The National Audit Office's report on the government's management of the civil defense's development

Alexandra Anstrell (M)

Mr. Speaker! When we now speak about Sweden's civil defense, we are not just talking about documents, structures or government decisions. We are talking about the very foundation of our society's resilience, our robustness and our ability to hold out when the unexpected happens.

Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report 2025/26:FöU7. The committee proposes that the Riksdag adopts the government's communication and rejects all motion proposals, and I move for approval of the proposal.

Let me start from the beginning. The National Audit Office has audited the state's management of the civil defense's buildup between 2015 and 2024. It is an audit that has been born out of concern, a concern that civil protection has not kept pace as the world around us has become increasingly uncertain, as it is today.

Mr. Speaker! I love the Swedish National Audit Office. The National Audit Office's findings become very good material for improvement. What do they say in this matter? Well, they say that the management has not quite been sufficient. More specifically, it concerns three major deficiencies.

Firstly, it is about unclear distribution of responsibility. When one does not know who is in charge, it naturally becomes difficult to grow and govern. The Swedish National Audit Office points out the need to better define which socially important functions should be covered by which sector and which agencies should have regulatory authority.

Secondly, it is about unclear assignments. There has been a lack of clarity regarding what is to be achieved by whom and within what timeframe. Without this, the management is like sailing without a compass.

For the third, it is about a lack of long-term perspective in the financing. A civil defense cannot be built with short budget horizons and uncertain planning. The National Audit Office clearly points out that the financing must become more stable and predictable. It is therefore good that we now have a government that is investing historically large sums in civil defense.

These are no minor remarks that the Swedish National Audit Office has presented, but rather it concerns structural deficiencies that affect the entire system. Even though the agency's underlying data has improved over time, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that clear and useful underlying data were delayed.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has agreed with large parts of the criticism for the period up to 2022. At the same time, it is now highlighted that the governance and follow-up have been significantly strengthened after 2022, among other things through a new structure for civil defense. It is an important marking – a signal that the direction is now more coherent than before.

It is important to emphasize that the government has already taken several measures and plans for more, regarding both constitutional amendments and economic governance. The ambition is to create a more transparent and purposeful framework for civil defense and to increase the capability in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! Civil defense is not for any single group, but it is about all of us. It is a matter of public importance. It consists of our authorities, our municipalities, our regions and our business sector, but also of each and every one of us who live in this country. It is we together who are a whole, and civil defense must be a promise of our collective security.

The National Audit Office reminds us that the planning for civil defense was resumed in 2015, but that development thereafter proceeded slowly. It is only after 2022, after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and with a moderate-led government, that the work has truly gained momentum. It shows how quickly reality can change and how important it is that we all keep up.

We need to look up, because the way forward is clear:

We need clarity in the distribution of responsibility. We have that now, and it has been established more and more.

We need concrete and clear assignments, and they are now being given.

We need long-term sustainable funding. The investments in civil defense are now historically large.

These three areas are not just technical improvements, but they are cornerstones and building blocks in a civil defense that can sustain an entire society.

Mr. Speaker! When we one day look back on history and our time now, it shall be clear that we took responsibility, that we saw the shortcomings, that we learned from them and that we took measures. This consideration is a step in this work. It is naturally not the final point but part of an ongoing capacity building that must continue with determination and perseverance. And we shall do it together.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in an extremely serious security policy situation. The National Audit Office's review of the state's management of the construction of the civil defense shows something that we Social Democrats have pointed out for a long time: The work has proceeded too slowly, the distribution of responsibility has been unclear, and important parts of our civil preparedness still lack the stability and long-term perspective that is required.

The National Audit Office notes that the management has not been sufficiently effective during the years 2015–2024, particularly regarding what should be done by whom and when. It is absolutely excellent that this is now being made visible. But it is not enough to note the deficiencies; we must also rectify them.

Here, we Social Democrats mean that the Defense Committee's report, where the committee proposes that the Riksdag should only place the communication in the records and reject all motion proposals, is insufficient. It is therefore that we have written our reservations, and I move for approval of reservations 3 and 9.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office states that the distribution of responsibility within civil defense has long been unclear and that central parts were only put in place in 2022. The agencies' mandates have not been sufficiently clarified, and their funding has not created conditions for long-term methods of work. Here, we Social Democrats believe that the state must take a stronger and clearer leadership. We therefore reserve ourselves against the committee's conclusion that one should not proceed with proposals for more coherent governance and sharper requirements for the sector agencies. When our society's resilience is put to the test, there must be no doubt about who is to do what.

