for cooperative development can continue to be provided within the framework of expenditure area 24 Business, according to the answers the minister has given in interpellations.

The review does not give reason for any statement by the committee.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's obligations in relation to Israel and Palestine as well as the war in Gaza is also an issue that the committee has examined. It concerns whether the government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs lived up to Sweden's international obligations and convention commitments during 2024 and 2025.

The investigation shows that the case law from the ICJ, the UN's primary judicial body, and statements in legal doctrine determine the closer meaning of a third state's international law obligation to act to prevent genocide based on the circumstances of the individual case, including what opportunity the state has to influence the situation.

In the review, it has emerged that the government assesses that Sweden has lived up to its obligations under international law. Among other things, the government has continuously urged all parties to follow international humanitarian law and has focused on increased humanitarian assistance and humanitarian access.

The Government views with concern the restrictions that prevent international non-governmental organizations from operating and asserts that it is Israel's obligation under international law to ensure unimpeded, safe, and sustained humanitarian access.

What has emerged in the review gives no reason for any statement from the committee.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say a few words, quite a few even, about Sweden's agreement with Somalia on aid and migration. It is an issue that has prompted three different requests for scrutiny, after various pieces of information have appeared in the media.

The Committee has received extensive memoranda from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, some of which are subject to foreign policy secrecy. The Committee has also held hearings with the former Director-General of Sida, Jakob Granit, State Secretary Diana Janse, Migration Minister Johan Forssell, who was previously Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, and his successor in the latter role, Benjamin Dousa.

Parts of the inquiries were held behind closed doors due to confidentiality in the matter. For this reason, not everything that the investigation has covered can be reported publicly.

Much attention has been paid to the so-called agreement with Somalia. In that regard, the committee can observe that several different words have been used to describe it and that the same word has been given different meanings. This risks creating uncertainties and different expectations.

The agreement contains no legally binding obligations for Sweden – it is therefore not the Swedish government that has made it – and does not constitute any international agreement, but it is an informal agreement.

Regarding the process that led to the agreement, different parts of the Swedish administration do not appear to have been fully coordinated. Sida saw itself at an early stage as having certain limitations in its possibilities to prepare and decide on aid interventions for the implementation of the agreement. It cannot be ruled out that clearer governance at an earlier stage of Sida would have facilitated this.

In May 2025, a decision was made by the government regarding a change to the regulatory letter, which enabled the current aid intervention while a new strategy was being developed.

In connection with this process, the aid council at the Somalia section was declared persona non grata.

Regarding the monitoring and follow-up of the aid interventions via the World Bank and UNDP and the support to IOM, each respective partner organization shall ensure that the support is used in a correct manner. Swedish authorities shall monitor and take part in reports on how the aid is used and, if necessary, take measures to prevent aid funds from being used in a manner that conflicts with the applicable regulatory framework.

The government and the committee have received reports from the employed experts, who have served in various fields to strengthen the country's capacity. It was therefore not ghost jobs, as has been alleged.

The follow-up does not give reason for any comment from the committee. It is a matter where the majority in the committee does not state any deficiency. What is stated in the conclusions shall be seen as a recommendation to the Government Offices.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Several of the review matters taken up under this heading, that is, Certain questions regarding the government's relationship with the Riksdag and Handling of certain government matters etc., are issues that we have discussed within the Miljöpartiet. I assume that other parties have also done so. Several of the matters are also based on reports from one of my party comrades.

The issues themselves have been thoroughly reviewed by the committee, in some cases in such small details that one hardly knew they existed. But seen from a bit of a distance, they can be pieces of a puzzle in a larger context. That is what we must remember.

That is the case with, for example, the matter concerning Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch's relationship with the interpellation institution, which we have now spoken about more than once. To those who follow this from home, I can say that it is, therefore, about the Riksdag's power of oversight, in addition to that which the Committee on the Constitution has worked with since 1809. The members of the Riksdag have the right to ask questions to the government's ministers to inquire, for example, how investigations have been handled, why proposals are delayed, on what grounds certain decisions have been made, or what resources have been allocated to solve one thing or the other.

I can understand that it is not a particularly prioritized occupation to answer questions or be held to account in debates, regardless of the government's composition, but it becomes serious when ministers on repeated occasions postpone interpellation debates at short notice or provide contentless answers to written and oral questions.

Madam Speaker! In my party, and surely also in others, the so-called paradigm shift of recent years has raised a number of questions regarding the speed and quality of the preparatory work. The Government has submitted a large number of bills within the field of law, especially during the last year. From the Miljöpartiet, a report was made to the KU in January this year where the question was raised as to whether it might be going too fast, at the expense of quality and anchoring – or acceptance, if you will.

The Instrument of Government admittedly leaves great scope for the government to design the process itself, even though the value of a proper referral process and a hearing by the Council on Legislation is highlighted as important elements in the work with new legislation. Both Minister of Justice Strömmer and Prime Minister Kristersson stated during the inquiries that the current social situation with large-scale and persistent crime required new working methods with better efficiency.

The committee has in itself had no objections to these priorities but points out that the quality of the legislation may risk becoming poorer with a preparatory process that is to follow strict time limits. The committee simultaneously emphasizes that the need for preparation with deviations from the usual routines must be tested on a case-by-case basis and deviations are made only when it is considered necessary.

Madam Speaker! An issue that could possibly be held up as an example of how the Committee on the Constitution should work was the question of Sweden's obligations in relation to Israel and Palestine and the war in Gaza. It concerned to what extent Sweden's accession to the so-called Genocide Convention, which we ratified in 1952, also means that we, like other countries, must take measures to prevent and punish genocide.

After the first round of answers, the committee requested a more comprehensive review of what obligations international law and the genocide convention entail for Sweden. The answers from the international law experts who were consulted can be summarized as expressing that the country's obligations are quite thin and unclearly expressed regarding concrete measures. It therefore appeared difficult, not to say impossible, to criticize Sweden on that point – even though one can, of course, have opinions on this.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, we have the matter regarding Somalia. Somalia is a country so ravaged by war, conflicts, drought, crop failure, and hopelessness that many Somalis have chosen to leave the country. Up to 70,000 of those who have left Somalia have come to Sweden, and including those Somalis who are born in Sweden with at least one Somali parent, the group consists of a total of up to 110,000 people. They thus constitute just over 1 percent of Sweden's population and just over 2 percent of the Somali diaspora.

The majority of those who have come to Sweden have done so for reasons of protection. Of them, a number are in prison, and among them, in turn, there are some persons without Swedish citizenship. They can therefore be deported after serving their sentence.

Based on three different reports, the committee has examined, or rather attempted to examine, how this has proceeded. It has been accompanied by a number of difficulties. A part of the material regarding the agreement with Somalia is protected by secrecy. We have had the opportunity to read part of the underlying material, but it becomes partially uninteresting because we cannot include protected material in the review.

As Hans Ekström so profitably accounted for, there have been many aspects to discuss: preparation, management of authorities, vague definitions and perhaps even an inability – or in any case, a lack of success – when it comes to coordinating, or simply succeeding, with the project.

Regarding definitions, it concerns, among other things, this with agreements. Is something an agreement, or is it not an agreement? Are there obligations from the Swedish side, or do they not?

The Somalia issue feels, frankly, not completely finished. Some aspects have been mentioned, for example that a Swedish official has been declared persona non grata in Somalia, which we do not know much more about.

This is perhaps also illustrated by the fact that Member Lindahl spends time defending the government's policy in the area of aid. It is not that which has been questioned in the complaints, but what has been questioned is whether this has gone correctly, not least against the background of Somalia's conditions regarding both corruption and major internal conflicts in the country.

This is also illustrated by Member Svärds review of the agreements that have nevertheless been made with the World Bank, UNDP and IOM. We must consider them as reasonable agreements with obligations from the Swedish side.

At some point, one realizes that the report is actually about how the government has acted in order to be able to deport a number of Somali citizens. As we have gone through, there are serious objections in several cases, and they concern precisely this regarding the exercise of power. I think that we will hear more about these issues ahead. This is not finished.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! In the Somalia case, there are two important background aspects that I want to highlight so that those following this debate can place the issue in its proper context.

The first concerns one of the most important changes in the government's aid policy. In the government statement in October 2022, the Prime Minister stated that the aid policy should also "constitute a tool to counter irregular migration, increase return, and contribute to effective work for voluntary repatriation." It is this changed aid policy direction that is the background to the events that later became the Somalia case.

The starting point was simple: countries that receive Swedish aid must also be prepared to receive their own citizens when they return from Sweden, voluntarily or through the enforcement of legally binding deportation decisions. In the latter case, it often concerns persons who have committed serious crimes in Sweden.

This line meant a clear break with the passivity that for a long time had characterized Swedish politics in this area. The consequence of the previous stance was that a significant number of deportation decisions could not be executed. This concerned a number of countries, and Somalia was one of them.

Mr. Speaker! Somalia has received Swedish aid since the 1970s. At the same time, the return there has functioned very poorly. For long periods, it has not functioned at all.

In 2018, Swedish aid to Somalia amounted to 930 million kronor. In the same year, not a single deportation was carried out to the country. The year before that, too, the figure was zero.

In 2019, the assistance amounted to 840 million kronor while only three deportations could be carried out.

In 2021, the aid reached a record level of 944 million kronor while only nine people could be deported. The following year, the number of executed deportations fell to seven.

It was a completely unreasonable situation. Sweden paid out hundreds of millions of kronor in aid to a state that was not willing to receive its own citizens when they were to return after legally binding deportation decisions. It was against this background that the informal agreement with the Somali government was reached in December 2023. The results have been tangible. During 2024 and 2025, a total of 54 Somali citizens could be deported from Sweden. Several of them had been convicted of serious crime in a Swedish court. Among the crimes were robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated theft, violence against an official, offenses against the knife law, assault, and rape of a child.

This well illustrates the paradigm shift in migration policy that has been implemented since October 2022. Sweden shall not only make decisions on rejection or deportation, but the decisions must also be able to be enforced. This is good for the rule of law and for the security in our country. We Liberals are proud to have contributed to this change.

Mr. Speaker! Now I will move on to the other important background aspect in this matter. It concerns the significant difficulties that result from cooperation with a state that for a long time has been characterized by weak institutions, extensive corruption, and limited administrative capacity.

In this context, it is important to point out that no formal agreement was ever reached between Sweden and Somalia. For domestic political reasons, the Somali government was not prepared to sign such an agreement. Instead, the cooperation came to be based on an informal agreement that rather expressed a common direction of intent than mutually binding obligations. That this direction of intent could give rise to different expectations among the parties is obvious; it became clear in the conflict that later led to Sweden's aid council being declared persona non grata by the Somali government.

Exactly what triggered the Somali government's actions is not known, but it is difficult to ignore the specific conditions prevailing in the country that, in Transparency International's corruption index for 2025, was ranked as the world's most corrupt state, along with South Sudan. It is against this background that the events underlying the review case must be assessed.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, it is worth highlighting that the committee has not been able to find any evidence whatsoever for the recurring allegations that have appeared in parts of the media reporting that Swedish aid funds were allegedly used in a corrupt or improper manner. Those who spread such accusations without support in facts should exercise greater restraint.

Cooperating with governments in countries characterized by extensive corruption is undoubtedly difficult and problematic, but it is at the same time a reality that Swedish foreign and aid policy has had to deal with for a long time. Sweden has cooperated with Somalia in various forms since the 1970s. However, it would never occur to me to imply, without very strong and indisputable evidence, that Swedish ministers or officials would thereby have participated in corruption or other improper conduct, which several members of Parliament have unfortunately done. In a constitutional state, serious allegations must rest on facts and evidence, not on suspicions and insinuations.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish societal model is based on openness and on a system of investigations and referral procedures aimed at ensuring that the proposals the government wishes to present receive a broad and multifaceted examination. In one of his government declarations, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson spoke of a paradigm shift and the importance of accelerating investigations and preparatory work. A report that the Committee on the Constitution has received, which has been the subject of the review report we now have before us, has focused on precisely these circumstances. The report concerns the government's preparatory work and how the legislative proposals have been presented.

In the preparatory work regarding the report on the management of the investigation and referral system, we had hearings with both Prime Minister Kristersson and Justice Minister Strömmer. In this context, I can also mention a debate article by representatives of the Equality Ombudsman and the Institute for Human Rights, published in Dagens Nyheter in December 2025, which we had as a basis for the open hearings. In this debate article, with the headline "Our laws are being built on ever weaker foundations," a warning is issued that the preparatory requirement in the Instrument of Government is being eroded when the government pushes through proposals with lacking impact assessments and ignores both referral bodies and the Council on Legislation.

Several heavy-weight bodies and researchers have pointed out that the legislative process has changed in an alarming way. According to a report from SNS Demokratiråd, the serious criticism of legislative proposals from referral bodies and experts has increased during the sitting government. The government chooses to a greater extent than previous governments to proceed with legislative proposals even though the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) has directed criticism toward them. The Institute for Human Rights has stated that there is often a lack of systematic impact assessments of how new laws, especially within criminal and migration policy, affect individuals' human rights and protection against discrimination.

When laws are drafted too quickly and without proper investigations, the quality risks suffering. A number of referral bodies have stated that they simply have not been able to respond because the time has been too short for them to be able to provide relevant and well-substantiated answers.

Mr. Speaker! During the questioning of Prime Minister Kristersson, the criticism from both the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) as well as the DO and the Institute for Human Rights was addressed. The same occurred with Minister of Justice Strömmer, who maintained that the Council on Legislation has been granted increased resources, that it is ultimately a political judgment, and that he believed there was sufficient popular support to push through the policy. No self-criticism, problem management, or problematization of the issue was noted.

The Committee does not question the Government's assessment in the current cases. However, it is of great importance that the need for a preparation with deviations from standard working methods and lead times is examined carefully on a case-by-case basis. The Committee sees no reason for a generally changed approach to what is required for a case to be considered urgent; many crises have been handled and passed over the years without the proper investigative process and referral work being sidelined. Ultimately, it is about trust in and confidence in society's institutions, which can be good to keep in mind based on the review that has been conducted in this case.

Mr. Speaker! A motion requested that the Committee on the Constitution review the government's submissions regarding the disclosure of public documents and the Prime Minister's responsibility for this handling. The motion was based, among other things, on information from Dagens Nyheter that the Government Offices had allegedly delayed the release of public documents concerning the review of the former national security advisor. At certain times, there had reportedly been a waiting period of up to 46 days. During that time, the document had only been permitted to be retrieved at specific times in paper form.

It is also stated in the report that the document with the damage assessment was registered after 673 days and was considered public only after the media found out about this.

In accordance with the Freedom of the Press Act, Mr. Speaker, every Swedish and foreign citizen has the right to access public documents. This may only be restricted if required by certain fundamental reasons for the security of the realm. It shall be handled promptly in accordance with the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act.

In this matter, hearings were held both with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and with State Secretary John Stuart. The committee notes that the Prime Minister, as head of the Government Offices, has a special responsibility to ensure that there is an organization in place to handle the release of public documents.

The committee views positively that educational measures should be carried out to ensure that the requirement for promptness is secured in the future.

I can also mention a report concerning citizenship tests. An investigation was conducted by Migration Minister Johan Forssell. A mandate was given to, among others, Stockholm University to develop such a test. The complainant considered that the Swedish universities and colleges rest on academic freedom and that there was therefore reason to examine whether that mandate complied with this.

The Committee emphasizes in its position that the government has recently decided on an investigation of the organizational form for all universities and colleges and that the state's governance of these shall provide the educational institutions with good conditions to perform their tasks.

One message to take hold of moving forward is, however, that academic freedom is important to safeguard based on core tasks of high-quality education and research and also, which deserves to be emphasized, from democratic aspects. It is important that this can be followed up and monitored moving forward.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The member raised several very important issues. I wish to touch upon only one, which also concerns me. It concerns the Council on Legislation's relation to the government.

Historically, the Social Democrats have opposed strengthening the role of the Council on Legislation. Several bourgeois parties, for example, once proposed that it should be mandatory for the government not to pursue legislative proposals that, according to the Council on Legislation, would violate, for example, the constitution.

