Special debate on the fight against corruption in Sweden

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! As recently as during the election campaign, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer was prepared to accept illegal party contributions to the Moderate Party's coffers. Shortly after taking office as minister, he chose to scrap the investigation into measures against corruption and undue influence on politics.

Last week, the government issued another closure notice. Education Minister Lotta Edholm, former member of a school company board, is laying down the investigation on introducing the principle of public access in Swedish schools.

The electricity price support is being classified as secret, contrary to all Swedish practice. Something is apparently being hidden, and the government cannot tolerate the criticism.

Large sums of money and means change hands today without us having any insight into this. Sweden is falling in the list of least corrupt countries. This is a threat to our democracy. For that reason, the Left Party has requested this debate.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Left Party for a very important debate. Work is ongoing at all levels within the public administration to counter corruption in Sweden, and I am pleased to now have the opportunity to account for the government's work within this very important area.

When public power is abused, individuals are affected, and when suspicions of corruption spread, the trust that forms the foundation of our democratic society is threatened. This is something Sweden can and must never accept. If corruption has once entered the social structure, it is very difficult to get rid of, and it must therefore be fought at the gates before it manages to enter the body of society. The Government therefore takes the issue very seriously.

Special debate on the work against corruption in Sweden

We must safeguard a public administration that maintains high quality and employees with high integrity who have the ability to counter corruption. Very important work is already being carried out at the agencies, and the government intends to follow up on this work.

To safeguard the integrity of public decision-making, the government intends to appoint an inquiry with the objective of, among other things, reviewing the rules on official liability to ensure that there is effective accountability when public employees commit errors in the line of duty. We also see new risks emerging in connection with corruption. Most serious is perhaps the organized crime's attempts to influence elected officials and employees in the public administration.

The decision to discontinue the inquiry into measures against undue influence and corruption should not be seen as an expression that the government does not take this issue seriously. The area is highly prioritized, and the government makes the assessment that other types of reforms are needed than the measures that the inquiry was tasked to look at.

The government has therefore reconsidered the issue. The government intends to task the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå, with analyzing system-threatening actors and groupings that exert unauthorized influence. Brå has also previously been tasked with studying what role and function facilitators or insiders have for criminal activities committed by criminal networks. Furthermore, the investigation that is to review the rules on accountability when public employees commit errors in the line of duty shall also review a number of legislative issues in the field of criminal law and also obligations that we have internationally in the area of corruption.

In light of the Swedish National Audit Office's report on harassment, threats, and violence, I have recently met with representatives from the trade union organizations in the public sector and for a number of agencies. We must take away with us that good work is already being done at the agencies, but at the same time, the dialogue showed that there may be reason to consider whether more needs to be done to reduce the occurrence of harassment, threats, and violence, which in turn can lead to exactly prohibited influence.

Even my fellow minister, Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer, had as recently as this week his own round-table discussion with both municipalities and authorities. The authorities are, as stated, already carrying out important work to prevent corruption. The action plan against corruption, which runs until the end of the year, provides support for this work.

Statistics Sweden has, within the framework of the action plan, been tasked with both promoting and monitoring and mapping the government agencies' work against corruption. This will give the government a good picture of where we stand in the work against corruption in the state.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker, honorable Minister for Civil Affairs, members of the Riksdag and observers! The new government has, in a short time during the last weeks and months, made the following decisions: They have kept the payment of the electricity subsidy of tens of billions of kronor confidential, they have stopped the work to ensure that independent schools that receive public funds shall be subject to the principle of public access, and they have scrapped the investigation that specifically would look at the issue of corruption risks and risks of unauthorized influence, not least in connection with privatizations.

This is serious, very serious, in one of the countries in the world that has had one of the highest degrees of trust in society - interpersonal trust and trust between citizens and public institutions.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's greatest asset is the high degree of trust. It is a prerequisite for our social community, and it is a prerequisite for cohesion. And research shows that one of the most important explanations for the high degree of trust in our society is good governance and a low degree of corruption.

Bo Rothstein's trust research, which is conducted at the University of Gothenburg and Uppsala University, has closely examined the connection between trust and good governance. But what happens now? We are one of the countries in Europe, Madam Speaker, that has gone furthest in privatizing public activities. We are one of the countries in Europe that has gone furthest in creating public markets. We even talk about the school market. Which other Western European country talks about the school market?

But we have a school market. And we have an infrastructure market. And we have a housing market. We have market after market in area after area which means that the public sector does business - sells land, gives land allocations, makes decisions on privatizations, makes decisions on operation in private hands of publicly funded activities.

If we do not take the risks of corruption in connection with public affairs seriously, trust will not be as high in our country, and then our social cohesion will be damaged. Therefore, I ask the government to reconsider. It was wrong to shut down the investigation, and it was wrong not to defend the principle of public access.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! The starting point in this debate should be that Sweden is still one of the world's least corrupt countries. We have a sixth place in the world today, and we have a third place in the EU - that is, a third place in Europe and a sixth place in the world when looking at countries that have the least corruption. This third place in the EU we have had for the last ten years.

In the measurement that Transparency International conducts annually, where they measure what they call perceived corruption in countries' public sectors on a scale from 0 to 100, our position has however worsened. Last year we received 83 points. It is a drop of 2 points since 2021 when we received 85 points.

Once again: The higher the figure in this measurement, the lower the degree of perceived corruption. It is well worth mentioning nonetheless.

But we have, however, lost in this measurement in recent years. The reasons for the 2022 results include, among others, the issue of party financing which has already been highlighted, where unauthorized anonymous contributions were noted in connection with last year's election. Kammarkollegiet chose, however, to dismiss the cases for all parties, which is nevertheless worth pointing out.

The year before - 2021 - it was argued that the low result was due, among other things, to the work with the Corona Commission, which directed criticism at the government for not having been granted access to all the notes that existed in, for example, the Government Offices.

The major drop, however, we saw between the years 2015 and 2017, i.e., during the previous government, when we went from 89 to 84 points. When explaining this drop from Transparency International, several reasons were highlighted. They pointed to several corruption scandals that occurred during the previous government's time, including within Statens fastighetsverk and Transportstyrelsen. They also pointed to events in the Social Democratic-led Gothenburg, where municipal companies made unauthorized direct procurements. They also pointed to municipal foreign trips in the same municipality, which were criticized by the city audit.

Transparency International also noted that it has become increasingly common in Sweden with what is called crony corruption, i.e., bribes and irregularities in connection with public procurement. And it is clear that we should be concerned about that change. And I agree that it is a dangerous development.

But it seems that we have a broader problem, a more increasing problem, which actually exists in quite large parts of the public sector. Where I mean that all parties have a very great responsibility. I intended to come into that a bit more closely in my next speech.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a long and proud history of openness, of trust, and of a low level of corruption. For a long time, we have ranked at the top of Transparency International's recurring ranking. But in 2014 we began to decline, and now it is happening again in 2022. It is obviously not good.

We politicians and citizens need to set higher demands than that. We need to start comparing ourselves with our neighboring countries in the north and with the rest of Europe rather than with other countries in the world. Because even North Korea is on Transparency International's list.

We need to see that measurements based on the perception of corruption entail certain risks, especially when we repeatedly repeat how good we are and how little corruption we have in a global perspective.

I would therefore like to thank Vänsterpartiet, which has taken the initiative for this important debate. I would also like to thank the media, which in recent years has revealed one malpractice after another. It is difficult to be scrutinized, but it is necessary.

We politicians need to take our roles very seriously and at the same time also reflect on what the lack of formal and criminal accountability can do to the court of public opinion. Is it really the trend we want to hold people accountable today?

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The popular movements have historically been strong in our country. It was the popular movement that forced a shift so that a hundred years ago we could introduce democracy. It was the popular movement that created the Swedish model, where associations of tenants, workers, and small business owners formed an opinion, which in turn meant that the decisions made by those in power in our country were for the benefit of the whole people. Sweden was a showcase for the rest of the world. We were the world's most equal country.