Mr. Speaker! Municipalities and regions must be given better conditions. One of our reservations concerns precisely the role of the municipalities and regions. The report addresses several motions that highlight deficiencies in local and regional capacity. It is the municipalities and regions that are at the forefront when a crisis hits and citizens knock on the door and need support and help. The municipalities and regions shall maintain water supply, elderly care, healthcare capacity, and community services when the situation is extreme. Several Social Democratic motions highlight this. This includes, among other things, the need for state leadership regarding healthcare capacity and strengthened total defense preparedness. To reject all proposals for strengthening the municipalities' and regions' planning capacity in this situation is not reasonable, which is why we reserve ourselves against the committee's proposal on that point.

Mr. Speaker! The report also addresses questions regarding the role of the new Civil Defence Authority. The National Audit Office shows that the previous structures have been inadequate and that the build-up has proceeded too slowly. The Authority has now received a clearer mandate and a responsibility that should leave no room for interpretation. The Civil Defence Authority must be a unifying force and a strong engine for civil defence throughout the country. We Social Democrats will carefully ensure that this remains the case in the future as well.

The National Audit Office also highlights that the funding of civil defense has not been sufficiently long-term and that this has hindered the capacity building. We share that view. Temporary investments or short-term budget increases are not enough. Sweden needs a multi-year, stable funding model that gives authorities, municipalities, and regions the opportunity to work sustainably.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that a new agency should be established to take over MCF's tasks in the form of protection against accidents, rescue services, and protection of the civilian population. We Social Democrats assess that MCF's tasks in the form of protection against accidents, rescue services, and protection of the civilian population are so distinct that they should be separated from the tasks concerning civil defense, as a staff organization in war and the tasks of planning, leading, and coordinating the civil defense actors. This we emphasize in reservation 9.

Mr. Speaker! Civil defense is one of society's most crucial functions in peace, crisis, and war. The National Audit Office's report is clear: the build-up has not been sufficiently effective. The Government largely agrees with the criticism, but the committee's proposal means that the work is left in practice as it is without the Riksdag sending specific requirements or reinforcements. We Social Democrats believe that the Riksdag must demonstrate greater decisiveness.

Our reservations therefore concern taking responsibility for clearer governance, stronger state leadership, better conditions for municipalities and regions, as well as long-term funding. We believe that this is what Sweden's security requires and what our citizens have the right to expect.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson (S) agreed.

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

Alexandra Anstrell (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat concerned by Member Westerén's statement. It sounds as if nothing is being done. But the investments that are now being made in civil defense are historic. We would need to stand here for a whole day to be able to rattle off everything that is being done. The regulatory letters to the authorities have been clear, as have the county administrative boards' mandates to lead municipalities and regions. Do the Social Democrats not have confidence that the county administrative boards will carry out this mandate?

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Alexandra Anstrell for the question. Yes, I have great confidence in our county administrative boards. I have great confidence in all the actors who are currently doing everything they can to coordinate and strengthen civil defense.

I do think, however, that it is obvious that, for example, municipalities and regions need more leadership, more support and more resources to manage to deliver on their mandate. They both demand and plead for it. I believe that the Moderaterna also receive those signals.

In recent years, we have had quite a few crises where it has become apparent that it is not primarily to the state that one turns as a citizen. It is quite difficult to knock on the door of the state. One knocks on the door of one's municipality. One knocks at home, in that part of civil defense that one is closest to oneself. That is also where the support should be found.

The County Administrative Boards are, of course, doing a fantastic job. I come from Gotland myself, where we have had a total "defense pilot". We know that the County Administrative Boards will be able to deliver. But municipalities and regions need more backing and more support. That is also what the National Audit Office highlights.

I believe that the consensus we have in large parts of the defense issue is a fantastic resource and opportunity for Sweden. But regarding concern, as Alexandra Anstrell highlighted, I feel a concern when it comes to the reconstruction of civil defense and the strengthening of the total defense we need. It is not that municipalities and regions are being left behind, but in terms of strengthening the defense, it is sometimes said to the citizens to sharpen up and strengthen themselves and to municipalities and regions to deliver. It will, however, require much more than that, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Alexandra Anstrell (M)

Mr. Speaker! How pleasant to hear that the Social Democrats believe in the county administrative boards! It is they who have the overall mandate to ensure that municipalities and regions move forward in these issues and to support them in the construction.

It is also a matter of taking individual responsibility. Some municipalities have come very far, for example Västerås. There, they have safety points that they have sent out information about to the citizens – where they should go and so on. There are other municipalities where they have not done so. One can learn from each other. That is somewhat the idea with the county administrative boards as well – the municipalities and regions should have that network to move forward together.

