Division into expenditure areas
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns proposals for changes in how the budget shall be structured in different expenditure areas. M urges approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal and argues that transparency, clarity, and ambition should take precedence over waiting for a decision 1. M emphasizes that the government wants to establish a new agency for foreign intelligence and move agencies for traffic analysis to a new unified analysis and evaluation agency 1. MP argues that it is questionable to budget for and move costs of 2.2 billion kronor before there is a proposal on how the new agency shall be organized 2. MP wants to first discuss whether a new agency is needed 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ulrik Nilsson (M)
Madam Speaker! After all those who have declared that they might not remain here, a matter now arises concerning those who actually are remaining. It concerns the fact that in the spring budget, changes are proposed regarding how the budget shall be structured in different expenditure areas.
It can be a problem, because a government may want to change the arrangement even if decisions have not been made. Should a government proceed based on this order – that a decision will be made? Should it therefore prepare by making changes, or should it wait until the decision is made? It is not entirely simple, but one must nevertheless assume that a government has the ambition and desire to implement the decisions that it proposes.
Not everyone may like the proposals either and may therefore think it would be good not to adopt this already now. But it is as it is; transparency, clarity and ambition must probably take precedence over saying that we should wait with the decisions.
What are the proposals behind this? Besides what the parliamentary committee "Med ledamoten i centrum" has addressed, there are two things. One is that they want to establish a new agency for foreign intelligence, and they have taken a position on how it should be placed within the expenditure areas. The other is that they want to move, among other things, the agencies for traffic analysis to a new unified analysis and evaluation agency, and thereby they also move the appropriations.
As said, one can have views on the proposals, and this will certainly be debated later. But the government now proposes in the proposal for division into expenditure areas a system based on the fact that they will be introduced and that the upcoming budget should therefore look that way regarding the expenditure areas.
Madam Speaker! I would actually just like to conclude by moving for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in Report 42, Division into expenditure areas. With this, I also wish everyone a happy summer.
Jan Riise (MP)
Madam Speaker! There is a saying that one should be careful about selling the skin before the bear is shot. For my part, I think it is questionable whether one should shoot bears at all, in any case if it concerns the sale of skins.
The core of the KU's report Division into expenditure areas perhaps also has not much to do with either bears or skins. But when the government thinks it is a good idea to both budget for and, furthermore, move costs of 2.2 billion kronor from one expenditure area to another, I think there are reasons to take another look at the proposal.
The proposal is, therefore, to establish a civil intelligence agency directly under the government. It would, according to the investigator Carl Bildt, engage in strategic world analysis and thus be able to provide the government with clearer and more tailored civil support in analyses of the world around us. This aligns better with the structures that exist within Nato, the investigation claimed, and could thereby facilitate and improve cooperation.
It sounds reasonable in many ways. But the referral bodies were critical. Among other things, the Armed Forces pointed to the rapid implementation of the change, which also involves a certain transfer of competence from Must, the military intelligence and security service. Fears were expressed about a need to rebuild competence within the defense while the competence is not fully built up within the new unit. It was therefore about the risk of inefficiency and losses in a serious security policy situation.
Other critical views concerned the need for an agency at all and whether it would not be more efficient to build upon the strengths that already exist.
From the Green Party's side, we have expressed in a party motion what I just said: that the criticism has been extensive and that it is difficult to take a position on the budget for a new agency before there is even a proposal for how it should be organized and what tasks it should have. It is also not known to what extent, and if so how much, resources will be transferred from Must to the new agency.
What is reasonable, I mean, is to first discuss whether we should have a new agency and what tasks it should have, taking into account both Nato and existing tasks within the defense. Then the Riksdag can take a position on budget proposals and a possible move to another expenditure area – a bit like "bears and skins," so to speak.
Furthermore, I and we in Miljöpartiet have no comments on other proposed changes regarding transfers from one expenditure area to another, for example for Bokföringsnämnden.
I move for approval of the reservation and thank you for the floor. I also thank you for the day and for everything that has happened and been said today. Thanks to everyone who has helped to carry this out!
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.