Today, Sweden is the country in the world where income inequalities are increasing the most. Due to the eagerness for privatization from the right and from the Social Democrats, it is now instead the business sector and the lobbyists who have the greatest influence on politics. We have moved away from being a country characterized by strong popular movements to being a country where capital increasingly rules everything. The system increasingly resembles that which prevails in the EU Parliament, or for that matter, the political system that prevails in the USA. At the same time as welfare is privatized, the importance of money is strengthened.

In Sweden, we do not have any good protection against corruption today. Even if the USA and the EU are not the very best role models, there is at least some work being done there to try to address corruption. In Sweden, instead, there are revolving doors between politics and the business sector. It is well known that political representatives have gone straight from politics to the business sector. But during the autumn, we have witnessed the opposite, namely how lobbyists from the business sector have walked straight into the Government Offices.

The Prime Minister himself has a history of questionable deals that have cost the taxpayers dearly. Is he the man to hold tight to when the wind blows cold and it is obvious that corruption needs to be curbed? In Ulf Kristersson's government, ministers have sold their shares and left their board positions on the same day they were appointed. But have they left their loyalties? Who is it they actually represent? How can the Swedish people be sure that they receive the best care, healthcare, or education when it could be that the politicians in power have other interests than the entire Swedish people?

Madam Speaker! The trust that the people have had in society for so many years must be protected. But trust is not something that can be demanded; it must be earned. It is our role to ensure that corruption is curbed and to ensure that the door between the business community and the Government Offices is closed. This government has a lesson to learn. And a cleanup of the Government Offices should be the first task.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! As always when we speak here in the Riksdag, one must remind oneself what it is we want to defend with our laws and initiatives. What is it that lies in the balance?

When we now speak of undue influence and corruption, it is therefore important that we remind ourselves that what we defend and safeguard is our democracy, our common public sector, and a society where one receives a share of welfare based on need, employment based on merit and skill, as well as assignments and contracts based on pre-established conditions – not based on what one can give in favor or what one can bribe or intimidate one's way into. Neither monetary capital nor violence shall be what determines if one receives a share of the common good in Sweden.

The price of a corrupt state is always paid by the weak. When the system cannot be trusted, when trust is gone and when people stop voting, stop paying taxes and stop calling the police when a crime has been committed - when they instead handle all of this themselves - we are in a bad position. When the system is built on the power of the strong and not the rights of the weak, we are in a bad position.

We from the Center Party therefore want an independent anti-corruption authority to be established. It shall have the mandate to audit public activities, provide guidance and support regarding increased transparency, and contribute to prosecutions for committed crimes. It shall also offer authorities, municipalities, regions, and the Riksdag a central whistleblower service and ensure that reported suspicions are investigated.

The legislation, that is to say we, must set high requirements for the anti-corruption strategies that guide the authorities' work. Violations of the rules must lead to more serious consequences than they do now. The strategies must also include better support for employees and others who report suspicions of this.

We do not want to pay the price for not doing this, because the price is our open, liberal democracy. Therefore, it is certainly up to the government, which needs to live up to the big words and promises that have been given here today. We will follow it closely. We will cooperate in what we can, but we will keep a close watch. This is an incredibly important issue.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Power shall derive from the people in a democracy, not from the size of the wallet. The core of a democratic system of government is precisely that every human being has a vote that is worth just as much as others. That, Madam Speaker, means that the people—the voters—also have the right to know which money is influencing politics.

For many, it is just as easy to sign off on our democracy's fundamental premises as it is to believe that corruption and hidden influence attempts belong in some Netflix series or in weak democracies in other parts of the world. The recent years have, however, unfortunately shown that both the EU and Sweden have extensive problems. Even here in Sweden, there are politicians who are willing to accept anonymous party contributions, in violation of the regulations we ourselves have decided upon, and in the EU, one of the most sensational corruption scandals we have seen is now being investigated, where politicians have sold their votes to foreign states for millions.

It is serious that in this time we can note that the new Swedish government is scrapping the investigation into corruption and undue influence in public activities and the business sector. It is astonishing to do so at the same time as Sweden falls in Transparency International's annual corruption index. We must not take for granted that Sweden is immune to corruption.

I think everyone should see the programs that TV4's Kalla fakta made, because they show very clearly how easily five of the eight Swedish parliamentary parties wave away what it means that we have collectively said that we are to have rules on transparency regarding who pays to political parties.

During the spring, we in Miljöpartiet will continue to work to tighten the legislation on anonymous party contributions. We will work so that the Committee on the Constitution jointly proposes a notice regarding a ban on foreign financing of parties. I hope that all parties today will take a stand for reduced corruption and stricter rules in Sweden.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is thus reaching its worst ranking in ten years in Transparency International's ranking of countries regarding corruption. The organization's former chair Louise Brown said this about the development in Sweden: "In Sweden, we have a significant increase in different types of fraud crimes, growing organized crime. It is very important to understand that bribes and corruption are a part of this."

This is obviously extremely serious, Madam Speaker. Corruption may not necessarily be a systemic threat if it occurs at an individual level somewhere, but it can be a very serious threat to democracy. It means that the principle of equality before the law is set aside, and it means that public funds are misused. It also means that the way the entire market economy functions and free competition are distorted.

It is very important to note that we are now also seeing corruption occurring in the wake of the gang-related crime we have in Sweden. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo) presented a situation report on organized crime from twelve collaborating agencies two years ago, and it is very serious. There is talk of attacks on payment systems, evasion of taxes and fees, drug-related crime, gross violence and so on linked to corruption.

Let me finally, in this short contribution, note the extremely high tone from Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna, Madam Speaker. There is a major debate ongoing in Gothenburg regarding that the Socialdemokraterna in Gothenburg want to plow in almost 200 million into social democratic ABF. I believe, therefore, that all parties should probably show some humility regarding this issue.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! That unauthorized influence and corruption must be countered with full force. I truly hope that all of us participating in this debate are in complete agreement on this. I also note that there is a great consensus on this issue between the parties in the Riksdag, which is naturally very positive.

In my opening remarks, I described that the government is now taking a new approach to the issue of illicit influence and corruption. This should not be interpreted as a deprioritization, but rather on the contrary, as that the government is now taking a new approach to the issue in order to meet the problem with greater and better force. The government has also already signaled several new measures in the area.

Attempts to influence employees within the public administration are extremely serious. It affects individuals, and if it leads to decisions not being made on objective and impartial grounds, the trust in public activities is also threatened - and in the long run, the trust that is the foundation of our democracy.

When I meet with authorities and give speeches to management groups and employees, I always speak about how important the trust in our authorities is and about how proud we should be to live in a country where the trust in the public administration and the authority structure is very high. I also speak about that this takes time to build up, but that trust can be destroyed very quickly. Therefore, it is important that we work daily to maintain the high trust that our state administration enjoys. With trust comes also the possibility of confidence.

Now we are making a new attempt regarding prohibited influence. At the same time, I want to emphasize that the government retains and continues to work with many of the measures that were decided upon under the previous government; I think it is very important to emphasize this here. This concerns, for example, the investigation Transitional Restrictions to Strengthen Trust in Public Activity. The investigation shall take a position on whether more groups than ministers and secretaries of state should be covered by transitional restrictions when they move from public activity to private activity.

I can mention that the action plan against corruption continues throughout the year. The National Government Offices has been tasked to investigate how this work is proceeding.

We are proceeding with an introductory training for state employees which we hope to launch on July 1.

We have a mandate to the National Board of Health and Welfare to counter the spread of rumors and disinformation within social services. We have also made decisions on additional directives for the investigation Measures to reduce the vulnerability of public employees, which shall review the possibility of anonymized decision-making to protect public employees within social services and thereby also reduce the risk of unauthorized influence.

In conclusion: This is an important issue for us in the government, and we intend to continue the work moving forward.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Honored Minister for Civil Affairs! My question concerns the principle of public access and its effects in preventing corruption in welfare activities and other publicly funded activities.

During the recent period, the government has taken a position that the principle of public access shall not apply to independent schools that are financed with our tax funds. Furthermore, the electricity support was exempted from the principle of public access, which was a departure from Swedish legislation and tradition.