One also needs to cooperate with the business sector. Sweden does not look the same today as it did 30 years ago. Therefore, it is important that, as in for example Västerås, one cooperates with those who have petrol stations so that one can be able to get access to fuels even in the event of a crisis or war. That responsibility needs to be taken in the municipalities. If help is needed, one can go through the county administrative boards.

The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency has sent out a brochure to all of us individual citizens and to companies that have more than four employees on how to act in the event of a crisis or war. A very large amount of information has been sent out to everyone. Then there are municipalities and regions that have not come particularly far. It is also about the individual municipality needing to take responsibility for its own municipal citizens so that they can knock on the door of the municipality when something finally happens, as Hanna Westerén says. But I do not perceive that there is confidence that one will be able to do that throughout the municipalities. Then the question is: What is the support that Hanna Westerén is requesting?

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I got stuck on something that Alexandra Anstrell mentioned: individual responsibility. I think it figures very often when we talk about defense, especially total defense. I believe that most citizens have done exactly what they should to be prepared when the crisis or the war comes, and I know that municipalities and regions are doing everything they can to manage this. But we cannot escape the fact that the state must hold the hands of municipalities and regions – not because municipalities and regions are weak, but because strong state leadership and governance is needed.

We also cannot escape the fact that this is also a resource issue. It is partly a different debate, and I have the greatest respect for that. But I come from a healthcare region where we are unable to deliver healthcare in peacetime. We must, however, be able to do so even in wartime. We are located in an extremely vulnerable position in the middle of the Baltic Sea.

It is clear that we need the state as a guarantor so that we can deliver healthcare in the total defense. What we need to do is, in certain respects, just as the National Audit Office points out, redo, do right, and do more. We must do more to deliver together.

The National Audit Office describes that the state governance has been unclear, fragmented, and sluggish. Municipalities and regions have been dragged along for many years. It is a shared responsibility.

I believe that we Social Democrats are somewhat more inclined to acknowledge that more is needed, and we are prepared to chip in more. We are, above all, prepared to step forward in this context as the strong state. That is what I believe we must be.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defense's report number 7. It is something as important as the National Audit Office's report on the state's management of the civil defense's development. Let me begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety in the report and rejection of all reservations.

Mr. Speaker! Two days ago was the anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has thus been four years since the invasion started. It has been a terrible war.

There is war in our own part of the world. We see how war is conducted as we speak. Right now, we see how Russia does not care about the rules of the game that exist. They target civilians, power supply, and healthcare facilities.

It shows why today's discussion and the National Audit Office's report are so important. Military and civil defense are two sides of the same coin. You who are listening in the gallery and you who are watching the broadcast of the debate know that it is urgent.

We also have a security service that has warned that Russia, when there is a break in the war in Ukraine, may have the capability for an attack in the surrounding area within a two-year period. This means that we do not have all the time in the world.

What we see in Ukraine is all the terrible violence and everyone who is dying, both civilians and combatants. It is a meat grinder; excuse the expression, Mr. Speaker. Last month, it was 1,000 soldiers in the Russian army who fell every day, 30,000 in a month. They are no longer there; they have fallen. To that are added amounts of civilians.

The National Audit Office shows, as several speakers have said before, that there has been an unclear leadership of civil defense. There has been deficient follow-up and poor coordination, and it has gone too slowly.

We can also remind ourselves of our history. We had a very strong civil defense in our history. After the Cold War, a major reduction was made of the military defense but also of the civil defense. It was practically dead and buried.

We have now taken important steps. The National Audit Office has shown that it has gone too slowly to rectify the deficiencies. It is a prime example of what actually must not happen when one does something important. It is about unclear leadership, lack of follow-up, and poor coordination. So that is how it has been.

It is nevertheless gratifying that we can state that the government has taken important steps, but we are not finished. It is important that we now invest more money. We will invest 3 ½ percent on the military defense and also 1 ½ percent on the civil defense.

It is very important to send money so that it does not just remain words, but that one provides support and guidance around the country where it is needed.

We have reached different stages. Västerås was mentioned, and Jönköping is another place where one is ahead. It is very important. It is now emphasized that practice must be undertaken.

It is during exercises that it shows what actually works – what is okay, what is so-so, and what is very bad. We need to correct that now.

It is noted in our report that it is better now. It is significantly better management and better follow-up. We have our own agency – which, moreover, has changed its name to the Swedish Defence Readiness Agency, with Mikael Frisell at the helm – which is goal-oriented and follows up on the various parts of civil defense. This is something that is now being realized.

It is very gratifying. With these words, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety in the report and for the rejection of all reservations.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Mr. Speaker, honorable members! Hello to all of you who are listening and watching at home, and of course to the Minister!

