The Parliament's working methods etc.

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Madam Speaker! In order for trust in and respect for democracy to be anchored in everyday life, the forms under which the Riksdag operates are important to safeguard, nurture, and continuously review.

In a dignified manner, the 100 years of universal and equal suffrage were celebrated in 2021. Now, as I understand it, ceremonies and attention for the 500th anniversary of Gustav Vasa's in many ways revolutionary work for the shaping of the Swedish nation are approaching.

Regardless of how these historical milestones are highlighted, our society is built on the fact that the forms for work in parliamentary assemblies are well-anchored and updated. In that way, proud and urgent slogans about systems of government and forms of government can become good working tools to lean on.

Mutual respect and understanding between elected officials, civil servants, and other staff is of great importance. Some things can and absolutely should be put on paper and hammered out formally. Other things are about practice and how we as human beings treat each other.

The Committee on the Constitution's report KU18 Parliamentary procedures etc. deals with motions from the general motion period within this area as well as, which is worth noting, a proposal for an act on an amendment to the parliamentary rules of procedure. One initiative concerns a legislative amendment to correct an incorrect reference in a provision in the parliamentary rules of procedure that arose due to an oversight in a previous legislative matter. The other initiative concerns a referral to the Committee on Parliament Affairs to investigate the issue of the government's consultation with the EU Committee regarding so-called A-points at meetings with the Council of the European Union.

The Committee submits, on its own initiative, both the proposal for a legislative amendment and the proposal for an announcement. No specific opinion from the Council on Legislation has been requested as this would be of no significance given the nature of the issue. There are no reservations submitted regarding these proposals.

I hereby move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the motions under consideration.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the A-items, based on a brief description, it is about the agenda at the European Union's Council meetings being divided into two parts. One of the parts concerns legislative deliberations, and one part contains non-legislative activity. Each part is in turn divided into A- and B-items. The latter, the B-items, require more or less extensive deliberations, while the A-items are such that the Council adopts decisions without deliberation.

The criterion for an A-point is that it has been established that a sufficient number of Member States stand behind the decision and that nothing further needs to be added to the question. An agreement has simply been reached through previous negotiations and preparations.

As background, it can also be mentioned that the Riksdag, through a parliamentary committee in the report on EU work in the Riksdag, stated that the consultation regarding specifically the A-points was perceived as problematic. According to the committee, contacts between the Riksdag and the government on EU issues should be focused on the early stages of the EU processes, while the A-points are characterized by the fact that the negotiations as such have practically concluded. Consultation on these issues thus means that the Riksdag places a great focus on a phase in the process where the opportunity for influence and impact is small, and on detailed issues where the intention was never that the Riksdag should have to take a position.

The Committee presented some alternative models it had considered to limit the handling but realized that none of these alternatives would meet the need for simplification and streamlining. It therefore decided not to propose any change to the order of the consultation obligation regarding the A-points. The Committee emphasized, however, that there should be room for the Government and the EU Committee to develop the forms for the consultation regarding these A-points. The Committee on the Constitution expressed the same opinion.

Madam Speaker! Based on this reasoning, I would like to emphasize that the Committee on the Constitution, in the position we are to vote on today, notes that the government's consultation with the EU Commission regarding A-points was considered by the Riksdag's parliamentary EU committee. The committee considered various models for the handling but settled on that the obligation for information and consultation regarding the Council's decisions in A-points should remain.

The committee considers that there are now grounds to follow up on this development and review the issue anew. With the support of our right of initiative, the committee proposes against this background that the Riksdag support what the committee states and announce it to the Riksdag Board.

It is worth emphasizing that the Swedish Riksdag's handling of EU issues, as I see it and what I understand also according to many observers, is an important basis for there being strong support for the European Union and an engagement in EU issues both nationally as well as regionally and locally.

Madam Speaker! The report has dealt with motions concerning even such matters as the forms for the opening of the Riksdag, the seating in the plenary hall, the right to submit motions, Villa Bonnier as the Speaker's residence, the members' economic conditions, sign language interpretation, and the Riksdag Administration's activities. I shall comment on some of these.