I do not know if the member has reflected on this. But based on what he has presented, I would like to know if he thinks that one should go this way, that is, to make the Council on Legislation's assessments much more binding for the government.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned in my main speech, the current government is criticized for setting aside the Council for Legislation's recommendations more than previous governments have done.

I believe it is important that the Council on Legislation's knowledge and objectivity regarding the relationship between laws are included in the decision-making for governments as well in the future. I see it as important that we, as political representatives, take note of the Council on Legislation's views.

Of course, it is the government that, according to our constitution and the fundamental laws, governs the realm and has to take responsibility for the legislative proposals that are submitted and which we in the Riksdag will eventually decide on. They must be well-founded proposals, and in that regard, the Council on Legislation as a referral body is a very important part of this.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, member, for the answer!

The possibility of completely setting aside the Council for Legislation's recommendations and assessments is constitutionally mandated. That is how it is. One does not violate the constitution when doing so. That was what the debate about the Council for Legislation's position was about. Is it allowed to do so? Is it allowed to do so in very important matters, such as the civil rights and liberties that our constitution guarantees?

The Social Democrats did not want to go that way. It eventually became a compromise in 1979 with something that was neither "hackat" nor "malet", as one usually says in Swedish.

I want to know if the member thinks that this path should be tested and if there is any debate within the party about changing the historical resistance to strengthening the Constitutional Committee's constitutional position.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting questions that Member Mauricio Rojas [poses]. It could also be interesting to have Mauricio Rojas's questions highlighted in conversations and inquiries with government representatives, such as we had in this matter.

I note, based on the descriptions that have existed since the Council on Legislation was established regarding how the government has handled the Council's views, that it is the current government that has most noticeably ignored the Council's views. These concern issues regarding civil and political rights, which have been highlighted here.

Mauricio Rojas raises an important issue, and it is probably just as important for liberals when sitting in government as it is for others to take this with them into their work.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes when one signs up late for the debate, one ends up last on the speaking list. Even though one only has four minutes of speaking time, one can still reflect a little on what previous speakers have said.

It sounds a bit fantastic that a non-binding agreement, a statement of intent, can result in 100 million in the account. If the government is looking for new people to create a non-binding agreement or a small statement of intent, I volunteer. I could absolutely imagine taking care of some of the government's millions. Oh well.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Under these chapters, I intended to take up two matters that I myself find particularly interesting. One concerns the government's assignment to the universities regarding citizenship tests.

It sparked some protests when the government gave this assignment to the University of Gothenburg and Stockholm University, especially when Migration Minister Johan Forssell emphasized that it is the government that governs the country and that the universities are state agencies that are subject to it.

It is indeed correct that universities and colleges are authorities and can, in a purely formal sense, receive government mandates, but in the committee, we emphasize the special and more independent position that universities and colleges have in the administrative organization. This independence primarily concerns what is called academic freedom.

The two universities that received this assignment have referred to established practice and the principle of autonomy and academic freedom. They have questioned whether the assignment is in line with the universities' core mission.

In our review, it emerges that governments have not previously submitted any comparable assignment to universities and colleges. We also note that the universities pointed out the major challenges it would entail to carry out this assignment given the tight schedule.

The responsible minister has later expressed in the media an understanding that the universities considered the current assignment to be in conflict with the practice of arm's-length distance that usually applies. It is almost comical that the government, in the same year, appoints an inquiry with the aim of strengthening precisely that academic freedom in Sweden. The government's representatives do not appear particularly synchronized, one must say.

The second matter that I particularly want to draw attention to in this specific chapter is that concerning the disclosure of documents regarding the Landerholm case and the damage assessment that was registered only after 673 days. Furthermore, the media had to wait unreasonably long when they requested to access certain documents, something that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has already noted and criticized the Government Offices for.

In our inquiry, the Prime Minister said the reason it took 673 days was that the media had not requested the document earlier. That is possible. But as head of the Government Offices, the Prime Minister has an overall responsibility that there is an organization in place to handle matters regarding the release of public documents. There has obviously been a deficiency here.

Just as previous speakers have pointed out, it also occurred that when, for example, DN requested documents under their own name and under a pseudonym, they received completely different treatment, completely different conditions for accessing the public documents, and completely different response times. It is very noteworthy, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is the first time that I am participating in the Committee on the Constitution's work reviewing the government's work based on the complaints that have been made by members of our Riksdag. It feels a bit solemn.

For me, who am used to assessing the content of the political opponents' policies within the area of the cultural committee, it has been a balancing act to try to see what are pure transgressions or deviations from laws and regulations and what, in my opinion, is just poorly viewed in terms of the political content.

The review I will focus on during the coming minutes concerns Sweden's agreement with Somalia on aid and migration and the reform agenda that the government is pursuing. Initially, it is worth mentioning that the review includes a relatively extensive amount of material covered by secrecy.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have had a political orientation that involves using aid policy as a lever for migration issues. It is a transactional way of working, which we have heard about here before.

Regarding the reviewed agreement, the committee notes that several different words have been used to describe it and that the same word has been given different meanings. This has occurred in the external communication of ministers, including in the media and in the chamber of the Riksdag, as well as in internal communication within the Foreign Affairs Administration. This naturally creates uncertainties and leads to different expectations regarding the agreement.

What has emerged in the review is that there has been no binding agreement, but that 100 million in development aid from Sida and 5 million from the Ministry of Justice have been channeled via UN agencies as a result of the policy direction of both governments in Sweden and Somalia. It is therefore not stipulated, but merely implied, that Somalia takes back its citizens if the money is paid out.

When Sida considered that it had limitations in its possibilities to prepare and decide on aid interventions for implementation, the reclamation was halted. This ultimately led to the aid council being declared persona non grata, that is, no longer welcome in the country, as several before me have mentioned.

My reflection after having participated in the review and received a very extensive amount of material is that the government's new way of working, with a clear connection between aid and migration and informal agreements at a political level, opens up for increased deviations from the principles and processes that usually guide foreign policy and aid efforts. This time Sida maintained its routines, but at a high price.

When new methods of working are adopted that lead to Swedish employees being deported, it may be appropriate to bring the issue to the Foreign Affairs Committee for information, but this has not been done. The ministers refer to the fact that they have answered questions in both the Chamber and committees. But there are other types of forums that do not fulfill the same function. We want to emphasize that.

Mr. Speaker! We in the committee agree across party lines that this matter has had its challenges due to different expectations of what a non-binding agreement entails and due to conflicts between the extensive regulatory framework that governs an aid agency such as Sida and the desire to achieve political goals in both Somalia and Sweden.

Now it remains to be seen what lessons the government has drawn when working further to build relations with the former al-Qaeda-linked regime in Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to be able to deport people there.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Mr. Speaker! In this contribution, I want to comment on three matters that all have implications for the employer policy in the Government Offices. I will begin with the advertisement of positions in the Government Offices.

The Government Offices have used an iPad for the advertisement of services. The iPad has been located within the security perimeter and could only be used by those who are already at the Government Offices. In some cases, it has concerned services that are not covered by the exception in the agency's instructions regarding the requirement for information on vacant positions.

One such example is that assistant services have not been reported to Arbetsförmedlingen or that the iPad has been used to extend fixed-term employments. In my world, it is a conversation between the immediate supervisor and the employee.

Mr. Speaker! If we proceed with the employer reports, it concerns opinion registration within the Government Offices. The reporter writes the following: In Dagens ETC, on March 25, 2025, we could take part of anonymous testimonies regarding a more widespread culture within the Government Offices, where officials now experience an ever-increasing politicization of personnel policy from the employer's side. There is talk, among other things, about opinion registration of non-political officials and that those considered disloyal end up in the freezer without work tasks. Even trade union representatives confirm this picture.

The committee has, naturally, investigated the matter and sent questions to the Government Offices. The committee has landed on the exact same statement as last year when we spoke about the Government Offices' salary policy, and the same is stated in the Government Offices' response: The Government Offices shall always observe objectivity and impartiality in recruitments and promotions. Decisions shall therefore only be based on objective grounds such as merit and skill. It goes without saying that this is how it should be.

Furthermore, it is stated that for officials in the Government Offices, as for other state employees, the state's value base applies. The Government Offices also have ethical guidelines that specify certain general principles for how officials should act in their work and cover, among other things, rules on impartiality, conflicts of interest, as well as publicity and secrecy.

The Committee considers that the vast majority of civil servants are not politically appointed but retain their employment during changes of government, regardless of the government's political composition. It is essential that these civil servants are recruited on objective grounds. These civil servants contribute their competence regardless of the government's political orientation. The Committee considers, as before, that this arrangement is of central importance and emphasizes the importance of it remaining.

Furthermore, it is stated from the Government Offices that the political views or party affiliations of non-political civil servants are not registered. The Committee has full confidence in the answers provided by the Government Offices regarding the registration of political views.

Then we come to the next matter, which also concerns the employer policy. It concerns the so-called civil servant protest within the Government Offices. The protest concerns a letter that non-political civil servants have sent to the Director General of the Government Offices. The committee has in our inquiries repeatedly heard that the employer policy is the Director General's responsibility and not the policy's responsibility.

In this investigation, comparisons are also made with last year's notification regarding the wage process at the Government Offices. The Government Offices' task is to prepare government matters and assist the government and the ministers in their activities otherwise. The above-mentioned provisions cover the activities at the Government Offices. At the Government Offices, the vast majority of officials are not politically appointed, but they retain their employment during changes of government. It is exactly the same statement that we had in the previous case, regarding the registration of opinions. These officials contribute their competence regardless of the government's political orientation.

The letter that is relevant to the review came from employees at the Government Offices and was addressed to the Government Offices' administrative head. After it had been received, meetings were held with representatives from the labor organizations and with representatives from the group that had signed the letter. Subsequently, a meeting was held at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, where both political and non-political management participated.

Since the letter's arrival, a number of measures have been taken to inform about the civil servant role and the role of non-political civil servants in relation to the political leadership.

This matter has truly been discussed in the committee. We perhaps did not have a very common denominator from the start regarding how we handle this. I personally and the group I represent have leaned towards the legislation that is applicable on the labor market. This is exactly how one should handle a matter when the employees do something that needs to be addressed. It is not the government's business to address it, but it is really the director's business to address this.

At least I can see that the handling has been strictly by the book. I sometimes wish, Mr. Speaker, that there were more such occasions where a matter is handled exactly according to the legislation for the labor market.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The mandate of the Committee on the Constitution is to conduct a review of the sitting government or of previous governments. This is a task that the committee has had for over 200 years.

Our task is to look at the reports that come in in an objective and non-political manner. Chapter 3 of this year's audit report, which we are dealing with here and now, concerns the government's responsibility for the administration. These are issues that touch upon something very important: the citizens' trust in the state.

For the pillars of democracy to function, it is not only free elections and elected assemblies that are required; it also requires an administration, with its civil servants, that is professional, apolitical, and loyal to the government that the Swedish people have elected. Several of the matters addressed in this chapter concern precisely these fundamental principles.

Mr. Speaker! I will comment on three matters that I believe have great significant value for this year's review and which also show the importance of upholding and protecting the laws and rules that the Swedish constitution rests upon.

An item in the chapter concerns security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet. We live in a time when information security, cybersecurity, and the protection of sensitive information have become increasingly important. The security deficiencies within Lantmäteriet have built up over many years under different governments, and it raises broader questions about how the state manages security risks within society-critical agencies.

The review shows that the consequences for Sweden's security of leaked information are difficult to fully oversee. When serious security deficiencies are identified, it is important that the state has the ability to quickly create a comprehensive picture of the situation and ensure that relevant actors receive the information they need.

The committee's review of the matter also shows that there are reasons to draw lessons from what occurred, not least regarding information sharing, follow-up, and coordination between authorities and the Government Offices. These are lessons that extend far beyond the individual case. This is information that is important for the entire operation of the public administration.

Mr. Speaker! The part we are now discussing includes the review of the AP funds' investments in Northvolt. These are referred to as G4 and G9 in the review report. For the Sweden Democrats, this is an important principle issue. The AP funds' mandate is not to conduct industrial policy; their mandate is to manage the Swedish people's pension money in a responsible manner.

When the capital of pension savers is at risk, the requirements for professionalism, independence, and risk awareness must be very high. Investments shall be based on thoroughly worked-out calculations and not on wishful thinking or political signals. Northvolt's bankruptcy has had major consequences for pension savers, employees, and local communities.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee highlights that statements from ministers risk being perceived as an indirect questioning of the AP funds' independence. During the annual dialogue meetings in 2020 and 2021 at the AP funds, the agenda and the priorities of the matters were changed. Among other things, green investments became a separate item on the agenda instead of previously having been included under the item Other matters.

What I want to say with this, Mr. Speaker, is about the importance of acting responsibly. We must take responsibility for our common resources, and decisions should not be driven by dreams and feelings. They must be decisions that are anchored in reality and that are based on thoroughly processed analyses.

Let us adopt the conservative mindset when it comes to the green transition! Let the transition be responsible, and let the market decide the speed! The transition will happen, but do not force anything! We see the result in Northvolt, that is to say one of Sweden's largest bankruptcies, where billions of taxpayers' money have been consumed.

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to go deeper into the details here and now, not because our review does not require a broader overview of what has occurred, but because I know that Member Lars Engsund will touch upon the review of the AP funds' investments in green companies in more detail in his speech, which will come a bit later in the review of this chapter.

I will now proceed to another of the Committee on the Constitution's reviews, G16, regarding the outcry initiated by a large number of civil servants at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs some time ago, the so-called civil servant outcry. There, over 200 civil servants chose to disregard Chapter 1, Section 9 of the Instrument of Government, which means that public administrations have an obligation to observe objectivity and impartiality.

The Sweden Democrats argue that what has emerged in the review is serious. The Committee on the Constitution also emphasizes the importance of an apolitical civil service and stresses that every government should be able to assume that the Government Offices' officials loyally assist the government that the Swedish people have given a mandate to govern the country.

Trust in the state is built on the fact that citizens know that the same rules apply to everyone. Competence, experience, and skill should determine who receives a job within the state, municipality, and region. Despite this, various types of quotas and special treatments occur in our long country, where the person best suited for a job or a place in education many times is set aside.

In the same way, trust in the state rests on the fact that one can rely on employed officials performing their assignment to the best of their ability and that they leave their party books at home. This is a self-evident starting point, Mr. Speaker. But for the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals, it is not just a self-evident principle, it must also apply in practice.

In the Sverigedemokraternas special statement, which we have written together with the Liberalerna, we point out that the letter, the so-called civil servant protest, was created through an organized initiative among civil servants within the Government Offices during an ongoing government formation. It contained positions concerning the relationship between the civil servant role and a potential incoming political composition and what kind of policy such a composition could imagine pursuing.

The fact that managers and other influential officials are reported to have been involved makes the matter particularly problematic. It is not about individual political views. Everyone has the right to their opinions. It is about the fact that officials in state service must not use their position to influence or oppose the work of the democratically elected government.

Mr. Speaker! All public power in Sweden derives from the people through general elections. Public power in Sweden does not derive from civil servants. It is a principle that must be defended regardless of which government is in power. If we do not take a stand against those civil servants who commit gross professional misconduct, the level of suspicion will also increase towards those civil servants who perform their work in a professional and non-political manner.

Mr. Speaker! If there is a common denominator for the entire chapter 3, it is the importance of a functioning state, where security is taken seriously and where authorities and public institutions carefully manage the citizens' trust. Ministers shall not attempt to rule non-political civil servants, and non-political civil servants shall not attempt to rule politics. It may sound like self-evident truths, but reality is not always so simple. These are fundamental democratic issues, and they are issues that the Sweden Democrats will continue to safeguard.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have understood that it is not customary to exchange remarks in the Committee on the Constitution, even though it sometimes happens. I had also not intended to request a remark, but during Member Westmont's speech, I could not hold back. The accusations that were made are extremely serious.