Today, the Committee on Defence is debating civil defence with a particular focus on a report from the Swedish National Audit Office regarding the management of civil defence. I will move for the adoption of reservation number 9, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as we stand here and debate civil defense, the war in Ukraine is ongoing. The day marking four years of war passed the day before yesterday. Russia's war and attacks against Ukraine have taught us that civil infrastructure is now a target in itself in war.

Attacks against housing, infrastructure, electricity and heating supply, but also churches, cultural venues and schools are not something that happens by mistake. Civil infrastructure has become a target in itself in the war, completely contrary to all international conventions.

We also see the catastrophe in the war in Gaza. Under Israeli occupation, homes have been systematically demolished by the Israeli military. Infrastructure is bombed to pieces, and hospitals and schools are destroyed.

At Västbanken, it is being systematically carried out to destroy olive tree plantations. These are old, valuable trees of great importance as both food and income. Destroying farmland, killing livestock, and preventing the supply of drinking water is an effective way to subject the civilian population to very great pressure, force them to flee, and cause famine. All of this strikes directly against the civilian population, in violation of international conventions.

Healthcare, schools, infrastructure, energy, farmland, culture and religious communities – all of this is part of the civil defense. The civil defense is the entire society, all society-critical activities.

All this makes civil defense very large and very complex. It is managed at many different levels and must function both here and now in everyday life and in various forms of crises or, in the worst case, war.

We saw during the pandemic how difficult it was to keep society running, especially regarding personnel. It is also about all the different adaptations that must be made in times of crisis.

All crises look different and hit different parts of society. A war also, of course, involves military attacks and all the damage that it causes.

Mr. Speaker! We need a more robust and stronger society. There is no question about that. The investments in civil defense that we have seen in recent years are absolutely necessary.

The complexity of civil defense requires not only investments in equipment, stockpiling, and training. It also requires a system for leadership, planning, and cohesion of the entire civil defense.

Once upon a time, Sweden's civil defense was very strongly equipped and well-planned. Then we unfortunately decided to shut everything down. It was a decision that we, in hindsight, must conclude was very bad.

Now we are building it up again. Constant follow-ups and evaluations must be carried out, as in this report from Riksrevisionen.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a very vulnerable society. We have an ongoing climate crisis. We know that we are subjected to cyberattacks every day. The infrastructure suffers from a large maintenance debt. There are constant disruptions in traffic, which many of us are aware of. The healthcare queues are long. The number of care beds is far too few.

Vulnerability is also increasing due to privatizations and cuts in large, important parts of our welfare. The privatizations make socially important activities harder to manage during a crisis. The pursuit of profit leads to resources ending up in private pockets instead of going to what they were intended for. We need to bring socially important activities back into public ownership, also for the sake of the civil defense.

Constant cuts or "efficiencies," as they are sometimes called, mean that the welfare, which is also the foundation for our civil defense, is simply too poor. The staff are on their knees here and now, in everyday life, and are exhausted and understaffed. From that situation, it becomes very difficult to scale up in the way that is needed if a crisis occurs.

We need to have fully funded healthcare and elderly care moving forward. The staff need higher wages, better working conditions and time for further education so that more people want to work in the socially important professions, which the civil defense actually builds on. One should be able to work all the way until retirement and feel pride and joy every day when going to work. Margins are needed to be able to handle a crisis.

Mr. Speaker! The natural disasters we see around us remind us of the enormous forces present in flowing water and raging fire and of the enormous devastation that these natural disasters entail. In the Baltic Sea, there is a constant and looming threat of oil spills, which the presence of the Russian shadow fleet with substandard ships clearly increases. Such major natural disasters risk people's lives and can cause environmental destruction and extensive damage to property.

Vänsterpartiet argues that it is time to review the management of the rescue services as well. Today, it is municipal. With all respect for the work of all municipalities, we believe it is time to investigate a nationalization of the rescue services. We have a state defense force and a state police, but the rescue services are managed by 290 different municipalities.

Since rescue services are very complicated for a small municipality, the municipalities have joined together in various associations to manage the rescue services. It is, to say the least, messy and difficult to oversee. This means that the rescue services today, despite what the law says, are more regional than municipal.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservation number 9. A greater state responsibility for the rescue service was needed.

I would like to conclude by asking the Minister for an apology. We have a meeting on defense preparedness at 13:00, and we are likely several who will unfortunately have to leave the chamber before the Minister has a chance to speak.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! The day before yesterday was four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. February 24, 2022, is a date that will forever be inscribed in Europe's modern history. It was the day when the European security order collapsed and land warfare returned to our continent.

It has forced a necessary upgrade in Europe. The NATO countries have agreed to allocate 5 percent of GDP to their defenses, to both military and civil defense.

