The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! The last time the Committee on the Constitution debated the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report was actually one and a half years ago. The investigation that has been conducted by the office has been completed, and one of the changes is precisely that the report will now be presented in the spring instead of in the autumn.

Madam Speaker! JO continues to receive a large number of cases. Last year, the increase was primarily due to reports concerning Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, the police, and immigration matters. Healthcare also accounts for a large number of reports, and then primarily reports concerning malpractice. Kriminalvården accounts for a large number of reports, but reports regarding the police have decreased.

What I took note of was the Prison and Probation Service. From the official report, it can be read that detained persons remain in detention with restrictions for too long and that there is a shortage of space in prisons. The number of complaints regarding the Prison and Probation Service amounts to 2,100 during 2023, and the staffing situation at the country's prisons may result in the complaints increasing further during 2024.

The problem with these authorities is that there is and has not been any regular supervision. This means that the citizens send their reports directly to the Parliamentary Ombudsmand, and in that way, the supervision becomes extraordinary. At the same time, I have at least seen reports that perhaps should not even reach the Parliamentary Ombudsmand, and I am talking about reports regarding healthcare and malpractice. Those reports perhaps should go somewhere else. I have been very questioning regarding just those reports. But it is obviously the case that JO needs to investigate the matter if a report comes in, even if the answer is that the complaint is not JO's area.

Madam Speaker! Of course, JO has tried to resolve this, among other things by delegating some cases to the heads of departments. Now, it is being moved forward that legal experts shall also be able to receive delegated cases.

The Committee on the Constitution states in its position 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 public supervision and an adequate complaint system." The committee stated precisely this also last year.

The government has therefore tasked Statskontoret with conducting a review of the asylum process, and it is part of the assignment to investigate the need for an external oversight function or inspection in the migration area. A proposal is also being prepared to appoint an inquiry to investigate issues regarding the public oversight of, among other things, the areas of the police and Kriminalvården. We Social Democrats think it is good that the government is moving forward with this.

Madam Speaker! Now this year's official report is being submitted for the record, and we Social Democrats move for approval of the proposal that the committee has submitted.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Just over two months ago, we met our Parliamentary Ombudsmen in the Second Chamber when they submitted their annual report. It is always equally interesting to listen to our wise Parliamentary Ombudsmen and their observations over the past year.

That JO has become more visible even to the general public is not a coincidence but a conscious strategic decision. More and more work has been done with press releases regarding various matters, and during 2023, media exposure increased by 22 percent compared to 2022.

The official report is always equally relevant. In the latest one, the JO reports, among other things, on a case where Statskontoret received criticism for a recruitment. The advertisement for the vacant position was posted on the agency's physical notice board and was only up for five days. Prior to that, the director-general had contacted the person who was subsequently employed.

This scenario during a recruitment became very topical recently when the Governor of Stockholm, Anna Kinberg Batra, advertised a vacant position through an announcement in the reception - a position that was subsequently filled by a close friend of the Governor. This recruitment, and two others at the County Administrative Board in Stockholm County, are currently being reviewed by the JO.

It seems that there are several authorities that need to be reminded of what an advertisement is. I quote from the Swedish Academy's dictionary, where it states that an advertisement, which is a noun, is an "offer or message in a paid space in a newspaper etc." In other words: An advertisement on a notice board somewhere in an authority is not an advertisement, but a note.

Madam Speaker! During the reading of this year's annual report, there was something else that caught my attention and which coincided with last year's inquiry. During last year's inquiry of the JO, I asked a question regarding a case where a police officer had seized a witness's mobile phone when the person wanted to make their own recording of the interrogation. The police received criticism as there was no legal basis for the action, but JO Per Lennerbrant pointed out that this could be a type of case where the JO may come back to in the future.

Quite rightly, this very procedure was relevant in this year's official report, even though it now concerned a journalist who, during a trial, wanted to make their own audio recording but was denied by the judge. JO had no comments on the district court after the review of this case, which was not criticized by JO for its decision.