When it comes to the so-called civil servant's statement, we have weighed and turned over every word in the internal discussions and debates in the Committee on the Constitution and tried to find a common way forward. Now, Member Westmont stands here and claims that he does not actually stand behind what is stated in the review report.

The accusations from the rostrum are so severe that it is almost implied that it was a deliberate, organized attempt to prevent the formation of a government. If Member Westmont stands behind the words he uttered from the rostrum, it is one of the absolute grossest accusations that has been put forward in this chamber. It indicates that it was an – let us speak plainly in plain Swedish – attempt at a coup d'état.

Does Member Westmont really stand behind this? Does Member Westmont mean that an internal letter which public civil servants wrote to their superiors was an attempt to prevent the formation of a government?

I am shocked by these allegations and would very much like to have an answer from the member.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As Member Demirok just pointed out: What I presented from the rostrum was exactly what happened. The officials chose to initiate this initiative in the middle of a government negotiation. Then, I am not prepared to say that this influenced the government that subsequently took office, but it is still worth contemplating whether it could have influenced or if it influenced the government that we eventually got after the 2018 election.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we need to be clearer. The accusations that were made from the rostrum are so serious that Member Westmont should either stand behind them or distance himself from them in the rebuttal. We demand a clarification. Was it an attempt to influence the formation of the government and, if so, an attempt at a coup d'état or not?

If one cannot clearly and distinctly distance oneself from it, one faces enormous difficulties in actually continuing the debate on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of our most important pillars, and even public officials – state officials – have the right to express an opinion.

The review report has established that it occurred in the order that was supposed to occur, that is, that the responsible head took care of it, received the letter and had a discussion with their officials.

If Member Westmont thinks it was insufficient and that civil servants should not be covered by freedom of speech, I think that needs to be expressed here. I do not think that after these accusations from the rostrum there is room to move in the vague. We demand clear language. Was it an attempt at a coup d'état or not?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to speculate on whether it was a coup d'état or not, as Demirok was touching upon. What we can state, however, just as I mentioned in my speech, is that officials have certain rules to adhere to, including the Instrument of Government where it states that one shall be impartial. In this case, it is obvious that one has not been.

I welcome this debate, but one must not forget that the person who initiated the outcry at the Government Offices was a person who had a background within the Social Democrats. Whether it was a coup d'état or not, I will leave unsaid, but I welcome a broader debate on civil servant responsibility and agency activism.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Member Demirok began the morning by questioning whether we are competitive or not. Let me say that I appreciate every good sparring partner. Discussion and conversation tend to deepen understanding and explain different things.

Mr. Speaker! The basis for a functioning democracy is that the result of an election must also have an impact on the state's actions. This means that the government must have the right to make decisions in the direction that the government, with the support of the election, wants to act, but it must also take the political responsibility for it.

Several have said that it is not the political responsibility that we are examining, and that is correct. We are examining the constitutional responsibility. But the political responsibility must, in order to enable a constitutional review, be expressed transparently and clearly. This is usually manifested in that one receives regulatory letters or government decisions in various areas.

But it can also happen by entering into agreements, writing strategies and making long-term decisions. All of this are different ways to manifest a political direction.

In the Instrument of Government, Chapter 1, Section 6, it clearly states that "the government governs the realm." It is clear that this means that one will sometimes need to make decisions that lie outside the chronological order declared in the documents I previously mentioned. In those cases, it can naturally happen that one receives somewhat contradictory information in the form of a previous long-term decision and a more short-term one. We saw that in a previous case, the so-called Somalia case, which is not included in this part of the report but still has a connection to the governance of authorities and administration, which is what we are discussing now.

Now it is about the KU reports made regarding the management of and actions within administrations and agencies. Similar to previous speakers, I intend to make some points to describe different perceptions but also to describe part of how the process works and how one can view cases. When the report is written, it is almost always done with the starting point that something suspicious has occurred and should be criticized. That is the theme itself. Subsequently, when we investigate and gather information, one gradually changes their perception. Then one should be able to admit that it actually was nothing or that it was not worth directing criticism towards.

Let me begin with the matter that was up last regarding the civil servant protest – that letter with views on the formation of the government that came from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' staff. When one reads it for the first time, it is clear that one thinks: Oh boy, that was really serious! But when the investigation is then conducted, one can state that it is a labor law issue that has been handled completely correctly.

On the political side, it is clear that it would have been good for the general perception of the government if, in the current situation, the government had made some stance, some statement, or some marking in the matter to defend the government's possibilities to implement decisions. But it is probably not possible to find any requirement for that anywhere. For that very reason, one must stop there and say: Yes, it would have been good, but it is not wrong not to do it, because the government in this situation, as in all others, has the possibility to make better or worse political decisions. It would have been pleasant if the government had done something more, but there is no basis for criticism in that part.

I move on to the next item, Security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet. Everyone is well aware of the background. For a large number of years, the IT security within Lantmäteriet has been questioned. It has been established that one could obtain confidential information from the Arken database, initially via customer service. It was then also noted that there had been those who had direct access and could thus extract the information.

As soon as this reached the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure, they ensured from there that measures had been taken, that it was shut down and that the leakages had ceased. At the same time, other ministries were informed. However, it has come to be questioned whether it was ensured that it reached all ministries in the way that reasonably should have been the case. We direct criticism toward the fact that it was not ensured that the information reached out in such an important matter.

It has been questioned whether the government has conducted any consequence analysis. There are some similarities here with the previous case. First, it can be stated that all information has been disclosed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to classify something that has already been revealed. Once people know that it exists, it will never be possible to take it back, which means that it is rather a future action that is being requested with such a consequence analysis.

Then we have the question of whether it would have been good to have a consequence analysis. Such an analysis might at least have clarified the extent of the problems. In some sense, one can say that it perhaps would have been good. Is there then any constitutional requirement? No, there is no such requirement. Once again, this falls on the political scale: Should one or should one not do it? It is a question of how one views one's role as an elected representative. We and many others may think that the government perhaps should have been clearer on this, but there is no requirement.

Where do I want to come with this reasoning? Well, in the two latest cases, the civil servant's report and Lantmäteriet, both sides concluded that there are probably no formal requirements for a certain course of action, but that under certain circumstances it could have been good if it had been done in a certain way. In the first case, we accepted the facts and said that we cannot direct criticism at the then-government for the civil servant's report, because there was no requirement. But the opposition now wants to, on similar grounds, direct criticism at the sitting government by saying that it should have been done in a certain way, even though there was no requirement there either. I think that is a contradiction that leaves some questions to be answered.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to speak a little bit about the government's governance of agencies, especially regarding direct governance. We have talked about the Somalia case, where there is an implicit kind of criticism against the government interfering in the agencies' activities. One cannot bypass agencies, said a previous speaker. That criticism shows that one is not remaining independent towards the agencies. Regarding Lantmäteriet, one implies instead that one would rather have a clearer action from the government towards agencies. In one case, the opposition says: Keep your hands off! In the other, they say: Get more involved! Where is the logic in this? How should the agencies be treated? Is it via regulatory letters and clear governance, or is it "as said" in those cases where I myself want it, but not in those cases where I think the agencies did the right thing? That is politics. Constitutionally, it should be seen that way.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is unfortunate when it becomes politicized. I realize, of course, that in some cases it will be necessary and unavoidable. But I hope that we can return to a climate of conversation where Muharrem Demirok is my sparring partner and where we together learn more and more.

I think the KU's report is well-considered and clarifying. It investigates important matters.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I began the day by referring to this morning's football match. Member Ulrik "took the ball". But suddenly we ended up in a boxing ring and were sparring partners. Yes, the sports references can be endless in this chamber. Now I will not devote so much to that.

To have substantive and thorough conversations and to weigh arguments and opinions against one another is what builds democracy strong – it is the foundation for this entire building. I think we maintain that stance, Ulrik, and continue to help each other become better.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, we move on to chapter 3, which concerns some of the absolutely heaviest issues in this year's report.

The first matter I want to raise concerns the so-called civil servant outcry in the Government Offices.

In a democracy like the Swedish one, the constitutionally protected freedom of expression is a supporting pillar. It applies to the citizen on the street, it applies to the political opposition as well as the majority, and it applies to the non-political civil servants within public administration.

Of course, civil servants have a duty of loyalty to execute the policies that a democratically elected government decides upon. But loyalty in implementation must never, ever be confused with a duty of silence in public discourse. When civil servants express concern or exercise their constitutionally protected right, a government must meet it with institutional self-confidence and respect for the form of government – not with measures that risk creating a culture of silence within the Government Offices, not through threats of dismissal or reprisals. Freedom of speech must never, ever be compromised.

Mr. Speaker! From this, I wish to move on to the review of Lantmäteriet.

We live in the most serious security policy situation since the end of the Second World War. Cyber threats, espionage, and mapping of Swedish infrastructure have become part of our everyday lives. That is why this review becomes so important, as this is one of the most extensive security breaches in modern Swedish administrative history.

Former Court of Appeal President Dag Stegeland establishes a serious starting point in his independent investigation: All information in Lantmäteriet's archive Arken that has been open to external users must be regarded as disclosed to foreign powers. We are talking about defense secrets, military installations, protected personal data for threatened individuals, hospitals, and municipal affairs. It is a great deal, and this has been lying wide open since the 2010s.

But the most upsetting thing, Mr. Speaker, is not that the system error existed, but how the government then reacted when it was discovered.

During the committee's inquiries, it emerged that the department had not conducted any consolidated risk and consequence analysis after the deficiencies were discovered. Responsibility has largely been delegated to individual agencies, municipalities, and regions. But when national security interests are affected, a consolidated state leadership is required.

The timeline also shows a delay. The Department was informed of the risks during the spring of 2024, but more far-reaching measures were only taken at the end of the year. The fact that essential information furthermore did not reach the Ministry of Defence and the Minister for Defence until much later, via media reports, shows that the Government Offices' internal coordination on security issues needs to be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! It is against this background that the Centre Party, together with the rest of the opposition, has attached a special statement to the committee report. It is not about seeking cheap political points. It is not about seeking political conflict in the matter. It is about safeguarding the committee's oversight function.

We considered in the committee that there was a need to hear both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence to fully understand how the chains of information have functioned or not functioned – legitimate questions that needed to be clarified so that we can draw the correct conclusions and lessons for the future.

That the committee majority then chose to say no to these inquiries is regrettable. When a parliamentary majority denies the committee the opportunity to hear the ministers who bear the ultimate responsibility for the nation's security, we have moved far away from the legal scrutiny and institutional accountability that should characterize the KU. It hinders the committee's ability to provide the clear guidance that the Swedish public administration needs and is built upon.

Therefore, our special statement is crystal clear in its conclusions.

Firstly: The government failed when the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure and the Government Offices did not ensure that the Minister for Defence was informed in time. For this, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and Minister Andreas Carlson are responsible.

Secondly: The government failed when, despite being unhindered, it did not carry out damage assessments from security perspectives. For this, Andreas Carlson bears the responsibility for Lantmäteriet and Ulf Kristersson for the government as a whole.

Mr. Speaker! After what I have now said regarding national security, I shall finally also look towards the state's common resources and the review of the state AP funds' and companies' investments in Northvolt.

Before we enter into the legalities, I want to pause at the most human and local reality that forms the background of this matter. The crisis at Northvolt is a human tragedy for all those thousands of workers who have lost their jobs and their security. It is a hard blow to the families who moved far away in the belief of a better future and an enormous challenge for the affected towns, not least Skellefteå, which has invested in community building to enable this establishment. That understanding and respect must form the basis for how we approach the question.

But, Mr. Speaker, we must also be clear about what the Committee on the Constitution's mandate is and what it is not.

KU cannot conduct a review that includes every single aspect of this gigantic industrial and financial process. It is not our task to assess market calculations, technical choices, or business risks in individual companies. The broader and deeper review of this entire process falls to other actors – to the government itself, to other committees, or to free investigative journalism.

I would personally welcome a broad external review of the matter, as there are many lessons that Swedish social life needs to learn from this. But KU's part in all of this cannot encompass all of these parts.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet have since they were first discovered in the media in the spring of 2024 received great attention, and the matter has grown over time. It is therefore important to assess the actions of the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing and the department based on the knowledge that existed at the respective time and not based on what we know today.

When the department received information on March 26, 2024, regarding the security incident, which involved documents being released from customer service without prior confidentiality review, the department was simultaneously informed that this had ceased with immediate effect and had been reported to the Swedish Security Service. The State Secretary was informed orally on the same day, and he, in turn, informed the Minister.

Since Lantmäteriet had made a report to the Security Service and introduced an order where the files are tested for confidentiality before they are released, the assessment was made that no immediate measures needed to be taken from the Government Offices' or the government's side. The department subsequently followed, through meetings and telephone contacts, the authority's work to resolve the extended processing times.

On May 7, 2024, such a follow-up meeting was held at the official level. Lantmäteriet's security chief mentioned then that there could also be security-sensitive information in the Arken database, where many customers had direct access. On the same day, Lantmäteriet contacted Fortifikationsverket and later with Försvarsmakten and had ongoing contacts with Must. Each agency is then responsible for its own damage analyses and measures.

On May 17, ten days later, the authority returned regarding the identified risk through a telephone contact with an official at the department. On the same day, the board of Lantmäteriet informed the same official that an extra board meeting would be held on May 22, five days later.

On May 21, Andreas Carlson's State Secretary was informed by officials in the department and has since been kept informed on an ongoing basis.

The Board decided at the meeting on 22 May to close Arken. The Department was in contact with Lantmäteriet during the period between the decision and the shutdown on 24 May. The shutdown was to take place as quickly as possible, but to minimize the damage, the authority needed to ensure that it would not negatively affect other systems.

On the same day the decision was made, May 22, the responsible minister was informed.

On the morning of May 24, the day the closure was carried out, the Government Offices were informed at the official level, the Prime Minister's State Secretary and the Government Offices' press unit. In connection with this, the Prime Minister was also informed.

On 25 May, the incident was reported in the daily dispatch to the Government Offices, the Crisis Coordination Office, and the National Security Advisor, who were subsequently kept informed. It has since been the subject of discussion within the framework of the ongoing contact with the Ministry of Defence and its agencies.

On every occasion thereafter that the department has met with Lantmäteriet regarding the security deficiencies, the question has been asked whether the authority sees a need for any form of support from the Government Offices or any decision by the government to move forward in its work. No such need for support has been expressed by Lantmäteriet.

During the autumn of 2024, that is about half a year after these events, Expressen conducted an investigation based on information from former employees at Lantmäteriet. There, interiors from the agency were described that the Government Offices lacked knowledge of before they were published. Among other things, it was stated that before the events during the spring of 2024, internal warnings had been issued that Arken contained security-sensitive information.

In view of this, the Director General was called to a meeting with the Minister and the State Secretary on 25 November and 3 December 2024, as well as with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Lantmäteriet on 4 December. This led to the Director General being informed on 6 December that she no longer had the government's confidence to lead the work required to restore trust in Lantmäteriet and ensure the agency's important functions.

The government appointed an inquiry in 2025 to review Lantmäteriet's work regarding information security. It was established there that security deficiencies in Arken had been discussed internally at Lantmäteriet since 2018. This was, however, not reported to the minister until November 2024.

Another security incident was detected in the spring of 2025. On 2 April, Lantmäteriet made a new report to Säkerhetspolisen, which Lantmäteriet informed the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure about on 8 April. It concerned the processing system Sfären, which covers the processing of lost mortgage deeds and registration acts. Lantmäteriet assessed that there could be information covered by secrecy, but likely no one outside the authority had received the information.

On the same day, the official informed other relevant parties in the department, including the State Secretary. A meeting was held in which the State Secretary participated, and the authority stated that no documents had been released from the system without a confidentiality review. The Minister was informed on the same day, as were the Prime Minister's State Secretary and the Government Offices at the official level.

The committee notes that the routines have been followed in relation to and within the Government Offices. At the same time, it can be questioned whether the existing routines met the requirements, given the activities that Lantmäteriet carries out. Even though information was provided at the agency level early on, the Ministry of Defence should also have been informed about the security deficiencies earlier than what now occurred. Regarding this part, the committee points out a deficiency.

