The Parliament's methods of work

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag's rules of procedure concern something that is immensely important, namely how we organize the work here in the Riksdag. The Riksdag is Sweden's most important political arena. It is here that discussions are conducted, opinions are contested, and weighty decisions are made.

This arena shall be open. We shall have free debate. We shall have a great exchange of views. But we shall also have a decent debate environment and a decent treatment of one another. We have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted correctly in Sweden. It concerns issues of how members shall be given the opportunity to participate in the political work, what conditions shall apply, and how we can feel secure in our role when we participate in debates here in the chamber. It is also about how we shall protect ourselves from influence and improper actions. How shall we, for example, ensure that we have information that is reliable? All of this is woven together into a defense of the democratic values that we all stand for.

Madam Speaker! One could say that such a motion report is more of an idea bank and less of a basis for a decision. We must thresh out all such proposals that are to be implemented in other bodies. We also have, in parallel during this year, a parliamentary commission of inquiry that will be presented, and that also concerns this type of issue. It is a whole.

In the motion report, there is a large number of motions with a very wide range, everything from whether we should sit by constituency or by party in the chamber to which flags should be at the front of the plenary hall. There are proposals both to remove and add flags, and it is clear that there is no really simple compromise between the two solutions. There is therefore reason to welcome that the ideas are raised, but there is also reason to take it a bit easy.

There are, however, some points where I would like to make a landing in the flood of motions we are dealing with. The first concerns the financial register. I met with the parliament from Armenia a couple of months ago, where they thought it could be good to report how one uses money received from the state. That someone should be able to interfere with what I have for other financial assets, however, was considered to be outside the political mandate.

In Sweden, we think differently. We think it is important that we can demonstrate that we stand independent in our mandate, and therefore we have a financial register where we are to state our assets and our connections. One question is then whether it should be directly searchable on the web. I can think that it sometimes becomes a bit difficult to manage, and one can wonder if it really is the right way. But that it should be available and public, we are in complete agreement on. To make a decision here today, I believe would be a bit premature, and therefore we will move for a rejection of that part.

Motions have been raised regarding how to ensure accessibility for all people here in the chamber, ranging from those who have different functional impairments to those who in other ways have difficulty reaching the debate. We agree that we must do as much as we possibly can to increase accessibility. But how the requirement should look can we consider in other contexts.

Motions regarding the Riksdag's security, ranging from access control to screening, may spark ideas but require further investigation before a decision can be made.

Finally, the question of the fee. Today's system consists of a committee that, independent of the members' opinions, makes an independent assessment of the fee. We think that is a very good arrangement. Then we avoid – and can also never be accused of – deciding on our own fees ourselves.

Madam Speaker! The report raises many thoughts, but to approve the motions, more is needed than just the basis that a motion can provide. Significantly more elaborated proposals are required. Therefore, we in the majority in the Committee on the Constitution move for approval of the proposal in our report number 19 on the Riksdag's working methods and thus rejection of all motions from the general motion period. It is not the same as saying that all ideas are completely incorrect, but they must in that case be handled in a different order.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! The working methods of the Riksdag are of great importance for democracy. What happens here in the chamber and all the other activities, meetings and initiatives that each member takes or is involved in are built on openness and are based on the mandate that each one of us 349 members has towards our voters. The expertise in the form of civil servants, experts and investigators that is available is a guarantee that the legislative proposals being handled, the motions being raised and other initiatives being taken rest on a solid foundation.

In the Instrument of Government, it is established as is known that all public power derives from the people. An important prerequisite for representative democracy to function in practice is the work that takes place here in the Riksdag.

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag's working methods have been particularly highlighted in recent days as we have received the news that the government, as I understand it, has made a request to the Speaker for the Riksdag to process a number of late-submitted bills in the final stages of the mandate period in July and August. At the same time, we can observe that a number of votes during the regular work plan have already been postponed. I have also met with representatives from several committees that had only a few bills to process during the autumn and winter.

In normal cases, there is a proposal stop around March 20, out of respect for all staff and not least for the practice that normally applies. In crisis situations, however, it can of course be justified with urgent proposal processing. I assume that the need for the working order that gives the Riksdag and the committees the opportunity to do a good job is met and that the views of the party negotiations are taken into account in the request that I understand has now been submitted to the Speaker.

For my part – and I am also thinking of all the others elected in this chamber – it is obvious that there is a readiness to be called in at any time. It is part of the mandate. But I can imagine that quite a few are still following the media debate that has arisen in this matter and are asking themselves whether it is not a rather pressured government that has dragged out the time with the bill work in order to in that way exploit an opportunity to, in the final shaking weeks of the mandate period, try to keep the members here in the chamber instead of the opposition being able to be out in the election campaign and meet the voters eye to eye. It is a tactical pirouette that I believe is seen through by most conscious citizens.

