The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report

Mirja Räihä (S)

The Justice Ombudsman's official account

Mr. Speaker! When I first saw this matter on the list, my first thought was: A report – this is surely nothing remarkable? But how wrong one can be! JO's official report is fascinating reading when one realizes what variations there are in the complaints that come to JO.

Mr. Speaker! JO has received a significantly increased number of cases. The increase primarily concerns reports regarding Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, the police, and immigration matters. The problem is that these authorities have no regular supervision. This causes citizens to send their reports directly to JO. In this way, the supervision also becomes extraordinary. However, I have seen reports that JO should not be used for. But when a report comes in, JO must obviously do something about it, even if the answer is that the complaint does not concern JO's area. I saw on social media that a citizen had reported their employer to JO because the workplace had introduced clocking in and out. It is a private matter, but it ended up on JO's desk.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, the JO has tried to solve the issue of the increased number of cases, among other things by delegating cases to the heads of departments. There is also a plan moving forward to delegate cases to experienced case officers.

The Committee on the Constitution takes up the following in its position: "A fundamental prerequisite for JO to be able to fulfill its extraordinary supervisory mandate is that there is a well-functioning ordinary public supervision and an adequate complaint system." Furthermore, the committee notes that "the 2020 JO investigation makes the assessment that an investigation should be appointed with a mandate to conduct a broad review of the public supervision". In that way, one can see what need there is for reforms and propose the changes that are needed regarding the ordinary supervision and the complaint system within respective areas of activity.

Madam Speaker! This is certainly jumping the gun. The Committee on the Constitution has just received the thick bundle regarding the review of the JO office. But when we handle the issue and what is concluded in the review, the task will be to take a position on whether such an investigation is needed. When it comes to the JO office, the work will continue.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! What function do the Parliamentary Ombudsmen fulfill? This venerable institution was established in 1809. If one reads the JO's official duties, as we in KU have done, and furthermore also the review of the JO office that was presented in December, the purpose becomes clear.

The office has the function of protecting the individual against abuse of authority by authorities and preventing abuse of power. The public can write to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and complain about how they have been treated by authorities and their officials.

During the JO inquiry in the autumn, when the official account was presented, a few points were made in various cases that had piqued the interest of the members of the Committee on the Constitution a little extra.

For my part, I was interested in the fact that we are all publishers today and can make our voices heard in different contexts. This can be perceived negatively, and it can then have consequences. That was the case for the police officer who, in a letter to the editor, criticized his superiors, or for the agricultural student who criticized the handling of pig slaughter.

No fewer than 10,474 cases were newly registered in 2021/22. The areas that increased the most were complaints concerning health and medical care, correctional services, and the police. Just that large number of cases from persons who are detained and which concern Kriminalvården is perhaps something we should review. Should these cases perhaps instead be handled by a separate agency? JO flags in its annual report that they face major challenges when the number of cases continuously increases.

We will have to see what happens moving forward. But until then, I can do nothing but be impressed by the enormous knowledge and capacity for action that our four parliamentary ombudsmen possess.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! As a bit of a history buff, I could not help but notice what was written in the Instrument of Government of 1809.

There it stands in Section 100: The Justice Ombudsman is obliged, at every Riksdag to the estates of the realm, to submit a general account of his administration of the office entrusted to him, and therein investigate the state of law enforcement in the realm, note the deficiencies of the laws and regulations, and provide proposals for their improvement. He is also obliged, between the Riksdags, to annually announce a statement on these matters through publication.

It is a certain tradition we have when we take part of the official report. It has apparently existed since 1810. This year it is a rather thick book in that series.

Madam Speaker! One can wonder why we introduced a JO. I believe we can state that the most important thing is that it is some kind of last outpost. It is an opportunity to present views in a way that reaches the Riksdag today.

It is an opportunity to have the views examined not in substance but in form. JO cannot make a decision instead of a court or an authority. But JO can point out that it has not gone correctly or that one should have been able to do differently. In that respect, it can be pointed out that it has gone correctly and that the person who complains is in an unsuccessful case.

Above all, I believe that the most important thing is that we all know that we have the right to have a factual, peaceful, and respectful handling of the views we have and that we can submit them to JO. I believe that is the very greatest role for JO.

If one looks at the more than 10,000 or almost 11,000 cases that have been subject to processing, some of them are naturally quite routine. But a number of them deserve for one to look at in depth. For my part, it was a case regarding the balance between political view and opinion in the Instrument of Government that emerged from a complaint regarding issues before conscription. It raised questions for me.