The effects of the security leaks are difficult to oversee. Both sensitive and protected personal data may be present in the records. Each affected authority needs to conduct a risk and consequence analysis. Records with known defense secrecy are, however, stored in a different register – that should be emphasized. But it may have occurred that properties that were open but at a later stage became security-classified have remained in the open archive.

The consequences for the users include, among others, significantly extended times to obtain documents, as every case must be tested for confidentiality.

In the debate, comparisons are made with the Transport Agency case from the 2018 review – a comparison that, in my eyes, is unreasonable as there are great differences between the cases.

In that case, it was done with deliberate intent regarding an outsourcing where personal data about Swedish citizens was intentionally handed over to another country. Already at the end of 2015, information emerged showing the seriousness of the situation, and the Ministry of Defence was informed by the Ministry of Justice in February 2016. It was not until December 2016 that the Government Offices received information about the outsourcing, and after a few more weeks the Prime Minister received the information, that is, one year after the information had emerged.

In the current case, information was provided at the official level in April that problems had been discovered and rectified. At the beginning of May, it was mentioned that there could be more problems. Two weeks later, these were confirmed. The Board was called to an extraordinary meeting two days later, where the decision on the shutdown was made. This was carried out a further two days later. On the same day, the responsible Minister was informed, and the following morning, both the Government Offices and the Prime Minister were informed. The difference in how quickly one acted is striking.

The investigation also shows that deficiencies have been discussed within Lantmäteriet since 2018. It is unfortunate that the information does not appear to have reached previous governments – there are reports that it did. Peter Eriksson, Per Bolund, Märta Stenevi and Johan Danielsson were ministers during the intervening period. Representatives for the majority expressed a wish to call them for a KU inquiry to find out how much they actually knew, but that did not happen after the opposition opposed it.

If criticism regarding the silence culture within authorities is directed at the Minister who, after one and a half years, receives information and acts according to the regulatory framework, it reasonably reflects back on the previous Ministers under whose leadership this silence culture has been allowed to grow.

When it comes to the civil servant's statement, I share the assessment described by Ulrik Nilsson. The matter was handled at the administrative level according to the rulebook. A comment from the responsible minister could have expressed the importance of civil servants' objectivity and impartiality regardless of which government is currently chosen by the people. However, there is no such constitutional requirement.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Under the heading "Certain questions regarding the government's responsibility for the administration," we have some matters of somewhat more principled interest. This concerns, among other things, the questions raised after it was discovered that Lantmäteriet had for a longer period handed out material that should have been subject to secrecy. I must admit that I perhaps did not fully follow all the dates that appeared in Member Brunegård's statement, but obviously the conclusion of all this is that there are aspects of omission to consider.

We also have the at times rather strange discussion about whether the previous government in some way pushed the AP funds to invest in Northvolt.

Finally, the question is how a letter from non-political officials within the Government Offices to the administration would have been handled.

Mr. Speaker! These three matters originated a few years ago.

Let me begin with the so-called civil servant protest, that is to say, the letter that more than 250 non-political civil servants, many within the UD but also within other departments, addressed to the Government Offices during the autumn of 2018, when the rather protracted government formation process was underway.

In the letter, one expresses a concern for what a potential change of government could entail. As I read it, it also included a fully legitimate question about how the state's value base with its six principles should be viewed in the event that one or more parties with a deviating view were to form a government in 2018. For the sake of order, I want to say that the six principles are the following: democracy, legality, objectivity, free formation of opinion, respect, as well as efficiency and service.

The report, which came from one of the Sverigedemokraternas members, already speaks in the headline of "the current government's handling of activist officials." The answer is, of course, that the letter, from a number of employees, was addressed to the head of administration, who followed up on this with meetings both with and without political representatives.

It is self-evident, the committee notes, that the absolute majority of the civil servants within the Government Offices are non-political and assist every government regardless of political orientation. It is fundamentally a profound democratic issue, which several have touched upon.

That one asks questions regarding how a potential future government could work based on, for example, what has been said in election campaigns and other things is not at all unreasonable. And that one asks these questions to their head of administration does not appear unreasonable either.

Mr. Speaker! Lantmäteriet has been discussed in quite great detail here. I have nothing further to add. I share much of the view that Muharrem Demirok has put forward. There are a number of obvious questions here that have not been able to be answered. Above all, perhaps the question of how, after what we certainly know, it happened that it took so long before, among others, the Minister for Defence was informed. It is a deeply serious case. Many processes around in society still suffer from the lack of access to the material held by Lantmäteriet. This should be rectified and discussed further so that we can avoid such things in the future.

Mr. Speaker! The actions of the previous government towards the AP funds in general and specifically Finance Market Minister Per Bolund's relationship with the funds – partly in connection with the funds' investments in Northvolt, partly in connection with the funds' general work direction – were the basis for two reports, one from a Moderate member and one from a member of the Sweden Democrats.

In hindsight, one might think that this should have been two separate matters. The committee chose to merge the two because they had several common denominators.

It was already established in the written questions to the Government Offices and the former finance ministers Per Bolund and Åsa Lindhagen that there had been no contact whatsoever between the government and the funds prior to the investments in Northvolt. It was therefore entirely in accordance with current rules and laws. But we must go back a few years to see the entire chain of events.

In 2017, the cross-party Pensions Group agreed to supplement the AP funds' instructions with an addition regarding responsible investments and responsible ownership, which includes, among other things, a sustainability dimension and support for phasing out certain investments. No specific industries were specified, but it later came to include, among other things, weapons, tobacco and, even later, also fossil industries. The Riksdag made a unanimous decision on this in 2018, and the changes entered into force in 2019.

I note that Member Westmont thinks as if this decision did not exist. He calls it green dreams and points out that the state should not act in an industrial policy manner. Well, that was precisely what the Riksdag decided in 2018. From 2019 onwards, the pension funds therefore have a different mandate than before, or perhaps rather a partially different mandate.

The requirements for good returns and secure investments naturally still apply. It is about good returns for our future pensions, and using the financial market's resources to support and facilitate the green transition or the climate transition is not a bad idea, one might think.

So, the question arose in 2019. Now we are still talking about 2019; not about 2021 and 2022 when the investments were made. In 2019, among other things, the question of follow-up on the parliamentary decision was raised at a meeting between Minister Bolund and the management of the AP funds, where Per Bolund is said to have informed the fund that the government has the possibility to appoint new members to the boards if the parliamentary decision does not go through in the funds' operations. This statement was seen as unfortunate by some involved, not least among members of the committee – not because it is not correct, for it is, but because it could be perceived as that the funds' independence was being questioned. The CEOs of the funds, who have been questioned by the committee, however, firmly deny that the statements would have affected their assessments. They are, of course, professional organizations that perhaps do not attach the same weight to statements from politicians as politicians themselves do.

The statement was also made more than a year and a half before the funds' investment in Northvolt and therefore has nothing to do with that transaction.

I was a bit disappointed when, for some reason, a clip from the TV channel Riks appeared in my feed this weekend. It is not something I usually watch, I can say. In the clip, I saw the committee's vice chairman speaking in front of a picture of Northvolt and Per Bolund, as if Bolund's statement was, therefore, related to Northvolt. It was not. I have nagged about this many, many times in the committee. I think it is very regrettable that this misconception still lives on. Just the fact that the statement was made more than 18 months before the investments speaks against this.

The whole thing could have been settled if the Tidö parties in the KU also wanted to dig into the actual investments in the company Northvolt. They occurred at two occasions, of which the first was during 2021. Åsa Lindhagen was also called for questioning, just like the then State Secretary Ulf Holm, and the answers were obviously the same: No, we as a government have nothing to do with the funds' decisions and receive no information in advance.

Mr. Speaker! It is very possible that it would be good to review the funds' activities and investments after the 2019 changes. That has, in itself, already been done. What is important for our part in this context is that the funds' activities and investments have nothing to do with the KU.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Among the matters being addressed in this part of the debate, I would like to highlight two. The first concerns Northvolt and the former Minister for Finance Per Bolund's statement regarding the AP funds. The second concerns the so-called civil servant outcry. Both of these matters highlight different sides of the relationship between the political leadership and the professional civil service that forms the backbone of our state administration.

Mr. Speaker! Liberal democracy, as is well known, is built on the separation of powers and functional specialization between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. But it is also built on another form of separation of powers and specialization – that between the political leadership and the professional administration.

It is the officials' duty to assist the political leadership with expertise and to loyally execute the decisions made.

It is the task of politics to set direction and make decisions within the frameworks that laws and constitutional laws establish.

The balance between these two spheres is of crucial importance for the rule of law's function. The state must simultaneously be democratic and legally secure, politically governed but also characterized by objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality.

The two review cases that I want to draw attention to concern each side of this sensitive but fundamental relationship.

Mr. Speaker! In the first case – the Northvolt affair – it is about a possible improper attempt from the political leadership's side to influence the concrete actions of independent state authorities.

In the second case – the one concerning the so-called civil servant outcry – it is about a possible improper action by civil servants in order to influence one of democracy's most central political processes: the formation of the government.

Both cases thus raise fundamental questions about roles, responsibilities, and respect for the principles that uphold both our democracy and our constitutional order.

Mr. Speaker! The following statement by the then Minister for Financial Markets, Per Bolund, in an interview with the newspaper ETC from November 2019 appears to be a clear overstep in the relationship between the government and the independent boards of the AP funds:

"If they do not understand the government's signals, we may need to recruit new boards that have a better understanding of what we expect. It is a very concrete opportunity that we have. I expect that major changes will occur." By "they," the AP funds are meant.

The minister had previously conveyed the same message at a meeting with the boards of the AP funds.

When Per Bolund was questioned in the committee, he described the statement as a clarification regarding the government's powers in relation to the boards. But one could just as easily describe it as a threat, according to the definition given in Svensk ordbok, published by Svenska Akademien: ”warning of a possible unpleasant consequence that the speaker or similar can expose the person addressed to, if he/she does not act in the desired way”.

It is difficult not to see that Per Bolund's statement fits very well into this definition.

The message was clear: If the boards did not act in accordance with the government's expectations, they could be replaced. As far as I know, such a statement lacks a counterpart in modern Swedish administrative history. This statement was furthermore made in the government's name, and no other member of the government publicly distanced themselves from it. There is reason to recall the Roman legal maxim: He who is silent is deemed to consent.

The committee's majority has found that Per Bolund deserves criticism for his actions. It is a criticism that, in my opinion, can also be directed at the government that chose to meet such a sensational statement with silence.

Mr. Speaker! The second review matter that I want to draw attention to in this part of the debate goes in the opposite direction. It is an overstep by civil servants towards the democratically elected politicians. It concerns the so-called civil servant protest – a letter, signed by 261 civil servants, to the Government Offices' administrative head on 25 September 2018.

It concerned an extremely sensitive moment when government formation work was in full swing. Among other things, those who signed the letter wanted guarantees that the next government or its government base would not erode the Government Offices' core values. In the letter, the officials demanded answers to the question of what takes precedence: the duty of loyalty towards the sitting government and employer, or the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding, among other things, people's equal value and protection against discrimination.

The jab was clearly directed at the Sweden Democrats and MP Björn Söder's statement that neither Jews nor Sami were Swedes. But the signatories added the Muslims.

Two days later, it was an editorial in Dagens Nyheter that received an appropriate headline: "Government officials shall not play activists".

I want to quote a few paragraphs from this editorial because it summarizes the political explosives in this official letter in a meritorious way:

"In the long run, the letter is a symptom of an ailment spreading in the public sphere: everyone shall be activists. For some, it works perfectly, such as artists, opinion leaders, athletes and those working voluntarily."

For others it fits particularly poorly: employees within public service, agency representatives such as police chiefs, public employees in general – they represent Sweden, not themselves – and perhaps above all non-political officials at a high level.

And this is exactly what they are: non-political civil servants. Have the signatories of the letter reflected on the literal meaning of these two words? Does it not mean precisely that they should not take a political stance and that they should represent their agency, which in turn shall work for the will of the government, the Riksdag, and the voters?

The Speaker continues as follows:

"The worst thing is perhaps how the writing risks eroding people's trust in central authorities. It is particularly inappropriate in this time of polarization. The risk is that the impression is reinforced of a societal 'elite' that disregards the voters and conducts politics on its own without taking the uncomfortable detour via an election result."

The leader also states:

"The letter is a kind of preventive measure, where the officials speculate on what might be about to happen. And a vague indication that whatever it is, they do not intend to accept it."

"It is activism, incompatible with the professional role."

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks later, the same newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, published a longer text about the origin of the petition. The headline says everything about these, as far as I understand, unique petitions: "The game behind the petition at the Government Offices – 'advance guard' led by chief with S-connection". It is, of course, the newspaper's headline. But the word advance guard is not the newspaper's invention. It was used by the leaders behind the petition. Thus it was written in the newspaper about this:

"It now appears that the petition was organized by a UD chief with close ties to the Social Democrats. Emails that DN has read show that he led a 'vanguard' intended to convince influential colleagues to sign."

Mr. Speaker! To handle such a matter merely as an administrative matter, as the then Social Democratic government did, is in my opinion to ignore the obvious political content of the letter. The political leadership, that is to say the government, should at least have marked a clear distance from this attempt to influence an ongoing government formation process. They did not do that. It is, in my opinion, deeply regrettable.

In this speech, Martin Westmont (SD) agreed.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Mauricio Rojas!

I noted that the question regarding the statement from Per Bolund, then Minister for Finance, comes up again and again. In this context, however, it does not occur in connection with Northvolt specifically, but rather with meetings with the AP funds and an interview situation with the newspaper ETC.

Mauricio Rojas describes it as a threat. Mauricio Rojas is entirely alone in doing so, which he also expresses a bit later when he means that everyone who remains silent consents. Yes, then it was well and truly the case that everyone who remained silent consented to it being regarded as an enlightenment and definitely not as a threat. None of those we have asked – the CEOs and managements of the AP funds, state secretaries and ministers – have in any way raised that one of their former colleagues would have used threats to push through political initiatives and intentions.

I wonder: Where does this come from, Mauricio Rojas? Where does the concept of a threat come from? Who, besides the members themselves of course, have witnessed that it has been perceived as a threat?

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

It comes from the Swedish Academy's Swedish Dictionary. I read it again: Hot – "warning of a possible unpleasant consequence that the speaker or similar can expose the addressee to, if he/she does not act in the desired way."

Was that not exactly what Per Bolund did? Have I misinterpreted the Swedish Academy's Swedish Dictionary or perhaps the word threat? I don't think so, actually.

I believe the intention was very clear. It was to warn of possible unpleasant consequences if one did not do as the government wanted in a concrete case. It was about how the investments were to be made. That is an exact way to describe the statement, which is utterly inappropriate and for which I find no parallels in modern Swedish administrative history. I do not know if the member has any examples of it being customary to go out and threaten, warn, or inform in this manner. I do not believe so. In any case, I have not found anything similar.

This is important. When one does that, one can indeed influence those who make the concrete decisions. That risk exists when one so clearly says: If you do not do as we want and expect, you will lose your job.

It is quite a serious threat.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Mauricio Rojas!

I do not particularly want to enter into a polemic with the Swedish Academy. They are certainly right regarding the concept of a threat. Then one can discuss whether the expression was a threat in the context. Well, I wonder about that. It was nevertheless directed at a number of high-ranking, well-paid officials within the Swedish financial market: the chairmen and CEOs of the large Swedish AP funds. None of them have expressed that they perceived it as a threat. None of them walked away and said: I am afraid of losing my job.

They have integrity, which emerged in the interviews we conducted. They have knowledge. They have experience. They certainly do not take statements of that type with any greater personal seriousness. It does not give them any sleepless nights as they ponder what they should do to satisfy Per Bolund's strange ideas.

I suspect on the contrary that they were fully aware of the parliamentary decision, which entered into force in 2019, to gradually change the composition of the portfolios that the AP funds have. I believe that is the simple explanation for why the concept of threat only arises with Mauricio Rojas and nowhere else.