There are provisions that all electronic equipment that prosecutors have with them in the courtroom and which can be disruptive must be turned off or put away, but the preparatory statements for the provision are not entirely clear. Today's technology has made it possible for all of us to be publishers, and it creates problems that our legislation has not caught up with.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! For over 200 years, the JO office has existed in Sweden. It has served as a model for many other countries, which have chosen to follow this specific type of scrutiny of the public sector – the last outpost for the individual but also an important tool for us in this chamber to be able to see what works and what does not work.

For just as long a time has the Committee on the Constitution existed in Sweden, and the pair of JO and KU are in a way completely impossible to separate. We are both part of the oversight power, and both are fundamental pillars in our Swedish democracy - something we should be proud of and must always safeguard.

The JO has year after year submitted a report, and every time the report has been interesting reading for the one who is responsible for Sweden. Taking responsibility for Sweden is no easy task for anyone, Madam Speaker, but this chamber has exactly that task. JO's very wise insights into how things work or do not work are something that we need to get better at using as a tool to develop the work in the Riksdag and also in the Government Offices. It is something that I believe one can take hold of in both the majority and in the opposition.

It is also something that is important for voters when they make their decisions. Who should sit in this chamber? Who manages to solve the societal problems? Is it the case that our Swedish authorities meet the needs that exist and follow the rules that have been set up? Are the rules adequate? Do they need to be developed or strengthened in their current form?

Madam Speaker! The JO office is also the ultimate guarantor that the individual, if possible, receives a form of redress even if the person does not receive a changed decision. With this said, not all reports are investigated fully, because it is not possible for JO to act in that way. It is also not the case that all reports should be handled by JO, as previous speakers have mentioned. But JO is an important outpost for legal certainty and for ensuring that justice will be served.

Criticism from JO always carries great weight in the Swedish state administration, and it is a prerequisite that it does. When one tries to describe what KU or JO does, it is questioned whether they lack sharper weapons than the ability to direct criticism. But in a well-functioning state administration, where people listen to one another and where people care about what these institutions think and say, more is not needed. Only if more is needed do we need to consider whether we can continue to have the model we have. So far, however, the words that JO and KU choose to utter carry very great weight, and as long as they do that, this is sufficient.

Of course, there are other tools around that can lead to one acting more sharply in other contexts. The absolutely most important thing, however, is the disclosure to the public, so that people can make their decisions and pass their judgments. It is about an informed political debate, where JO has the conditions to go in-depth into the state administration and KU has the ability to go in-depth when it comes to the government's work and bring to the surface what journalists and individuals perhaps could never have found. This function is shared by our two institutions, and this function makes us completely necessary for the free formation of opinion.

With this, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! It can happen that one as an individual citizen feels small and almost powerless in the face of the many times well-oiled machinery that constitutes Agency Sweden. That is how it can be perceived because the agencies in many cases possess great powers against individuals. These powers have their basis in what we decide in this chamber, for in the end, it is we politicians who give officials the mandate to act against individuals based on the laws we enact and the conditions we otherwise provide for their exercise of authority.

How is the legality of Sweden's authorities? Do the officials there follow the laws that we have hammered through? When you as an individual come into contact with authorities, do you receive a legal and otherwise correct treatment? To ensure that this happens, supervision is exercised over our authorities, and that is where the Riksdag's ombudsmen and JO come into the picture.

Sweden's 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 Sweden was first in the world to establish a Parliamentary Ombudsman. We can rightly be proud of that tradition, and it is something we should all see to protecting. To protect JO as an institution is, in fact, to protect the individual's fundamental civil and political rights. This is something that JO has the task of watching over.