How does the Minister for Civil Affairs view the principle of public access and its effects on welfare crime, corruption, and risks of undue influence in connection with public procurement?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Shekarabi for the question.

The principle of public access is naturally a cornerstone of Swedish democracy. Sweden has a strong principle of public access, and it must apply. This debate, however, is not about the principle of public access. I am now receiving exact factual issues within the areas of other ministers, and I can neither nor should I elaborate on the answer without referring to my ministerial colleagues.

I note, however, that Shekarabi in his opening statement used corruption as an argument to limit freedom of choice for Swedish households, Swedish people, and Swedish families, both within preschool and school as well as within social services and elderly care. I think that is bad. I think it is alarming if we use corruption as a way to limit freedom of choice and private actors' opportunity to operate within, among other things, Swedish welfare and perhaps within Swedish public activity altogether.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! In our constitution, it is established that objectivity and impartiality shall apply to public activities. The development we have seen during the last decades is that public activities have been privatized. If we do not then take measures to ensure transparency and public access, as well as other measures to minimize the risk of unauthorized influence and corruption, we will get a societal development where these important principles in the constitution are not respected and do not apply. Ultimately, the trust in our society will be damaged.

Just take the debate about grade inflation - it is a perfect example of how the risk that objectivity and impartiality may not apply in publicly funded activities and the exercise of authority affects trust in our society. One can either simply accept it or take action. We have the principle of public access at our disposal. We also have other mechanisms that concern limiting the risks of corruption in connection with public affairs and private operation of public activities.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now the question of grade inflation came up, and it was linked to corruption. I can think that it is somewhat far-fetched.

The government has said that they will return with measures to combat grade inflation, as that is another important issue. I do not know, however, if it has to do with transparency specifically, but it has to do with other areas within school policy.

I also think it is a very far-reaching conclusion that the government's reluctance to disclose information about the exact electricity consumption in individual households would be something that promotes corruption in society. I actually think that Shekarabi is drawing very far-reaching conclusions in this regard.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Kristdemokraternas former party leader Göran Hägglund sold off the pharmacies and then became a lobbyist for a pharmaceutical company.

The current party leader of the Christian Democrats chose to go to a lobby conference in France as their first overseas visit as minister, which dealt with how healthcare in Sweden could be further privatized.

The Minister himself also has a rather significant history. As the elderly care councillor in Stockholm, Erik Slottner privatized elderly care at such a pace that the city was buzzing with scandals when the pandemic hit.

What credibility does the government and the Christian Democrats have in this issue?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! This was a very strange contribution, I think. My party colleagues must themselves account for what exact considerations they have made when they have taken different jobs or participated in different conferences. I also know that this is a historical description that leaves some things to be desired, if I may put it that way.

I had been the elderly care councillor for just over a year when the pandemic hit. I can say that the administration that existed in Stockholm at that time had not fully privatized elderly care during that year. My predecessor as the elderly care councillor was a Left Party member; it is rather her one should ask why she had organized elderly care in such a way that the pandemic hit Stockholm so hard. This is a municipal political discussion rather than a national political one.

When one hears the Left Party's contribution, it is worth noting that there are countries in the world that have zero private actors and zero freedom of choice and at the same time significantly greater corruption. That may hold true upon some reflection.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe there is anyone who suspects the Left Party of wanting to privatize elderly care.

The Christian Democrats, however, were revealed during the election campaign to be prepared to accept secret party contributions and in that way circumvent the law. The laws exist so that the Swedish people can have insight into how the parties are financed. It is no small matter but an important cornerstone of our democracy. What is said obscurely is what is intended obscurely, as the saying goes.

You in the Christian Democrats have eagerly cheered for the privatization of everything from pharmacies to elderly care and healthcare. You have let the interest of money into the welfare system. It can be said with certainty that you, in every situation, primarily defend the interest of capital. You are constantly ready to let in new actors who are to profit from our welfare.

Can we now get an admission from the Minister? Isn't it the lobbyists and not the popular movements who are the Christian Democrats' best friends?

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not really know where to begin. I only have one minute, and there is so much strange stuff being said here.

That we would put the lobbyists before welfare is such a very poorly reasoned argument. We welcome new actors - not so that they should profit from welfare but so that they should develop it. It is precisely so that they should develop welfare and provide education and elderly care to children and the elderly that we want to welcome new actors in welfare.

After four years with Vänsterpartiet in government in the city of Stockholm, two-thirds of the home care and the elderly care homes were, for some reason, private. They did not succeed in re-municipalizing the operations, because it could be seen that the private operations maintained very high quality.

During the pandemic, we could also see that private operations were often less affected and had a better organization than many publicly run operations.

I believe therefore that one should not draw far-reaching conclusions based on the form of ownership, but rather it is the management structure that plays a major role.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am struck by the ignorance that the Minister for Civil Affairs shows regarding the corruption and the problems that occur in grading in Swedish schools, which is the exercise of public authority. I understand that the Minister for Civil Affairs may not have had a reason to delve deeper into the issue yet, but equal exercise of public authority is a cornerstone.

We hear how teachers and others working in schools describe that they experience corruption, shame, and fear in connection with grading. They are subjected to pressures such as "I take my school money and leave if you do not give a higher grade than you think the student deserves."

This is a serious problem in public administration, and the Minister for Civil Affairs should take it seriously, not wave it away as irrelevant in a debate on corruption.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I think grade inflation is a major problem, and in many contexts before I became Civil Minister, I have proposed various measures in the school policy area to counteract exactly grade inflation. However, I think it is a slightly different debate than the one the Vänsterpartiet has requested a specific debate on, and that was rather what I wanted to convey.

I think it is very unfortunate if one uses grade inflation as an argument to limit freedom of choice and reduce the possibility for private welfare actors to offer good welfare to the elderly, children, and people in the middle of life who need the welfare. Both public and private actors are needed here. I do not think that one should use corruption as a battering ram to worsen welfare or limit freedom of choice.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! One must also not, in one's eagerness to believe that privatization improves welfare, shrink back from taking the measures needed to curb corruption in the activities that have been privatized. Here, the Christian Democrats and the Minister for Civil Affairs have a lesson to learn. You laid down the investigation that was to look at how corruption in public activities can be reduced. The Government has also said no to increased transparency and publicity.

There is much that must be straightened out in the privatized welfare system, regardless of whether one is for or against the privatization itself. Today, there is an opportunity for foreign actors to finance not only Swedish political parties but also school activities and other things. I am deeply concerned about what it means in the long run if we do not tighten the regulatory framework. We need to set aside ideological blinkers.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am fully aware of and committed to the fact that private operations need to be scrutinized and monitored. I would say that we who defend freedom of choice and diversity, and who have pushed through, for example, the Act on Freedom of Choice in the Public Sector, which has had a large and positive impact in Swedish municipalities, truly understand the importance of private actors being scrutinized and monitored.

The whole point of LOV is that both public and private activities should be monitored with the same parameters and conditions. It is about creating equal conditions for private and municipal actors so that a mass of left-wingers around the country cannot favor public activity over private and thus create worse conditions for private actors, which is otherwise a risk that one might do.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Why is the question of privatizations and public deals raised in this debate? Well, for the simple reason that research clearly shows that risks of corruption arise here. The responsibility of politics is to regulate this and ensure that we have transparency and legal mechanisms that make municipalities, regions, and the state act in the right way to reduce the risk of corruption in connection with public deals.

The problem is that these mechanisms do not exist. When we, during eight years of government tenure, tried to introduce the principle of public access in privately executed but publicly funded operations, we met resistance in the chamber.

When the current government took office, one of the first signals was that the work to ensure that the principle of public access would apply to schools was halted. This tells us that two interests are colliding. Objectivity, factuality, and impartiality, which are established in the Swedish constitution and which are the protection against corruption, are pitted against commercial interests, which are established in the business purpose according to the Companies Act.