Many others might actually have perceived it as an enlightenment. That type of enlightenment the current government also gave to the university boards three or four years ago, namely that one needed to terminate all members' board assignments prematurely in order to be able to achieve a different composition and so on. At that time, the concept of threat was never discussed.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The concept of threat appears in several other places in this context. It appeared in the report itself. It also appeared in several questions asked to the Minister. It is therefore not only I who use that word.

What I wonder is why a minister needs to inform officials that they can be dismissed if they do not do as the government wants. They should know that the government has such an authority. Why is it informed? Why is it said explicitly and publicly? Why do you meet them at a meeting and say "You can lose your jobs if you do not do as we say"?

What kind of enlightenment is that? It is no enlightenment. Jan Riise must honestly admit that. It is much more than that. It is very inappropriate. It should not occur within the state administration in our country, in Sweden.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is my fourth review debate during this parliamentary term and the most exciting so far. It is perfectly natural that in these debates, one focuses on highlighting one's greatest hits. But so far during the debate, some new notes have emerged, which I find quite strange.

Jan Riise mentioned that he did not quite recognize himself in Member Brunegård's description of certain processes. Gudrun Brunegård was, of course, not in the chamber then. But for the sake of the matter, I also bring up some things that I did not quite understand or could recognize myself in.

It is, among other things, about the fact that the comparison with Transportstyrelsen and that handling would be unreasonable. I do not buy that in substance. I also think it becomes strange in form. In our reports, we have a heading for each matter where it says "Previous review". It is not only we members who are responsible for it, but we receive a basis from our non-political secretariat, which has the institutional memory and can recall relevant review matters from before. And in the land registry matter specifically, the Transportstyrelsen matter is included as a basis for previous review.

I also do not quite understand or recognize the description that we in the committee minority in any way would have prevented the majority from calling former ministers from the government of 2018.

It has not hindered the majority in other matters, so I cannot really swallow that description of reality either.

I believe that what Gudrun Brunegård and others are referring to is that we from the opposition have pointed out that the committee this year has spent a very large amount of time and effort scrutinizing previous governments. It is completely natural during a change of government that the Committee on the Constitution, in the transition when an old government has lost the election and a new one has taken office, scrutinizes both the previous government and the current one, and that the balance is perhaps a little more 50–50 or 60–40 in one direction or the other. But to claim that we would now have prevented the majority from calling ministers from the old government is simply not true. We do not even have the possibility to do that, which the majority conditions have shown in other matters.

When I say that I do not buy the claim that one cannot make comparisons with Transportstyrelsen in the case, it is naturally about the fact that these cases have several points of contact. There are also important differences, which we have conveyed in the committee's discussions.

The responsible minister, Andreas Carlson, has repeatedly emphasized that the government asked Lantmäteriet if any further measures needed to be taken but received a "no" as an answer, which has previously been highlighted by, among others, Gudrun Brunegård. This would have been a completely reasonable position if it had not been revealed by our investigation that contradictory information regarding the severity of the security flaws was provided during the spring of 2024 by the director-general and the then security protection chief, respectively.

This discrepancy that existed between the situational assessments of two leading officials should have prompted further measures from the Minister for Finance and the Government, which we also express in the position paper. The committee has noted that Andreas Carlson could have requested both additional information and clearer action from the then gd.

Then we come to the part where we do not agree, namely the question of responsibility and how the criticism should be expressed. We in the opposition have maintained that these conclusions – which we agree on in the position – in like manner to what the committee has stated in previous reviews of the same character, should prompt criticism due to deficient actions.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the sharing of information, I also think we are reaching the core of why we have not been able to agree. I have several times heard it described that the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure did not ensure that information was passed on and that neither the Government Offices ensured that information was passed on. But who is the head of the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure? Who is the head of the Government Offices? This is an important part of why we are not in agreement. We have wanted to state what the committee has done previously and clearly point out the responsible minister or the Prime Minister.

The Minister for Defence is a non-insignificant person in the matter concerning Lantmäteriet. Unfortunately, we did not get to hear him in a hearing, but we think it is serious that he found out about the security flaws linked to Lantmäteriet via the media. The Government Offices and the Prime Minister had the information during the spring of 2024, but the Minister for Defence found out about it via the media during the summer.

The time aspect can, of course, be discussed, which can also be done in relation to the Transport Agency, and we have done that. What we mean is that it is fundamentally incorrect and a deficiency that the Minister for Defence found out about this via the media when the Government Offices and other departments had had the information. The Committee has also previously, in the specific case of the Transport Agency, stated that there is a responsibility to ensure that the information is disseminated to the relevant ministers, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the Prime Minister. That is what we have wanted to express as a criticism.

Regarding the consequences of the security deficiencies and the information leaks, I would like to quote the previous speaker from our report: "The Committee's review shows that neither the Government nor the Government Offices have received any assessment from the Swedish Security Service regarding the consequences of the security deficiencies at Lantmäteriet, two years after the information about the incidents reached the Government Offices. At a meeting in January 2025 between the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Justice, and the Swedish Security Service, an assessment was requested, but the Swedish Security Service stated that it could not share any assessments regarding the ongoing supervision. No assessment has been requested since then. The Committee notes that the Government, despite it having been possible, has not taken the initiative for any damage assessment of security policy and societal aspects, as far as can be seen from the information submitted to the Committee."

In previous audits linked to precisely security deficiencies and the government's actions, KU has been able to state that the government's governing function includes an obligation to lead the state administration's activities and, if necessary, ensure that the measures that are necessary from a governance perspective are taken.

The government has therefore still not taken the initiative for any damage assessment of security policy aspects linked to the leaks. If a government does not even attempt to obtain a basic basis in order to be able to take any necessary measures, it must surely be a deficient action and grounds for criticism.

Madam Speaker! I have presented the three parts of this matter where we in the opposition believe there are grounds for criticism. We do not agree with the government parties. They have claimed that we are engaging in political games without constitutional basis. I noted a new tone just now, and it was that Member Mauricio Rojas deviated from what actually stands in our report linked to the AP funds. Now, apparently, the entire then-government is to be held responsible and criticized for not having come out and distanced themselves from Per Bolund's statements.

I think it is deeply problematic if the members of the Committee on the Constitution cannot even when we have a unanimous report regarding the positions stick to what is actually stated in the report. We disagree on the assessments, the gravity, and whether criticism should be directed, but we cannot just make up new criticism that we actually have no grounds for.

I have heard several times that if something is not explicitly stated, it cannot be an error. But how can lack of governance and lack of action not constitute a constitutional ground? Someone would very much like to answer that.

Madam Speaker! I intended to briefly touch upon the review of the AP funds. The committee has concluded that there has been no indirect or direct steering from the government linked to any investments that the AP funds have carried out.

I think it is unfortunate that it is being portrayed as if the committee has scrutinized AP-fondernas investments in Northvolt. That is not what we have done. The complaints have concerned the government's potential influence on these investments and on AP-fondernas autonomy and independence. We from the opposition have raised criticism against Minister Per Bolund's statement, because it risked being perceived as a questioning of AP-fondernas independence. On the other hand, there is nothing in the position paper that indicates that he or any other minister has influenced the investments at all.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, we have a strange situation where we have a unanimous consideration with positions but cannot agree on what should be counted as the basis for criticism. What is distressing is that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats, based on what I have heard so far, seem to mean that we can state general deficiencies in the system regarding the current government, but we cannot say with any clarity which minister bears the responsibility.

It naturally does not hold. If the statements of the Committee on the Constitution are to have a constitutional value, one must also dare to state which ministers are responsible for the shortcomings. We cannot take into account that ministers, their state secretaries, or their press secretaries, as Hans Ekström pointed out in a previous debate, get angry because the KU directs a justified constitutional rebuke.

Former Social Democratic members, two of whom are sitting here today, have been allowed to have that integrity and criticize the Sledda government with significantly clearer positions than has been the case in recent years.

Madam Speaker! According to the voting list, the House is to decide this afternoon on the report *An expanded criminal liability for civil servants*. At the same time, the Committee on the Constitution fails to reach an agreement on the view of the government's fundamental responsibility for the governance of the realm. I believe that gives reason for reflection.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall now deliver my final speech from this rostrum as a Member of Parliament in the Swedish Riksdag. I will speak only on one matter, namely the state AP funds' and the company's investment in Northvolt.

I want to begin this speech by making a small introduction to give those listening to this the bigger picture so that they understand what it is about. There is both a media and a public interest in the issue of the pension billion losses after the AP funds' investment in Northvolt via the venture capital company 4 to 1 Investments.

Madam Speaker! In the spring of 2021, the First–Fourth AP funds formed a so-called venture capital company named 4 to 1 Investments. This occurred following the AP funds' own interpretation and application of the changes in the AP fund legislation that were implemented in 2019 and 2020. In the legislation, the AP funds are given greater opportunity to indirectly invest in unlisted companies or so-called illiquid assets.

It appears that the sole purpose of the venture capital company 4 to 1 Investments was to invest in Northvolt. No other investments were in 4 to 1's portfolio. A normal scope in such a portfolio would rather have been perhaps ten companies, but 4 to 1 invested only in Northvolt.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of June 2021, a first investment was made in Northvolt with 3.3 billion of the Swedes' pension capital. In August 2022, a second investment was made, this time with 2.5 billion of the pension capital.

As is known, Northvolt went bankrupt just over a year ago. Together with the Kreuger crash in the 1930s, it is by far the largest bankruptcy in Sweden. The social costs are immense, and according to media reports, Northvolt's debts exceed 80 billion kronor. Northvolt's bankruptcy has also caused a major economic impact on the local communities in Skellefteå and Västerås.

Thus, 6 billion of the Swedish people's pension capital has been lost. We are talking about pension capital that should have gone to nursing assistants, construction workers, police officers and teachers, to name a few occupational groups.

Madam Speaker! We have carried out a number of investigative measures in the Committee on the Constitution. We have looked at newspaper articles with interviews of ministers, we have read transcriptions from parliamentary debates, we have submitted written questions to ministers, CEOs and the chairman of the AP funds and we have, not least, had a number of hearings of these persons.

We have investigated the issue on a constitutional basis, but as we state in report KU20 on page 233: "In conclusion, it can be stated that the AP funds' investment in Northvolt raised several questions that are not part of the committee's review." In my statement, I shall shortly focus on exactly that part. I assess that it is in the public interest to know why 6 billion of our common pension capital disappeared.

Madam Speaker! Everything seems to have taken its beginning in 2017. The CEO of the Fourth AP Fund stated during the inquiry that it was then that one began to take an interest in Northvolt. For my part, I can say that I did as well in 2017. At that time, I was an entrepreneur and worked with industrial projects. I was in the company of some colleagues invited to Northvolt's Stockholm office at Gamla Brogatan, not so far from here, in December 2017.

I have a fairly clear memory of our visit to Northvolt. It was a complete mess, and the technological development was still a long way from the production of a battery cell. Some years later, one of my colleagues was involved in conducting a due diligence of Northvolt on behalf of a private investor. The result was glaringly red. There were unfinished technical solutions and a lack of competence for process technology and industrial construction, seasoned with an over-optimistic timeline for the industrial project.

In light of this, I wonder what it was that made the AP funds so interested in Northvolt at this point in time. I believe the answer to that question lies in two parts, Madam Speaker.

Firstly, it was the spirit of the times, as it is called. The CEO of the Second AP Fund spoke about this, among other things, during the inquiry. Green and sustainable investments characterized the so-called spirit of the times, or as Magdalena Andersson expressed it in a parliamentary debate: ”We are now seeing that wave of investments washing over Sweden with battery factories in the north but also in Western Sweden, fossil-free steel production and green mining activities. … It would not have looked like this if Miljöpartiet had not existed in Sweden's parliament … and pushed forward.” Furthermore, she mentioned that it was with a combination of sticks and carrots.

Secondly, the then environment party and social democratic government pushed for green and sustainable investments, with everything from green credits to new legislation that the AP funds would have to comply with. The latter was adopted by a unanimous Riksdag; we must be careful to say that.

I believe this highlights a problem, namely that politicians decide which industrial projects shall receive state funds and benefits. We have seen several examples of bad and unprofitable investments: Northvolt, green ethanol and wind power initiatives, not to mention Stålverk 80, for those who remember it. The common denominator is that the state has, in various ways, supported the projects with credits, grants and/or loans.

Madam Speaker! In the light of the spirit of the times, one can take into account former Minister for Financial Markets Per Bolund's statement regarding the AP funds' sustainability work in light of the new legislation from 2019 and 2020. He said: "I have informed them very clearly." Furthermore, he said: "If they do not understand the government's signals, we may need to recruit new boards that have a better understanding of what we expect. It is a very concrete opportunity that we have. I expect that major changes will occur."

The committee's position is that this could risk being perceived as an indirect questioning of the AP funds' independence. It is noteworthy that the statement was discussed at the board level in the AP funds. Among other things, the CEO of the Third AP Fund cited the inappropriateness of such statements by ministers. I fully agree with that position.

Furthermore, one can take into account Magdalena Andersson's praise of Miljöpartiet in the chamber of the Riksdag. I believe it is obvious to everyone that the spirit of the times set an agenda for industrial policy, towards green and sustainable. Everyone ran in the same direction, in several cases unfortunately with poor or very poor results.

Madam Speaker! During the review of the AP funds' failed investment in Northvolt, I have on several occasions been told by both colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution as well as former ministers and CEOs of the AP funds that 6 billion is a small amount in relation to the AP funds' portfolio value of over 2,000 billion. The CEO of the Fourth AP Fund mentioned during the hearing that the AP funds' profits amounted to 480 billion over a four-year period.

Madam Speaker! Of course, 6 billion is a little in relation to 480 or 2,000, but I suspect that attitude is intended to downplay the damage. 6 billion is an enormous amount of money, and the social costs are sky-high: human tragedies and people who have had to leave their homes and been cast into unemployment.

I think it would be appropriate if, instead, a more humble attitude had been chosen towards the entire affair, where 6 billion of the Swedish people's pension capital went up in smoke. I also want to remind that the entire bankruptcy amounts to 80 billion kronor.

Madam Speaker! I am in no way against green or sustainable investments. I am also well aware that investments in new projects in themselves entail a risk. What I have a problem with is the manner in which it occurred in this case, with politicians who interfered indirectly or directly and AP funds that bypassed legislation and failed in the scrutiny of the company and project that were to receive capital. All new projects and investments must be able to stand on their own feet.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the manner in which the AP funds' investment in Northvolt proceeded, the criticism from, among others, the Ministry of Finance's external investigation is unequivocal: It did not go well.

I would like to conclude by saying to the First–Fourth AP funds and former Minister Per Bolund: Shame on you!

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is the first time someone has devoted a considerable part of their speaking time to something that the KU does not investigate. That the activities of the AP funds have nothing to do with the KU, we have discussed several times before. I therefore feel somewhat compelled to take the floor and ask about this somewhat peculiar guilt by association that I believe Member Engsund is engaging in when he tries to prove that Bolund's statement in 2019, and the accompanying political consensus on the AP funds' changed direction regarding the sustainability dimension in investments, contributed to investments in Northvolt, which subsequently tragically went bankrupt.

I completely share the view that this is particularly tragic for Skellefteå and all the people who traveled there to get jobs and work with a future-oriented business. The same applies to other locations as well. So, we are in agreement here.

I do not, however, see the connection between the statement we are examining and what happened thereafter. I would be grateful for a clarification.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Let me remind you that it is the Swedish language that applies in the chamber, and if one uses an expression in English or any other language, it is good to translate it directly so that everyone understands.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! I am not sure if I understood the question, but as I was careful to say, I tried in my speech to make a personal reflection on the matter as such. There is a media and public interest, and I have several friends who have contacted me regarding the AP funds. Therefore, I believe it is quite important that people get to know how I view the matter.

I realize, however, that it is not the Committee on the Constitution's task to review the commercial basis in this matter.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lars for the answer.

Guilt by association, or associationsskuld in Swedish, means in this case that a statement from 2019 is linked to events during 2021 and 2022. The statement also concerned the funds' changed direction, which was decided by a unanimous Riksdag in 2018 and entered into force in 2019.