Madam Speaker! We have the JO to lean on, but the JO should not actually do all the work when it comes to supervising our authorities. In several important areas with extensive public activities, for example healthcare, elderly care, and school, there are other supervisory authorities that have a very important role to fill, such as the Inspectorate for Health and Social Services, Ivo, and the School Inspectorate. These are two examples of authorities that carry out ordinary supervision of activities within their respective areas. In order for the JO to be able to fulfill its mission in a purposeful way, a well-functioning ordinary supervision and an adequate complaint system are required. The JO's supervision is of an extraordinary nature. The JO cannot, and should not, handle all complaints from individuals who feel mistreated by the public sector.

In a few areas, JO still ends up there because there is no one else to turn to. In those cases, the complaints end up in JO's inbox. This becomes clear when we listen to JO Katarina Påhlsson, who is responsible for, among other things, the correctional services. From inmates at the institution comes a constant stream of complaints that JO is not dimensioned to handle and which one should also not handle, as the extraordinary oversight body that JO actually is. But if one is in an institution and is treated in conflict with current regulations, there is today no other complaint institute to turn to. The same applies to those who have complaints regarding the police's activities. These are two large agencies that have great powers over the individual. In such cases, it is obviously important that there is an ordinary oversight and a complaint procedure regarding the exercise of authority in the operations.

KU has for a long series of years pointed out these deficiencies and highlighted them in announcements. This year we receive the answer that the question of appointing an inquiry with a mandate to investigate issues regarding public supervision in areas such as the police and the correctional services is now being prepared in the Government Offices. I assume that this preparation is being driven forward with vigor and that when we debate JO's official report here in the chamber next year, we can state that there is an inquiry with exactly this mandate that has already kicked off its work.

Madam Speaker! The official report that we are debating today concerns the previous operational year and contains a selection of the decisions that JO has made during the year that has passed. I choose to highlight something that worries me quite a bit, in any case, especially in light of the serious crime that more and more people unfortunately have to experience firsthand all too often, with shootings on our streets and explosions in our residential areas.

My concern is great on this point, especially against the background of my professional experience as a prosecutor. I have worked with combating economic crime, fraud, and other wealth crimes, and in that work, I have seen firsthand how violent crime is one of the expressions of organized crime. The driving force in organized crime, however, is spelled money, and a large part of serious crime is not quite as visible as violence but is so important to combat.

We must join forces in the work against the crime that finances the shootings and the explosions. It is clear that fraud and other economic crime constitute a main source of income, and therefore it is very concerning that in JO's review a picture emerges of that certain types of property crimes are in practice no longer investigated.

In a supervisory decision that JO includes in this official report, JO Per Lennerbrant notes that the prosecutor has sent reminder after reminder in a certain case, but that four years have passed without any investigative measure being taken. I have experienced this myself when I have had a file review as a prosecutor. You sit in a fraud unit and are supposed to go through the fifty or so cases you have. About thirty of them involve sending reminders to the police because nothing has happened. It is not the most motivating of work tasks, but unfortunately, I saw this reality only a few years ago. One, two, three, and four reminders arrive, but the police do not allocate any resources to investigate. We must do something about this.

In the matter I mentioned, JO has sent a copy of its decision to the Committee on Justice for information, precisely given how serious this is – something that is an unusual measure from JO's side.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Ombudsmen for the work performed during the past year and move, in accordance with the KU's proposal, to approve that the 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! So it is time again for the solemn official report from the Parliamentary Ombudsmen. They will present some of the cases they have investigated during a year and a half – it was previously a broken reporting year.

I went back and read what has been said here on this subject in previous years and found a speech that my predecessor Tuve Skånberg gave a few years ago. He described how the Parliamentary Ombudsmen's annual report reminded him of the galleries of characters and the scope of human misfortune depicted in books such as Oliver Twist. The difference, however, is that the annual report is not a fictional novel but concerns real people of flesh and blood in Sweden during 2023. It concerns people who have in different ways been affected by deficiencies in the authorities' application of the law, organization and competence within healthcare and elderly care, social services, criminal justice, or any other authority within municipal, regional or state administration.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's mission is extremely important for auditing that the citizen's legal rights are upheld. The Ombudsman's statements and observations are important signals that different parts of legislation and application need to be improved so that citizens can enjoy their constitutionally protected human freedoms and rights.

