The National Audit Office's report on decision-making basis for major reforms
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that the Swedish National Audit Office's report is alarming because it shows that governments often present major reforms without satisfactory consequence analyses or clear goals 1. I argue that descriptions of expected effects are missing in more than half of the cases 1. I criticize deficient decisions within energy policy, migration policy, climate policy, labor market policy, and crime policy 1. I highlight Västlänken as an example of cost increases due to lack of consequence analysis 1. I believe that the government should improve the work with consequence investigations and evaluations by producing these earlier in the process 1.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jan Ericson (M)
Mr. Speaker! The reports from the National Audit Office all too rarely lead to longer speeches in the Swedish Riksdag. But as chairman of the Riksdag's council for the National Audit Office, I believe that more of the excellent reports from the National Audit Office should be given more attention.
The National Audit Office is one of the agencies that report directly to the Riksdag, and having a competent and independent National Audit Office that audits both finances and the outcomes of political decisions is extremely important for us elected politicians.
Today, I intend to highlight a report from the Swedish National Audit Office which has the least understated headline: On shaky ground. This is perhaps the most serious report I have seen during my years as a member of Parliament, and it directs criticism at governments of various colors. The headline already suggests that the audit did not turn out well, and that the National Audit Office chooses the headline On shaky ground after an audit of major political reforms is actually alarming.
What is it then that the Swedish National Audit Office has audited? Well, it has audited whether responsible governments' proposals for large-scale reforms have been well-founded and well-analyzed. The audit has been delimited to 25 large reforms that were implemented between 2000-2017. The audit thus covers five different governments of different political colors - three social democratically led governments and two alliance governments.
The Swedish National Audit Office has examined how well the government's propositions describe various issues, with an emphasis on which social problems are to be addressed, what goals and effects have been pursued, what consequences the proposals can be expected to have, what costs the reforms can be estimated to entail, and how the goals are intended to be evaluated.
"The general conclusion is that the reform proposals for the aforementioned areas all too rarely meet the requirements that can be set for the basis to be considered well-founded and well-analyzed. In more than half of the cases, we assess that there is a lack of a satisfactory description of the reforms' expected effects or goals."
It is reasonable, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, that the government, to the greatest extent possible, accounts for a reform's expected effects or its goals in quantitative terms. It is central that there are clear goals and expected effects ahead of a future evaluation.
This is the National Audit Office's conclusion, and it is difficult to argue against.
The statements from the National Audit Office are actually a really substantial critique. It is stated plainly that political proposals regarding large-scale reforms are presented without any clear impact assessment, and also without any expectations of effects or stated goals for the reforms. Furthermore, evaluations of the reforms' effects are far too rarely conducted in hindsight. I think it is an almost astonishingly harsh criticism.
I want to point out once again that this is not a criticism of any specific government or against a specific political party. The report therefore concerns five different governments of different colors from 2000 to 2017. To a direct question from the Committee on Finance when the Auditor General presented the report, it is answered that one does not see any major difference between different governments, regardless of political color, nor any major change over time.
The fact is that as a Member of Parliament, I am somewhat ashamed of what the National Audit Office writes. It simply should not be like this. But unfortunately, we constantly see results out in society that are due to deficient political decisions without consequence analysis.
A current example is the energy policy, where one is curious about how the impact assessment looked before the decision to phase out nuclear power prematurely and replace it with weather-dependent electricity production. We have also seen major deficiencies in impact assessments in more areas over the years, for example within migration policy, climate policy, labor market policy, and crime policy. The effects of poorly thought-out decisions are visible all the time in our everyday lives.
Even when it comes to infrastructure, the problems are visible. The Västlänken railway tunnel in Gothenburg is a current example. The section past Liseberg, including the station at Korsvägen, was budgeted at 3.7 billion kronor. That was the winning bid. Today, 40 percent of the section is completed, and the contractors have already invoiced 5.7 billion kronor. This is therefore a cost increase of 2 billion or over 50 percent. Meanwhile, 60 percent remains to be built. How can it even get this bad? What impact assessments were done before?
Mr. Speaker! I can list a lot of examples, but I will not take any more now. I think that is enough.
The positive thing is that the government takes the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism very seriously. In the government's excellent communication regarding the report from the Swedish National Audit Office, they agree with the assessment that the work with impact assessments and evaluations can be improved. In the communication, the government also presents a number of measures.
The Swedish National Audit Office's report on decision-making basis for major reforms
Among other things, it is proposed that consequence assessments should be prepared earlier in the processes, and a mandate is also given to Ekonomistyrningsverket to attempt to coordinate this and to develop methods, guidance, and training regarding the production of consequence assessments. It is also proposed that consequence assessments should contain criteria and indicators for follow-up and evaluation, which should be a matter of course, as well as that the actor who will eventually perform the evaluation of the reforms should also be specified.
I therefore take the opportunity to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag levies almost the world's highest taxes on the Swedish people. They, in turn, have the right to expect that we safeguard the tax money. This implies that all political decisions must be preceded by a thorough impact assessment, that decisions are well-considered and have a clear goal that can be followed up, and that one truly evaluates the expected effects of a decision. If the effect does not become the desired one, one must reasonably also be able to change the decision in question.
For this reason, I wanted to particularly highlight this report. We must become better - much better. We have that responsibility towards our voters, regardless of party.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
(Decisions were made under § 21.)
Right of compensation as well as insolvency and execution law
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.