Where is the bridge between these two events? What is it that makes it assumed that one has something to do with the other? Just as Lars Engsund says, we are not here to audit the AP funds. That has been and is being done in other ways, and there will surely be more updates and audits of that.

There is, however, a report concerning whether this specific statement has in any way affected the investments in Northvolt, and the answer after both written and oral inquiries is no, no, and again no from everyone involved.

I would like to hear where the connection is. Where is the bridge between the statement and subsequent events in the form of investments?

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! Then I understand the member a little better.

Per Bolund made his statement in the autumn of 2019, and what I tried to describe in my speech was the spirit of the times and the agenda that applied to politics, regarding the green and the sustainable. Again: I have no problems with either green or sustainable, but it must stand on its own feet. What I have difficulty with are green credits and other grants and loans that have been distributed to this type of investment.

In my speech, I mentioned that on page 233 of the report it states: "In conclusion, it can be stated that the AP funds' investment in Northvolt raised several questions that are not part of the committee's review." It was precisely this that I targeted in my speech.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! For a week's time, I have heard various representatives for the Tidö parties speak about how the opposition engages in political games and that we have no basis for the critical issues we want to see without it just being about party politics.

I have great respect for the fact that one may want to make digressions and personal reflections even in a review debate concerning KU's matters. But KU does not review AP funds' investments in Northvolt. Just as I mentioned earlier, there is a tendency in the debate to make quite large digressions from both what the reviews are about and KU's positions.

I noted that Lars Engsund, in his speech, quoted Magdalena Andersson's statement about "carrots and sticks" in a party leader debate. What Lars Engsund did not say is that the KU has asked written questions regarding this in two rounds and also questioned Magdalena Andersson. This statement was made within the framework of a rebuttal in a party leader debate, and the KU usually emphasizes that such a debate is of a more polemical character and that we therefore have a different basis for assessment than with prepared statements.

In our position regarding Magdalena Andersson's statement, it states: "The points raised in the exchange of remarks do not give reason for any statement by the committee." Does Lars Engsund stand behind this conclusion?

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me remind Member Hedberg that I was attempting to describe a sequence of events and a spirit of the times.

It is completely correct that the KU is not criticizing Magdalena Andersson for her statement. But this must be taken into context of that I tried to describe the spirit of the times that prevailed then. It is that simple. I have in no way criticized Magdalena Andersson for this statement.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lars Engsund for the clarification, for this was not so clear in the statement.

There have been occasions during the review when I have reflected on the amount of material in the written documentation and what we have engaged in during the hearings says about the committee's work, linked to what I mentioned in my speech regarding the balance between the review of previous governments and the current government.

It is very good that Lars Engsund clarifies that he stands behind what the committee says regarding the statement providing no basis for criticism from KU.

So, to something where I want to remind that the entire committee is in agreement. The opposition has stood behind the fact that Per Bolund's statement risked being misinterpreted and misunderstood as an indirect questioning of the AP funds. But what I heard in Lars Engsund's statement and earlier during the debate prompts me to ask: Does Lars Engsund stand behind KU's conclusion that Per Bolund's statement has had no direct or indirect steering function on the AP funds' decision to invest in Northvolt?

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall answer the question, but first and foremost: Throughout this entire review, I have noted that the subject of Northvolt is like a minefield in KU. I know that we have balanced and perhaps had an overweight towards the non-constitutional, but the purpose has been to understand the whole. I stand behind the Committee on the Constitution's positions every single day. There is nothing else on my agenda. What I am trying to describe is the spirit of the times and what is happening. Even the so-called Arkwright report, the Ministry of Finance's investigation, points out that there likely was no direct political steering.

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

Lena Malm (S)

Madam Speaker! The matter I intend to comment on is the review of security flaws within Lantmäteriet and the societal consequences of what has happened.

Lantmäteriet has since the 1990s been subjected to strong pressure for change and for demands that have been significant for the agency's priorities. There have, among other things, been demands for open data, accessibility, digitalization, and shorter processing times within the area of real estate formation. The focus within the agency has been on meeting these demands and unfortunately not on security protection and information security.

In the spring of 2024, the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure became aware of deficiencies in Lantmäteriet's handling of the provision of land registry documents via the agency's customer service. Lantmäteriet then informed the responsible agency officials that the agency had reported a security incident to the Swedish Security Service. The incident consisted of the agency applying an order which meant that land registry documents requested were provided via customer service without prior security screening. As a consequence of this, the digital archive was closed in May of the same year.

On every occasion that the department met with Lantmäteriet regarding the security deficiencies, the question was asked whether the authority saw any need for any form of support from the Government Offices or any decision by the government to move forward in its work, but the authority expressed that there were no such needs. What is unfortunate in this context is that there is no documentation from those meetings.

The Minister for Infrastructure and Housing said during the inquiry that he and the Government Offices had on several occasions asked Lantmäteriet about the need for further measures from the government's side. In light of the information the department and the minister received, one can question whether it was sufficient that the government relied on Lantmäteriet's own assessment of whether any measures needed to be taken.

The committee argues that the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing could have requested both additional information and clearer action regarding the need to take measures. The contacts that occurred after March 2024 until the closure of the external access to, among other things, the digital archive Arken were made orally and have not been documented. This makes it impossible to follow which measures were discussed and to find out whether the department chose not to understand the consequences of the closure.

Madam Speaker! The new order has resulted in the processing time for matters regarding the disclosure of public documents increasing significantly. The Department has continuously followed the authority's work to rectify the long processing times, which has occurred through meetings and telephone contacts. But none of these contacts have been documented either.

We know that the shutdown of the digital archive in May 2024 has resulted in delays and longer processing times for planning and building permit cases across the country. While measures are being taken, the municipalities' planning and building offices are struggling to handle building permits and detailed plans without access to the digital archive. Instead of searching for information digitally, the municipalities must now request files manually, one by one, from Lantmäteriet. This limits the municipalities' ability to provide clear advice and service, which is very important for new development and building permits.

Lantmäteriet has since the closure worked to reopen the digital archive. Initially, the plan was to do so already in December 2024. In March 2026, the agency announced that access to the archive is delayed. One month later, they announced that it is delayed until 2027. Those affected are municipalities, companies, private individuals, and everyone else who works with detailed plans, building permits, and property development.

Madam Speaker! The Committee notes that according to the so-called principle of responsibility, issues arising within the scope of a certain authority's activities are handled by the department to which the authority belongs. This applies to both security incidents and longer processing times at the authority.

The Committee notes in the report – and is in complete agreement – that the government, despite it having been possible, has not taken the initiative for any impact assessment of either the security policy or the societal aspects of what has been reported to the Committee, which is noteworthy.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the time this spring that I have served as a substitute in the committee. It has been educational, and I am deeply impressed by the Committee on the Constitution's secretariat and by the work that has been done during the spring, both with the other reports and – above all – with the review report, which consists of many hundreds of pages. I also want to thank you in the committee for the work during the spring.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I know that I speak for everyone in the committee when I thank Lena Malm for the incredibly delicious cake. She is welcome to return to the committee as a substitute for other members in the future!

Madam Speaker! Now I shall become a little more serious and speak about a matter in chapter 3.

The committee has examined the government's management of security flaws at Lantmäteriet. During the review, it became clear to all of us that the security flaws within Lantmäteriet have been significantly greater than what first emerged, and that the consequences for Sweden's security are difficult to oversee. The government's own investigator stated this year that security-classified information and defense secrets have been openly available and have therefore been considered disclosed.

One has been able to sit at home and collect information about facilities in Sweden from Lantmäteriets enormous database. The fact that this information has been openly available for many years makes the whole thing even more problematic. The consequences are, according to the investigator, difficult to fully oversee. According to the investigator, it is also difficult to see that the damages can be fully repaired. The investigator also establishes that the perspective is larger than merely Lantmäteriets activities. It is about the entirety of Sweden's security.

The investigator's collective conclusion is that there are serious deficiencies regarding information security, secrecy screening, and personal data management. The investigator actually said himself, in connection with the submission of his investigation to the government, that the closure of the archive was completely necessary and should have occurred much earlier. Note: This is what the government's own investigator says, not us in the opposition.

During the spring of 2024, the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure received information on several occasions regarding serious security incidents at Lantmäteriet. On one of these occasions, the agency's then security protection chief stated that customer service did not perform any confidentiality review when handing out documents. Furthermore, Lantmäteriet's customers with direct access could obtain information from the Arken database without a confidentiality review. According to the security protection chief, this was something that the then gd considered should not be disclosed to the ministry.

Against the background of the information that the department and the minister received, as well as the discrepancy between the director-general's and the security chief's analyses and conclusions, the committee states that it can be questioned whether it was sufficient for the government to rely on Lantmäteriet's own assessment of which measures needed to be taken. Requesting further information could likely have been done. KU therefore considers that the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing could have requested both additional information and clearer action from the director-general regarding the questions in question.

Madam Speaker! The review has also covered the further dissemination of information regarding the security flaws that occurred within the Government Offices. There are routines for how the transfer of information should take place between the departments, and in the case in question, the routines were followed in relation to and within the Government Offices' Preparatory Committee. At the same time, it can be questioned whether the existing routines correspond to the requirements for information sharing when such serious security flaws have been identified. Given the activities that Lantmäteriet conducts, which concern large parts of society, the committee therefore considers that the Ministry of Defence should also have been informed about the security flaws earlier than what now occurred.

Madam Speaker! This matter is for me an enormously clear deficiency.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! That we have knowledgeable, non-political civil servants who provide continuity and stability when we politicians can be replaced every four years is vital for our democracy. They provide the expertise when it comes to, for example, economic management and legislative processes. They help us with background material that highlights issues from different perspectives. They update us on research and effective methods for achieving our political goals.

Equally important is that the civil servants are prepared to work with the tasks and new guidelines that follow from a change of government, as that is how we elected representatives can achieve the policies we have promised the voters. However, it is not the same as that civil servants must always be loyal in the sense that they should obey and bow and scrape to us politicians. They must act objectively and impartially regardless of their own preferences in a political issue, but also regardless of what we politicians want to hear.

In the Government Offices' ethical guidelines, it is stated that those who work there shall demonstrate integrity and good judgment and an ethical approach that commands respect.

Madam Speaker! There are two matters in this year's review that particularly concern these fundamental questions regarding the role and responsibility of public officials.

One deals with the so-called civil servant protest, which has been raised earlier in the debate here. It meant, as the audience has heard, that a number of employees at the Government Offices in a letter stated that they wanted answers from their highest superior on how they are expected to act if the state's value base for civil servants comes into conflict with the loyalty requirement to the incoming government. This occurred in September 2018 and was first reported in the autumn.

The second report concerns the treatment, pay, and career development for precisely those officials who signed this letter and other persons who are perceived as inconvenient.

In the newspaper Dagens ETC, a number of people expressed concern that there are blacklists where one can be listed if one is assumed to be a political opponent, primarily of the Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! In the committee's review, it has been included to find out how it is ensured that it is objective grounds such as merit and skill that form the basis for job offers and salary setting at the Government Offices. We can jointly state that guidelines and processes are in place.

In the review, the Government Offices have also stated that the party affiliation or personal political views of non-political officials are not documented.

It is also clear from the responses from the Government Offices that the Sweden Democrats' coordination office is not formally involved in either the appointment of positions or salary setting. That is a welcome piece of news, Madam Speaker, for what this round of scrutiny has shown is that the Sweden Democrats do not always understand the difference between acting objectively as a civil servant based on one's expertise and responsibility, and opposing politically made decisions. This is shown, not least by the case concerning their aid organization, Hepatica, which will come in the next section.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by stating that these are not simple issues and that it is easy to make a mistake, both for employees and for politicians. The distribution of roles and the drawing of boundaries need to be able to be discussed in our politically governed organizations at all levels – region, municipality, and parliament – and both between employees and between employees and politicians together. I hope that the work being done in the Committee on the Constitution strengthens the ability to handle this difficult issue of boundary-setting.

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

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! I will touch upon the matter of the statements regarding Region Stockholm that have circulated during this parliamentary term.

I was just sitting and counting backwards. How long have I myself been employed within Region Stockholm? It actually becomes 45 years in July. I have to be employed for two more years before I am thrown into retirement and am not allowed to have permanent employment.

This is an important issue for me. It concerns my employer, whom I have actually respected for 45 years, and I feel that many of these statements are not quite truthful or are based on information that is not verified.

The Committee on the Constitution has examined statements regarding eating disorder care in Stockholm and care queues in Region Stockholm. The statements have been made in spontaneous replies but also in prepared speeches. Furthermore, I can state that this continues in the chamber. As recently as last week, eating disorder care was raised in the party leaders' debate, in a prepared speech of five minutes. However, it has not been reported to the Committee on the Constitution.

As always, the committee has sent questions to the Government Offices. Here, the questions concerned what evidence the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services had for their statements and to strengthen their statements. Here I have found two reasons for the lack: partly the seven-line answer from the Government Offices, and partly that they have not verified their information.

Here is the answer: ”The statements were based, among other things, on the health and medical care administration at Region Stockholm's figures on the number of care beds” – regarding the number of care beds, not regarding care queues – on the circumstance that the region did not extend the agreement with Mandometerklinikerna and on patient stories that have appeared in the media. According to the patient stories, Region Stockholm's eating disorder care did not function in a satisfactory way. The Minister for Social Services had, in addition, received a share of further patient stories with a corresponding meaning.

This was the only answer KU received from the Government Offices, and I believe that answer alone is a deficiency.

The Committee notes the following, Madam Speaker: "The review has not revealed on what basis the statements in question are fully founded. Regarding the Prime Minister's statement, it should however be noted that it was made in connection with an exchange of remarks during an ongoing party leader debate. The Minister for Social Services' statement may, on the other hand, be assumed to have been made within the framework of a prepared speech. Against that background, the Committee wishes to reiterate what was previously stated regarding that statements from ministers must be correct and accurate." This is the Committee's opinion.

Let us talk about what applies to the eating disorder care in Stockholm. The Government Offices answer that they have not extended the agreement. But, my friends and Madam Speaker, it was not possible to extend that agreement.

Each of us who has worked with municipal procurement knows that one determines the period for which the agreement applies and how many times it can be extended, and after that, a new procurement must be made. But here, it was decided that due to the lack of quality from the company, they wanted to take this back in-house to what was called Ätstörningscentrum in Stockholm.

What was it regarding the lack of quality? Well, it was too few contacts with licensed staff, it was about the methods not being evidence-based, and it was about incorrect registrations. When one had written in the app what one had eaten, it was registered as a physical visit.

The District Court's judgment was harsh. One must pay back 67 million to Region Stockholm and its taxpayers.

I asked a question to the Prime Minister during the inquiry, and I would like to ask this question again with the final result in hand. It concerns very few contacts with licensed personnel, methods that are not evidence-based, and that one is now liable for reimbursement. The question is: Would the Prime Minister still defend Mando in the Chamber? The Prime Minister answered in the inquiry that he did not want to comment on individual contracts and individual companies, and then he began to talk about the New Karolinska Hospital. That was not what we were intended to talk about.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, the notification concerns the healthcare queues, which are claimed to have become longer, but if one trusts the National Board of Health and Welfare's measurements, the queues have on the contrary become shorter. The waiting time for surgery has been shortened by three weeks. The waiting time for ordinary operations, i.e., those included in the healthcare guarantee, has also been shortened.

One can compare with the waiting times in the kingdom. The waiting time for hip replacement surgery is 51 days in Stockholm and 114 days on average in the kingdom; for cataracts, it is 36 days in Stockholm and 56 days in the kingdom. For hernia surgery, one has to wait 95 days in Stockholm, and the average in the kingdom is 153 days. For knee replacement surgery, it is 66 days in Stockholm and 139 days in the kingdom, when measured. Finally, in Region Stockholm, one has to wait 50 days for surgery of inguinal hernia and 124 days in the whole kingdom. All these examples are included in the healthcare guarantee.