In Sweden, we also have something that is at least equally important, Mr. Speaker. We have a broad political agreement between the parties in the Riksdag regarding the long-term financing of the defense, but also regarding our common support for the Ukrainian people during this very difficult time. It is both good and necessary. Ultimately, this is about the state's most fundamental task, which is to defend the citizens' security and safety.

Mr. Speaker! In Ukraine, we see every day what war means in practice. It is not just battles at the front. It is also shattered electricity and water infrastructures. It is interrupted food transports, rescue services working in rubble, and healthcare that must scale up in hours. And it is children trying to continue their schooling in shelters and sometimes in subway systems during the most difficult moments.

War is a stress test for the entire society and society's ability to withstand pressures during ongoing war. That is why civil defense is so important and has such an important role in creating security in difficult times, strengthening resilience, and contributing to increased will to defend among the population.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are considering today concerns the government's communication regarding the National Audit Office's review of the government's management of the development of the civil defense. The National Audit Office points out that the management has not been sufficiently effective for a long time and that the distribution of responsibility, goals, and funding have at times been unclear. These are justified views that have been submitted.

The government obviously agrees with this in principle regarding the period up to 2022. It is important to say that very much has happened since then. Civil defense was dismantled after the Cold War, and it takes time to build up again. But now it is happening, and it is happening at a rapid pace.

The government has made civil defense a clear priority. We have a total defense decision with clear goals for civil defense. We have a financial planning framework that is gradually increasing. We have tasked authorities to strengthen their preparedness, and we have an expanded structure with preparedness sectors and clearer responsibilities. We have reactivated national service and taken important steps to strengthen supply preparedness, not least through preparedness stocks in the food chain.

Bit by bit, we are building more resilience and a more robust Sweden. This is noticeable, not least in the historical appropriations during this parliamentary term. I think it is important to remind how the appropriations looked in 2022. At that time, they were at 2.7 billion kronor. Today, we are up to over 13 billion for civil defense. It is, to use the Minister for Civil Defense's expression, a sevenfold increase between 2022 and 2028. The goal is to have an appropriation for civil defense of up to 15 billion annually from 2028.

That is why I was a little surprised when I listened to the Social Democratic representative, who gave the impression that too little is happening. That may have been the case during the years when the Social Democrats ruled Sweden and were responsible for these issues. But no one can say, with their honor intact, that too little is happening during these years.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by specifically highlighting an aspect that risks falling into the shadows in the total defense debate. It is about the school. In Ukraine, we see how children sit in shelters and continue their lessons when the air raid siren has sounded. It is a stark reminder that education cannot be put on pause for several years and that children's education does not go into replay.

Therefore, we in Sweden need to consider more closely how the school system can function even under severe pressures, for example during power shortages, cyberattacks, transport disruptions, or in the worst case, war. It concerns premises, digital solutions, contingency plans, and staffing.

But ultimately, it is about something greater, about giving children stability and faith in the future when the world around them is shaken. A functioning school system is also part of Sweden's resilience. It is, not least, about our future as a continued strong knowledge nation.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that civil defense is important. It is not a complement to the military defense. It constitutes our entire total defense. Therefore, it is so important that we talk about both the upgrading of the military defense and the important function that civil defense has.

If Sweden is to be a country that functions even when it is subjected to severe pressures, it is important that we have a strong total defense, that we build security, that we create resilience and that we strengthen the will to defend in order to safeguard our democracy and our freedom.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker and Minister! Civil defense is truly all the activities carried out throughout the country. It concerns everyone – we are all part of the civil defense. In civil defense, planning, exercise, responsibility, and governance are the most important things.

In the report from the National Audit Office on the state management of the civil defense's buildup that we are discussing today, the National Audit Office, as previous colleagues have spoken about, describes that until now there has been an ambiguity in responsibility and management. This is also something I hear a lot when I travel around the country and meet with municipalities, regions, and organizations.

The government has announced a bill this spring titled Municipalities' and regions' basic preparedness for crisis and war with measures in this area. It is very good. There must be clarity regarding responsibility, governance, and financial resources for municipalities and regions. We in Centerpartiet will read the bill carefully. There must be even more workshop work moving forward, and we must all work together to strengthen civil defense throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party considers that the capacity for leadership in the total defense needs to be developed both within all leadership levels and between the levels. The ability to make decisions in uncertain situations needs to be developed at all levels – everything from crises occurring in municipalities and regions around the country to larger and more serious incidents. This needs to occur both locally and regionally as well as linked to the political leadership in governments and the Riksdag.

