The Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report

Mirja Räihä (S)

Madam Speaker! It is time once again to debate the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report. For my part, it is the fourth time. We shall see if these debates are returned to in the next mandate period; time will tell.

The Committee on the Constitution notes that a fundamental prerequisite for the ombudsmen to be able to carry out their extraordinary supervision is that there is a functioning ordinary supervision. That is not the case right now. The Committee therefore wishes to remind of the announcement that the Riksdag directed to the government during 2023 to investigate the public supervision.

During 2024, the number of complaints increased by 11 percent, which was the largest increase in the authority's history. During 2025, the increase amounted to approximately 32 percent, or approximately 3,700 complaints, compared to 2024. JO had to handle 18,000 complaints during last year and fears that next year they will reach 20,000 complaints.

The increase has occurred across a broad front, but a particularly marked increase is noted regarding the police, the general courts, the education system, immigration matters, and social services. Most complaints still concern the Prison and Probation Service, but numerically, the reports have increased most regarding the police. There, approximately 660 complaints had been submitted compared to the previous year, which corresponds to an increase of just under 50 percent.

Madam Speaker! Every year I have been struck by the Prison and Probation Service specifically, rather than individual stories in the report. In February 2025, a report was published on the conditions within the detention center operations, and in May 2025, a report was released on the conditions within the prison operations. From the reports, it appears that the inmates' lack of personal time ran as a red thread through the mapping. Other risk areas identified were that the matching of who should share a cell was omitted or was deficient, and that overall, no structured follow-up was conducted.

The summary conclusion was that the conditions in the prisons risk resulting in the inmates being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, and that the consequences for the inmates at the detention centers are even more serious. However, it is not only the risks for the inmates that increase, but also the risks for the correctional officers, who work in a work environment where the risks increase significantly when the situation is as it is.

The Prison and Probation Service has reported that, as a result of the strained situation, the authority is forced into a more extensive conscious risk-taking regarding the placement of inmates. The trend is an increased number of reported incidents involving violence and threats, both between the inmates and against the employees.

Then it becomes problematic that the Prison and Probation Service does not have any regular supervision. This means that the inmates send their complaints directly to the JO and that the supervision thus becomes extraordinary.

Madam Speaker! Of course, JO has tried to resolve this, among other things, by delegating some cases to the heads of departments and now also to legal experts at the agency. The agency's efficiency is great and there are plans for further streamlining. Of course, the newly opened office in Gothenburg has done its part to streamline the work.

The Committee on the Constitution takes up the following in its position, and I repeat what I said earlier: A fundamental prerequisite for the 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.

Exactly this was stated by the committee even last year, and in the report submitted in 2024, the committee expressed itself in the same way. The committee initiative was submitted by a unanimous committee already in 2023.

We know now that an investigation has been commissioned and that Statskontoret is currently investigating the question of the need for a regular supervision of both Kriminalvården and the police. The investigation is to be presented at the end of 2026. It has taken a very long time to investigate such an important issue. Other laws and matters in this chamber have been handled much faster than a committee initiative from a unanimous committee.

Madam Speaker! The Ombudsman's guiding statements in decisions and opinions should be an important element in the work to improve legislation, other regulations, and the administration. The Ombudsman's observations should also be taken into account in the general work for good administration as well as to prevent deficiencies and inaccuracies in public activities.

The Committee assumes that the Government and the authorities will take the measures required to rectify the errors and deficiencies that the ombudsmen have identified. In order to strengthen the conditions for the JO as an extraordinary supervisory body, the Government must truly take measures in accordance with the announcement, and with that, the report is submitted to the records.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that I am not the Parliamentary Ombudsman. When a description of the activity and a comment on it can be perceived as boasting, it is something one should refrain from. We stand here before a function that works in a completely fantastic way.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman is a traditional and old institution. Since 1809, it has scrutinized and proposed improvements to the Swedish administration. We stand, if I counted correctly, before the 215th official report. I do not intend to comment on all the previous ones, but I intend to say a few words about the one that concerns us now.

First, I want to say that JO's very great value is that it is always the last resort. Everyone can contact them and get an assessment of their case, however not on the merits, but by writing to JO, a successive improvement can occur. In this way, it becomes an excellent thermometer of society and social development. The cases that come up give an indication of what can be improved.

There are plenty of figures in this year's official report. There are 15,429 new cases, which is 3,700 more than the previous year. As you heard in a previous entry, some more were handled. This means that the case balance, which is another figure, decreased somewhat. Above all, we can state that between 15,000 and 20,000 people actually want a review and a position. It is important to remember that. The police and the Prison and Probation Service have a certain special status, which has also been touched upon, which is the area where there is no first instance for review.

