The Parliament's methods of work

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! Broad political majorities behind provisions on democratic rules and forms have an intrinsic value. The legitimacy of democracy increases, and the consensus demonstrates the commitment to democracy. It is therefore unfortunate when, issue by issue, there is disagreement even in parliamentary inquiries on constitutional matters. Swedish practice has been to seek consensus solutions.

Today we are debating the report KU14 The Riksdag's working methods. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

Some motions represent the new wave of the right. An example of symbolic politics is the motions regarding the opening of the Riksdag, where they want to return to the opening at the Palace, in the Rikssalen, as it was until 1974. It was a stylish theater, one must admit, but symbolically it was a very peculiar display of royal power that the Swedish parliament should go to the Rikssalen. Even in England, the king has to travel to parliament and is not even admitted into the House of Commons so that he cannot exercise any power. But here, they want to move the opening of the Riksdag back to the Rikssalen.

Think of the beginning of the Instrument of Government: All public power in Sweden derives from the people. Would the symbol for that be the King inviting the Riksdag to the Palace? Hardly.

Other questions that arise in the motions are, for example, which flags should appear in the plenary chamber. It is apparently the case that the EU flag is a nuisance for some. For me, it is quite obvious: in view of the fact that we have handed over a part of public power in Sweden to the union, we must also have the union's symbol here in the plenary chamber.

Another thing is the seating in the chamber. Swedish tradition is that one sits according to which constituency one is elected in. Then one actually gets to socialize with Sweden Democrats, Moderates, Left Party members, and everyone else. And think, I have never suffered from that. I also think it contributes to symbolizing that we also represent different parts of the country. Wouldn't an effect of sitting by party also be that we symbolized an increased polarization? Is that what we want?

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation number 5.

Today we are speaking about the report KU14 The Riksdag's working methods, and the working methods are significant for ensuring that the work carried out in the Swedish Riksdag is clear and easily accessible for the citizens. The working methods also shape the extensive organization of civil servants who work to implement the decisions made in the Swedish Riksdag.

In this report, a number of motions submitted by the Sverigedemokraterna are addressed. In my speech, I will go into more detail on two of these.

What I intended to start by raising is a solemn occasion with deep historical roots, a day when we are given the opportunity to listen to interesting, current reflections from our Prime Minister and His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf. What I am speaking about, Madam Speaker, is the opening of the Riksdag, a solemn day with origins reaching far back in time.

The Sweden Democrats consider that the opening of the Riksdag should be held at the Royal Palace. It is, in fact, so, Madam Speaker, that this ceremony at the Palace was, as the Sweden Democrats mention in their motion, a natural element in the Swedish constitution until 1974, when it was unfortunately abolished.

The Monarch is a part of our Swedish identity and is well-anchored in the Swedish folk soul. There are good opportunities to make this a larger ceremony that is given space on Norrbro and surrounding streets so that this can become a holiday where all Swedes can participate and feel a sense of togetherness - a holiday that creates cohesion, Madam Speaker.

By moving the opening of the Riksdag session to the Royal Palace, we also clarify that our Swedish history is deeply interconnected with the Royal House. We live in a time where there are parties here in the Swedish Riksdag that want to abolish the monarchy. The Sweden Democrats, Madam Speaker, do not only see the Royal House as a symbol for Sweden and a part of our cultural heritage; we also see the Royal House representatives' important work for increased cohesion in society. We also see the Royal Family's exemplary work when it comes to international relations, which results in increased cooperation and increased trade between Sweden and other countries.

Madam Speaker! Another important motion from the Sweden Democrats addressed in this report concerns the importance of nurturing and respecting the Swedish language as the cultural treasure it is, not least in the parliamentary work. We believe that both internal and external governing documents are needed to complement the Swedish Language Act. These governing documents shall serve as a template for the committee work and for our committee secretariats in their daily work.

