Review of the Parliamentary Ombudsman office
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned a review of the Parliamentary Ombudsman's (JO) constitutional position, mandate, activities, and organization. M argues that JO is an important guarantor of legal certainty and democracy that promotes accountability and transparency within public administration 1. M emphasizes that JO is an extension of the Riksdag's oversight power and an important institution for monitoring individuals' rights against the state 2. M considers it necessary for the government to investigate an ordinary oversight activity within several areas, for example, the correctional services, as JO is an extraordinary oversight body 2. M wants to safeguard the office's trust and integrity 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Ida Karkiainen (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden - the year is 1809. We are at war with Russia and losing Finland. We are also at war with France, Denmark, and Norway. Dissatisfaction with the royal autocracy is growing. A coup d'état occurs in March 1809. Sweden's ruler Gustav IV Adolf is deposed. The injustices are great, and the people have no insight into the elite's exercise of power. The time leading up to now - the 1700s - has also been characterized by the estate system, that is, an all-powerful parliament and a poorly functioning administration.
It was in this context that a newly established constitutional committee wrote the Instrument of Government in 1809. They shared the common starting point that the new system of government had to prevent new forms of absolutism. Separation of powers and effective control bodies were in focus.
One of these bodies was the Parliamentary Ombudsman who, on behalf of the Riksdag, was to monitor the authorities' exercise of power – a people's ombudsman and the guardian of the law. And it was indeed a modern constitutional device for the character of that time.
Mr. Speaker! Since 1809, the Parliamentary Ombudsman - the first to be established in the world - has been an important guarantor of legal certainty in the country. By receiving and investigating complaints from the public regarding the actions of authorities and potentially taking measures to ensure that the authorities act correctly and in accordance with laws and regulations, the authority has contributed to increasing trust in the public administration, guaranteeing citizens' rights, and ensuring that laws and regulations are followed.
This contributes to creating trust in the public administration and the justice system, which is fundamental for our democracy. It gives citizens a sense that their voices are heard and that they have an opportunity to obtain redress and justice, which is fundamental in a democratic state.
It also promotes a culture of accountability and transparency within the public administration, which is crucial for upholding democratic principles.
Mr. Speaker! It has been over 30 years since a review was conducted. For this reason, an inquiry in the form of a parliamentary committee was appointed three years ago. On May 18, 2022, the inquiry submitted its final report, and during this parliamentary session, we have deliberated on the matter in the Committee on the Constitution.
We now stand here with a completed report. The proposals addressed in the report concern JO's constitutional position, mandate, activities, and organization. I do not intend to reproduce the proposals in detail but refer to the report.
I would like to extend a special thanks to the office that has worked on this major issue. We have, in principle, worked out a bill, even though we are the Riksdag.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden - the year is 2023. We may have been spared from war in our country for a long time, but Russia has invaded Ukraine. We thus have a war in our immediate vicinity. We may have had democracy for over 100 years, but the rules of the game of democracy are tested every day.
Despite the fact that more than 200 years have passed since the Parliamentary Ombudsman was established, its mandate and core remain the same. We continue to need a strong Parliamentary Ombudsman office as one of the guarantors that human rights are upheld in our country and so that people can feel trust in our common society.
JO promotes a culture that ensures our authorities act correctly and transparently. It is a culture that builds trust and shows that we value openness and honesty in our society. Now we are taking further steps in safeguarding this important institution for a Sweden characterized by justice and respect for every citizen's rights.
I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.
In this speech, Matheus Enholm and Victoria Tiblom (both SD), Lars Engsund, Lars Johnsson, Ulrik Nilsson, Susanne Nordström and Erik Ottoson (all M), Jessica Wetterling (V), Malin Björk (C), Gudrun Brunegård (KD), Jan Riise (MP) as well as Malin Danielsson (L) agreed.
Erik Ottoson (M)
Mr. Speaker! The JO office is a historic office that is as old as the Committee on the Constitution, that is to say, just over 200 years. It has accompanied very many reforms of how we have chosen to govern our country, and it has become an important institution as one of the outer checkpoints to ensure that every individual's rights are met and followed up in relation to the state.
We should be proud of our ombudsman office. The word ombudsman has spread across the world. The Swedish model has served as a model for others when they have designed their control functions.
The JO office is an extension of the Riksdag and the Riksdag's power of oversight towards the government's authorities. It is important for us here in the chamber and for the state apparatus as a whole to closely follow the developments within this. Many important positions have been taken by the JO office over time, which has also played a major role for the individual's opportunity to assert their rights against the public sector.
After a thorough investigation, the Committee on the Constitution today submits a proposal for a decision in the Chamber which contains several important changes but also some instructions to the Government regarding what needs to be developed moving forward. Perhaps the clearest instruction we are giving to the Government in the form of a referral today is the need to investigate a regular review activity within several areas.
An area that has come to appear increasingly necessary to look further into, Mr. Speaker, is the correctional services. It is an area where the volume of cases at JO has significantly increased over time. As we work across the breadth of Swedish society to combat organized crime and insecurity, the mission of the correctional services also becomes larger, more difficult, but also more important. We perhaps do not foresee a decrease over time in the number of cases concerning specifically the correctional services.
The Committee on the Constitution therefore sends a mandate to the government to look at the ordinary supervision, as JO is an extraordinary supervisory body. The mandate does not specifically concern the correctional services but is more generally designed and is sent together with a number of other changes being made, but also changes that one chooses to refrain from making in order to maintain the very special character of the JO office.
The JO office is, as has been said, an extension of the Riksdag's oversight power into the state authority structure. Every individual's right to have their rights met is an important mission for the JO to monitor. Even though the JO does not deliver any judgments or have the possibility to impose penalties, similar to the Committee on the Constitution which also does not have that when we scrutinize the government, a statement from the JO carries great weight.
Criticism from JO is something that one would preferably want to avoid. As long as we can maintain that respect for the office that I would say the Swedish state apparatus needs today, no more is needed. As long as we can have such good confidence in the JO office that we trust that the decisions made there and the criticism directed from there are grounded in a legally sound reasoning, which we can always do, no more is needed. It is something I think is almost fantastic to consider. Think that a statement from such a respected institution can weigh so heavily that something sharper than a statement is not needed! But therein also lies the Constitutional Committee's very important task, which I think we take very seriously in the report we submit to the Chamber today for a decision: to safeguard the office's confidence and integrity.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
In this speech, Lars Engsund, Lars Johnsson, Ulrik Nilsson and Susanne Nordström (all M), Peter Hedberg, Ida Karkiainen, Amalia Rud Pedersen and Mirja Räihä (all S), Matheus Enholm and Victoria Tiblom (both SD), Jessica Wetterling (V), Malin Björk (C), Gudrun Brunegård (KD), Jan Riise (MP) as well as Malin Danielsson (L) agreed.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.