Security screening of those subject to total defense obligations etc.

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! I asked a soldier about the matter. The person expressed that security clearances help to preserve the trust between the soldiers and for their work. The trust between the soldiers is the glue that binds them together in a situation where life may be at stake. By showing that security is taken seriously and that there is a continuous monitoring of the soldiers' reliability, the public's and colleagues' trust in the military and its personnel is maintained. It also contributes to maintaining the integrity of the individuals who work with sensitive information or have access to important resources.

These words strengthened my conviction in the balance between personal privacy and national security. It is a safeguard for both the individual and our country's security. By conducting regular security screenings, one can detect any security risks or potential threats that may have arisen after the conscript has completed their basic military training. This includes evaluating personal and professional relationships as well as checking whether situations or events have arisen that could affect reliability or the ability to handle security-sensitive information.

Changes can arise in each individual's life situation, relationships, or personal circumstances that can affect the individual's ability to perform their mission in a safe and reliable manner. By conducting regular security screenings, such changes can be identified and support or measures can be offered to ensure that the soldier is still suitable and capable of continuing in their military position.

Madam Speaker! The proposed legislative amendments aim to ensure that the Swedish Armed Forces' needs for security-cleared conscripted personnel are met, and that the security screening is carried out in an efficient and purposeful manner.

I respect that Vänsterpartiet raises personal integrity as an important balance in the issue. However, both the Chancellor of Justice and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection have concluded that an acceptable balance has been made to maintain Sweden's defense capability. It is about the state's security and about the protection of security-sensitive activities against espionage, sabotage, terrorist crimes, and other crimes that can threaten the activities, as well as protection in other cases of security-classified tasks.

The Armed Forces has, in its security protection analysis, concluded that the activities in which the conscripts participate are security-sensitive, and as a consequence of this, it has been decided that everyone undergoing basic training with conscription shall be placed in security class. Therefore, the authority considers that the security screening shall be followed up even after completed basic training with conscription and that those with total defense obligation placed in war positions shall remain in register control.

In addition to the register check, no other follow-up security screening is carried out today for those who have been war-stationed in a security-classified position. Therefore, the government assesses that the requirement for consent should give way in a balancing between the intrusions that the security screening entails for the individual and the interest of maintaining the total defense obligation as an absolute duty.

In order for the Armed Forces to be able to perform its tasks and fulfill its goals regarding operational capability, the security clearance must go hand in hand with the war placement. A new screening of everyone who is to serve before every instance of service would risk seriously hindering or making it impossible to meet the conditions to call up those who are war-placed at short notice in the event of high alert.

The possibility of defending the country without risking Sweden's security weighs heavily here. We have been spared, or rather, there have been many security-naive people who for all too many years have believed that our country cannot be subjected to either internal or external influence and threats. Reality has now caught up with us, and the world around us has hardened. Therefore, every agency and organization should also review its security work.

Madam Speaker! Based on this, I move for the rejection of the motion and the reservation and for the approval of the committee's proposal and the government's proposition.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! The report on the security screening of those subject to total defense duty, which is currently under debate and will likely be decided shortly, perhaps even within an hour, gives us all a reminder of a changed world – a world that I truly wish were different.

As a peace activist for a long time, I want Europe to be able to maintain peace in any case, preferably the rest of the world as well. But for a little over a year now, a brutal war of aggression from Russia against Ukraine has been raging. Influenced by that war, Sweden has completely abandoned its non-alignment and sought membership in Nato. Now we are also increasing investments in defense with weapons and with people who, among other things, shall learn to use these weapons to protect our country. And we are arming ourselves with new adapted legislation, where the law we are now discussing is included as a piece of the puzzle - not so large but still important.

I completely agree with the government and previous speakers that such a security screening needs to be included for those who are placed in the total defense. But before I move on to the reservation that we in Vänsterpartiet have, I cannot avoid marking that I, who have grown up and lived in a Sweden with growing solidarity and a welfare state that also grew for a long time before shrinking, feel both alienated by and partially terrified by the harsh values that the government is now promoting, driven by the Sverigedemokraterna and clearly recorded in the Tidö Agreement. With that, I wish to return to the reservation, which should be seen in this context.

Like on many other occasions here in the chamber, I want to act in defense of personal integrity. It is and shall be a central principle in a democracy. Respect for the individual's private life must carry great weight in all exercise of authority, even within the Armed Forces.

There are, however, occasions when infringements on an individual's personal privacy can be justified, for example when it concerns the security of the realm. In such cases, it is important that such restrictions only occur after balancing in well-motivated exceptional cases.

Generally speaking, we in Vänsterpartiet accept that such security screenings should be carried out. However, we draw a somewhat different conclusion than the government when it comes to the screenings after a completed basic training. We reserve our position against the possibility of continuing to perform register checks after the completed basic training with conscription. In that regard, we move for approval of the reservation. In all other respects, we support the bill.

The question, however, is whether there are alternatives to going this way. Just like Charlotte Nordström, I have become fixated on the discussion about consent in the bill and in the committee report. Could that be an alternative? I do not think it is, because we also agree that if one were to go that way, it would make restrictions on the obligation that we have in the total defense obligation.

The Government also assesses that the requirement for consent should give way in a balancing act against the security screening. Here, we therefore fully agree.

In the assessment, the government marks that a security screening of those placed in military positions that can last for as long as it is about whether they shall continue after basic training and up until potential service is an infringement of privacy. But that infringement is accepted. That is not what we in Vänsterpartiet want to do.

We also see that the Chancellor of Justice has signaled against this proposal, as it entails a deterioration of the protection of personal integrity. But one yields and accepts.

But there are two bodies that, just like the Left Party, think that one should stop and not have this screening after the basic training and up until potential service. These are the Total Defence Duty and Screening Authority and the Duty Council. Both oppose the commission's proposal and argue that the security screening should only be carried out in connection with the respective service occasion.

What has also been brought up and discussed – and which I, as a lawyer, of course find interesting – is whether there is a legal basis for these security screenings. I mean that there is a legal basis through the bill that is coming and by the fact that the screening shall apply to all security classes for those who are assigned to military positions.

Security screening of those subject to total defense obligation, etc.

There is, therefore, an obvious need for security screening, and I agree with Charlotte Nordström that it is trust-building. If we are to dare to trust those who are to handle weapons and sensitive matters within our defense, they need to undergo such a screening - but it should not be about more occasions than when they are expected to enter service.

I therefore move for approval of the reservation and, in other respects, approval of the bill.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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