As we mention in our motion, there is a model in Iceland. There, they have a language model with a great focus on nurturing and preserving the beautiful Icelandic language. Let us bring in more knowledge and reflections from Iceland regarding all of this! Here, the Committee on the Constitution can lead the way, as the committee has done in so many other important issues. Let us unconditionally meet representatives from Iceland to delve deeper into the work that Iceland has so exemplary performed regarding the protection and use of the Icelandic language! Then we can discuss how we should proceed.

Another increasingly pressing argument, Madam Speaker, for why we need additional steering documents regarding the use of the Swedish language in the parliamentary work is the artificial revolution we are currently at the beginning of and which will have a major impact on our society. It will result in many positive aspects but also many challenges, for example, how we are to curb increased digitized crime.

Some questions nevertheless arise here. Does, for example, the current language act suffice as the use of various digital aids becomes increasingly common in the work of both our Members of Parliament and the Riksdag's civil servants?

When questions arise that do not yield clear answers, it is a good way forward to seek knowledge and learn from others who have already undertaken a journey in a direction that we see has worked well. I am thinking of my example of Iceland.

The Sweden Democrats consider that the authorities' writing rules do not go far enough, and additional steering documents are needed to demonstrate the special status of the Swedish language. It is therefore that we highlight this issue in one of our committee motions on how we can together safeguard the use of the Swedish language in the Swedish Riksdag.

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

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The motion's report on the Riksdag's working methods is fundamentally about one of the most important democratic institutions we have in Sweden. We could say that it is democracy's living room, a place where we are to be able to analyze and evaluate opinions in a low-key and objective manner, and where we are to show respect for the fact that we think differently because we strengthen the arguments, sharpen the thought, and move forward through our differences.

Precis because we are in the committee room, it presupposes that we respect each other – each other's actions and opinions. And precisely for that reason, we should also take care not to mark changes too quickly. Rather, as a true conservative, we should move forward like a rower: glance backward to hold the course but move toward the future. Therefore, we should have great respect for the fact that we have different perceptions of how we should equip, place, or plan the room. The purpose is to have a factual, open, and honest debate between Members of Parliament.

Our actions in this chamber must naturally reflect tradition and history as well as point towards the future that we have a responsibility to prepare for.

Madam Speaker! The basic principle for a large number of the changes is to exercise great caution and to seek consensus on what we should and shall do. What we do here matters, and the spirit we show here matters.

I want to touch upon two issues raised in the report. There are some motions concerning the fees for the members of the Riksdag. There, we have chosen a principle that implies an arm's length distance, that is, a fee committee that determines the fees. I believe that is the only reasonable thing. It is not reasonable for us to ourselves consider what our work is worth and what the salaries should be. It also means that it is equally incorrect for us to want to raise the fees as it is for us to want to lower them. In both cases, we depart from the underlying principle that it is someone else who evaluates what we do. Therefore, on principled grounds, I find it difficult to accept the motions that propose that the level should be determined in another way. In that case, we have an opinion on something we should not have an opinion on.

Madam Speaker! The most significant news in the report is the announcement proposed to be directed to the Riksdag Board, which unfortunately is prompted by the fact that security incidents have occurred in the chamber. We should review how we can preserve an arena where we can receive and hear opinions and arguments from one another without disturbances. The question is how we can, on the one hand, preserve openness, accessibility, and the flow of ideas and, on the other hand, ensure good working conditions for the Members of Parliament. This leads to a number of considerations. First and foremost, and for us in the Committee on the Constitution it is the obvious, come the legal considerations. Where is the limit for when publicity can constitute a disturbance? What measures can be implemented to increase security that do not unreasonably restrict the citizens' opportunity for oversight?

There are also fundamental considerations, namely how we should handle openness so that the Riksdag does not become a closed Tower of Babel but instead an open arena where we simultaneously manage to secure our existence. Let me express myself as when I learned radar technology in the military, namely that we must weigh the probability of detection, that we can capture the individuals who threaten our democracy, against the risk of false alarms, so that we do not undermine human rights for people who have a fully legitimate position to direct their dissatisfaction toward or their views to us members. I note that my inbox has experienced this in these days.