It would have been nice if, as a minister, you had looked at the entire basis. Even better would it have been if the committee had received more material from the Government Offices than the few lines that were the result. In addition, it can be said that Vårdföretagarna, the trade organization for private healthcare companies, submitted their report at the end of last week – and lo and behold! Region Stockholm is the best in its class.

It is my recommendation that one should start preparing the correct underlying material before expressing oneself in the chamber.

The objections in this matter concern in particular the Minister for Social Services' statement regarding eating disorder care – because that statement was prepared. It also concerns the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister for Social Services could provide which underlying documents they used for their statements.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Chapter 4 of this year's review report concerns, as we have learned, the ministers' exercise of their duties. It concerns something that is absolutely crucial for a functioning democracy: trust. It concerns the trust that those who govern the country do so for Sweden's best, the trust that decisions are made on objective grounds, and the trust that the same rules apply to both those in power as well as to ordinary people.

Madam Speaker! A large part of the chapter deals with shareholdings, gifts, and conflicts of interest. During the year, the committee has examined several different situations where a minister's private economic interests have raised questions regarding precisely trust. This includes, among other things, the former Minister for Education's disclosure of shareholdings and the former Minister for Migration's purchase and holding of shares. It also concerns the former Minister for Education's purchase of shares in a technology company after the government had made a decision to strengthen a research and innovation program where this company was included as a business representative.

The committee's review shows that it is not only about avoiding actual conflict of interest situations. It is also about avoiding situations that can give rise to legitimate questions about conflicts of interest and which thereby risk damaging confidence in the government. In several of the reviewed cases, the committee finds that the handling has been deficient. In the most prominent case, concerning the former Minister for Education's share transactions, the committee's assessment is unusually clear.

The committee's review shows that it is not enough for a minister to consider themselves to have acted correctly. The circumstances surrounding the actions must withstand scrutiny. For a minister, it is not sufficient to avoid conflict of interest, but as stated, one must also avoid situations that risk even creating suspicions of conflict of interest. It is precisely for that reason that the committee places such great weight on the issue of confidence in several of the cases under review.

The committee finds that the minister's actions in their entirety did not live up to the requirements following from the Instrument of Government and that confidence in him as a minister can therefore be questioned. This goes to the core of the confidence that must exist between the citizens and those who exercise the highest political power in the country.

Madam Speaker! Particularly serious is the matter concerning the former Minister of Education's share transactions. Here, the committee uses unusually clear formulations. The committee finds that the minister's actions in their entirety did not live up to the requirements following from the Instrument of Government and that confidence can thus be questioned. These are not everyday formulations in a review report, but it is a clear marking from the Swedish Riksdag.

This also illustrates very well why these rules exist. It is not because one assumes that people want to do wrong, but because those in power must avoid situations that can give rise to suspicions that private interests are influencing public decisions.

Madam Speaker! The chapter also contains reviews of the foreign policy area. One of these concerns the Foreign Minister's statements regarding deprived Swedish citizens in Israel.

When Swedish citizens are deprived of their liberty abroad, it is natural that the issue evokes strong engagement, but it is also situations where the government's communication must be characterized by clarity and accountability. Statements from ministers can have unforeseen consequences far from Sweden's borders. It is therefore important that the government's representatives express themselves in a way that does not create uncertainty about Sweden's position or about the government's work for Swedish citizens.

Madam Speaker! Another matter that illustrates the importance of clear and coordinated communication concerns the issue of indexing the assistance allowance. The review has revealed that different messages were issued at different times regarding both the status of the matter and the government's intentions. Information from the Ministry of Social Affairs, statements from the Minister for Social Affairs, and later statements from the Minister for Finance gave an not entirely consistent picture of the preparation of the issue.

The committee notes that the status and timeline of the matter in question have been described in different ways and that it may be questioned whether the coordination between the relevant departments has truly been sufficient.

Madam Speaker! Another matter concerns the Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade's actions regarding support to UNRWA. Here, the committee notes that Sida, as a state administrative authority, is subject to the government and shall follow the governance provided through, among other things, regulatory letters and instructions. At the same time, Sida makes independent decisions on which organizations shall receive support within the framework of the governance that applies.

The review shows that the government decided in December 2024 to terminate the core support to UNRWA and that Sida later made the assessment that the agency would, for the time being, not continue to finance UNRWA's humanitarian response work. Sida had simultaneously assessed that UNRWA had a very high capacity to quickly convert funding into humanitarian activities in Gaza. The committee therefore points to the specific conditions that apply when aid is closely linked to foreign policy.

There is a need for dialogue between the Government Offices and the agency, but such contacts must be kept within the formal framework and be more focused on information than on governance. The committee also emphasizes the importance of documentation when the government specifies or clarifies the meaning of its policy towards an agency.

It is an important milestone. In matters concerning large aid funds, humanitarian crises, and sensitive foreign policy considerations, the distribution of responsibility must be clear both for the authority and for the subsequent democratic oversight.

Madam Speaker! The chapter also contains reviews of the ministers' statements. As we have heard, this includes, among other things, statements on healthcare queues, the fiscal framework, the assistance allowance, and foreign policy issues.

The statements of Ministers have great significance both for the public's understanding of the government's policy and for the trust in the public sector. When different messages are given on the same issue or when descriptions differ, uncertainty can arise regarding the government's intentions and positions. Clear and consistent messages strengthen trust in the public sector and make it easier for citizens to understand the government's policy.

Madam Speaker! There is a clear common thread throughout the chapter: power requires responsibility, power requires judgment, and power requires integrity. The one who has received the voters' trust must show themselves worthy of that trust every day. It is about how one handles one's private economic interests, how one makes decisions, and how one speaks. It is also about how one acts when questions of bias or conflicts of interest arise.

With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you – not just for today but for good! I would therefore like to express my thanks to you, my dear committee colleagues, after five fantastic years. The last year has been a bit turbulent, but on a personal level – when one speaks with all of you on trips or over a cup of coffee – it feels good. I think we work well together. And as they say: One has to tolerate some differences of opinion!

Thank you also to all of you speakers and staff at the Riksdag! You have been fantastic babysitters for me all these years. The biggest thanks, however, goes to a completely fantastic presidium, which guides us and makes us less confused people.

(Applause)

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution's task is to review the government and the ministers' performance of their duties. As we have heard here today, it is one of the Riksdag's most important control functions, and we have certainly exercised this control this spring.

In a democracy, it is not enough for decisions to be made formally correctly; power must also be exercised in a way that inspires confidence in the citizens. Therefore, the committee emphasizes the importance of ministers acting in such a way that there is not even a suspicion that private interests can influence public decisions. I therefore want to specifically address the matters in this review that concern the ministers' shareholdings and conflict of interest issues.

First, it concerns Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard. On 29 May 2024, the Foreign Minister purchased shares in an IT and defense company for approximately 10,000 kronor. At the same time, negotiations were underway within Försvarets materielverk regarding a large order of combat vehicles in which the company's equipment would be included. Later, the minister participated in a government decision to authorize the defense to carry out the purchase.

The committee notes that the company was not a formal party in the matter and that nothing has emerged suggesting insider trading or improper conduct. Furthermore, the shareholding was limited, and the shares were sold later. At the same time, the committee argues that the situation nevertheless risked giving rise to suspicions of a conflict of interest. Another circumstance is that the share purchase was reported late to the Government Offices, which hindered the possibility of detecting and handling a potential conflict of interest.

Madam Speaker! The Instrument of Government is clear: Ministers may not handle matters where impartiality can be questioned due to personal or economic interests. But the responsibility is not solely about avoiding formal conflict of interest; it is also about judgment and about avoiding situations that can damage public trust. It is actually a bit like in the Football World Cup – you know about this VAR. VAR freezes the image at exactly the right moment, and we in KU freeze the atmosphere at Rosenbad.

Furthermore, the review addresses similar issues regarding the then Minister for Employment and Integration, Mats Persson. There too, it concerns the obligation to report and the importance of transparency regarding financial holdings. The committee notes that share transactions were not reported without delay, which hindered the possibility of oversight and control.

At the same time, there is nothing to suggest that the Minister deliberately tried to withhold information or benefit himself financially. The criticism is rather about a lack of routines and the importance of the regulatory framework being followed consistently and in a timely manner. If information is not submitted correctly or without delay, it becomes more difficult to detect the various conflicts of interest that may arise.

Civil Minister Erik Slottner's shareholdings in the wind power company Eolus have also been scrutinized. The Civil Minister participated in a government decision linked to the Najaderna wind farm, which was operated by a subsidiary of Eolus. It should also be stated that the minister had correctly reported his shareholdings and had previously also reported a conflict of interest in other matters concerning Eolus. According to his own statement, he was also unaware of the connection between the subsidiary and Eolus at the time of the decision.

Despite this, the committee emphasizes the importance of ministers paying attention to situations where bias or suspicion of conflicts of interest may arise. It is not enough that the rules exist on paper; it also requires functioning routines, diligence, and good judgment.

The review of the former Minister for Education, Johan Pehrson, also shows similar problems. Several shareholdings were not reported in the information submitted to the Government Offices. According to the Minister himself, this was due to technical and administrative errors in the reporting. The Committee does not also make the assessment that it has been a matter of any intentional concealment, but the consequence was nevertheless that the possibility of reviewing any potential conflicts of interest was hindered.

This illustrates why the rules on the obligation to report are so important. Transparency is not an administrative formality but a prerequisite for democracy, oversight, and trust. Ministers manage a very great trust, and therefore the requirements must be high.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: KU's task is not to speculate on motives or attribute intentions to people that cannot be substantiated. Nor is it KU's task to create political games. The task is to safeguard trust in our democratic institutions and for the Swedish system of government, as well as to ensure that the high requirements placed on ministers are also met in practice. It is actually just like in football – VAR looks for handball, and KU looks for which hands have been in the pickle jar.

Ministers do not only manage power; they also manage the citizens' trust. That is precisely why the Committee on the Constitution is needed.

This was also my final speech for this parliamentary term, and I want to thank the office – including Judit, who is sitting over there. I want to thank my colleagues in the committee and my colleagues in Tidögänget. I also think the Madam Speaker has been fantastic. A thousand thanks!

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin this session by briefly commenting on a cluster of matters where the committee agrees to express deficiencies in the Minister's performance of duties. It concerns the Minister's participation in government meetings where matters related to the Minister's shareholdings are being handled. According to the regulations, one should in such cases declare a conflict of interest and not participate in the decisions. The committee unanimously notes that this has been done to varying degrees. These are four separate matters, so in reality, the committee's majority expresses deficiencies in a total of eight matters – not five, as has been said several times during the day.

I move on to the Minister for Rural Affairs' statements in connection with the legal review of licensed wolf hunting. In the report, the question is raised as to whether the minister exerted pressure on courts and administrative authorities when, after the Administrative Court in Luleå overturned the county administrative boards' decisions on licensed wolf hunting, he expressed that it would surprise him greatly if the decision were not appealed. The report also raises the question of what research underlies the government's view on the number of wolves needed for a viable population. The Minister for Rural Affairs has stated that researchers who concluded what management measures were needed for the decision were used.

The review has revealed that the minister's intention was not to influence the independence of the administration or the courts. The statement was made as part of the general debate, because the assessments of the county administrative boards and the administrative courts differed significantly. The statement regarding the size of the wolf population was based on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's report. The review gives no reason for any statement by the committee.

I need to devote a little more time to Ebba Busch's statements in various media regarding the stance towards Israel in connection with the war against Hamas. The complainant interprets it as a questioning of the government's stated line in relation to Israel and as the government's actual foreign policy line becoming unclear.

The committee's investigation has, among other things, addressed what dignity the title of deputy prime minister entails. From a constitutional point of view, it does not differ from other ministerial titles. According to one of the memoranda in the matter, the title means that in the event of an impediment to the prime minister, Ebba Busch performs his duties in the capacity of deputy. The title has, however, been stated to provide advantages in international contexts.

Statements on foreign policy can be sensitive. It is primarily the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on such issues that indicate Sweden's official policy in the area. The Committee considers it appropriate that all ministers make a check against the government's official position before they make statements in the area of foreign policy.

In the case in question, it appears from the posts on Facebook and Instagram that Ebba Busch made these statements in her capacity as party leader. The measures she listed to increase pressure on Hamas constitute the Christian Democrats' view on such matters that could become relevant. The review therefore gives no reason for any statement by the committee.

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade's actions regarding support to UNRWA is another matter that has been scrutinized. The scrutiny is based on the fact that Sida's officials, in a report, concluded that UNRWA was the organization that had the best resources and opportunities to operate in Gaza. Despite this, Sida's management chose to make a different decision and instead convey aid for emergency relief through other organizations. A number of SMS messages between the then State Secretary and Sida's Director-General are included in the investigation material.

The Government governs the state administrative authorities through collective decision-making and can issue directives to the authorities in line with applicable law. The Government may, however, not decide how an administrative authority shall decide in a specific case concerning the exercise of authority against an individual or against a municipality or concerning the application of law. In such cases, the authorities are independent in their decision-making.

In the regulatory letter for 2024, it was stated that 400 million kronor could be paid out to UNRWA after requisition. On 29 October 2024, Israel adopted a law aimed at banning UNRWA's activities on Israeli territory and which prohibited contacts between UNRWA and Israeli authorities. On 19 December 2024, the Swedish government decided to terminate the core support to UNRWA. Among other things, the organization's operational capacity in Palestine was considered following the decision that Israel had made.

In the regulatory letter for 2025, UNRWA was no longer included. However, it was stated that up to 800 million kronor would be allocated for distribution to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and in the region according to future decisions by the government. This has also occurred via a number of central actors such as the UN's food program, World Food Programme, the UN Children's Fund Unicef, the UN Population Fund, UNFPA, and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Despite the government's decision, Sida informed of its assessment of the operational environment for UNRWA in Palestine and Gaza at a meeting between the Secretary of State and the Director-General. The Director-General raised the government's decision to terminate core funding to UNRWA and asked if any work was underway to reconsider the decision. That was not the case.

Two days later, on May 15, 2025, a new instruction for Sida entered into force. It states, among other things, that the agency shall contribute to the implementation of the government's aid policy and pay out financial grants in accordance with the strategies the government has decided on for Swedish development cooperation and humanitarian aid. On the same day, the State Secretary contacted the Director-General via SMS and referred to the fact that the aid shall harmonize with Swedish foreign policy according to the new ordinance. On May 19, the Director-General contacted the Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade and handed it over at a meeting the day after the current memorandum.

The government's foreign policy goals are expressed in the foreign policy declaration and in the thematic and regional aid strategies that the government decides on in other government decisions as well as in Sida's regulatory letter. The committee notes that foreign policy can be formulated and expressed in a number of different ways. Through this, the agency is assumed to be able, in a relatively broad way, to read and interpret the direction and framework that shall apply to the operations. This becomes particularly clear during major changes in foreign policy. What has emerged in the review in this part gives no reason for any statement by the committee.

It is at the same time essential that the informal contacts do not go beyond the formal framework of the agency's activities and that these contacts are more focused on information than on governance. The committee emphasizes the importance of documentation from dialogues and notes in this context that the State Secretary has expressed that she did not want to receive any report from Sida regarding the agency's assessment of UNRWA's ability to act in Gaza, which is noteworthy. This view is not shared by the Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, who on the contrary has expressed that he is positive towards Sida continuously submitting documentation with assessments.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I wondered for a moment if this is my last contribution to the debates on KU20. I hope and believe it is. However, we do have a few more questions. I will try to be brief.

We are approaching the end of this marathon, if I may continue with the sports metaphors, but if anyone thinks it will be a comfortable downhill for the rest of the way, that is not entirely correct.

Under the heading "Certain issues regarding the exercise of duties by ministers" there are, in fact, a number of matters of importance. Initially, there are, among other things, several reports regarding ministers' shareholdings and the risks of conflict of interest that have undoubtedly existed in at least a couple of the cases.

The following might be considered more surprising: Someone has bought shares and forgotten to report it. Someone else has missed that a subsidiary of the company whose shares have been traded is affected by government decisions in which the minister in question has participated.