One can certainly find other examples in the book. It is in-depth and objective. At the same time, it is also a very clear thermometer. Complaints appear in those areas where citizens now feel they have reason to voice their views.

At once, it is both an opportunity for deepening and thus also a potential proposal for changes and improvements, and an opportunity to gauge the temperature and make the same assessments.

In a later matter regarding the JO investigation that has been conducted, we will, among other things, need to take a position on whether any organizational changes should be made. Here, the need for potentially a first instance in more cases than what is currently at hand has also been mentioned. We will have to return to that.

Madam Speaker! Now that we are presented with the JO's official report, it is with gratitude for the scrutiny it provides of Swedish society. It is exactly as it was stated in the Instrument of Government of 1809. It is also a basis for our future actions.

It is easy to recommend reading the official account. It provides a very credible and well-elaborated picture of the situation as it is.

Madam Speaker! It is easy for me to stand behind the committee's proposal that the official account be added to the records.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! There are very many authorities in our country. But it is only a few that are subject to the Riksdag. One of them is the JO. It is a true institution that I appreciate more and more with each passing year.

When the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report is released, I set aside almost everything else. This annual book is perhaps the most important temperature gauge we have on how Agency Sweden functions and has a history that is, to say the least, proud. I must admit that it is not only Ulrik Nilsson who is a bit of a history buff. Now I am going to delve in a little bit - to the committee's delight, I assume.

It is a proud history, to say the least. The JO office was a Swedish invention when it was established in 1809. Even though much has obviously changed since then - it is still over 200 years ago - there is quite a lot in the mandate that is similar today.

Just as one examines that laws are followed and that authorities and their officials carry out their work. Just as one conducts inspections and can propose changes and improvements. Just as one can bring a prosecution, even if that right was mostly used in the 1800s. Above all, it is about receiving complaints from individuals and, through its decisions, providing them with redress when public power has made a mistake.

This year, just as in previous years, I have had the privilege of working in the Committee on the Constitution. In connection with the handover, we have also had the opportunity to meet the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and ask questions at both an open and a regular meeting. The Committee has also recently visited JO's operations. We will, just as previous speakers have said, also later this year treat the investigation report on the review of the JO office.

Madam Speaker! Recently I amused myself by reading old official reports. They are available on JO's website, but the very oldest are on the Royal Library's website.

In previous years when the committee has dealt with the official report, members, including myself, have sometimes wondered what impact the JO's decisions actually have when, for example, certain authorities receive recurring criticism without any improvement appearing to occur. Then it is a bit curious, or perhaps depressing, that in the earliest official report I have found, from Carl Peter Törnebladh which was submitted in 1828, I find cases that actually resemble those we have been able to read about in recent years. Or what about a Mr. Gren who, after a judgment was pronounced in 1827, remained in detention instead of being sent to prison? It is actually exactly like a case in this year's official report where an inmate has not been transferred to an institution within the time specified by law.

I shall not quote a lot of 19th-century text - today's official report is a bit more readable, and I recommend everyone to read it - but a small part of the 1828 introduction to the JO's official report I want to share with you. I shall try to speak 19th-century here; you must show understanding: "That if such conditions are to be reported to the Realm's Estates, as well as to the public; it shows from that the Legislator's intended meaning for the good of society has been, to awaken and maintain the attention of the State's Officials on the careful fulfillment of their duties, through the awareness that, for the correction and proclamation of deviations, there always stands against them another legally constituted Official Authority."

I think this little passage captures something that is at least equally valid today, namely that the JO, simply through its existence, but also obviously through its investigations, based on complaints or on its own initiative, safeguards our civil and political rights, increases legal certainty in our society and, ultimately, is an important actor that participates in upholding our democratic system. If you or I were to feel ill-treated by the public sector in any way, there is someone we can turn to to have our complaint examined and who stands on our side, who safeguards your and my rights. It is something that we should cherish and be protective of.

But then it must also, as previous speakers have said, and as the KU has also said several times before, have regular supervision systems so that JO's resources can be used for the extraordinary supervision. This is very important, for example, regarding the correctional services. It is not reasonable that JO should handle so many complaints from there that could have been reviewed by a regular supervisory authority if such had existed. It is high time that this is arranged. Just as several have touched upon previously, it is something that the committee has emphasized for many years and also does this year. This applies especially considering that the number of complaints has increased over time, which in itself obviously is not solely negative, but it is important that JO has good conditions to carry out its review and supervision.