Regarding the question of a review of the parliamentary work in terms of greater flexibility based on the possibilities of digitalization for remote work, which has also been raised, it can be stated that similar motions have been dealt with previously. These questions were given particular interest by the Riksdag's corona committee. In this context, it can be emphasized that the committee notes that the Riksdag meets in Stockholm according to the Instrument of Government. I also want to emphasize what the committee has previously stated: that remote participation can only be relevant in extraordinary crisis situations.

It can also be pointed out that a committee on preparedness according to the Instrument of Government has been appointed and is working. Among other things, these questions are included as tasks. The work continues until November 2023.

The committee's position is based on the principle that elected representatives should be given good conditions to carry out their mandate. At the same time, the Riksdag, as the people's primary representative, holds a special position in the system of government. The mandate of trust cannot be equated with other employments or, in that respect, other societal mandates. Against this background, I wish to refer to the committee's position that there are no grounds for an initiative for such a review as the mover requests. We reject the motion.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! A person in my vicinity recently said that it is no longer fun to visit the grocery store. I do not think she is alone in feeling that way. Yesterday I walked around in a grocery store. It almost felt as if I and everyone else in the store were just walking in circles, lifting goods and examining price tags. But it was not particularly much that ended up in the shopping cart.

In these times of high inflation, high prices and raised interest rates, many of us are likely worried about the development of society and need to think twice about what should be purchased and what can wait. Recently, a report from several major actors within civil society was presented, stating that child poverty in Sweden is an acute problem. Single parents, in particular, have a difficult time meeting their children's needs. And yesterday, the SOM Institute presented a survey which showed that almost seven out of ten believe that the development in Sweden is heading in the wrong direction. It is a record pessimism - who knows, it might become next year's new word.

The view of personal finances is also gloomy. The increase in the proportion who believe that personal finances have worsened has never previously been so large from one year to another.

Why do I then speak about this when it concerns a committee report dealing with the Riksdag's working methods, which is primarily inward-looking and where Members of Parliament usually have motioned for a lot of different exciting proposals? One can often discern aspiring speaker candidates' desire to live in Villa Bonnier or a desire to be able to submit motions year-round.

I am speaking about it because the report also includes proposals regarding the economic conditions for us Members of Parliament. They are good, to say the least. Recently, they were also improved even further. Since the Riksdag's Remuneration Committee raised the fee for us members by 1,500 kronor, our fee is now 73,000 kronor per month. The Remuneration Committee made its increase with reference to the wage increases that took place during 2022 and the uncertain economic situation.

I do not want to call out the Remuneration Committee, but surely it would have been good for the Swedish people if they also had a remuneration committee that took the uncertain situation into account and thereby increased their incomes in the same way as is done for us Members of Parliament. This is also not the only time. Even during the pandemic and last year, when there was also an economic crisis, our remunerations were increased while many others in society have had to stand back.

Furthermore, we members for this year have also received a tax reduction as a result of the threshold for state tax being raised.

One could wish that we members of Parliament lived a bit closer to reality. While others struggle on and have poorer opportunities to manage their everyday lives, there are a few of us, members of Parliament, who admittedly have very important assignments, who have good economic conditions – I say nothing other than that members of Parliament should have it. But it risks creating a large trust gap between us elected members and those we represent.

Over the last 20 years, the members of parliament's fees have risen significantly. Furthermore, the tax cuts of recent years mean that we earn thousands of kronor extra per month.

Vänsterpartiet is not saying that the fee should be very low, because it is obviously a very important and responsible task to be a member of Parliament. If the fee were so low that it risked creating significant corruption, that would also be problematic. But we think that one should limit the size of the fee. It could, for example, correspond to a price base amount per month. It is a model that we in Vänsterpartiet have motioned for over several years. It would correspond to a salary of approximately 52,500 kronor. It is still a high salary, significantly higher than the average salary in society, but it would not be enormously much higher or fundamentally different from the average salary.