The series of matters gives rise to all the right criticism, but it is still strange that a minister falls for the temptation to make rather small purchases of shares when it is so much simpler to refrain. One can also wonder what responsibility the Prime Minister has as head of government when such easily accessible information does not reach out or is discussed at any time.

Under the heading "Certain issues regarding the exercise of duties by ministers" there are also two matters concerning the ministers for development aid, Forssell and Dousa.

One matter concerns the aid agency Sida and its possibilities to assist UNRWA with resources in response to an emergency appeal. Member Brunegård went through all dates and events for this very carefully. She also pointed out that the previous core support to the organization had been stopped completely towards the end of 2024 due to signs of infiltration of Hamas in the organization UNRWA.

However, Sida should be free to respond to an emergency appeal even after the core support for 2025 has been phased out. This has since developed into one of the three matters where there may be reasons for more in-depth reasoning regarding informal governance from the government instead of a more formal one. It appears as if the State Secretary informed Sida's Director-General that it would be inappropriate to grant emergency appeal funding to UNRWA to help the civilian population in Gaza.

I think we should discuss this at another occasion. But from my point of view, it seems inappropriate that Sida is managed through requests not to do things and not to submit documents explaining why one wants to do a certain thing.

Another example is Sida's reversal regarding granting support to the Sweden Democrats' aid and development foundation Hepatica. The foundation constitutes part of the party-affiliated organizations, PAO, which are regularly supported by the government for their aid work.

Sida has previously refused grants to Hepatica on formal grounds, citing insufficient documentation. But after the Minister pointed out, via the State Secretary, that by adopting a broader perspective on the conditions, the foundation Hepatica could be granted a grant for the current year.

I have no problem with Hepatica receiving state resources to distribute on development projects, in the same way as other PAOs receive it, as long as the foundation's activities fulfill the requirements that are set for all party-affiliated aid organizations.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we also have in this part a matter concerning the size of the wolf population in Sweden and what should be considered reasonable statements from a research perspective. As a small bonus, there is also a question regarding the decision to allow trophy hunting of wolves in order to reduce the wolf population size in Sweden.

A report concerned the basis for the decision to have a license hunt for wolves this year, namely a research report stating that an appropriate size for the Swedish wolf population is 170 animals. Related to the matter is that there are other calculations from other researchers who have arrived at significantly larger figures. But it is, of course, not the Constitutional Committee's task to determine which research group has the best methodology or basis for calculations. That applies in many contexts.

In the same matter, there was also a question regarding the Minister for Rural Affairs' statement in connection with the County Administrative Board's decision on the license hunt being overturned. The Minister argued that the decision would certainly be appealed. It could have been an attempt to influence the outcome of the review, but the minister was cleared in this case.

I actually have no objections to it. However, I think it would be nice to have more wolves in Sweden, but I will, of course, abide by the decision that has been made.

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 touch upon an aspect of the review concerning the Swedish aid to the hard-hit Palestinian people in Gaza.

The government decided in December 2024 to terminate the Swedish core funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, UNRWA. This led to Sida terminating its cooperation with the organization.

It is important to remind of the background to this decision.

Firstly, UNRWA had found it increasingly difficult to operate after Israel's decision to ban the organization's activities in the area under Israeli control.

Secondly, there were other established humanitarian actors with the capacity to operate in Gaza, including the World Food Programme, Unicef, the UN Population Fund, the UN Development Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

For the third, information had for a long time emerged regarding links between individual UNRWA employees and Hamas.

The government obviously did not want to risk Swedish tax money ending up, directly or indirectly, in the hands of persons with links to a terrorist organization.

Madam Speaker! The government's decision has been harshly criticized from several sides. From the debate, one can sometimes get the impression that the government has not been prepared to make significant humanitarian efforts for the civilian population in Gaza or that the decision to end the support to UNRWA would have meant that Sweden withdrew from its humanitarian responsibility. That is not the case, rather the opposite.

Morgan Johansson wrote, for example: ”The conditions in Gaza are already appalling, and it is only UNRWA that has the infrastructure needed to be able to distribute supplies in the volumes required. Now, all of Gaza is heading towards a famine catastrophe.”

In the same spirit, the leader of the Left Party, Nooshi Dadgostar, wrote: ”It should be a given for a Swedish government to stand firmly against the Israeli decision to stop the UN aid organization UNRWA. Instead, they are now contributing to legitimizing the decision. It means starvation as a weapon against the civilian population.”

Madam Speaker! One can, of course, discuss and criticize the government's position regarding UNRWA, but what cannot be denied is the extent of the humanitarian efforts that Sweden has carried out.

With the support package of 235 million kronor that was decided just a few weeks ago, Sweden's total humanitarian aid to Palestine since October 7, 2023, amounts to over 2.4 billion kronor. In connection with the decision to end the core support to UNRWA, the government decided to double the annual humanitarian aid to Gaza from 400 to 800 million kronor.

Sweden thus belongs to the largest humanitarian donors to Palestine in the world, and within the European Union, only Germany gives more than Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is international solidarity in practice. This means, for example, that Unicef has been able to contribute to providing millions of people with access to clean water and that tens of thousands of children have been able to be treated for malnutrition.

It means that the World Food Programme has been able to distribute food during periods when the need has been greatest. It means de facto that thousands of human lives have been saved thanks to Sweden's generosity.

All of this is significant. But what touched me most during the committee's inquiry was the personal commitment of Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa on the issue. He described how he daily followed reports on how many aid convoys managed to enter Gaza, how many reached the civilian population, and what obstacles existed along the way.

He also spoke about his visit to Israel and Palestine, about meetings with people who have been affected by Hamas's terror attacks and about the terrible humanitarian consequences of the war for the civilian population in Gaza.

Some of his words can serve as a conclusion to my speech: ”No journey has touched me as deeply as when I visited both Israel and Palestine. There is no lack of solidarity. On the contrary, I would have wished that more countries, not least Western and European ones, gave as much and did as much as the Swedish government.”

(Applause)

In this speech, Gudrun Brunegård (KD) agreed.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It has not escaped my notice that there is a rather large Moderate interest in savings through investment savings accounts, ISK. The commitment is so great that both the Prime Minister and several other cabinet ministers have now issued election promises regarding further changes concerning the taxation of ISK.

Saving is very good. We Social Democrats think so too. When one saves by investing in securities, it is important that one understands the product and what risks are associated with it. One can, of course, base one's investment decisions on any loose grounds whatsoever, but it is rarely a guarantee of profit if one, for example, buys a share just because the company's name sounds fun.

But it is also important that those who have the privilege of becoming a minister in Sweden's government understand that there are specific rules and norms to adhere to regarding investments. One cannot invest in shares and fail to report it according to the applicable regulatory framework. One also cannot sit in on government meetings where a company one owns could be positively influenced.

The committee has during the spring scrutinized several ministers' share transactions. Former Minister for Education Johan Pehrson, Liberalerna, had not reported shareholdings according to the applicable regulatory framework, which he himself has admitted. Former Minister for Education Mats Pehrson and current Minister for Foreign Affairs Maria Malmer Stenergard participated in government decisions where it was obviously inappropriate based on their share transactions and holdings.

In both cases, transparency and the possibility of identifying any conflicts of interest were also hindered by the fact that the ministers waited five months and four weeks, respectively, to report the holdings according to the regulations. The committee expresses criticism for this.

This is one of the few matters where we have actually managed to reach an agreement to express criticism. I appreciate that and think it is good.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, Civil Minister Erik Slottner has also participated in a government decision where decisions were made regarding wind power projects linked to companies in which he himself is financially invested. The committee has also here had to point out the incorrectness of the actions and issue criticism.

It is welcome that a review of the regulatory framework for ministers' holdings of financial instruments has been carried out and that new rules and procedures are in place. I hope, of course, that all ministers take some time during the summer and read the updated regulatory framework, preferably with as much interest as the commitment they have to lowering the taxes on their stock transactions.

Madam Speaker! The committee has also during the spring examined the government's management of Sida in relation to the aid policy and the possibility of responding to urgent emergency appeals, not least in light of the situation in Gaza. We have held hearings with former directors-general, state secretaries and ministers.

Once again, there is reason to point out that we are not auditing past policy, but rather the governance and how it relates to regulatory frameworks and practice. There is, as previous speakers have expressed, both formal governance, which is expressed for example in budget decisions and regulatory letters, and also a need for informal contacts between the government and agencies. It is precisely the latter that the KU has audited.

In the situation that prevailed during the spring of 2025, a number of contacts took place between the then State Secretary Diana Janse and the then Director-General for Sida, Jakob Granit, regarding the aid policy and the situation in Gaza. Granit wanted to submit a formal letter with the agency's assessment of the situation, which the State Secretary declined several times, among other things with the now-famous justification that it could be done "without paper trail", i.e., without documentation and traceability.

It is naturally, as the committee notes in the position paper, remarkable that a secretary of state chooses to actively decline a basis from an authority in a very important and, moreover, politically sensitive issue. It is even more remarkable that the responsible minister Benjamin Dousa and his secretary of state have expressed completely different views on whether Sida should provide the basis that the authority saw as necessary knowledge for the government. To furthermore do so with formulations about wanting to avoid a "paper trail", i.e., documentation and traceability, is naturally directly inappropriate.

I would also like to say something regarding the question of statements that a minister makes in the capacity of Vice Prime Minister. We have reviewed quite a few statements during the four years I have sat in KU, and we have found somewhat different ways to assess them. One such question has concerned in what capacity one speaks: Is it in the capacity of party leader or minister?

Here, the committee has noted that Ebba Busch has spoken in her capacity as party leader for Kristdemokraterna. But we have also noted something else. If in other cases we have thought that the Foreign Affairs Committee is an odd bird, it turns out that even the title Vice Prime Minister can be an odd bird in a government. What actually is a Vice Prime Minister, and what significance does that post have?

One can go back to 1989, when Margaret Thatcher fired Geoffrey Howe as Foreign Secretary and made him Deputy Prime Minister. It was considered an enormous snub. I do not believe that anyone who takes on the role of Deputy Prime Minister in Sweden's government would sign off on such a description.

However, we have noted that the function of Vice Prime Minister does not differ constitutionally from other ministers. There are, however, obviously certain challenges regarding how the position is perceived abroad. Based on this and what the committee has noted, there is every reason, both for the ministers who hold this position and also for the one who is to form a government after the next election, to carefully reflect on on what grounds one appoints the post of Vice Prime Minister and what one intends to use it for. I believe it would be a service both for Sweden and to ensure that our government members' statements cannot be misunderstood in the future. Above all, it can also lead to a government avoiding future KU reports, if some caution is observed.

Madam Speaker! Now I have exceeded the time. I believe that I may possibly remain in the Riksdag after the next election, but one never knows which committee one will end up in. It has been four fantastically educational years in the Committee on the Constitution.

I would like to thank the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons who have come and gone. I would also like to thank the members who have come and gone. There has been a very good atmosphere. I thought I learned a lot at university and when I worked, but in KU I learn something every day. This is both thanks to you and thanks to our eminent office, which has saved us very many times.

I do not think I have any more debates this term, at least not on behalf of KU, so I wish you a happy summer!

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! In this final chapter of the review report, I want to address a matter concerning the various messages from the government regarding the indexing of the assistance allowance. At a press conference in September 2024, representatives for the government and the governing parties announced that they intended to index the flat-rate amount that applied to the assistance allowance.

An indexing of the standard amount shall be introduced in order to create greater predictability for municipalities, private providers, and for assistance recipients – so it stated on the images that were presented.

The message was received with joy by those concerned and interpreted as a promise. Therefore, the reactions were also very strong when the budget arrived a year later, because the promised indexation was not included there.

Instead, the government chose, as stated, to correct the presentation images a year later, which are still on the government's website. No indexing has taken place. The government therefore discovered only a year later that their own, prepared and – one must assume – negotiating presentation contained information that was misleading.

But this, Madam Speaker, was not the only time that information has been given regarding an upcoming indexing of the assistance allowance. For example, in this chamber during a question period in February 2025, the Minister for Social Services stated that work was underway to develop an indexing model and that the hope was that the work would be completed in time for the presentation of the 2026 budget bill.

The unfortunate thing about this statement is that it does not at all correspond with the announcement that the Minister for Finance later gave in connection with a press conference, where she stated that the previous announcements regarding the indexation only expressed what the Liberals specifically wanted to push for.

Madam Speaker! The Committee notes that when ministers in this way issue different statements regarding the preparation of a matter, it risks creating uncertainty regarding how the work is coordinated between the different departments, and that the information concerning the issue of an indexing of the flat-rate amount in the assistance allowance, which has been given by different ministers at different times, has differed.

The status and timeline of the current matter have been described in different ways, and it can therefore be questioned whether the coordination between the relevant departments has been sufficient. We also note that the picture provided by the Minister for Finance in his statement is difficult to reconcile with the picture that has previously emerged in information from the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Minister for Social Affairs.

I conclude by repeating what the committee's vice chairman Mats Green has said: KU notes a deficiency, as the investigation shows that two representatives for the government gave irreconcilable information in a current case.

Just as Mats said in the chamber earlier this morning, this is unacceptable.

I now have 45 seconds of speaking time left, and I will say a little about the share transactions. I want to praise my colleagues in the committee: Lars, Susanne, Pira, and Gudrun. Many have mentioned these matters. It is also four different reports concerning exactly the same thing, which is remarkable. Even more remarkable, Madam Speaker, is that the media during the review – right at the end – reported that one of those reviewed seems to have traded shares once again. But that must become the subject of next year's review.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Normally, we do not use only first names, but first and last names.)

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! When Israel broke the ceasefire in Gaza in March 2025, I was on a study trip with a group from the Riksdag in New York to learn more about the UN.

I met several of the organizations that appear in the KU's review of the work on aid issues. OCHA and Médecins Sans Frontières told that the situation was already acute in Gaza after two weeks of blockade of humanitarian efforts. They also told how Israel used formalities to stop everything from crutches and canes to medicine for cancer patients by referring to the fact that it could be used as a weapon.

I also participated in one of several meetings in the Security Council, where we were given descriptions of the horrific situation with the daily killing of children in Gaza and the displacement and deadly violence against residents on the West Bank.

Madam Speaker! It was in that situation that the UN agency UNRWA issued an emergency appeal to donor countries for support for acute interventions. UNRWA has for decades functioned as almost a substitute for a functioning state apparatus with responsibility for schools, healthcare, and other support measures for people in flight.

At Sida, the Swedish aid agency, the question was raised as to whether it would be possible to provide Swedish funds. A report was produced on UNRWA's conditions to act forcefully despite Israel having banned the organization on what it considers to be Israeli territory.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution is not to judge which UN body is appropriate for channeling the Swedish aid funds. On the other hand, it is important that we can examine whether the governance of our expert agencies functions so that they can perform that work.

In the review we have conducted in the committee, there is a statement from the responsible State Secretary in which she declines the situation report. In a text message she writes: We know it, without paper trail, since you informed me. There were no paper trails, that is to say, no documents that need to be stamped in and become public.

The Committee finds it noteworthy that this is expressed by the State Secretary to the Secretary General of Sida specifically. This stands in direct contrast to the statement from the Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, who meant that a basis is desirable. It is good that this is highlighted. Regardless of this, ministers must always be considered responsible for their State Secretaries' actions in matters concerning the governance of the agencies.

This is an important point, because it is extremely important that facts reach us as decision-makers. We cannot have an order where experts do not dare to present uncomfortable truths because one risks being called a "government activist" – a popular term now – or because the information one presents is interpreted as going against the government's will.

It is easy to happen. It did not require strong words or a raised voice; even smaller markings can lead to self-censorship. That is how human interaction works. Many would like to be helpful and prefer to avoid conflicts, sometimes because we find it uncomfortable and sometimes because we are afraid of losing our position.

There are many historical examples of how badly things can go when no one dares to say that the great leader's plan is not holding up or that the harvest has failed.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is important that an agency such as Sida can contribute with its data before important decisions that, in the final analysis, can be a matter of life and death for those who are starving or are fleeing.

With this, I thank you for this record-long debate and my short but instructive time in KU.

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)