On the other hand, one learns from this that there is a need for it. In the same way, there may be other areas that today lack a first instance where we will eventually say that it will be needed. For that very reason, it is important that we follow this at all times.

During the year, 18 inspections and 18 so-called Opcat inspections have been carried out, which means the Prison and Probation Service's visitation activities.

When it comes to the development of cases, we can observe that despite this enormous development, it has been possible to conduct the operations through smarter working methods, efficiencies, new technology, and a new way of distributing the work. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to offload cases or take a larger step to develop this. Thus far, however, it has been possible to conduct the operations with high quality and under high pressure under difficult conditions.

JO has a well-managed economy. The budgets that the Riksdag has allocated have, in the vast majority of years, led to a certain repayment of money, namely when they have managed to handle it anyway.

I am concerned about the recruitment situation, as it is difficult to recruit qualified people to JO. It is one of the reasons why it has been decided to also broaden the operations with an operation in Gothenburg. We will have to see if it succeeds. Hopefully, there are also trained lawyers on the west coast who might think it is interesting to both be able to stay on the west coast – which I believe everyone should think – and work at JO. That could be a success factor. Above all, I think we should be grateful that this type of initiative is being tried to maintain the high quality and the good work that JO stands for.

Madam Speaker! Without further comments on this, I move for the approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in Report No. 11 regarding the JO's annual report for 2026.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

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

When the Parliamentary Ombudsmen's annual report is released, I will release most of it, although it has become more difficult now that it comes in the spring. It was simpler in the autumn, when we were not completely occupied by the Committee on the Constitution's review work.

This yearbook is, just as previous speakers have said, one of the most important temperature readings we have regarding how Agency Sweden functions. It has a history that is, to say the least, proud. The book gives a rather daunting impression – it is thick and heavy – but if one dares to open it, it is important and worth 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 over 200 years ago – quite a lot in the mandate remains 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 one can propose changes and improvements. Just as one can also bring prosecutions, even if that right was mostly used in the 19th century. Above all, it is about receiving complaints from individuals and, through its decisions, giving them redress when public power has made a mistake.

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

Madam Speaker! When I began as a Member of Parliament in 2018, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen received just over 9,000 complaints per year. During the last year, the number of complaints increased by just over 30 percent compared to the previous year. When we had the head of JO visiting the committee last week, he gave a forecast for the number of complaints, which looks to increase significantly this year as well.

It is a development that one needs to reflect a bit on. It is important that there is a high level of knowledge in society about JO and the possibility of complaining to them. Ultimately, JO is a way for persons who feel they have been treated incorrectly by an authority to obtain redress.

JO contributes not only through its existence but also, of course, through its reviews – based on complaints or on its own initiative – to increasing legal certainty in our society. JO is an important actor in maintaining our democratic system.

If we in any way should feel ill-treated by the public sector, it is important that there is someone we can turn to to have our complaint examined and who stands on our side and guards our rights. This is something that we should safeguard, cherish, and be very proud of.

The increase in complaints causes headaches. JO's supervision is extraordinary by its nature, and it is not intended to replace the ordinary supervisory activities that should exist within agencies or with specific supervisory authorities. KU has emphasized exactly this for a long time. It is a fundamental prerequisite for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen to be able to fulfill their important extraordinary supervisory mandate in an appropriate manner, so that JO's resources can be used in the best and most suitable way.

Today, there are several authorities that stand without regular supervision. A particularly important example, which previous speakers have touched upon, is the Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården). There is no regular supervisory authority there, so the only place one can turn to with a complaint is precisely the Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO). And that is what many do. As mentioned, the National Audit Office (KU) has several times pointed out to the government that this is something that needs to be rectified. It is not reasonable that complaints regarding the Prison and Probation Service should take up such a large share of JO's resources, even though it is obviously important that it is done when it is currently the case.

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 needs for legislative changes or other measures identified through their audits. It is particularly serious when JO points out deficiencies concerning our constitutionally protected civil rights and freedoms.

With this, I would like to thank those who work at JO for their good work. I look forward to taking part in upcoming official reports from this important agency.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! The JO's annual report may sound a bit dry, but the one who sits down and flips through the report will soon be hooked, at least if one is interested in the relationship between our authorities and individuals. As Member Wetterling said, JO's annual publication contains stories from real life concerning the relationship between people and the public Sweden.