Not least, the ombudsmen's observations should serve as a guideline for a reviewed authority in its improvement work. Therefore, I am both saddened and upset when I read that it occurs that authorities that have been the subject of a statement from a Parliamentary Ombudsman, still half a year later, have not reviewed their methods of work and their routines to ensure correct application. It is a negligence that affects the citizens, the authority's ultimate principal. It shows how important it is that the Parliamentary Ombudsmen exist so that the individual human being has somewhere to turn to get their rights.

Furthermore, I would like to warmly recommend the official report for reading.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank all colleagues who have already placed a large number of puzzle pieces regarding the official report we are looking at today. I shall see if I can add anything to this that has not already been said. We are, to a reasonable extent, in agreement.

I am not used to reading the last chapter of a book first, but here I had to make an exception to get to the statistics section, which is actually an appendix. For 2023, for the fourth consecutive year, a number of cases exceeding 10,000 is noted. That is five or six new cases per hour if one calculates it over a somewhat normal working time. It is an increase from barely 7,500 cases during 2014, that is, just ten years ago.

One can and should probably ask what the rather striking increase is due to. Has the Swedish people become more dissatisfied with how public activities manage their assignments? Or has it simply become much easier to submit a complaint with a web-based solution and smartphones? Or has the awareness of what should have been better increased and that previous incidents that should have resulted in a report to JO have not done so? We do not know very much about this, and it is also not so easy to find out, and mostly risks becoming speculation.

What we can be pleased about, however, is that the number of completed cases during last year again exceeded the number of new cases. This means that the number of cases with long processing times has continuously decreased.

From the table with the number of cases distributed across different areas, we can see that 50 percent concern three areas: police, correctional services and social services, including LSS. As has been said before, police and correctional services perhaps shouldn't actually be there, but now they are there and together with social services constitute 5,000 cases.

Madam Speaker! As we know, there is a rather intense discussion in society today regarding the police's operations and which tools and coercive measures the police should be able to use. In a similar vein, there is a discussion about the correctional services where those sentenced to prison in the future can expect both longer prison sentences and less personal space. Many see it as a necessary and perhaps even in some cases a positive development. I will not enter into that debate here but still think that, in the principles of the rule of law and in the correctional services' starting points, it is about seeing a prison sentence as an opportunity for a better future for the person convicted, which places demands on some form of decent treatment even for criminals.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report contains, as in previous years, a number of examples of inmates who have submitted complaints regarding how everything is managed. These include, among others, cases concerning deficiencies in furnishings, where beds have been replaced with mattresses on the floor, and a facility that, due to a lack of staff, has simply extended the period of detention for inmates. Other examples concern the possibility of voting in the 2022 election and visiting hours that make it difficult or impossible for children to accompany them to meet a parent.

We naturally welcome that the time for a prison sentence is also used and seen in some sense as part of the work to counteract recidivism. If what the reports to JO describe is correct, this work is hindered, which hardly helps either the inmates or the crime victims.

Madam Speaker! Within the area of social services, a number of examples are also given of reports and what actions the Parliamentary Ombudsman has taken in connection with these. These are often difficult situations for people who may already be affected by mental ill health, social exclusion, or other problems, and where the consequences of a failing social support can be serious or even life-threatening. In a couple of the examples JO refers to, it concerns LVM homes with deficiencies in operations or social welfare committees that have decided on measures they did not have the authority to decide on.

There are, of course, also areas where the number of reports is very low. Only a few reports concern issues regarding housing and culture and, pleasingly enough, the Riksdagsförvaltningen and the Regeringskansliet.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I would like to express my pride and joy that we have such an institution as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in the report and the occasions we have had to ask questions and hear the Ombudsman's own accounts of the year that has passed.

