Review of the JO office (pending constitutional proposal)

Jennie Nilsson (S)

Madam Speaker! For over 200 years, the JO has had a central role in safeguarding Swedish legal certainty. By receiving complaints, reviewing the actions of authorities, and issuing criticism when necessary, the JO contributes to openness, accountability, and trust in the public administration. The possibility for individuals to have their complaints reviewed is fundamental in a democracy. It shows that no authority stands above the law and that people's rights must be taken seriously.

During the previous parliamentary term, a parliamentary committee was appointed to review the JO's activities. The investigation presented its proposals in May 2022. We shall now vote on these proposals for the second time, as is appropriate when it concerns changes to our constitution.

The proposals aim to strengthen JO's constitutional position, mandate and organization. It is about developing and safeguarding an institution that is completely crucial for the rule of law and democracy.

Madam Speaker! We live in a time when the principles of democracy are being tested once again. In our own immediate vicinity, battles are being fought – both military and political – over the future of democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and the systems of government of states. This reminds us all of the need for a strong and independent JO – a guarantor that our authorities act in a legally secure, transparent manner and with respect for people's rights. To safeguard JO is therefore the same as safeguarding the citizens' trust in society, the rule of law, and democracy. I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the report.

Videoriksdagen.se

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! JO is definitely one of Sweden's gems. I do not know if they are included in any cultural canon, but in any case, perhaps they should be. Since 1810 – the Instrument of Government of 1809 – we have indeed had a Parliamentary Ombudsman, a Swedish innovation. Ever since Mannerheim, with the nickname the national whip, traveled around the country and created order and tidiness in Swedish courts, this has been an institution that has been central to Sweden's development.

That is why it was not with a small measure of humility that we in KU took on the question of updating the regulatory framework for JO. This is not something that we want to throw out, but just as member Jennie Nilsson previously said, it is something that we safeguard because it is an important part of our democracy.

When we took this on, it was with a very high degree of openness and a free discussion in the committee. It is rarely that one experiences bouncing around so many ideas as we did in this process and considering so much on how it can be done. In the best sense, good cooperation in the Committee on the Constitution has led to this proposal.

There may be reasons to consider that it is the KU that has handled this since the JO is an authority under the Riksdag. It was not the case that the government submitted a proposition with all the proposals, but rather that we had to work them out from the beginning. I would like to thank all the members who were involved in the process. I think it was a pleasant process to evaluate and arrive at the proposal that now applies.

Some changes were necessary. This includes, among other things, the possibility to appoint an acting JO and the possibility to have a routine for how to handle a JO who has exhausted the trust. Many, many more changes exist.

This was, as said, a joint effort. I want to thank everyone involved in that process.

Since then, JO naturally has problems. Some are positive. Right now, we see an increased amount of cases coming in. It is clear that the regulatory framework here does not solve it. There, it is perhaps rather a matter of having more first instances, so that JO does not need to be the first instance in all cases. But that lies outside this matter.

Madam Speaker! It is good that we have a unanimous proposal on a new regulatory framework for JO. It is good that we have it, because it shows that we care about the functioning of democracy and nurture the Swedish gem, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, or as it is formally called: the Riksdagens ombudsmän.

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in report KU2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

Videoriksdagen.se