If the state does not regulate this conflict, the risk of corruption becomes much greater, and then the risk increases that in public procurement, privatizations and sell-offs, there will be problems with individual commercial actors benefiting through unauthorized influence.

That is why the question of the principle of public access should be important for the Minister for Civil Affairs. That is why the question of mechanisms in connection with public procurement to reduce the risk of corruption is central. That is why it was extremely unfortunate that the government scrapped the inquiry into corruption risks in public procurement and privatizations. Unfortunate is the right word.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! It is very good that politics is starting to talk more about when we have a high risk of corruption. Sweden has a jointly funded welfare state with broad political support, and when politicians and other power holders handle other people's money, the risk is great for both waste and corruption.

I have a question for Ardalan about money from legal entities. The Social Democrats are the party that receives the most money from legal entities. According to which principle do the Social Democrats consider this to be okay, especially when it is combined with demands for political influence?

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to thank Ida Drougge for the commitment to the issue of civil servant liability. We do not share the same view on this issue, but I think it is important that all aspects are raised in the debate on the responsibility of public officials.

When it comes to the Social Democrats' view on party financing, we have been one of the parties that have contributed to changing the regulatory framework and ensured that Sweden has received a regulatory framework for control mechanisms of party contributions. It is a good regulatory framework, but we definitely need to conduct a debate on whether these rules need further development. But the Social Democrats, together with other parties, have been proactive in ensuring that Sweden obtains an arrangement with transparency and relevant controls of contributions to political parties.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree, and that is correct. At the same time, we have a debate today because many parties, the government, and I myself have seen that there are deficiencies in the legislation that the previous government presented regarding precisely party funding. And that question is much broader than only the question of anonymity, even though that is also important – hence the question of contributions from legal entities.

LO entered this election with 50-60 million kronor in the Social Democrats' election campaign, while simultaneously setting political demands and having expectations of political influence. Then the question arises: Is one only in principle against other parties receiving money? How does one view their own situation?

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I must praise Ida Drougges boldness and courage to raise the issue of anonymity regarding party contributions in this chamber, given what was reported about Moderaterna before the 2022 election. I think it is bold, courageous, and good that the question of contributions to parties, not least anonymous, illegal contributions to political parties, is raised in this chamber. It is also courageous that the question is raised, even though the Moderaterna were the subject of criticism in the media coverage at that time.

I look forward to a continued dialogue between our parties on how we can ensure that we have better control mechanisms, also in connection with party contributions.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I intended to continue on the theme of anonymous party contributions. As mentioned, there were five parties in this review where different arrangements were made. The Social Democrats were one of them. The Social Democrats were one of only two parties that actually distanced themselves and took a stand against the individuals who had offered the arrangements.

I wonder if the Social Democrats are prepared to actually take a clear stand that the law must be tightened. From the Green Party's side, we think this is very clear, also against the background that the Chancellery did not have the possibility to take any measures, despite the fact that we had recordings of offers regarding various illegal arrangements – because it is not illegal to attempt to accept anonymous party contributions, for example.

I also wonder if the Social Democrats are prepared to take a stand and ban foreign financing of parties.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question!

I must bring up the issue, because it is part of the discussions we are having regarding our policy development during this mandate period to see how we can take further steps in the fight against corruption. Improper influence on political institutions and parties is definitely a central issue.

Our interest in the influence of foreign powers is great. It is something that we are looking into more closely. There are deficiencies in Swedish legislation – there is actually a total lack of regulation. It can definitely affect corruption risks. It is a relevant area that both this chamber and individual political parties should delve into.

Kalla fakta investigated attempts at anonymous donations to political parties, and that report showed serious deficiencies that we, of course, must address. There is demonstrably an impunity here that must also be a focus in the debate.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I welcome that the Social Democrats are prepared to have this discussion. I believe we could get broad support to review the specific issue of foreign funding of political parties. We saw this in the appalling scandal that almost resembled a spy movie, where MEPs were caught red-handed with sacks full of cash from regimes such as Qatar – the money they had received in exchange for some type of influence in favor of Qatar in European politics.

At the same time, we are now in the most serious security policy situation in a long time, and we may be talking about greater risks than a football World Cup being placed in a rogue state that does not respect human rights and workers' right to safety. I believe that this issue is central to the trust in our democracy.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree with Annika Hirvonen's contribution. It is an area where we have deficiencies and a lack of regulation where the risks are great. It perhaps even deserves its own debate on the influence of foreign powers on political institutions and the lack of regulatory frameworks regarding financing. That question has been relevant in a Swedish context long ago during the 20th century when it concerned Soviet support and Nazi Germany's support for political parties. Since then, there has been no debate on those issues.

Unfortunately, those questions have become relevant again today. The Social Democrats have shown great interest in the issue of foreign funding of religious communities. During the last parliamentary term, work was initiated on that issue. But the question is also relevant when we look at political parties. I therefore agree and intend to take the question with me and see how we can cooperate on it.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! In 2005, the Social Democratic leadership in the Municipality of Gothenburg chose, for the paltry price of 23 million, to sell a large school property to Socialdemokraternas studieförbund ABF. This occurred amidst great protests, and no others were allowed to submit bids. This contributed to the Swedish language being enriched with a new concept, "Göteborgsandan" (the Gothenburg spirit), which is thus synonymous with municipal corruption.

Now the Social Democrats have returned to power in Gothenburg, and once again, amidst large protests, they want to buy back the same property for eight times the price - 185 million kronor - from ABF, which is simultaneously suffering large losses and needs the money.

I find it difficult to see that this would be anything other than Social Democratic corruption. Why are you doing this, Ardalan Shekarabi?

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to the honorable Member of Parliament Fredrik Malm for the question!

My knowledge regarding property prices in Gothenburg Municipality is unfortunately limited, and this is far from my area of expertise. I therefore cannot make an assessment of whether what Fredrik Malm highlights in the debate is a relevant aspect. There are certainly experts in this field who have a grasp of the price developments regarding properties in central Gothenburg and who can make an assessment of whether the municipality's offer, if it is indeed correct, to the civil society actor mentioned is in accordance with market prices.

However, I can inform Fredrik Malm that I have been very involved in the issue of the sale of welfare activities below market value, not least in the City of Stockholm, where we have horrible examples of sales below market value - furthermore to actors who had a proximity to certain political parties. This prompted a debate on the need for regulation according to the Local Government Act, which was subsequently implemented.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Member Ardalan Shekarabi is not aware of the exact events in Gothenburg, even if one must acknowledge that ABF has been in the spotlight in the news recently. This does not only apply in Gothenburg but also in Botkyrka, where the Social Democrats in a similar manner have favored ABF and let them run youth centers and other activities, which has resulted in the municipality filing a police report against ABF.

We can quote from Göteborgs-Posten the other day. They write as follows: "The ruling Social Democrats in Gothenburg plan to transfer many tens of millions of kronor of the taxpayers' money to social democratic ABF, via a questionable real estate deal. It smells bad." So that is how it is described in Göteborg-Posten.

Then it is time for Ardalan Shekarabi and his party colleagues to take a closer look at this matter, because this really smells of corruption.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Fredrik Malm raises this aspect. It was one of the issues that we worked on, namely the regulation of the favoring of individuals in the Local Government Act. It was one of the things that I worked on as Civil Minister. I am also glad that we were able to reform the Local Government Act.

What I urge Fredrik Malm to do in this situation, when the Liberals are part of the government cooperation, is to continue the work of ensuring that the principle of public access applies to all publicly funded activities. It is a fairly simple step, and it should be a liberal starting point. When Fredrik Malm's tax money finances activities, Fredrik Malm should also have insight into those activities, for example when it concerns the exercise of authority in schools. But what I know is that it is a liberal minister who has announced that the principle of public access shall not apply to publicly funded schools. There may be reasons for discussion in the liberal parliamentary group about how we safeguard publicity and ensure the work against corruption.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not strange that Sweden and the Nordic countries still rank highest in the world when it comes to the absence of corruption. Here we find some of the world's most homogeneous countries, where we have a great trust in one another, in various authorities, in the state, and in our democratic system. But we have received very many people from countries where one does not have this trust in authorities, in the state, and in democratic society. We also correctly see that countries such as Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, and so on lie at the absolute bottom when it comes to the absence of corruption.