For this to be possible, the management of peacetime crisis preparedness needs to become clearer and more regulated and be linked to the entire total defense perspective. The Centre Party considers that a seamless transition with reduced vulnerabilities and ambiguities regarding roles, responsibilities, and regulatory frameworks is necessary. It is of utmost importance that mandates are known and practiced in advance. One simply cannot practice too much.

Centerpartiet stands behind what the Defence Preparedness Board has written in its reports for several years now: If we plan for war, we can also manage a crisis. This must, of course, go hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party considers that decision-making at the municipal and regional level is of crucial importance. Therefore, we believe that a review should be made of how municipal and regional politicians in municipal and regional boards across the country shall be able to fulfill their assignments during high alert and war.

Under high alert and war, both the municipal and regional councils have the political responsibility for all ordinary activities and for their respective parts of the civil defense. The Center Party therefore considers that the question of how political representatives around the country should be war-positioned should be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! The terrible things happening in Ukraine must come to an end. We have supported and helped Ukraine until now and will continue to do so in the future. At the same time, we can learn things from Ukraine, linked to both military and civil defense.

Civil defense at home is something that everyone needs to take into consideration. Everyone must feel that they are a part of it. I particularly want to emphasize that the public sector, the business community, and civil society must work together so that we stand stronger together and can cope with tough and difficult pressures if that should be the case.

Mr. Speaker! Now that the Defence Committee has started its work, it is important that we follow this and see how the construction of the total defense is progressing. Their work must continue and become even better. I want – and it is a clear message also from the Center Party – that we continue to have broad agreement on the issues concerning the construction of the total defense. It is together that we stand stronger against foreign powers and against vulnerabilities in society.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation number 2.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This report from the National Audit Office is very important as it highlights the question of whether the management of the civil defense's buildup has been effective and purposeful. It has not been, according to the National Audit Office.

We can look back a few years. When Miljöpartiet came into government in 2014, there was nothing in the state budget called civil defense. The civil defense was simply disbanded. When Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna held government power, we began building it up from 2018. It should be mentioned that it was from very small sums – I believe it was 400 million the first year, to compare with today's almost 13 billion. It is good that so much money is now being spent on civil defense.

It was only in 2022 that the major structural reform regarding civil defense arrived. It was also very good and welcome.

Mr. Speaker! That we need to have a strong civil defense is something many of us think, both in peace and in crisis and war. Russia's horrific war of invasion in Ukraine, which has now lasted for over four years, has shown in a clear way that a strong civil defense is a very important part of a country's resilience in a war.

But civil defense was needed not only to prepare us for war but also for peacetime and during crises. It can be anything from natural disasters in the wake of climate change to oil spills and other things. It can even be enough with a little snow in Skåne, Mr. Speaker.

Today we must arm ourselves to meet everything from cyber threats to the increased hybrid attacks against our society. New issues arise all the time. Recently, the question of our need to have ourselves have control over system-sensitive information has come into focus, which, among other things, means that we cannot rely on the cloud services we all use being owned by some large tech giants in the USA. Sweden and the EU must simply develop better solutions that we ourselves have control over. Furthermore, the preparedness structure must be developed, and a number of different agencies must take responsibility for their part of the construction of the civil defense in a completely new way.

Mr. Speaker! The entire committee stands to my joy behind the view that the government must become better in a number of areas. This concerns, for example, how the government succeeds in fulfilling the goals bound by the Riksdag within the area of civil defense and whether they have been achieved or not. It is not entirely easy to find information on what the government does within a number of different policy areas that are bound by the Riksdag. Therefore, it is good that we in the committee are in agreement on this request to the government to make this easier.

It is also good that the government essentially says that the state management and the build-up of the civil defense have not been sufficiently effective. It shows that there is an awareness within the government regarding this issue.

Mr. Speaker! There is, of course, much to say about civil defense, but I want to specifically point out two points where we in Miljöpartiet have important political issues in a motion from the general motion period that is taken up in this report.

The first concerns the question of what role the new Civil Defence Authority shall have regarding the responsibility for, for example, the cleanup of oil etc. on land and in coastal environments in the event of an oil disaster. Such a disaster always has major ecological and economic consequences, but the damage can be minimized by acting correctly and quickly.

In the current situation, the responsibility to lead the remediation work lies with the municipalities, but I do not believe that is sufficient. Not all municipalities have the competence or equipment needed to handle a large oil spill. Even though the county administrative boards and the Authority for Civil Defence help out, I believe it is an excessively large burden for municipalities to bear as the primary responsible parties. There simply needs to be a state primary responsibility to minimize the risks of large ecological catastrophes. Miljöpartiet therefore proposes that the Authority for Civil Defence be given a national coordination responsibility for the remediation of oil and other substances on land and in the coastal environment.