Madam Speaker! In the Committee on the Constitution's report KU19, the parliamentary procedures are treated, 52 motions from the general motion period on this subject area are addressed. The motions concern, among other things, the procedures for the opening of the parliamentary session, the right to submit motions, the review of the conditions for elected officials, and the activities of the Riksdag Administration.

Openness and transparency are starting points to be established in this context. In a time of increased authoritarian elements in international political leadership and declining trust and respect for democratic systems and parliamentary work, Sweden can take further steps forward as a continued model regarding precisely transparency. I therefore wish to move for approval of the Social Democratic reservation. It establishes that the proposal under point 10 should have the wording that the Riksdag stands behind what is stated in the reservation and announces this to the Riksdag Board.

In the position paper, we from the Socialdemokraterna believe that trust between elected representatives and citizens is crucial in a democracy. Transparency is the strongest protection against corruption, conflict of interest, and undue influence. The Riksdagen's economic register of members' shareholdings, board assignments, and other economic interests should therefore be made more accessible. The register is admittedly already public and can be requested, but the thresholds should be lowered by having the information published on the Riksdagen's website in some form. That is the extent of the Socialdemokraterna's reservation in this matter. Otherwise, we support the report and move for the rejection of the motions.

Madam Speaker! The 52 proposals and motions submitted in this matter regarding the Riksdag's working methods can nevertheless be seen as a testament to the fact that this is a subject area that arouses interest. Let me reason for a while about the trade-offs surrounding some of the other motions.

A motion wants to return the solemn opening of the Riksdag to the Rikssalen at the Royal Palace. Another motion wants to limit the duration of the Prime Minister's government statement. The motion to move the opening to the Rikssalen has been addressed on a number of previous occasions. The committee maintains its previous position and also finds no reason to limit the duration of the government statement. We also remind that it is the Speaker who determines the order of the opening ceremony.

Another motion wants to remove the EU flag from the plenary chamber and instead make the NATO flag visible in and around the Riksdag. It should be noted that there are guidelines for when the EU flag and the NATO flag respectively shall be hoisted at the Riksdag in the current governing document for flagging in the Riksdag.

In this context, as I see it, the special position that EU membership holds in Swedish society can also be emphasized. It concerns issues and proposals that can be implemented in Swedish legislation. In large part, every week, matters concerning the European Union's activities are handled. The EU flag in the plenary chamber is undeniably well-justified, not only as a symbol but as a good reminder to everyone that Sweden is an obvious part of the European cooperation.

Madam Speaker! One motion addresses security in the Riksdag, and another seeks to ban demonstrations in the area between the parliamentary buildings. The questions of security are obviously important to take most seriously. However, it is a matter of constantly weighing potential restrictions against what democracy itself is built upon: openness and accessibility towards the people.

In the preamble, the committee refers to current law in the form of the Instrument of Government and the European Convention, but also the Public Order Act and the Police Act, where the police currently may dissolve a public assembly if a more severe disorder occurs at the assembly itself or as a direct consequence of it in its immediate vicinity, or if it poses a considerable danger to those present or a serious disruption of traffic.

The work already underway regarding security and where reports are being prepared by the Committee on Parliament Administration is also addressed in the text. It is, we emphasize in the report, serious when elected representatives are subjected to threats and harassment. Maintaining security around the Riksdag building is important to protect the members but also to ensure that the Riksdag is accessible to the public and that those who come here are safe.

Madam Speaker! A motion addresses the seating in the chamber and wants parties to sit together and not as they are now, where we are seated by constituency. That motion is also rejected. My opinion is that there is every reason to emphasize the importance of the constituency seating. That in itself can be a way to counteract further polarization and perhaps facilitate contacts across party lines, which is also a part of the parliamentary work. It is also my impression when I meet visiting groups here in the Riksdag that the constituency-based seating is appreciated by the public and voters.

Allow me finally to say a few words with some historical reflection and refer to the book Tvåkammarriksdagen 1867 – 1970, which was published two years ago with the willing assistance of Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. The authors are the historians Torbjörn Nilsson and Josefin Hägglund. There, on the opening pages, is described what happened shortly after half past three in the afternoon on December 16, 1970, when the First Chamber's then-speaker struck the gavel on the table and concluded a 104-year history for the bicameral parliament, which was then replaced by the chamber we have today. For the first, and for the First Chamber's part also the last time, a round of applause followed the gavel strike from the benches. This history's first applause in the First Chamber illustrated that a new era had arrived. In today's Riksdag, as is known, applause occurs quite often, not least when party leaders appear. But it would have, if one is to understand the history, been unthinkable in the old and more strict First Chamber.