It is clear that this creates problems in Sweden. It can take many forms. It can range from fraud with assistance payments, where assistance companies are suspected of having infiltrated Försäkringskassan, to different groups trying to infiltrate political parties, for example by a clan leader promising a lot of votes to an individual political party in exchange for some form of consideration.

I want to briefly quote from the text "Corruption is enabled in the name of diversity" by Alice Teodorescu: "For those who intend to exploit Swedish trust, the path is paved: a generous, trust-based welfare system, in many areas without qualification grounds and potent control tools, parallel social structures as a result of large-scale migration, requirement-free integration policy and the narrative of Swedish racism, as well as, in most cases, well-intentioned work to include and create diversity based on ethnicity. This cocktail risks challenging the rule of law at its core."

Madam Speaker! Think how quickly a country can be dismantled! But regardless of what the corruption is due to, it is obvious that the issue must be taken most seriously. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we reverse the negative trend in this area.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Richard Jomshof for the speech. The debate on the Sweden Democrats' nationalist view of the state belongs in another context. I have another question that I have wanted to ask for a long time.

I was Minister for Civil Affairs for five years in the previous government. One of the things I noticed at the beginning of my work as Minister for Civil Affairs was that we did not have control over the establishment in welfare activities. There were no legal barriers against criminals entering school activities, healthcare activities, or care activities. We then proposed in this chamber that we should establish ownership and management screening, so that we could stop criminals from coming in and running public activities. This was welcomed broadly. Among others, the Moderaterna stood behind this obvious proposal. There was, however, one party that opposed this, namely the Sverigedemokraterna. Why were the Sverigedemokraterna against the introduction of ownership and management screening in public activities?

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! The debate here today can, of course, take different expressions and different forms. It is a broad issue. I do not quite know if the specific question Ardalan Shekarabi poses belongs to today's debate. It was not during my time that that position was taken, as far as I can remember. Regardless, it is clear that this too is an important issue, just like many other issues that have been raised here today. I can take the principle of public access in schools as an example. I have personally taken a stand on this, and the party has since changed its position.

There are many different positions one can take. Of course, that is the case. But it is not the same as saying that everything can be linked to the discussion we are having today about corruption, where questions linked to, for example, the Socialdemokraterna and ABF have also been raised, as Fredrik Malm did. Regardless, I would probably assert that all parties here in this chamber have reason to reflect on the question in general terms. One can certainly frame the issue as broadly as Ardalan Shekarabi does here today - what do I know.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Richard Jomshof for the answer. I can assist my colleague in the Committee on Justice with information on why the Sweden Democrats voted against the proposal. I followed that debate quite closely. The Sweden Democrats chose to stand very close to the free school lobby. The national association of free schools did not want control mechanisms. Even though in this case it was about control mechanisms to keep out criminal actors, terrorist organizations, and the like from the free schools, the national association of free schools did not want a mechanism where the state could stop owners and management.

That the Sweden Democrats followed the line of the Association of Independent Schools is sad. It was in conflict with the Sweden Democrats' positions in the school policy action program. But lobbyists have an effect, and demonstrably they have a bit more effect on some parties than others. I welcome it if Richard Jomshof is prepared to practice some self-criticism and perhaps work to change his party's position on these issues.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! This question is very broad. We are talking about criminal organizations. We can talk about Islamist organizations. I belong to a party that drives the issue of Islamists who infiltrate school activities, and I have personally driven that issue during my entire time in the Riksdag. It is also about violence-promoting Islamists. The Social Democrats, Ardalan Shekarabis's own party, have bent over backwards and have not at all wanted to address this issue. They have even voted down motions where we have driven it.

In a general and broader sense, it is clear that the issue is interesting. It has been pointed out here today how the trade union movement tries to gain influence within social democracy. Then we also, of course, have private companies that have their own interests. There are different actors in society who try to gain influence through political parties and get decisions through that benefit them. So that is natural, regardless of whether we are talking about private companies, ABF, or the trade union movement. One can express opinions.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! Few other parties have been as shameless regarding their corruption as the Sweden Democrats. During the election campaign, you were prepared to deceive the Swedish people and accept secret party contributions. But the Sweden Democrats' loyalty to the people has cracked many times before. A few years ago, it was revealed how your Members of Parliament and officials were invited to luxury restaurants and allowed the business community and industry organizations to change your direction on everything from profits in welfare to the view on staffing companies. On at least one occasion, you even allowed lobbyists to ghostwrite motions to the Riksdag. Can Richard Jomshof explain how it is possible to be more corrupt?

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by saying once again that the Chancellery chose to dismiss the cases regarding what was highlighted in the autumn in connection with the election, which concerned anonymous party contributions. They chose to dismiss the cases for all five parties, and it may be worth noting.

But if one looks generally at parties that have received contributions – isn't it the case that Vänsterpartiet is de facto a party that has received party contributions from a foreign state, from a foreign power, in the form of bribes from the Soviet Union? How large amounts of money were pumped into Vänsterpartiet during the time when you called yourselves VPK? It is clear that it is also influence. It is very serious, I want to assert, when a dictatorship sends money to a political party in Sweden to try to influence it in a certain direction. I can probably say that there are many parties that should take a moment to think about how they act and how they have acted.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that we could dig into our respective parties' history as far back as 40 or perhaps 30 years.

I was not a member of the party that long ago. I cannot possibly answer what conditions prevailed when I was seven years old. It is not possible to expect me to be able to answer that.

It is, after all, the case that in today's debate we are talking about corruption that exists today. It is still you who for decades have promised the Swedish people gold and green forests. But when you finally obtained the economic power, what did you choose to do then?

Then you chose to lower the tax for the very richest and at the same time let 15,000 welfare services cease in municipalities and regions. You do not need any business sector that ghostwrites motions for you anymore. You are already a fully-funded party for the private capital interest.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is much to say about this. If one looks generally at Transparency International and which countries are doing best, I still want it said that our countries in the Nordic region and the Western world are doing well. There, we have a high degree of privatization. We are doing well. The countries that are doing poorly when it comes to corruption are socialist and Islamist countries. North Korea is a country that has a certain connection to Vänsterpartiet.

Then to the question about invitation lunches. There are many groups today that have opinions and perceptions and want to push through politics. I see no problem with people meeting and talking, discussing, and meeting voters even if they own companies.

As for companies, they are the foundation of our entire welfare society. They are a prerequisite for our welfare society, in contrast to socialist or communist countries which do not have at all the high degree of welfare that we have.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! One should stop being surprised that every single debate with the Sweden Democrats is about immigration. It is hardly the immigrants' fault if the Sweden Democrats try to accept anonymous party contributions or rig various foundation structures to hide where they receive their financial support from?

Madam Speaker! I want to ask Richard Jomshof why his party did not take any measures whatsoever against those who obviously tried to circumvent the regulatory framework. I also want to ask if Richard Jomshof is prepared to tighten the regulatory framework so that even this type of attempt, which obviously damages trust in democracy and risks leading to corruption, shall become criminal so that Kammarkollegiet can crack down on it.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I naturally have no other opinion. I have been clear that I believe it is a responsibility that all parties have. We can throw shit at each other. I would like to assert that all parties can be self-critical to some extent.

Whatever it was that was reviewed in the autumn, the Government Offices nevertheless chose to dismiss all matters. But it is clear that it is an important issue that must be highlighted.

Here I want to refer to the government. It has said that one should take a new approach. Gunnar Strömmer has also, in an interpellation debate, pointed out that even this individual issue is serious and should be taken with the utmost seriousness.

I still want to point out the major drop in Transparency International that we saw in 2015-2017. There, corruption scandals under the previous government were highlighted. There, they pointed to Statens fastighetsverk, to Transportstyrelsen, and once again to events in the Social Democratic-ruled Gothenburg.