If we have now reviewed the legal and the principled considerations, we return to where we began, namely what the aesthetics look like in the chamber. How do we promote and mark openness so that we can manage an open debate arena in the chamber without disturbing or provocative elements? It is probably no one who desires them. It is a neighboring task, and that is why we say that we shall devote ourselves to seriously reviewing these issues. Therefore, a notification to the Riksdag Board is proposed in the report.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the proposal in the Committee on the Constitution's report 14, the Riksdag's working methods.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I intended to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3.

What do we Members of Parliament actually do? That is a question I often get. I know that if one were to ask all Members of Parliament, the answers would differ greatly, but much would also be similar. We vote and we attend committee meetings. But beyond that, we all make big differences in how we prioritize or choose to spend the time when we have the privilege of representing our voters in the Riksdag.

But how are we to ensure that the Riksdag functions in the best possible way? And what should that work look like in the future? What conditions should we have, and what conditions should apply to us and others who work in this parliament?

The answers are partly found in this report, and they concern everything from the elected representatives' working conditions to how we should sit and which flags should hang in this chamber. Sometimes they also concern where the Speaker should live. It is, to say the least, high and low in the report, and sometimes one can marvel at the creativity that exists among certain members regarding their own everyday lives.

We can see that the work has truly changed during the last decades, from a bicameral parliament to a unicameral parliament, from floating voting occasions to fixed times. Several other adjustments have been made to enable more citizens in Sweden to run for office and gain the trust to be a member of the Riksdag, for example through the children's activities in the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet are proposing that members of parliament should have reduced fees. We believe it is important that we members of parliament do not live in a completely different economic reality than the one that those we represent live in. And we in Vänsterpartiet motion for this every year.

Over the last 20 years, the salary of Members of Parliament has risen sharply. It now stands at 78,500 kronor per month. In recent years, several tax simplifications have also been implemented that have benefited high-income earners, such as we Members of Parliament are. This has also provided a number of extra thousands per month.

At the same time, the large, broad public has struggled with high inflation, high food prices, high electricity prices, and uncertainty regarding jobs in recent years. Right now, we also have record-high unemployment in the country.

The previous speaker was on this point regarding arm's length distance. I think arm's length distance is a good model when it comes to the fees, but I think one needs to reflect a bit on the question. Things have also happened in recent years. The severance terms for us members who serve in the Riksdag right now are not at all as generous as they were a few years ago - in connection with the fact that things can change for, in my opinion, the better.

In recent decades, we have also seen an increasingly rapid development of our society. We see a digitalization, and we see AI. We have also experienced a pandemic, and a war is still ongoing in our vicinity. It is a reality that is all around us. It is obviously important that we make our activities accessible in different ways, but sometimes we also need to adapt to the reality that we live in. In this parliament, one needs to make accessibility a more important issue than before, so that everyone who wants and can shall have the opportunity to run and be elected as members of parliament.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag is often said to be the heart of democracy. A prerequisite for being a member of the Riksdag is, of course, that one should be able to feel safe and know what to do if one is subjected to threats and hate. Currently, a review is underway through the parliamentary investigation where this is being addressed. And we in KU will in the future treat a report on precisely ensuring safety for members in a municipal and regional context. That one should be able to feel safe is, of course, a prerequisite for being able to run for office and wanting to be a parliamentarian.

In this report, there is also a proposal for an announcement. KU considers that a review of the security in this chamber should be conducted, as a number of incidents have occurred. At the same time, it is according to the committee a self-evident starting point that the meetings shall also be accessible to the public in the future. It will simply, as always, need to be a balance between publicity and security.

But if I am to be completely honest, Madam Speaker, I feel extremely safe when I am in this chamber. I know that those sitting in the gallery up here have undergone a security check. It is not in this chamber that I feel insecure. It is outside the chamber where it can sometimes feel unpleasant to be an elected politician.