The Left Party has also motioned for, and believes that, the compensations paid out for various assignments linked to the parliamentary work should be abolished. This applies, for example, to presiding roles in committees. We believe that the parties should instead distribute their work within the party group so that no one needs to receive extra fees for having a heavier workload. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The report concerning the Riksdag's working methods is, as mentioned earlier, perhaps quite inward-looking. Many of the matters we deal with in the Riksdag concern the outside world, but this is one of the few reports that concerns the Riksdag. It can be pondered how important it is that we devote ourselves to it and take up chamber time, but in the name of transparency, it is important that there is an insight from the public into how we work in this house.

The Riksdag is a fantastic place - the stronghold of Swedish democracy. It is important that the work we do here achieves the desired results. In this chamber sit 349 members who have all received the voters' trust to represent them. With our own political ambitions and goals, with election promises and long-term pledges, we all entered this chamber with a purpose - not to sit here and wait for it to be election time again in a few years, but to work on implementing and executing things that we have promised the voters and that are for the benefit of all of Sweden.

The Riksdag's working methods are, in that context, a very important part of the function of our democratic work. That the working methods function well is crucial so that we can then go to the voters and say that we have done our best. In the best of worlds, we would not need to spend much time on our own working methods; they would just work. But there are always things to improve, even in this fantastic place on earth that is the Swedish Riksdag. One such thing is what has been mentioned earlier regarding the work with A-points in the EU Committee, which KU is now notifying the Riksdag Board that it may need to review how the consultation looks regarding in order that we in the Riksdag can devote the activity to and focus our energy on what is most important.

Just as my colleague from the Social Democrats explained, the A-points are in many respects already fully negotiated, and the possibility to influence their content is very limited. But there are still occasions when there is a democratic point to follow up on how the government chooses to handle them. There was an order before the current one where one focused on A-points of what I believe was called "greater weight" or of a more principled nature, and put one's energy there. But in the current order, one looks at and consults on all A-points, even though many of them are already fully negotiated and uncomplicated. State resources are thus spent on basically clearing and expediting them. It may be wise to review this, and there can be many reasons for this.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, it is crucial that this House functions in the best possible way. The Committee on the Constitution has several important tasks in this regard. We are the preparing committee for the questions and also prepare the budget for the Riksdag and the Swedish Parliament Administration.

It is for obvious reasons that even though the government submits the budget bill, they do not include any political ambitions for the Riksdag Administration. It would be a strange order if the government, which is dependent on the Riksdag's support, were to start giving pointers to the Riksdag Administration. If this is to happen and if one is to somehow have a political ambition for the Riksdag Administration's work, there are several different places where one can do so – the Riksdag Board is obviously one, but it is an agency board that does not have a parliamentarily adequate composition. But the KU, where the budget is prepared, is another.

I want to provoke a thought among the members of the Committee on the Constitution, my colleagues, and the general public. We should perhaps devote more time and greater care in upcoming budget processes to the political signals that we, in the parliamentarily well-composed and very well-united Committee on the Constitution, where we seek unity and consensus, send to the Swedish Parliament Administration. How can the Swedish Parliament Administration's work in supporting the members and the political processes be developed and become even better? It is a forward-looking thought that we perhaps need to tackle together. With that, Madam Speaker, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the committee report on the Riksdag's working methods, and I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 under point 10. I would also like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this reservation comes from a motion that does not only concern the work here in the Riksdag, but it concerns the work in political assemblies at all levels.

We who work politically have a number of rules to adhere to. But after an election, when a new government is appointed, when the majority and opposition are formed and when the political everyday life then begins, a large part of the political work is based on practice. This applies regardless of political level, whether the work takes place at the municipal, regional or national level. It means that we both here in the Riksdag and in municipalities and regions around the country divide chairmanship positions among ourselves and also distribute other forms of influence among ourselves according to unwritten rules. This usually happens with respect for the political opponents.

That most of political life is determined through practice is in many ways admirable and provides a valuable flexibility to our democratic institutions, but there are also risks with relying too much on practice. Since the autumn elections, I have received worrying signals from several parts of the country. These are signals that elected officials who have ended up in opposition at the municipal or regional level are not given the opportunity for the transparency required to act actively and scrutinizingly in their role. It is highly concerning, and one may wonder if there are not reasons to consider whether the regulatory framework that governs political work is sufficient to guarantee such as a vibrant opposition, which in turn is a prerequisite for a vibrant democracy.