It is the things one takes up in Transparency International that have a very great value, not least when we talk about corruption here today.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is also clear that Transparency International does not point to immigrants as the cause of the decline in corruption. I still just want that to be said.

I find it offensive that we are now discussing serious societal problems where political parties and individual politicians have a responsibility for what they have done and have let their parties do. It is also about what legislation they have chosen to enact or failed to enact.

Now the Sweden Democrats are a supporting party or control the government. One can choose how to describe it. It is a government that, among other things, is commissioning an inquiry on how to prevent corruption. It is a government that is commissioning an inquiry on the principle of public access and transparency in publicly funded welfare activities and schools. That is where children's future opportunities are decided through the exercise of authority. The Sweden Democrats have a responsibility for this.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I believe that all parties have a responsibility for what is happening in Sweden.

Once again: There is an explanation for why Sweden and the Nordic countries are the countries where we have the least corruption in the entire world. There is an explanation for that.

We have parties, especially on the left wing, who do everything they can to ensure that future generations do not get the opportunity to grow up in these safe homogeneous societies with very little corruption.

It is about bringing people to our country in large groups who come from countries where there is zero trust in the state, authorities, the police, and democracy, and who do not even understand democracy. It is clear that it creates problems. Of course it does.

Clan leaders gather votes and try to sell them to political parties in exchange for concessions. That is also a problem. I have not said that it is the only problem. On the contrary, I have pointed out many things here today. All parties have done that here today.

It is a broad question. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we reverse the negative process of change we are in.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us speak plainly. We in Sweden have a very difficult time with accountability, especially at the individual level. We believe all too often that if we just talk about things, we have understood, and so it will not happen again. It is just that we many times do not do it, that is to say talk or even confront.

There is no word in Swedish that corresponds to the English word accountability. We also do not always see corruption for what it is. We call it cronyism, fraud, scandals and crises. But corruption is much broader than that. It is much more than taking a bribe, which we perhaps primarily associate it with.

Corruption is about the abuse of public power for one's own or someone else's gain. We need to be able to see corruption for what it is. How else can we counter it?

The new government is now taking a major rethink in these issues on a broad front. Brå has received a new assignment to analyze which actors exert unauthorized influence on elected officials and political assemblies. It shall submit proposals for measures.

Additional directives have been given to a number of different investigations. A report from Statskontoret regarding mapping within agencies and within the state is awaited. There is an action plan against corruption that Statskontoret is also working on.

We are preparing for the fact that the EU will come with new requirements. We will appoint an inquiry into accountability and official responsibility.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ida Drougge, for the speech! I know that Ida Drougge has, at least since the beginning of the previous parliamentary term, fought for and campaigned for official responsibility, that is, a criminal responsibility for officials who exercise public authority.

One aspect that is not raised in this debate, however, is that a large part of the exercise of authority now lies with private actors in publicly funded activities. In order for us to be able to hold anyone accountable for errors, we must have transparency, and for that, the principle of public access is required.

But the government led by Ida Drougge's party has now signaled that they are not interested in expanding the principle of public access. Consequently, it becomes difficult to hold anyone accountable in operations conducted by private actors but which are publicly funded. We do not really know who makes the decisions, how they make the decisions, and what the background to the decisions is.

I will therefore ask Ida Drougge if she intends to carry out the same type of opinion-building work during this mandate period to convince her own party that it should change its line on the issue of the principle of public access.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ardalan Shekarabi, for the question! Transparency is very important. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as the saying goes.

With that said, it is not necessarily the case that the principle of public access solves all problems. There may also be a need to have different regulatory frameworks for time when it comes to, for example, the disclosure of documents. It has been one of the reasons for the government's objections to precisely that investigation that the Socialdemokraterna proposed. Different actors may need different amounts of time to disclose documents.

Here we also have an important digitalization work to do in the state so that it can become possible to reduce the hassle that prevails in large measure today.

To answer the question: Yes, I think the principle of public access is important.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ida Drougge, for the answer! I and my party are prepared to support Ida Drougge in the public opinion campaign that is required so that the Swedish bourgeoisie, not least the Moderate Party, shall change their attitude and take a stand for the principle of public access.

The problem is that the share of activities carried out by the Swedish state and the Swedish municipalities has decreased radically during the recent decades. Sweden is one of the few countries in the Western world that has chosen a different welfare model, and it has its flaws. It contains many commercial and private actors that carry out public activities. If we do not expand these principles and mechanisms, it does not matter whether we introduce civil servant responsibility and do many other things that only concern activities in own management.

I just want to express here my support for Ida Drougge in the struggle that needs to be waged internally within Swedish bourgeoisie, not least in the Moderate Party.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! I also hope that Ardalan here wants to join forces and scrutinize the interest organizations, associations, trade unions, and educational associations that surround the Social Democrats. They participate in public procurements and conduct activities. This has been well debated in Swedish media and actually by everyone else except for the Social Democrats. I look forward to that work.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! No other party in Sweden has been caught red-handed in the same way as the Moderaterna.

The Moderates' own Prime Minister is a prime example of this. As a municipal councilor in Strängnäs, he sold off properties and then let the municipality rent them again. As a social welfare councilor in Stockholm, he managed on his own to acquire an apartment intended for the homeless and the sick. But even there, he sold properties. Properties worth a total of over 80 million were sold for under 3.5 million. Some of these transactions have in hindsight been found to be illegal.

What does it say about a party that chooses such a man as party leader and Prime Minister?

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! Countless politicians from all parties have made bad deals. They have sold operations that, in hindsight, have been considered and could be shown to have been valued higher. That is true, and it is a huge problem.

To be able to see this for what it is, we must also see that it is a general problem that we have in the state and municipality and in all parties in our regions. In the same way, we have waste. Politicians make mistakes, and we are terrible at valuing public properties in Sweden. It is not quite the same thing as deliberately giving them away to a friend, but it is a huge problem.

There is, however, quite a lot that can be done to get better at valuing properties correctly. I am happy to talk more about that with the member.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is the case that the Moderate Minister of Justice, that is, the Minister for Law and Order, as recently as during the election campaign was caught being willing to accept illegal party contributions.

On March 1, the Moderate party group receives a new addition. His name is Fredrik Saweståhl and he works today as a lobbyist. He refuses to disclose which assignments he has taken.

In Region Stockholm, there seem to be revolving doors between the Moderate Party's regional office and private healthcare providers. No one has forgotten how former regional councilors first sold out the residents' healthcare and then took jobs at the company that bought the healthcare.

Why do the Moderates have such difficulty keeping clean within their own ranks? Why are the scandals surrounding the Moderate Party and their corruption raining down?

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the Left Party that much of what emerged from the Kalla f's review shows that we need to review the rules for party donations.

There is an investigation currently underway regarding what the Left Party calls revolving doors between politics and the business sector. There is also a new regulatory framework in the area that covers certain cases, but which certainly needs to be developed and expanded to include more.

We must also see that the issue is larger than these two examples. We Moderates have said that we would like to review these issues and change the regulatory framework. My suggestion to the member is to also pose these questions to other parties, because this is a pervasive problem that we have had for a long time in Sweden. But all parties have not yet announced whether they want to investigate the issues. Look, for example, at collection foundations and at lotteries where one does not even indicate that there is a party-political background!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! No one is immune to corruption, and I believe that transparency is the best vaccine. I thought Ida Drougge's expression was very nice: Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I truly believe that is the case. The more insight and transparency we have, regardless of whether it concerns party contributions or which lobby contacts authority practitioners, politicians, and others who prepare legislative proposals have, the lower the risk of improper influence is.

If one knows that someone can review what I do in hindsight and hold me accountable for it, I believe that something happens. Therefore, the principle of public access is important in all authority-exercising activities and all publicly funded activities. I wonder if that is something that Ida Drougge will work for.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question! The principle of public access is important. It is also important that we have insight into publicly run activities or activities that are financed by the public but are run by an independent actor. It is very important.

At the same time, we must also be able to discuss time limits and conditions and what should be disclosed. What is considered an important business secret, and what is not? I believe we are in agreement there.