If one is to speak of the Riksdag as the heart of democracy, one must above all speak of all other parts of our society that are also parts of democracy. They are, after all, the body parts of democracy.

Given the horrific act in Örebro about a week ago, we perhaps need to reflect more on how we can strengthen security and create a society with balance, so that we do not scare ourselves into unnecessary confinement.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It requires constant maintenance. In our Swedish parliamentary system, the Riksdag is the heart, but just like any other heart, it needs the right conditions to function.

This motion report, KU14, concerns proposals on how we can strengthen the Riksdag's working methods, so that we can make decisions for Sweden and for our nation's future. In order for the Riksdag to be able to carry out its mandate effectively, we must have working methods that are both modern as well as legally secure and functional.

Madam Speaker! I want to highlight some particularly important points from a Christian Democratic perspective. Swedish democracy is strong, but it is not immune to threats. We have seen democracy threatened in other countries, including in Kenya, which some of us Swedish Members of Parliament visited last week. In the parliament there, one can still see the traces of the storming and destruction that took place some time ago.

We have seen in different parts of the world how politicians have been attacked and the democratic debate has been stifled through fear, threats and a culture of silence. Such attacks on free and open democracy must never be accepted in any way.

We also saw it here in the chamber as recently as this autumn. During an interpellation debate in October 2024, our Foreign Minister was attacked in the chamber here in the Riksdag, in the heart of our democracy. It is an incident that should make us all stop and reflect. It was an attack not only on an individual person, but on democracy itself.

Madam Speaker! Democracy is based on open dialogue and on the fact that we, the people's elected representatives, can meet in this chamber to debate, scrutinize, and make decisions. But it is also based on security, on the fact that none of us should have to hesitate to speak out or feel concern for our safety.

The attacks against our Foreign Minister here in the chamber are a reminder not to take this for granted. Public scrutiny is a given and self-evident part of the Riksdag's work. But we must also ensure the safety of the members and the staff. Therefore, it is now absolutely necessary to review the Riksdag's working methods and especially the security, so that the chamber's meetings can be conducted in safe and orderly ways.

The Committee on the Constitution therefore proposes in this report a notification to the Parliamentary Board regarding a review of the conditions to ensure the conduct of the House's meetings. We look forward to the proposals that the Parliamentary Board will present following this review.

Madam Speaker! With this, I move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! The parliamentary work, more specifically how we here in the Riksdag work to seek solutions to the problems we see in society, is only partially regulated. The forms of parliamentary work have developed over a long period, and over the years our political parties have arrived at ways of working that I believe benefit everyone and which have contributed to a constructive spirit in politics, regardless of how the mandates were distributed in the last parliamentary election. The ways of working that have taken shape without having needed to be regulated have become practices that have been respected and which parties, regardless of color, have followed.

Unfortunately, I now see some things that are concerning regarding respect for the democratic rules of the game, not least in large parts of our world but unfortunately also here at home. Against the background of this development, I want to emphasize something that the Center Party has wanted to see for several years, namely a parliamentary committee that reviews decision-making in the Riksdag in order to formalize practice and protect the opposition's position in the legislation. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2 under point 9.

Madam Speaker! A way of working that we in the Riksdag have long applied is to seek and reach broad agreements as a response to complex and pressing societal problems. We do this to find long-term solutions that are sustainable over time, that hold up even if there is a change in government at the next election, and above all, that benefit those who live in Sweden and who have cast their vote for us.

This happens by us working in various preparatory bodies and committees where all political parties are represented. The idea of working in this way is to have constructive conversations regarding the issues and political areas that are the subject of the committee's or the preparatory body's work, to gather knowledge and, based on this knowledge, seek answers and be able to reach an agreement on political solutions. This stands in sharp contrast to the polemical positioning that our voters often get to witness, where politicians in the spotlight are happy to lock themselves into for or against, black or white, and red or blue.

That the work in a parliamentarily composed committee or commission often takes place outside the media's spotlight contributes, in my opinion, to the fact that we in the meeting room can set aside political sledgehammers, devote ourselves to objective analysis and argumentation, and actually reach solutions to the very social problems we are elected to address.