I also do not think that what the government has done and what the Tidögänget in the Riksdag stand behind is sufficient, namely that activities concerning protection against accidents shall be conducted in a separate part of the new authority. It can be a good first step, but the best would obviously be if there is an explicit national coordination responsibility for the Authority for Civil Defence.

Mr. Speaker! The second question is, of course, about money. If one thinks that the resilience of societal functions must increase, it will cost. More measures need to be taken to prevent crises, and civil defense needs to be strengthened.

The conclusions of the National Audit Office that we are now discussing state that the funding of civil defense has not provided the conditions for long-term and effective work. Miljöpartiet shares this view. It is also stated that many agencies have lacked long-term perspective and, perhaps most grave for the government, that the government in its agency dialogues has not succeeded in clarifying what is expected of each respective agency. So it cannot be.

Mr. Speaker! Since the period that the National Audit Office has audited, however, things have happened. There is a defense agreement from last year between all the parties in the Riksdag, where 50 billion kronor are allocated to civil defense until 2030. This is good and something that the Miljöpartiet really fought for in the defense agreement. More money increases the possibility of strengthening civil defense capability. Civil defense needs to contribute to strengthening society's ability to prevent and manage severe stresses on society in peacetime, both to reduce society's vulnerability and to strengthen capability in readiness. I therefore hope for the continued discussions in the Defense Preparation Board on how these 50 billion kronor for civil defense shall be used, and I look forward with confidence to better governance and efficiency within civil defense in the future.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all of the Miljöpartiets reservations, but I move for approval only of reservation 6 under point 5.

Just like the previous speaker Hanna Gunnarsson, I also want to apologize to the Minister because I will now be leaving the chamber due to a meeting with the Defense Preparation Board.

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

Minister för civilt försvar Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot resist asking the question to a person who was there at that time. The National Audit Office report constitutes a very stinging criticism that almost nothing happened with civil defense during previous governments. It is exactly as Ulf Holm says here, namely that when Miljöpartiet entered the government in 2014, civil defense was not included in the budget. But it continued to be that way throughout the entire mandate period. No targeted funds were added to civil defense. There is every opportunity here for Ulf Holm to practice self-criticism.

How is it that the Riksdag passed a defense decision and the government at the time did not choose to allocate any earmarked funds for civil defense? It is part of the core of the criticism that the National Audit Office presents. The security situation had begun to deteriorate significantly with the first annexation of Crimea and the eastern parts of Ukraine by Russia. Still, the government at the time did very little or even nothing to strengthen civil defense initially.

If Ulf Holm were given the chance to be self-critical, what would he say should have been done differently by the government he himself was a part of as State Secretary?

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What Carl-Oskar Bohlin says is of course completely correct. Much should have happened earlier. But we also came to a table where there was no point in the state budget for civil defense. It was completely dismantled. We then had different discussions about how it should be built up.

In hindsight, I can only say: Yes, we should have built up the civil defense faster, allocated more money, and worked more effectively to try to build up the operations. It simply started too late. We in Miljöpartiet have been self-critical that we did not do more then, not least considering the minister for the future: the Crimean annexation in 2014. We should have acted faster on the signals that came already then. There we must be self-critical; we did not do enough. Much more can be done.

When Carl-Oskar Bohlin took over as minister, more could have happened. It is a bit difficult for a minister to read that the agency dialogues have not functioned satisfactorily and that agencies do not understand what they should do for the build-up of the civil defense. There also lies a great responsibility on the current minister to act.

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

Minister för civilt försvar Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe all Swedes can agree that it is difficult to read a Swedish National Audit Office report stating that almost nothing happened in the area for a period of eight years. The audit primarily criticizes the period up to 2022. It stops just before the government presented the three-year civil framework and the defense decision that was made in December 2024. The audit continued in principle until the major changes for civil defense began to take place. But it still raises the question of why so little happened during eight years when the opposition now claims to be civil defense's greatest friends.

I naturally welcome the shift in position in all essential matters, and I welcome that the opposition joins in prioritizing civil defense. Looking back in time, one can observe that very little happened when you yourselves had the chance to decide. It naturally raises a concern about what would happen if Sweden were to get a different government consisting of red-green parties. Is this a confession of lips in opposition, or can it be promised that you intend to continue investing in civil defense? As a voter in Sweden, I would be skeptical.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I was self-critical, but I can, of course, be a bit more self-critical if it feels necessary.

We should all have done much more after the first annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. We should have acted more, but no politicians did. I haven't gone and looked to see if there are budget allocations from, for example, the Moderaterna in follow-up motions on the 2015 budget. We can go in and look, but it would surprise me if there are any funds for civil defense.

