The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! It is once again time to talk about the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report, which we handle in the chamber every year.

The Committee on the Constitution notes in the matter that a fundamental prerequisite for the ombudsmen to be able to carry out their extraordinary supervision is that there is a well-functioning ordinary supervision. That is not the case, and we have pointed that out. For me, it is the third time I am doing so.

JO continues to have a high number of cases coming into the authority. The increase is as large as 11 percent for the year 2024. The increase has been broad but is larger for certain areas. Within migration, the increase is 31 percent. But what I usually get stuck on is the correctional services, where the number of cases has increased by 400 during 2024. It happens every year that I get stuck specifically on the correctional services instead of on individual stories in the report.

From the official report, it can be read that detained persons remain in detention for too long with restrictions due to lack of space in the prisons. The number of reports from the Prison and Probation Service amounted to 2,100 during 2023. According to the mathematics I know and quick mental arithmetic, the number of cases is 2,500 for 2024.

The complaints concern many different things: that one needs to share rooms, that meeting rooms have been converted into something else – most often into rooms for detainees – or that the work tasks that one is to perform during the day to have a sensible existence are not sufficient for everyone because the overcrowding within the correctional services is so high.

It is problematic that precisely the Prison and Probation Service does not have any regular supervision. This means that inmates send their complaints directly to JO, and in this way, the supervision becomes extraordinary.

Madam Speaker! Of course, JO has tried to resolve this, among other things by delegating some matters to bureau chiefs and now also to legal experts at the agency. The agency's efficiency is great and has been for a long time, but at some point, one still reaches a limit.

The Committee on the Constitution takes up in its position what I said earlier – that a fundamental prerequisite for the JO to be able to carry out its extraordinary supervision is that there is well-functioning ordinary public supervision and an adequate complaint system. This is exactly how the committee expressed itself last year – and in 2023.

We have been informed that a proposal is being prepared to appoint an inquiry into issues regarding the public supervision of, among others, the police and the Prison and Probation Service. Therefore, the committee wishes to remind of the announcement that the Riksdag directed to the government as early as 2023 and continued to pursue last year.

Madam Speaker! In order to strengthen the conditions for JO as an extraordinary supervisory body, it was truly necessary that the government takes measures in accordance with this announcement and that the report is thereby added to the records. I must also remind that the announcement that came from the Committee on the Constitution is a unanimous announcement.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Reading the JO's official report provides a flash of insight into Sweden, as it channels views and opinions that there are reasons to take note of. These can be personal circumstances and personal problems. The official report is full of such stories. But when one then tries to understand the whole, one must probably turn to the statistics.

If one looks at the statistics, one can note what my colleague said here earlier: the caseload has increased, in the last year by 11 percent. If one chooses, as I do, to go back a couple of years and compare the 2020 official report with the one for 2024, one sees that the number of cases has generally increased by 20 percent. If one counts very carefully, it is 18 percent. When it comes to the correctional services, the increase is 58 percent. Mirja Räihä was largely correct with her 2,500 – the increase was 2,544 from 1,604 in 2020. It is clear that there is an enormous increase in cases.

Then one can reflect on what the increase in cases is due to. The analysis of what it is due to does not, of course, mean that the cases should not be handled, and the work effort is there. But let us look at decided cases instead. JO directed criticism toward Kriminalvården in 6.7 percent of all received cases in 2020, but in 3.6 percent in 2024. In absolute numbers, more remarks were made in 2020 – 92 items – than were made in 2024, when there were 70 cases. Somewhere, there is therefore an increased interest in reporting. But it is not an increased number that, so to speak, gains traction in the JO report. There may be reason to reflect on this. It is admittedly a downward trend – in 2020, 5.1 percent of the cases received criticism from JO, and in 2024, 2.9 percent received criticism from JO. There has therefore been a decrease, but it is rather a very good grade for the Swedish authorities that handle difficult issues and obviously do so in a very good way.

Madam Speaker! It is one thing that the JO directs criticism. In essence, it can mean that a person who has complained receives some kind of redress. But the most important thing is that we get a picture of what can be improved. How can the handling be improved? Then, of course, it is natural that not everyone should be able to get everything that one thinks one should have. It is a political balancing act what should and should not be foundational. But there is still reason to reflect on it.

What challenges does the Parliamentary Ombudsman face then? Yes, one is the development within digitalization. JO has begun to consider using artificial intelligence to be able to structure cases. It is clear that it streamlines the handling. But one must not forget that the same technology can increase the inflow of cases by using it on both sides. It is therefore not a one-sided solution, but it can likely also expose JO to increased pressures.

It is important to be at the forefront of technical development and to strive for improvements, but also to realize that the future will bring new challenges.