Madam Speaker! I still want to say something about the matters included in this year's annual report. It is important to remember that behind every complaint to the JO, there is a person who feels wrongly treated and where the trust in the public sector has probably deteriorated.

It can be a question of long processing times at authorities for those affected. For some people, it means that their entire life is on hold. It can mean a financial catastrophe when one does not receive decisions on, for example, financial compensations.

The matters that affect me most are when minors, that is, children, are mistreated. Even this year, there are unfortunately a number of such cases where children have either themselves or by being present when a relative is subjected to, witnessed or been victims of incorrect treatment by our public authority. JO highlights several cases, and I will mention a few.

A matter concerns a boy who was first body-searched outdoors and was then body-inspected in a stairwell - despite the fact that such actions, for reasons of integrity, should take place indoors and in private.

Another matter concerns how the police decided that a girl should be interrogated, but when she was not at home but instead in a shop, the police went there and conducted the interrogation in the shop - even though the location and the forms of the interrogation were in direct conflict with principles and regulations.

In a case, the police detained a 13-year-old without grounds, and after the boy's parents spoke about this in the media, a report of concern was made by the police officers. JO's investigation provides no support for the fact that there was a specific reason for the police to make a report of concern.

It has happened that children in the care of social services have been suspected of being subjected to sexual offenses, but that social services, despite having knowledge, have not acted.

It is such cases that actually linger for a while. Of course, all cases in JO's official report are important and affect people, but precisely in cases concerning vulnerable children, it is not difficult to reflect on what consequences arise for the future. What trust will one have in our society in the future when one has been subjected to an abuse at a young age?

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Our authorities have power over individuals. An authority official can decide on measures that are highly intrusive for the individual. And an authority can come to the conclusion that you are or are not entitled to a certain benefit, sometimes after a fairly short time, and at other times after a long wait. How our authorities shall act is based on the laws we decide on in this chamber. So, do our authorities follow the laws that we have hammered through? When you, as an individual, come into contact with authorities, do you receive a lawful and otherwise correct treatment? To ensure that this happens is what the Parliament's Ombudsmen, JO, have their eyes on.

In recent years, we have unfortunately seen a clearly negative development worldwide, a development where more and more states are moving in an authoritarian direction and where fewer and fewer of us in the world's population live in a full democracy. In these times, the value of safeguarding the principles of the rule of law cannot be emphasized enough, that is, safeguarding legal certainty and the individual's fundamental free and civil rights.

In Sweden, our history with an ombudsman who shall exercise supervision over the authorities' compliance with the laws goes back a long way, specifically to the year 1809, when we were first in the world to establish a Parliamentary Ombudsman. We can rightly be proud of that tradition. And that tradition is something we should all see to safeguarding. To safeguard JO as an institution is to safeguard the individual's fundamental civil and political rights - something that JO has the task of watching over. It is a task that becomes increasingly urgent in times when authoritarian winds blow.

Madam Speaker! The subject of today's debate is the annual report that JO presents every year. The report contains only a fraction of the decisions that JO has made during the past year. During the time I have at my disposal in the speaker's chair, I have the opportunity to touch upon only a fraction of what is included in the annual report - there is material to speak for hours - but I choose to take up some things that are concerning.

Over the past year, serious crime has been high on the political agenda. Serious violent crimes such as explosions and shootings receive large headlines in the media, and the police's possibilities to handle the situation are discussed. That the driving force in organized crime is money is well known, and the narcotics market is often mentioned as the most important source of income. But the reality is not so one-dimensional. Mapping that has been carried out shows that fraud brings in as much money for criminals as narcotics sales. Therefore, it is highly concerning that JO notes that preliminary investigations concerning primarily economic crime have handling times that are often unacceptably long. In many cases, there is a risk that the crimes are prescribed before the investigation is complete.

That a decisive source of income for organized crime is not being prosecuted is a poor grade for the law enforcement authorities. If billions continue to flow straight into serious crime almost risk-free and without any consequences for those who commit such acts as large-scale fraud – against the elderly, for example – we can unfortunately expect continued strong muscles for the criminals, and then the spiral of violence can continue.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about crime and the importance of preventing and prosecuting the serious crime we see in society today, we often focus on the police and its resources. It is certainly not so surprising – it is indeed with the police intervention that the work to prosecute crime usually begins. But to prosecute crime, it does not only require police. It requires prosecutors who can indict and judges who can sentence, and unfortunately, it is all too often the case that the state pumps resources into one of the links but does not take a holistic approach to the chain of justice.