We all woke up too late. On that, we are in complete agreement. But we must also ensure that we now take the steps to build this up more clearly. Just as I mentioned, Miljöpartiet was driving in the defense agreement for that specific funds should be allocated to civil defense, which the Defense Preparation Board shall distribute until 2030. I do not rule out that even more resources may be needed further ahead because the needs are so large. We are now noticing what incredible pressure is placed on various sectors in the entire society. It is everything from cyber threats to hybrid attacks. There is an incredible amount to do.

That is why it is so essential to see how important civil defense is for the total defense and that it is needed together with the military defense.

I am completely convinced that with a new government, in which Miljöpartiet is included, it will look good for those parts of society that work with civil defense and for the community organizations.

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

Minister för civilt försvar Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)

Mr. Speaker! Dear listeners, audience in the gallery and members of Parliament!

We live in a time when our security can no longer be taken for granted. Our world is characterized by one of the largest wars on European soil since the Second World War and increased tensions. A broad palette of threats faces Swedish society. The uncertainty in global developments is greater than it has been in a long time.

To understand the criticism that the Swedish National Audit Office directs at the historical management of civil defense, one needs to look back and see where we come from. At the beginning of the audit period, civil defense was in practice almost entirely dismantled. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a very large political mistake to dismantle the Swedish total defense.

In 2015, the Riksdag decided that the total defense should be reinstated. The military defense at that time had been heavily reshaped from territorial defense to expeditionary mission defense. The civil defense had been completely dismantled, meticulously dismantled and discarded. Funding was choked, laws were rewritten in some cases, structures were phased out, and expertise disappeared. The extent of the dismantling was total.

One could have believed, when the Riksdag decided that civil defense should be re-established, that political focus would be directed towards this task both in terms of allocated economic resources and through political governance and prioritization. However, that did not happen. To put it bluntly, almost nothing happened.

The civil defense that emerged immediately after 2015 was, in all respects, built on PowerPoints and good intentions. The money for substantial investments in things that actually build capacity and resilience and make our society more robust was characterized by its total absence.

As I mentioned earlier, the appropriation for civil defense during the Social Democratic government's first term was practically zero. No special funds were added for civil defense. Then money began to be added in the margins, but still incredibly modest resources in relation to how great a task this is for authorities, regions, and municipalities. It is precisely that which has been called for in the debate and discussion today.

When the government that I represent took office, the appropriation for civil defense was 2.7 billion kronor annually, as we have heard in the chamber earlier. This year, the appropriation amounts to approximately 13 billion kronor, and in just a couple of years, we will reach a level of 20 billion kronor. The government has thus, in a very short time, septupled the resources for civil defense.

We now see how the investments are coming to the civil defense at a very rapid pace and how the capability is increasing. The lion's share of the increase in capability we see in the civil defense has occurred after the period that the Swedish National Audit Office has audited. The audit period extended from 2015 until approximately September 2024. After that, we made a defense decision. After that, we presented a civil framework, that is, did what was requested in the Swedish National Audit Office's report even before it had arrived. That is because there were obvious deficiencies in the civil defense we inherited.

We have also clarified what applies to the management. We have two new preparedness sectors. We have a number of new preparedness authorities. We have reshaped the former MSB into the Authority for Civil Defence to more clearly become the top node that civil defence lacked at the agency level.

We have taken a long series of measures to rectify the deficiencies we inherited from previous governments. It is important, given the serious global situation, to both build capacity and use tax money in a responsible and reasonable manner.

Mr. Speaker! This National Audit Office report is characterized in large parts by similarities with the National Audit Office report we received some years ago, which concerned the national cybersecurity work. It contained essentially the same type of criticism against the government at that time. The audit period was 2017–2022. It was noted that the work with cybersecurity, which is also part of the modern civil defense, had not functioned due to a lack of political governance, allocation of funds and coordination, and a national cybersecurity center that did not live up to expectations.

This unfortunately paints a picture of how these issues have not previously been clearly prioritized. As I mentioned, I naturally welcome that the opposition now sees the need for a strong civil defense. But it must be said, Mr. Speaker, that it is this government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, that for the first time has taken the lead when it comes to seriously building up the civil defense.

Are we at the goal? Naturally not. We are working towards a moving target. We still have a debt to work off and catch up on, but we are a good way along the road. We have addressed virtually all the points of criticism in the National Audit Office's report. I therefore welcome the report. I welcome the debate and the discussion that follows in its wake. But it is important to remember where we come from and where we find ourselves now.

Mr. Speaker! I dare to assure everyone who has listened to the debate that Sweden has a significantly higher robustness and a significantly higher resilience when it comes to handling problems across the entire threat spectrum than we had just a few years ago.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 4 March.)

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