Of course, it can be pleasant and refreshing with one or two rounds of applause. But the description from the last day of the bicameral parliament might still give reason for some reflection.

(Applause)

In this speech, Hans Ekström and Peter Hedberg (both S) concurred.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Now I shall also try to speak so that I receive some applause. It creates a bit of performance anxiety to come after the previous speaker.

But first and foremost, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

Madam Speaker! There is a proverb: If you are in the game, you must endure the game. As a member of Parliament, when one is a legislator and a holder of power, one must endure quite a lot. One must endure being scrutinized, and one needs to be able to disclose what economic interests one has.

There is a register to provide insight into, for example, which shares a member owns or if one has assignments or employments beyond the role as a member of Parliament. The register has existed for a long time, and the information is public. But it is not particularly easily accessible, which creates unnecessary obstacles. Instead, these details should, just as in, for example, the EU Parliament, be published on a website, preferably the Parliament's website.

One also needs, as a member of Parliament, to tolerate being in Stockholm more than one might have wished, at least if one does not live here in the capital. One also has to tolerate traveling a great deal by train or other means of transport, and one is forced to be away from loved ones.

All this must and needs to be endured; it is part of the assignment and something one is aware of when one stands for candidacy.

Mr. Speaker, just because one is part of the game, one does not actually have to tolerate anything. I represented my party in the inquiry that reviewed Members of Parliament's conditions and in what way the support for the parliamentary decision-making process can be strengthened. Currently, work is underway to handle the proposals provided by the inquiry, and that is welcome.

But what we discussed most were questions linked to hate and threats, but also other questions linked to safety and security. In the investigation, we took into account results from both the Riksdag's own surveys as well as the survey called PTU, the politicians' safety survey, which is regularly conducted by Brå and includes elected politicians at all political levels.

The latest survey gives a very depressing result. I know that the Speaker also is aware of it because there was a seminar in the Chamber of the House earlier today regarding this. One in four politicians reports having been subjected to some form of threats, harassment, violence, vandalism, or theft. If one is young, a woman, or has an ethnic minority background, one is even more vulnerable. Much of the threats and hate often come directly and digitally in a way that can make it difficult to avoid them, for example by falling into one's inbox or arriving as messages on social platforms. The safety survey also shows that as few as one-fifth of these incidents are reported to the police, primarily because one does not believe it will lead to anything or because one sees it as part of the job. If you are in the game, you have to put up with the game, quite simply.

But that is, of course, not the case. Hate, threats, and other forms of crime are not things one should be forced to tolerate just because one has a political mandate. But many with political mandates seem to consider that it is partly included. If, however, it were to affect one's family, who have not chosen to be public, a red line is crossed.

Madam Speaker! For my part, my pizza night with the parliamentary group two years ago was interrupted by a call from the police. Someone had fired a number of shots into my living room. It is probably not quite possible to describe all the feelings and thoughts that it evoked then. It was, of course, a shock. But despite the time that has passed, the experience of that incident and the consequences for me continue to live on.

The reason I feel free to stand here in the speaker's chair and speak about that specific incident is that there is nothing to suggest that it was linked to my mandate as a Member of Parliament or to me as a person. It simply seems to have been a mistake, a so-called stray bullet. It is obviously a relief, but if I had been at home, it perhaps would not have had such great significance. And above all, if it had been linked to my political mandate, I would have truly wondered whether it was worth having one's home shot at in order to engage in a political mandate. I probably would not have thought so.

Madam Speaker! Many of us share experiences of being subjected to threats and hate, but also other forms of crime connected to our mandate. Even though this specific incident was not connected to my mandate, it took time to get clarity on it. Even though I have at times also had to receive threats and hate connected to my political mandate, I am relatively spared, thank goodness.

But perhaps this is what is most striking regarding the vulnerability that politicians testify to when it comes to hate, threats, and other crimes: In addition to the fact that the crimes one is subjected to are not reported, it seems that particularly women view threats and hate as something to be endured and as part of the political mandate. The consequences instead seem to be that one places the responsibility on oneself – that one considers leaving all or certain assignments, that one avoids engaging in issues where one believes the engagement can have negative consequences, and that one reduces their activity on social media to avoid being subjected to crimes. This is, of course, in the long run a threat to our democracy and the democratic dialogue.

When it comes to security here in the Riksdag, we could conclude in this investigation that it is relatively simple to take measures. But we as members of parliament and everyone else with political mandates also have a mandate to meet voters. We cannot simply lock ourselves in a room to feel protected. If no one is prepared to take on political mandates, it unfortunately will not matter what forms of work we have in the Riksdag. Then it does not matter what other conditions apply to the mandate, what fee we receive, or how accessible the Riksdag's premises are.