I look forward to and hope that we can also look at issues concerning party donations, lotteries, collection foundations and money from trade unions and non-profit organizations. And I hope that the parties can unite broadly on those issues.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hope that Ida Drougge succeeds in changing the Moderates' view on the principle of public access and public activity. That would be important.

Another thing that Ida Drougge raised in her speech was individual consequences, accountability, when mistakes are made. I reacted to the fact that five parties in Kalla f äkts granskning offered different arrangements to circumvent the law on anonymous party contributions. But I also reacted to the fact that the Moderaterna were one of three parties where no one had to face any consequences for having done this.

I wonder how Ida Drougge views the fact that parties have in some way thereby accepted that conduct.

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

Ida Drougge (M)

Madam Speaker! The Council and Ministry for Administrative Affairs has submitted its investigation. The parties here were in agreement on the regulatory framework we have today. Certain deliberate delimitations were made there. It was the previous government that presented it in a government bill. The rules have applied since 2018. It has been possible to observe that they were not sufficient to be able to punish anyone. It is also important to keep in mind when talking about accountability. If accountability is to be demanded from officials and politicians in a criminal law sense, there must be support and clear frameworks for it.

After Kalla f's review, we and the Minister for Justice have taken to heart that it is also important to have margins, not just that one follows laws. There must be margins. Therefore, we want to review that issue, preferably together with you others.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! We have heard all parties promise most solemnly to take action. But words are wind, as it is repeated time and again in the TV series Game of Thrones. It is actions that count, and unfortunately, the actions speak for themselves.

Shelved investigations, whose purpose has been to counter corruption and open up for transparency in private school companies, cannot be explained away with flowery language. The Swedish people are smarter than that. We see what you are doing, and we are not impressed.

Creating complicated arrangements to be able to receive secret contributions to the parties is also not particularly impressive to the Swedish people. But one or two pats on the back were probably given to the party chancellors - at the Sweden Democrats, they perhaps even toasted with champagne - when it was announced that the Chancellery had abandoned the investigation. But the Swedish people remember. Everyone who saw Kalla f being spared scrutiny has drawn their own conclusion.

Striving for EU-level corruption is not something that impresses, not even on the EU itself. The corruption within the EU Parliament that has been revealed recently is not intended to serve as a source of inspiration but rather to deter. When Sweden is chair of the EU, we should be role models, not the opposite.

We in Vänsterpartiet will at every opportunity do what we can to counteract the corruption that is uncovered. The Swedish people deserve at least such a party.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Gonzalez Westling for this extended hand. This speech was somewhat less polemical than his previous one. There have been many personal attacks, which I have found tedious to hear.

It is now being said that we have shut down the investigation in the area. That is true. We have shut down an investigation because we do not think it took the right approach to the issue. But we have announced another investigation instead, which we think is more extensive and better.

At some point, a change of government must be marked. When a new government takes over, it is completely natural that some investigations are discontinued, because one wants to take a new approach to various issues. But it should not be seen as that the government is not taking the issue seriously. We want to do it in a different way, which we believe is more efficient.

I gladly accept the extended hand and am happy to engage in dialogue with the parties here in the Riksdag if further changes need to be made, for example regarding party contributions and other matters. My colleague Gunnar Strömmer has also said that. There is no polemic in that question.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It has been stated in previous speeches that corruption is not just about being able to do certain things, bribing someone and so on. Corruption is much more extensive.

To highlight that individual persons appear to have or obviously have clear connections to the business sector and to lobbyist organizations is necessary and relevant. I regret that it may feel like a personal attack when it is highlighted that one oneself appears to have such connections. But it is not something that I can be held accountable for. The Minister must answer for it himself.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I still think it becomes a bit distasteful when, in an exchange of remarks lasting one minute, one brings up a lot of names, for example ministers in the current government, and refers to decisions and to meetings that those persons attended 10, 15, 20 years back in time, and that one expects to receive an answer from the person one is replying to. I do not like that debating technique.

I could certainly list Left Party members who have done and said things that I consider inappropriate and point out connections to organizations and various extremist networks and other things. I refrain from doing so, because I believe that people must be held accountable for their own actions. I do not want to let individual ministers or members of parliament refer to what other party comrades have done long ago.

One chooses for oneself which debating technique one wants in this chamber. But I think it has been uncomfortable.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! One might think that certain things are distasteful in different ways. I rather think it is distasteful that it can be obvious that several leading politicians, power holders in this country, seem to have such clear connections to the private business sector that they are prepared to implement legislation that benefits private capital interests. That is what I find distasteful, not that the fact is highlighted.

We can, of course, have different opinions on what is distasteful. But the mandate I have received from the voters is to ensure that Sweden is governed in a competent, credible, and fair manner. That is not done by having those types of connections.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin with an aspect that is raised regarding the market and privatization in terms of corruption. The Centre Party does not see the problem as giving people freedom of choice, giving parents of small children the opportunity to choose a preschool for their children and to personally choose who should come home and perform their home care. The problem is that we in the public sector do not have sufficient systems and resources and that we have, to some extent, been naive within the system. It is there that we need to shift positions, but not at the expense of freedom of choice.

I want to highlight another aspect of this. What has been completely absent from the debate are the 40,000 elected representatives in municipalities and regions, almost exclusively lay politicians, across our entire country who every day carry our democracy and to some extent are responsible for the decisions and what we are talking about. One must remember that the most common form of illicit influence and corruption is harassment, and that the second most common is threats. They then hesitate to make decisions and avoid taking action.

I do not want to disparage luxury conferences and overseas trips in any way, but it is not what these local politicians are offered. They are not protected by guards and security checks as we are here. They carry democracy every day in their daily lives. We need to uphold and protect them. Words without action have no value, as it has been said, but here today they have not even received a word. We need to bring them in, protect them and manage to talk about tougher measures against parties and funding but also about how we protect the local politician who carries this every day.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! On the anniversary of Russia's violation of international law, illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we can state that Sweden and Europe are in the most serious security situation since World War II. In addition to disinformation and cyber warfare, other means of pressure are also used in various ways to try to influence political decision-making in our countries. There are blatant examples of this in Qatargate and the EU Parliament. The Security Service assesses that Russian intelligence activities and other security-threatening activities can be expected to increase.

Sweden belongs to the few countries in Europe that still allow foreign contributions to political parties. According to the Ideas database, 77 percent of all European countries, including Finland and Norway, have a ban on donations from foreign sources. The corresponding global figure is 70 percent of the 180 countries that have been mapped. We in Miljöpartiet believe that it is time for Sweden to tighten the regulatory framework and limit the opportunities for foreign powers to influence Sweden's parties, democracy, and security.

We in Miljöpartiet will work to have the Committee on the Constitution propose a notification to the government, already in our [turn], to appoint an investigation into stricter rules for foreign funding of Swedish parties. I wonder which parties here today are prepared to stand behind that proposal.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! There are some inaccuracies in the debate. Among other things, the Left Party claimed in its opening that the Minister for Education would have initiated an investigation into the principle of public access. That is not correct at all. What the government has done is to extend the investigation's mandate by a few more months to look into these issues.

It is primarily about very small schools in Sweden, which, unlike a municipal administration, cannot line up lawyers or have large organizations behind them, being able to manage to fulfill the requirements that are to be set on transparency in the operations. I guess that this, in the end, when it comes back to the Riksdag in half a year, a year or so, means that one practically gets a principle of public access for all schools in Sweden. I think that is very important. One should not lay out fog veils or engage in things that are not compatible with the truth in this debate.

Madam Speaker! I also note that the Social Democrats have no answer or any comment whatsoever to the fact that the Social Democrats in Gothenburg are now trying to funnel tens of millions of kronor of Gothenburg taxpayers' money to the social democratic side organization ABF to cover their deficit, which was 18 million last year. That this is not called corruption, which it actually is, defies my understanding.

It is even to the extent that what the Social Democrats in Gothenburg have engaged in has given rise to a concept in the Swedish vocabulary: the Gothenburg spirit. It is synonymous with municipal corruption. I note the high tone from the opposition parties and call for some humility even from these parties regarding the state of affairs.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the speech! I often take note of the organization Expo's analyses and evaluations. It is an organization that Fredrik Malm also previously worked with.