Madam Speaker! The Defence Committee, which last year submitted its report with a long-term perspective on Sweden's defense work, is one of the good examples from recent times of how we have worked parliamentarially to reach broad agreements. It is reassuring to see how all eight Riksdag parties in that work have contributed to finding common denominators that create the conditions for Sweden to defend itself against external threats, both in the short and in the long term.

Unfortunately, the Defence Committee constitutes an exception during the current mandate period regarding reaching an agreement and achieving a broad consensus. Broad consensus does not, therefore, mean a simple majority in the Riksdag. To succeed in reaching a broad consensus, it naturally requires trustworthy negotiations and that we are all prepared to give and take. The exact opposite of this is when one or more parties dictate the terms and, without further discussion, lock their position and then expect the rest to join in. To use such methods is to disturb the trust between each other, destroy the conditions for reaching broad agreements and thereby also undermine the possibilities of reaching long-term solutions that are good for Sweden.

Unfortunately, we have recently seen examples of the latter type of way of working in several of our parliamentary preparations and committees. Broad agreements, consensus, and trusting conversations do not unfortunately always seem to be the starting point anymore. This does not only make me concerned but actually deeply worried. We have seen this during the past year in the public service inquiry, in the Environmental Goals Preparation, and also in the constitutional law inquiry that I myself have been part of and which a few weeks ago submitted a largely unanimous report to the Minister for Justice, a consensus that unfortunately was not highlighted at all from the Minister for Justice's side at the press conference that followed.

Madam Speaker! Just before this debate began, all members gathered here in the chamber to honor the victims of last week's horrific school shooting in Örebro. It was a dignified moment, as we were all keen to show respect for the people who went to school as usual last Tuesday but never came home again. That moment here in the chamber is a reminder to us that we politicians must be role models in the work of creating trust in one another, between people, in order to hold our society together and hold our country together.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! After a minute of silence for the victims of the horrific attack against a school in Örebro, it may feel somewhat separate to debate the Riksdag's working methods. But let us remind ourselves that the minute of silence is also a part of the Riksdag's role. Through the minute of silence, we show that the Riksdag, the people's primary representative, is there for you who have been affected, for you who lost a relative, for you who were afraid for your own lives during the attack, and for all of you - all of us - who wonder how something like this could have happened in Sweden. We do not have all the answers today, but we stand united in working together so that the horrific does not happen again. The minute of silence allows us to remember and reflect and also underscores the seriousness for all of us.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, in the midst of the terrible, we must also continue, partly because we must not give up hope for a brighter future, partly because there is a meaning in the fact that the Riksdag's work continues regardless of what. It creates security in a restless time by that we stably continue the work we are appointed to do based on the rules of the game that we have jointly established so that our democracy shall function in both good and difficult times.

In today's report, we have a proposal for an announcement to have an investigation review the conditions for ensuring the conduct of meetings in the chamber. This is important and unfortunately necessary. It is happening for a reason, as my colleagues have explained earlier in the debate - because of the incident that occurred in the Riksdag last autumn. In this work, it is incredibly important that we find the balance between the members' safety and the openness that our democracy should have.

Madam Speaker! The horrific events that occurred in Örebro, but also the incident that occurred here in the Riksdag, remind us that despite living in a democratic society, we are not protected from the threats and dangers that can affect us and our public institutions. In times of unrest, it is even more important that we collectively take responsibility for ensuring that institutions such as the Riksdag and our schools function well. It is collectively that we build a stable democracy. With that, I move for the approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank my colleagues in the committee for the many wise contributions that have already been made.

The working methods of the Riksdag encompass, as we have heard, a lot of different issues, from flags and positioning in the chamber to sign language and the length of the summer break. From the perspective of the Miljöpartiet, we have not submitted any motions in these matters. This should not be interpreted as us not having any opinions; I can assure everyone here or who otherwise follows the debate that we do. But we join - with one exception, which I will return to shortly - what the committee majority advocates for.