For my part, I am currently very concerned about the investments, or rather the lack of investments, in the judiciary, because for the judges, the situation is strained to say the least. I hear this myself from various sources.

This is also noted by JO in the latest official report, where the focus has, among other things, been on the constitutionally protected right that a trial shall be conducted within a reasonable time. This is because the complaints concerning long processing times in courts are becoming more numerous. General courts are receiving more and more criminal cases to handle and are finding it difficult to keep pace with the influx. There are signs here that the review of more complex cases has been pushed back in time and that the turnaround times – i.e., from the time the case comes in until it is concluded – are becoming longer, especially at the courts of appeal. This is not acceptable, JO notes.

During the open meeting here in the Riksdag in November, when we in the Committee on the Constitution had the opportunity to ask questions to the ombudsmen, JO Katarina Påhlsson spoke about the situation at the general courts. She emphasized that the pressure there is high as a result of the number of criminal cases coming in there having increased, the penalties have been toughened for many crimes, and the threshold for mandatory detention has been lowered. This has led to the number of cases involving detention increasing. The cases involving detention are so-called deadline cases – they go to the front of the queue and must be handled first. But there are many other criminal cases that are also highly urgent to handle – especially for the one who has been affected – such as fraud, assault, and drunk driving.

If it takes too long to process a case, it affects legal certainty, the JO stated. Witnesses forget what they have seen, and people who have moved cannot be reached. With the great pressure that lies on the country's general courts today, there is an absolute risk of miscarriage of justice, the JO emphasized.

It occurs that judges at a general court sit in hearings four days a week. These are hearings that must be prepared and hearings that must be led, and then one must have deliberations and write the judgment. To sit and decide cases on an assembly line - it goes without saying that it comes at the expense of legal certainty. Yes, it actually constitutes a direct threat to it. That is how JO expressed itself, this because a judge's role is to conduct a thorough review of a case. It must be allowed to take time to judge, to make a decisive decision. There must be room for reflection and critical analysis.

Against that background, I really want to emphasize how important it is that we safeguard the courts' resources and their ability to decide cases in a legally secure manner.

With this, I would like to thank the Parliament's ombudsmen for the work that has been performed in past years. I move, in accordance with KU's proposal, that JO's official report be added to the records.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! 10,747 cases were reported to the Parliamentary Ombudsman during the 2021/22 financial year. These are cases where individuals have experienced being treated incorrectly or subjected to incorrect decisions. Each case naturally has its own story, but the volume of cases in itself testifies to how ordinary citizens can seek justice and fairness against sometimes anonymous and perhaps insensitive administrative decisions.

For the 212nd time, the Swedish Parliament is now considering the report from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. This institution is as old as the Committee on the Constitution. Both form part of the Parliament's oversight power and were established through the Instrument of Government of 1809, which several have entered into here previously.

When the committee visited the JO's office last week, the head of JO told about the background: the fact that Sweden in the beginning of the 1800s was one of the most corrupt countries, where it was not law and justice that ruled but money and connections. The first ombudsman - L.A. Mannerheim, who is depicted both in the Committee on the Constitution's session hall and at JO - traveled the country and realm. His investigations of how power was exercised towards the citizens led to hundreds of indictments against corrupt officials within the state administrations.

Today, Sweden belongs, thankfully, to the least corrupt countries, largely thanks to the oversight power that exists: the Parliamentary Ombudsman who reviews the exercise of authority within state, regional, and municipal administration, the Committee on the Constitution which reviews that the Government Offices and the ministers follow laws and regulations, and the National Audit Office and the Chancellor of Justice who carry out their respective parts. This collectively contributes to the general trust and confidence in the rule of law and everyone's equality before the law which, for the most part, characterizes our country.

In the official report that today's referral deals with, there are extensive accounts of the reviews by today's four ombudsmen regarding whether the various parts of the justice system and authorities such as the Swedish Migration Agency, the Social Insurance Agency, the Pensions Agency, social services, healthcare, and schools follow the law, that their decisions are objective and impartial, and that citizens' fundamental freedoms and rights are not violated. Through these reviews, JO is of enormous importance for the ordinary person who feels poorly or unfairly treated by an authority. Through a letter or a report via email to JO, an investigation can be initiated, and the decisions that JO makes are guiding for similar situations throughout the country.