We in the Center Party think it is high time to reflect on this and review the regulatory frameworks. We want a parliamentary committee to look at how decisions are made in the Riksdag to see how practice can be formalized and in this way, through legislation, protect, among other things, the role of the opposition. In a similar vein, we want to see an investigation that, in close consultation with regions and municipalities, examines whether the need also exists at the regional and local level, and what that need looks like, so that we can find suitable regulatory frameworks that one is required to adhere to.

Madam Speaker! Another matter I wish to raise is the daily work here in the Riksdag and how we perform it in practice. The work is governed by the fact that we Members of Parliament regularly convene on-site in Stockholm, something that Per-Arne Håkansson also maintained. But the work in the own constituency, which for many lies far from here, constitutes a large and important part of the parliamentary mandate. In that work, the Member of Parliament captures issues at home to be able to convert them into questions and proposals in the Riksdag. A Member of Parliament has a great deal of expectations on them from home to represent the constituency's voters and to raise the local and regional perspective.

Dialogue with citizens in one's own constituency is an important part of the parliamentary mandate, and the democratic legitimacy of our electoral system is based on the fact that there are members from all over the country and that they do not only represent their party but also their region.

During the pandemic, the Riksdag was forced to rethink how the work was to be carried out in practice. The adaptation to the prevailing circumstances was not unique to the Riksdag but applied to many sectors. What the pandemic showed was that it is possible to have more meetings and perform more tasks remotely than we had probably previously imagined.

If greater opportunities were provided to perform more of one's parliamentary mandate remotely, this would encourage and facilitate for more people to seek the position. One needs to be able to combine the life one has in their home locality and the expectations from there with the work that is to be performed on-site here in Stockholm. We in Centerpartiet therefore want a review of the Riksdag's working methods to see how the possibilities for this can be improved.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Committee on the Constitution is responsible, among other things, for issues concerning Sweden's constitutional laws, but today we are also touching upon one of the fundamental principles of the Christian Democrats, namely the insight into human imperfection. It is part of human nature to sometimes make mistakes, even if one has knowledge of what is right. But then one also has the right to a second chance so that one can rectify what was initially wrong.

It is exactly what happened when the Riksdag in June last year decided on an amendment to the Instrument of Government and an editorial change in the Rules of Procedure. In the autumn, the Riksdag then finally adopted the pending bills. It was only that parts of the provision were moved to a new paragraph, even though the decided amendment should legally have been placed under another paragraph. Now, fortunately, the Riksdag's committees have the right of initiative, and therefore we are now using this right to adjust the decision from last autumn so that the text ends up in the right place.

Another committee initiative is taken up in the report. It concerns the handling of A- and B-points in connection with the government's consultations with the EU Commission, which several speakers have touched upon earlier. It sounds quite cryptic for those of us who do not work in the EU Commission, but the B-points require more or less extensive deliberations in the Council. The A-points, on the other hand, are matters where the Council makes decisions without deliberation, as it has been established that enough member states support the decision and nothing more needs to be said. The negotiations have concluded and an agreement has been reached in the Council.

The Riksdag's rules of procedure, etc.

The Riksdag's Parliamentary EU Committee stated in report 2017/18:URF1 that the consultation on A-points places too much focus on a phase in the decision-making process where the opportunity for influence is very small and where it concerns detailed issues that it was never intended that the Riksdag should have to take a position on. The consultation on A-points is extensive and is carried out within very narrow timeframes, which results in extra burden on both the Government Offices and the members of the EU Committee.

It has therefore been discussed to what extent the government should nevertheless have an obligation to consult with the Riksdag regarding the A-points. The committee considers that there are reasons to follow up on the committee's views from 2017/18 and therefore makes a notification to the Riksdag Board that an investigation should review the issue of the government's consultation with the EU Committee when it concerns A-points.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the motions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 23.)

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