The Parliamentary Ombudsmen review our authorities, and it is done for everyone's sake. In a democracy, it is absolutely central that we safeguard the individual's fundamental freedoms and rights. At the same time, JO's reviews provide a basis for us as decision-makers by pointing out deficiencies that need to be addressed so that necessary changes within an authority can be implemented when required.

After having participated in the debates on JO's annual narrative since 2022, I can state that certain themes are recurring. Therefore, I want to bring up a few things that I have said several times before. These are things that I find somewhat concerning and that it is time to do something about.

Madam Speaker! The first thing I want to highlight is the development that has been ongoing for a long time: that JO is receiving more and more complaints. In my first speech on JO's annual report 2022, I mentioned that the number of cases had doubled in ten years to approximately 10,000 cases. Last year, there were 15,000 cases and complaints that came into JO. This places enormous demands on the authority, which several speakers before me have touched upon.

I want to first say that I am impressed by how JO manages to handle the large volume of cases that flow in. JO has shown evidence of great efficiency while simultaneously maintaining a good quality. But this is not sustainable in the long run, because we do not see that the development is about to turn around, rather the opposite.

Of course we want those who have complaints to the JO to turn to it, but the problem is that several of those who complain have nowhere else to turn even though they should. JO is, as mentioned, an extraordinary supervisory body, and as such, JO actually should not be the first instance for all the complaints that come into the authority today. Unfortunately, they end up there anyway, because there are authorities with great powers over individuals that lack ordinary supervision.

The Prison and Probation Service and also the Swedish Police Authority have been mentioned. These are authorities that make many and intrusive decisions against individuals. Furthermore, the scope of their powers increases as more people serve prison sentences and the police receive more sharp tools. I can only urge the government to do what the KU has urged several governments to do, namely to establish regular supervisory bodies for these important authorities.

Mr. Speaker! The next issue I want to raise is how we are to ensure a fair and legally secure trial for everyone. The country's courts are struggling, as JO has pointed out for several years now, and it has become increasingly difficult to recruit judges to our general courts. This applies in particular to the northern parts of Sweden.

When we talk about the importance of combating serious crime, we often focus on the police and its resources, but to succeed in prosecuting criminals, it requires not only police but also prosecutors and judges. I note that the number of complaints against the country's courts has increased significantly during the past year. It primarily concerns long processing times, where those waiting for a decision have to wait unreasonably long.

That a trial shall be conducted within a reasonable time is a constitutionally protected right. If it takes too long to process a case, it compromises legal certainty. With the pressure that lies on the country's general courts today, there is an absolute risk of injustices.

How serious the situation actually is in some places is highlighted in one of this year's cases – the one concerning Hälsingland District Court. There, JO has found unacceptably long processing times but has nevertheless refrained from issuing a critique. The court is supposed to have seven employed judges, but there have only been two. The court has repeatedly advertised positions but received no applicants. Therefore, they have had to manage with a traveling judicial force that has stepped in.

Since the district court has truly tried to resolve the situation, it escapes the JO's criticism, but the situation itself is of course far from satisfactory. I want to emphasize that moving forward we must ensure that the judges receive the resources they need and also review how we can get competent judges everywhere in the country where it is needed.

Mr. Speaker! I want to further highlight something that is particularly close to my heart, because in my previous role as a prosecutor, I primarily worked against the crime that generates money, namely fraud and economic crime. This year, and during recent years, JO has directed serious criticism at how that type of crime is prosecuted – or rather not prosecuted, because here cases are left lying for years without any actions whatsoever.

In recent years, serious crime has been high on the political agenda. But obviously, we need to do significantly more to tackle the crime that many times drives the violence.

Admittedly, I can discern a growing awareness in the political debate that the large sums of money are not primarily found within the drug trade but are earned in other ways, for example through fraud or by starting companies for criminal purposes. That is good, because if we do not understand the nature of the problem, we will also not be able to find the right political solutions. Unfortunately, however, we see today that preliminary investigations into wealth crimes are left lying for far too long without the slightest action.

This year, JO has directed criticism at the police in Stockholm and its fraud section for a case that lay for six years without action. It was then that a relative of the crime victim submitted documents that helped the police identify the perpetrator. I agree with JO that this sluggishness risks seriously damaging the public's trust in the police. We must do something about this.

Finally, I just want to thank the Riksdag's ombudsmen for the work that has been carried out during the past year. I move for approval of KU's proposal that the official account be added to the records.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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