The next challenge, which we have not talked so much about here in the chamber but which there are reasons to consider, is internationalization.

One such thing is how JO, who is also the military ombudsman, should handle issues related to the Nato engagement. There, some Swedish stories can find themselves in other countries.

The decisions currently under consideration regarding potentially renting places in prisons abroad are also new challenges that JO may need to handle. There is reason for us to be aware of the significance of this and how it is to be ensured.

Finally, the volume of cases is naturally a challenge, which colleague Mirja Räihä also touched upon, both in the areas where there is regular supervision and in the areas where there is no regular supervision. There we have a notification.

We must also not forget that JO's original role was to review courts. In 1809, Mannerheim traveled around and hunted more or less uneducated judges in Sweden. He also received the nickname Rikspiskan or possibly Rakhyveln.

Madam Speaker! There are, therefore, challenges in the management. But my conclusion when I read the official report is nevertheless that JO is a modern authority in very good shape, even if it is nearly 215 years old.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in report KU11.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! There are many authorities in Sweden. But it is only a few that are directly subordinate to the Riksdag. One of them is the JO. It is an institution that I appreciate more and more with each passing year.

When the Parliamentary Ombudsmen's annual report is released, I set aside almost everything else – which has become much more difficult now that it arrives in the spring instead of in the autumn, as it was previously. This yearbook is one of the most important temperature readings we have on how Agency Sweden functions and has a history that is, to say the least, proud. The book can give a frightening impression. It is thick and heavy. But if one dares to open it, it is at least important and urgent reading. It is also much more readable than one might perhaps expect.

Madam Speaker! The JO office was a Swedish invention when it was established in 1809 and has since been exported all over the world. Even though much has obviously changed since then – it is still 215 years ago – quite a lot in the mandate remains similar today. Just as back then, one examines that laws are followed and that authorities and their officials carry out their work. Just as back then, one conducts inspections and can propose changes and improvements. Just as back then, one can also bring charges, even though 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 authority has made a mistake.

In connection with the submission of the official report, we in the committee have had two meetings with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen where we have been able to ask questions.

Madam Speaker! A specific mandate of JO that I particularly want to highlight this time is the Opcat mandate, to prevent inhuman treatment.

In addition to JO's regular work of auditing authorities, JO has a special mandate to be Sweden's national visiting body. It has a unit that works exclusively with this special mandate. The unit regularly visits Swedish detention centers, prisons, arrest centers, places of detention, Sis-homes, and psychiatric compulsory care clinics. This means that JO regularly inspects, most often unannounced, places where people are held deprived of liberty. The purpose is to prevent the occurrence of cruel, inhuman, or other degrading treatment or punishment in Sweden in places where few of us have knowledge of or insight into the conditions.

It is clear that JO, simply by its existence but also obviously through its investigations, whether based on complaints or on its own initiative, monitors our civil and political rights, increases legal certainty in our society and, ultimately, is an important actor involved in upholding our democratic system. If you or I should in any way feel ill-treated by the public sector, there is someone we can turn to to have our complaint examined and who stands on our side and monitors your and my rights. It is something that we should safeguard, cherish, and be proud of.

JO's supervision is extraordinary and should not replace the ordinary supervisory activities that should exist at agencies or at specific supervisory authorities. As the committee has previously emphasized, a fundamental prerequisite for JO to be able to fulfill its important extraordinary supervisory mandate in an appropriate manner is that there is a well-functioning ordinary supervision so that JO's resources can be used for the extraordinary supervision.

This is particularly important, for example, regarding the correctional services. There is no regular supervisory authority there, so the only place one can turn to with a complaint is precisely JO. This is something that KU has pointed out to the government several times that needs to be rectified. It is not reasonable that complaints regarding the correctional services should take up such a large share of JO's resources, but it is obviously important that it is done when it is currently the case.

As a previous speaker has pointed out, the number of complaints has increased over time, not only from the area of the correctional services but also from other areas. It is therefore obviously important that JO has good conditions to exercise its review and supervision and can handle this influx in different ways, which has also been done in different ways.

Madam Speaker! Previous speakers have spoken about statistics, how many people report, and how one should view that. The fact is that too many cases come in for the JO to have the opportunity to investigate all of them. Sometimes cases are dismissed by referring to a previous decision in a similar case, for example as an information.

One thing that needs to be taken into account is that when the conditions in certain areas change quite radically, that which perhaps previously received criticism from JO, for example double-occupancy within the correctional services, also becomes normalized. It becomes a new normal. Then it perhaps also won't be a complaint when one notices that it is not just oneself who needs to share a cell with another person, but that it is something that everyone does.