I move that the report of accounts for 2023, according to the committee's proposal, be submitted for the record.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! JO is an important guarantor that civil and political rights are respected within the public administration in Sweden. By carefully scrutinizing the actions and decisions of authorities, JO ensures that the individual's rights are protected. Freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society, and JO works to ensure that it is not circumvented by public bodies. Likewise, JO plays a decisive role in protecting individuals' privacy. JO's independent and impartial reviews contribute to strengthening trust in the Swedish justice system and, in the long run, also for democracy.

Every year, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen collect their observations in an official report, and it is well worth reading. In this year's official report, some observations are made that I particularly want to highlight because they are also examples of larger issues that are on the agenda in the general public debate.

Madam Speaker! An authority that has received criticism from the JO during 2023 is the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket). The case concerns an application fee that was not possible to pay with cash. This case is interesting in light of the problems that exist with many today standing outside of the digital society. A large proportion of the Swedish people do not have access to, for example, mobile BankID or digital payment solutions. This may be because they have a functional disability, that they are new to Sweden and lack a personal identity number, or that they are elderly and do not find the digital technology easy. One can ask where the limit is for the cashless society and whom we exclude if the cashless society goes too far. JO has here given a clear ruling when it comes to authorities.

A recurring question that the Committee on the Constitution has raised concerns the need for a supervisory authority for the Prison and Probation Service and the Police Authority. This year's official report reinforces the picture of this need. JO Katarina Påhlsson notes that the strained occupancy situation within the Prison and Probation Service continues to characterize the agency's operations and the conditions for the inmates. An in-depth review showed that the convicted persons held in remand prison remain there long after the absolute deadline for transfer to a prison, which is extremely serious. For the individual, this can mean that there is a risk of isolation in the remand prison and that the work on preventing recidivism will not start as it should.

Through JO's Opcat mandate, that is, their international mandate to, among other things, study how deprived persons are treated within our country's borders, unannounced inspections are carried out. During one such inspection, which was conducted at one of the Swedish facilities, JO noted conditions that for some deprived persons must have been, in parts, extremely stressful. Under certain circumstances, the treatment of them would have appeared almost inhuman.

JO Per Lennerbrant raises the issue regarding the police's use of secret coercive measures. During inspections of four local police areas, he has been able to establish that the use of coercive measures is not being tested in the manner prescribed in the legislation and that the application is therefore not compatible with the principle of legality.

These are important issues that every politician sitting in Sweden's Riksdag should take to heart and read before we make decisions on new legislation.

Madam Speaker! I would also finally like to highlight JO Thomas Norling's observation regarding the social insurance area – in this case, Försäkringskassan's handling of assistance benefits. Even here, it is recurring criticism that has been directed several times before. It concerns long processing times, but it also concerns the fact that all documents in a case have not reached an individual's representative. From the investigation in a specific case found in the official report, it appears that Försäkringskassan on several occasions sent decisions and communication letters directly to the individual, even though this person had actually hired a representative. It has also occurred that they have not sent [them] to all representatives who have a power of attorney.

Shortly after the turn of the year, a decision was issued by the Parliamentary Ombudsman - which is not included in this official report but which we can look forward to probably reading about in the next - in which sharp criticism is directed at the processing of assistance payments. Försäkringskassan has documented different parts and different pieces of information in different places and even in different cases, which could have led to major consequences for an individual who may have been denied assistance payments or received a reclaim based on deficient information.

Madam Speaker! These examples point out how important JO's role is when it comes to auditing how the authorities handle cases that affect individuals' lives and their individual civil and civil rights. It sheds light on the deficiencies that may exist within our authorities.

It is of the utmost importance that the authorities take the criticism put forward by JO seriously and rectify the deficiencies. Authorities have great powers to make decisions that affect and concern individuals. This power must be handled with care. The powers must not be exceeded, because then the trust and confidence in our authorities are affected, and in the long run, it can also affect the confidence in our democracy.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's official report

For over 200 years, however, JO has been a beacon to counter arbitrariness and strengthen the rule of law. The official history shows that that role will be needed for at least another 200 years.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 May.)

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