But all those questions, regarding both accessibility and fees, are naturally very important to highlight. It is also for that reason that Vänsterpartiet stands behind a number of reservations in this report.

Madam Speaker! If you are in the game, you must endure the game, but not at any price.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! The working methods of the Riksdag may seem like a somewhat dull title – it might not exactly make your heart flutter. But let me take off the gloves and say that in this report, it is indeed the heart of our democracy that we are discussing, namely how the Riksdag functions and what conditions we provide for those who have received the people's trust to sit here. It is an incredible privilege.

Just as a previous speaker said, the issue has become very topical in the last few days. In the press, we have been able to read about matters concerning precisely our working methods and potential plenary-free weeks.

I would like to begin my speech by moving for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation 3, which concerns the review of the elected representatives' conditions.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Parliament must reflect the Swedish people. In order for us to have a living democracy, it is also required that the thresholds into politics are as low as possible. But the truth is that today we have conditions that risk shutting people out.

Being a member of Parliament is one of the absolute finest assignments one can have. But it is also an assignment that places extremely high demands. For many, not least parents of small children, self-employed individuals, or people who live far from Stockholm, the equation between the assignment, professional life, and family life is very difficult to balance.

It can be argued that the current order is expedient, that the review taking place is sufficient and that it must not go too fast. But then one also chooses to turn a blind eye to reality.

We in the Center Party consider it not expedient that competent people hesitate to run for office because the price for their private lives becomes too high. We consider it not expedient that the working methods in Sweden's highest decision-making bodies in some parts look the same as they did decades ago, even though the society around us has changed.

Madam Speaker! As we have heard here, it is also about safety. We see a worrying trend where elected representatives are subjected to hate and harassment and, to an ever-increasing extent, also to threats. If we do not review the conditions and support systems for our elected officials, we risk scaring away the voices that our democracy so much needs.

We need a modern parliament for a modern time. We need to conduct a review that ensures that one can combine political commitment with a normal life. It is only in this way that we can secure the renewal of the democratic mandates and ensure that the parliament in the future also consists of people with different backgrounds and with different experiences who represent all parts of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is actually a specific matter I want to speak about here, but I thought I would first say thank you to the previous speakers. I had a small inkling of what you were going to say.

I have already gone through some of the matters contained in the report. Just as Jessica Wetterling, I also had the opportunity to participate in the so-called member investigation and am naturally very pleased that some of the proposals we had there are now being prepared and are also mentioned in the motions.

I have a matter based on a motion signed by members of all parties in the Riksdag – all eight parties. They have jointly signed a motion regarding the accessibility in our buildings.

If we who have the privilege of being here are the people's primary representatives, then the Riksdag House – or rather, the Riksdag houses – are the people's primary buildings. They should, of course, to the greatest extent possible, also be accessible to everyone who works here, for those who visit us, and for us as members of parliament.

For some years now, there has once again been a disability rights network in the Riksdag. The network has worked actively with, among other things, arranging the disability rights congress and holding round-table discussions with civil society organizations in the field. People with various disabilities attend these arrangements, and there are, of course, also Members of Parliament who have corresponding disabilities.

The members from all parties who have signed this motion have unfortunately been able to observe that the accessibility in the Riksdag is not always the best. Among other things, it regularly occurs that elevators are out of order or that information regarding accessibility, for example concerning hearing loops in different rooms, is incorrect. This creates frustration, time pressure, and extra work.

It is crucial for the Riksdag's credibility in matters of functional accessibility that our own premises are accessible to everyone regardless of functionality. It must be possible to carry out arrangements where many participants have functional impairments without this leading to unreasonable delays because the entry has not been staffed in an adequate manner. Participants in the Riksdag's arrangements must simply never feel as if they are a nuisance.

The committee members, who thus represent all parties, also mean that it would be desirable that more debates in the chamber were sign-interpreted and that there should be an opportunity to hire sign-interpreters at the Riksdag's expense at large events, for example the recurring functional rights Riksdag.

We are aware that the Riksdag's buildings are old and that it is not always possible to achieve total accessibility for everyone in all places, including entrances and transport routes inside the buildings. But the ambition must be high. This shall be ensured as far as possible, and the information regarding accessibility must be accurate. Every time a meeting room is booked, correct information about the room's accessibility shall be easily accessible, and it shall appear in the confirmation.

For this purpose, the proposers suggest that a routine be introduced whereby the Riksdag's local managers regularly carry out a review of accessibility, for example once a year, and propose improvements and make information available regarding the current situation in all premises.

The members therefore request in their motion a notice – not to the government but to the parliamentary board – to regularly review the accessibility in the parliament's premises. This is also the content of reservation 4, which I hereby move for approval of.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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