Madam Speaker! I cannot emphasize enough the value of the ombudsmen informing us in the committee and the Riksdag of their observations and pointing out the need for legislative changes or other measures that have been identified through their audits. It is particularly serious when JO points out deficiencies concerning our constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties regarding personal integrity and the right to privacy.

The authorities' respect for our rights and our privacy is a given in a constitutional state. When JO highlights such deficiencies, we in the Committee on the Constitution expect the authorities to take measures to rectify these.

In this year's annual report, JO notes that several agencies have stated that they have had difficulty conducting operations that meet the requirements for good governance. JO also highlights problems with long processing times in several areas, insufficient resources, and deficient competence. This is obviously not good and risks undermining public trust, and therefore measures are required.

Madam Speaker! In order for JO to be able to fulfill its mission, it must be granted access to correct and complete decision-making documents. In this year's annual report, JO highlights several cases where there have been reasons to doubt that authorities and officials have fulfilled their obligations under the law to fully assist JO in their investigations. This is concerning and is something I have not noted in previous years' annual reports.

If JO is limited in its supervision in such a way, there is a risk that irregularities will not come to light and that individuals will not receive redress when they have been treated incorrectly. That would be a development that is, to say the least, concerning.

Finally, Madam Speaker: This is my last debate before the summer break. I would like to wish the committee, the committee's secretariat, the Chamber Secretariat and all other staff in the Riksdag a fine and pleasant summer with plenty of recovery.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I shall then, for the sake of order, state that this is not my last debate. I will return tomorrow regarding an entirely different matter.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report is a recurring annual review of the state of the realm seen through the lens of reports against and complaints about public activities in Sweden.

The number of reports has increased quite dramatically in recent years, as we have already heard. This, for all intents and purposes, demands an increasingly efficient organization to handle all these cases, but it is also a kind of thermometer for the state of the country. The questions that strike me are several: What kind of reports are they? Why are there more than before? Is the increase a result of increased accessibility, has it simply become worse off, or have the demands increased?

Through the official account, we gain insights into this.

Madam Speaker! Initially, the head of the JO, Erik Nymansson, states the following: ”How well democracy functions is largely determined by the citizens' knowledge and access to facts, and it is therefore important that we communicate our decisions in a good way.”

This is, of course, a completely central observation. And as I will return to just a moment, it is not only about the citizens but also about the public sector, i.e., the authorities, municipalities and other organizations we have to run the country.

Madam Speaker! I want to raise two examples from the official report, which have been discussed at the Committee on the Constitution's both open and closed meetings with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson is responsible for the supervision of the correctional services, and a good deal of other things. But the correctional services have, as is known, been forced into major changes as the number of convicted persons increases and as the length of sentences also increases. A consequence of this has been that the number of double-occupancies, i.e., prisoners who have to share already small rooms with others, has increased significantly.

At the same time, the reports from those in custody have increased sharply. This can, of course, be a perfectly reasonable reaction to changed circumstances. But what looks like a causal relationship does not necessarily have to be one. It is important to remember that. At the same time, it is naturally necessary to evaluate this and subsequently take a position on whether it, if so, is the type of correctional care we want. That is the least we can do, I think.

In that context, it may also be worth considering how the supervision within the correctional services, police, etc. should be designed. Just as it has been pointed out here, there is therefore no ordinary supervision; the Parliamentary Ombudsman's supervision is extraordinary.

Madam Speaker! I also want to draw attention to something that the Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling mentioned in a response to a question I asked, namely that it can be difficult to reach out – regarding communicating what one has concluded – with results, observations, and decisions based on events in one municipality to all other municipalities, or at least to as many as possible. I am thinking particularly of the issues concerning children's rights, to be involved in conversations concerning their situation, to be listened to, and that any decisions always are based on the best interests of the child.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law for a few years now, and it is time to seriously address those parts of the legislation that perhaps have not yet fully sunk in everywhere.

In a report from Unicef this week, it was stated that of the 131 recommendations that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has submitted to Sweden, not a single one has been implemented. Not a single one. Some are in progress, others are at a standstill, while others are heading in the wrong direction. This concerns, for example, such things as putting children in prison.

With that said, it feels even more urgent to promptly develop, test, and evaluate new models for information dissemination so that, without losing the requirement for evidence, we can nevertheless expand the set of tools and methods available for, for example, the country's social services. Thomas Norling also took up the challenge of trying to communicate his conclusions, decisions, assessments, and other experiences.

The Committee on the Constitution has, as I mentioned, both an open and a closed meeting with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen. A meeting regarding the budget is also to be added, which is, of course, also affected by the increasing number of reports. Some can be handled through efficiencies, while other things likely require more hands. A thought that some of these hands could be in Gothenburg might please a West Coast resident like me.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal to submit the official report to the records.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 June.)

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