Against the background of the questions Richard Jomshof raised in his speech regarding that an explanatory model for corruption in Sweden would be that it has to do with immigration, the multicultural society, and the lack of cultural homogeneity, I would like to ask a question to Fredrik Malm and give him the opportunity to develop his thoughts. Does Fredrik Malm and the Liberals agree with the Sweden Democrats' explanatory model that there is a strong connection between immigration and the multicultural society and corruption risks in Swedish society?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! No, I do not. I would rather say that the risk of corruption exists in all layers of society. It may involve larger amounts within certain sectors and smaller amounts in others, but it is partly the same driving force that makes people want to make quick gains. If economic incentives are created for this, there will be individuals, who are less accountable and who have no greater morality or ethics in this context, who will attempt to make these gains.

It can happen high up in the social hierarchy, perhaps among those who have political contacts and can in different ways make breakthroughs by bypassing rules for, for example, procurement. It can also be about low-threshold jobs or perhaps fraud with start-up jobs, LSS and so on. I believe that the risk of corruption exists in the whole of society.

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

Ardalan Shekarabi (S)

Madam Speaker! Then I must follow up on my question. Is Fredrik Malm prepared, as during the time he was involved in the organization Expo, to clearly distance himself here and now in the chamber from the Sweden Democrat explanatory model that it is immigration's fault that there are corruption risks in Sweden?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought that was exactly what I did in my previous answer when I tried to explain how I view the matter. This is about the fact that rules, regulations, inspections and follow-up are needed - and of course also law enforcement, if required - so that there are no such opportunities for corruption.

Sweden is fundamentally a good country, internationally speaking, with a lower degree of corruption. But at the same time, I do not think we should compare ourselves with countries with completely different social systems than ours, which do not follow the principles of the rule of law and other things. We should, of course, compare ourselves with countries that are close to us and have similar political systems and economic structures, and then there is more to do. I want to argue that one cannot just focus on corruption within one sector. It is a much broader problem than that.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is not only the liberal basic values that have been thrown overboard in this government cooperation. Decency is also not much left of. An absurd but not unique example of the lost liberal decency is when a former liberal regional politician, in the capacity of a digitalization lobbyist for a trade organization, has now criticized that the region has started to clean up among digital healthcare providers.

In the contribution scandal during the election campaign, the Liberals were also those who were prepared to go the furthest. When it came down to it, liberal officials had come up with a system for a kind of money laundering.

When will the complete account of the Liberals' donors, including those handled through advanced arrangements, be provided?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This is getting a bit confusing. A regional politician works for someone who thinks something. I have no idea who this regional politician is at all, Madam Speaker, or which company or which actor, institution, board, or whatever it is that the person is apparently supposed to work for. So I find it a bit difficult to comment on this.

Regarding what happened during the election campaign, it concerned a freelance writer from the party, not an employee, who was directly disconnected from all tasks for the party when this was discovered. We have since also carried out a number of other measures.

I have, however, not seen what measures the Left Party has taken in light of the fact that the party received state party funding for a period of 50 years – but not from the state of Sweden, but from the state of the Soviet Union, where all documents were locked away in the archives in Moscow. It would be interesting to get a few more details regarding this.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that Fredrik Malm chooses to completely dodge the fact that what emerged in Kalla fakta's review was that it was said that we have experience with this. We know very well how we are to do and how we are to handle this; we have a framework for this and know how we are to do it. That means that one does not come up with it in the moment but that it is something one has used for a long time. When will we see the reporting of all the contributions you have received?

It is still the case that students and parents all over Sweden are asking themselves whether they are truly receiving the best care and education or if it is the loyalty to the school companies that is most important. Whose interests does Lotta Edholm actually represent, who went directly from a school company's board to the government?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This is starting to become a bit ridiculous. What Kalla fakta revealed was that a person, who was not even employed by the Liberals but was a freelance official, reasoned about, among other things, being able to funnel deposits through their own bank account. It is clear that this is completely bizarre. It was a reasoning from that person. It contradicts the idea that this would be something the Liberals engaged in. We have never engaged in any of this.

Madam Speaker! It may be time for the Left Party and Samuel Gonzalez Westling to realize and understand one thing: One is allowed to work for private companies in Sweden. One is allowed to sit on boards even for independent school companies. It is not a crime – it is not scandalous behavior or anything of the sort. It means that one works for a company in a legal industry.

Now it happens to be that the person we are talking about, Lotta Edholm, will now have to clean up in the free school sector after eight years with left-wing governments that did nothing to regulate that sector.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that the Liberals have now turned around and want to clean up the independent school sector, as Fredrik Malm himself expressed it. During the years we cooperated within the framework of the January Agreement, the Liberals were involved in braking all attempts to take measures.

I am very keen that measures are taken, not least, of course, for the entire school system and for the students' rights to learn and feel well in school, but actually also for us, if we want a system where, for example, idea-driven activities shall be able to operate, to ensure that cheating and abuse are condemned.

I think it is interesting that Fredrik Malm mentions the small schools as some kind of obstacle to a principle of public access, when it is the small, idea-driven ones that stand at the forefront and say: Give us a principle of public access, now!

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The truth is that they do not. The truth is that if you follow the media coverage over the last few weeks, you see that the chairman of the organization for the idea-bearers, Håkan Wiclander, has several times been out and commented on this issue. It is they who have flagged this. The problem is that a very small school must be able to be covered by a principle of access or public access just like all other schools, but we must find well-balanced legislation so that they can manage it. It is very important.

I also want to say in this context, Madam Speaker, that the Green Party is not free from guilt either in the issues of corruption. Among other things, a State Secretary from the Green Party a few years ago was chairman of a fictitious association called Gröna Städer, which in practice was a lobby organization for China and Huawei that worked so that they would get a 5G license in Sweden. He had been one of the Green Party's by far heaviest figures in the Government Offices for many years. Even the Green Party, therefore, has a job to do here.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! This person's actions are one of the most outrageous things I have had to deal with in my own party.

I think it is important to remember that no individual is by nature immune to corruption or influence. That is why we need regulations and systems. That is why we have a cooling-off period for secretaries of state so that they must report their work after they have left so that it can be scrutinized. That is why we have transparency regarding which party contributions over a certain amount that parties receive.

I believe these regulations must be tightened. I would like us to introduce a transparency register regarding lobbying so that such things come to light. If politicians meet lobbyists who are paid by various interests, it should be known, both as a politician when meeting them and as a citizen when scrutinizing the politicians' decisions.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I fully agree with the last point Annika Hirvonen raised. I believe that greater transparency is needed.

It is also important that the media does its job. The media is good at scrutinizing national politicians, but very much is happening all around Sweden. I believe that even someone who spoke earlier took up this point. This scrutiny is perhaps more difficult, partly because the local media situation is strongly weakened, with smaller newsrooms and fewer newspapers locally in Sweden.

We also have other things that can have a connection to corruption. Annika Hirvonen herself has raised this with foreign powers, for example. We see a very extensive investment from authoritarian states in, for example, think tanks around the world, particularly in the USA and also in the UK. This may come to Sweden in the future as well, so we must also be cautious. This is therefore a very important task even moving forward.

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

Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to say once again that this has been a good debate. It is good that this debate is being held, and I want to thank the Left Party for the initiative. If corruption enters the social structure, it becomes a hostage that risks threatening our entire democracy. It is therefore important that we have effective work against corruption.

I think perhaps that in this debate, which has now been ongoing for a couple of hours, there has been a tendency to use the risk of corruption as an argument to oppose freedom of choice and private actors within publicly funded activities. I think that is unfortunate. I am completely convinced that freedom of choice has come to stay, and we should rather work with effective follow-up structures to ensure that all activities, whether they are public or private, behave and follow the agreements that have been entered into.

The government is new, and we have every reason to return with more new proposals on how we should combat corruption and undue influence in our country.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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