Something I want to highlight in this context is society's obligation to be accessible even for those who are not digitized. During the pandemic, it was highlighted in some places how difficult it was to book an appointment for testing or vaccination, or to request a vaccination certificate from Ehälsomyndigheten for groups who lacked e-identification, which excluded large groups. That is not how it should be, and I want to believe that JO's criticism was an eye-opener for many agencies regarding the necessity of being accessible to everyone, regardless of so-called digital maturity or access to necessary digital tools.

Madam Speaker! JO raises a number of question complexes that, from the individual's perspective, highlight various societal functions. As decision-makers and legislators, we have a duty to address the problems that arise and develop solutions, for example, regarding the deficiencies pointed out within the justice system with long periods of detention, long waiting times for court proceedings, and subsequently overcrowded prisons. This affects to a great extent the individual person who is the subject of a criminal investigation and criminal justice care - but I also want to remind of the crime victim's perspective.

The Committee emphasizes that a fundamental prerequisite for the JO to be able to fulfill its extraordinary supervisory mandate in a purposeful manner is that there is a well-functioning ordinary supervision and an adequate complaint system. As examples, the ordinary supervision that Ivo exercises over healthcare and that the School Inspectorate exercises over schools can be mentioned. But a corresponding supervisory authority is lacking within the justice system: police, prosecutors, courts, and criminal justice. There, it is the JO that conducts the review.

In these areas, as well as in healthcare, the volume of cases has increased significantly. The committee will take this into account when we later in the spring prepare the case on the review of the JO office.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am last, and a great deal of good things have been said. This is a matter that we have agreed shall be added to the records. I have a few small reflections regarding things that perhaps have not been said earlier.

Madam Speaker! The committee proposes that the Riksdag adopts the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report 2021/22. Behind the factual and somewhat dry formulation lies a 200-year tradition and thousands and thousands of hours of work by a dedicated and particularly competent group of people, with the four Parliamentary Ombudsmen in the leadership. We owe them a big, warm, and heartfelt thank you.

It is they who have our mandate to exercise public supervision and, not least importantly, to provide a system for complaints, open to everyone who in one way or another perceives themselves as misunderstood or who simply have not received any satisfactory answer from other authorities. This system has now been simplified so that it is possible to send complaints via a form on the website.

At the same time, the number of complaints has constantly increased, even significantly. This can have several causes. One is, of course, that it, as I just mentioned, has become considerably easier to submit a complaint. Another is the pandemic and the subsequent vaccination campaigns, which triggered a long series of similar complaints.

It is therefore not at all certain that an increased number of complaints actually reflects a rising dissatisfaction with how things are managed in public Sweden. It is naturally important to seek clarity in retrospect regarding what it actually is that more reports express.

Madam Speaker! I would like to dwell for a few minutes on a type of matter that is particularly interesting and important from a justice perspective.

In the official report, there is a specific matter concerning an LSS residence, a user, and the user's sister, who on two occasions perceived that her brother had been locked in and that he also otherwise had great restrictions in his freedom of movement. JO noted the case and conducted an investigation of how Ivo, the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, acted based on the complaints submitted by the user's sister.

A question for me concerns the fact that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is conducting an investigation regarding the inspection that the Health and Social Services Inspectorate carried out of the specific residential home, i.e., what happens when the inspector is inspected. JO stated, as appears from the official report, that Ivo failed in his inspection to the extent that the protocols that were drawn up did not actually make it possible to determine whether the inspection had been reasonable.

Madam Speaker! This leads me back to my first sentence about the committee proposing that the official account be added to the records. It is of course completely correct and reasonable, and I have no other suggestions or comments on this.

But there is an inherent risk in reports being added to the records. I have previously seen at the municipal level that relevant and well-formulated observations of operations, for example in special housing, become reports that are also added to the records. In those cases, it is of course usually the municipal audit committees that have performed the work, but the principle is the same.

In the extension, there is, as I see it, an obvious risk that users at our various residences simply do not receive what they are entitled to. And when this is eventually pointed out by parents, siblings, or others, it does not always lead anywhere. Things and matters simply persist, despite genuine ambitions and regulatory frameworks. Reports are added to the files, and no one has any responsibility anymore for what happens.

No shadow shall fall on the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the matter. JO does what JO is supposed to do. But no one investigates whether Ivo, in the case in question, has done his part or whether the municipality that owns the housing has done its part.

With this said, Madam Speaker, the official account is a gold mine that more people should take part in, and it is a pleasure to propose that it be added to the records.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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