A few months ago, as many have already pointed out, an incident occurred in the chamber which involved someone from the gallery throwing something in which, at best, did not cause anyone any harm other than a brief interruption to show the person out. This led to the provisional netting that we now see, which separates the gallery from the chamber itself.

We support the committee's proposal for an announcement that a review should be conducted to ensure that the balance between security and openness is maintained in the best possible way. Of course, it must be safe to be a member of parliament – or a minister, for that matter. One must be able to speak in the chamber in secure conditions. It is equally clear that the Riksdag building is a building that represents the finest we have, where free opinion-forming should be able to be expressed and where visitors should simply be welcome.

There are many aspects and dimensions that can be discussed within the framework of the proposed review. It is not only about ensuring the protection for us as members and for ministers and employees, but also about ensuring the protection of the democracy we safeguard, with openness, accessibility, tolerance, and participation as keywords.

As was previously expressed, it is we who are the people's primary representatives. Our house here is naturally the primary physical place for our democracy. We must take care of it.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I shall now speak about something completely different. I ask to make a small excursion to the tobacco industry and the international tobacco convention ratified in 2005. You must have a little patience, but I will get to a point at the end.

We know with great certainty that tobacco is harmful and causes many cases of disease and a significant number of premature deaths. This applies globally and it applies in Sweden, even though we have succeeded in reducing tobacco-related ill health through a number of different measures.

Now we have a situation where the tax on snus has been lowered. We have a strong growth in the sales of flavored snus. It is admittedly without tobacco, but it contains nicotine, which is extracted precisely from tobacco plants. It is the nicotine that has the effect. So it must probably be considered to belong to the tobacco industry.

We also see a rather extensive lobbying effort from lobby organizations. Among others, we have the Snus Commission, which proceeds from the assumption that it is less harmful to chew snus than to smoke. So be it, but it is harmful nonetheless. Replacing one addiction with another does not appear to be any brilliant idea.

It is a way of looking at harm reduction that I find it a bit difficult to understand. Replacing a product that is proven to be harmful with another that is somewhat less harmful feels problematic.

There is also a survey indicating that a quarter of the new snus users have switched to reduce their smoking or to quit smoking. That should mean that three out of four snus users have chosen the products for some other reason, with the following risks. We have likely instead received an increase in nicotine addiction.

Now the motion and the proposal are not about this, but about the opposing interests that can be assumed to exist in the snus and tobacco industry on the one hand and public health organizations and authorities on the other.

One of the articles of the tobacco convention, which I began by speaking about, is 5.3, which deals with protecting public health policy from the influence of the tobacco industry.

It is stated there, among other things, the following: "When the parties establish and implement their public health policy regarding tobacco control, they shall, in accordance with national legislation, act to protect this policy from influence from commercial and other interests within the tobacco industry."

The parties, that is to say we and other states, shall therefore take the measures addressed in the convention to protect public health policy from the influence of the tobacco industry. The convention points out that the interests are incompatible and that transparency and accountability are therefore required.

This is where the Riksdag's working methods come into the picture. The Government Offices, the Riksdag, and the political parties need to keep track of this and be transparent. It could serve as a basis for a motion to the Committee on the Riksdag's Administration to keep track of who and which entities are working in a lobbying capacity to try to get us to think that it is a great idea to sell more snus.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I just want to say something about a motion that is being rejected with reference to ongoing work within the Members of Parliament Inquiry and the Riksdag Administration. It is a motion that concerns the obvious fact that one of the travel agencies procured by the Riksdag Administration should be able to book international travel by train.

The working methods of the Riksdag

Madam Speaker! It is with all due respect something that we would not even need to speak about. If the Riksdag is to legislate on climate goals and limited emissions, it should naturally be easy for members to themselves contribute to the goals being achieved. The choice between plane and train should not be decided by how easy or difficult it is to book tickets for travel. That being said, I move for the approval of reservation number 6.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 13 February.)

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