Special debate on undue influence on democratic institutions

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, a big thank you to the Moderaternas parliamentary group and Louise Meijer for the initiative for this very important debate!

A widespread culture of silence among civil servants in the city of Gothenburg following pressure from criminal networks. A building permit officer in Södertälje municipality who grants building permits on a rolling basis to individuals in criminal gangs. Criminal persons and activities in youth centers operated under the management of ABF Botkyrka-Salem. These are three highlighted examples of unauthorized influence or infiltration from criminal networks that have emerged in various reviews during recent years, whether media reviews or reviews conducted by the affected municipalities themselves.

This is an expression of a societal development where threats, violence and harassment, but also more systematic corruption and infiltration, have taken hold deep within our free and open society. In the background, there is an organized crime that does not hesitate to target our democratic institutions and the people who, in various roles, represent these democratic institutions.

Special debate on undue influence on democratic institutions

Of course, everything becomes particularly serious when the result is that the person subjected to the pressure hesitates before or refrains from taking various measures or making decisions - or conversely, and perhaps even worse, makes decisions, takes measures, or acts in another way that causes the objective and impartial performance of duties to be called into question.

According to Brå, the reported occurrence of unauthorized influence against public officials has increased. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, links this unauthorized influence with welfare crimes, municipal decisions and criminal actors, often in socioeconomically vulnerable areas.

The authorities that are part of the so-called joint initiative against organized crime also assess that the dark figure is very large, that is to say that the problems with unauthorized influence may be much more or significantly more widespread than we know today.

Most of us, I believe, have also received various testimonies concerning political parties, where it has been suspected that individuals from the outside, in more or less coup-like ways, have wanted to push their way in and take control. These are often difficult cases to investigate, and the parties have often been cautious about pointing out criminal connections. But let us in any case agree that the warning signs are many and that the potential damage of different criminal actors pushing their way into political parties and thereby being able to influence and take over various decision-making processes in the public sphere is almost unfathomable.

In that light, I also think that one should look at the debate on the parties and the conditions surrounding the parties, everything from financing to contacts with various commercial or organized interests. We have a common interest in nurturing the party system and ensuring that it is robust and has the full confidence of the citizens.

Standing up against inadmissible influence is about protecting our democratic institutions. It is about protecting the rule of law and safeguarding the citizens' trust in the public sector. The Government will give these issues the highest priority and work on them methodically across several parallel tracks - legislation, action plans, mapping, cooperation, and other concrete measures.

I will return to what this means concretely in upcoming speeches, but let me say already now that I warmly welcome all parties in the Swedish Riksdag and all good forces in society at large to be part of the work dedicated to safeguarding our free and open society.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) and Lena Hallengren (S) concurred.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was only a few weeks ago that we had a debate here in the chamber about corruption. All parties stood on the same side then as well – no one stood here advocating for corruption.

When the Moderates requested this debate, the topic was the infiltration of parties. It has now been broadened to concern improper influence on democratic institutions. We welcome that. It is an important issue. Therefore, I agreed with Prime Minister Strömmers statement just now.

I also mean that a parliamentary inquiry is needed that takes a broad approach to these issues, because undue influence can take many forms: harassment and hate campaigns against a social worker who handles sensitive LVU cases, threats of violence against those who hold decisions on a building permit, or a luxurious invitation trip to the person handling a procurement. Add to that when media and culture experience that their modes of expression and frameworks are heavily restricted and curtailed.

Another aspect is that Sweden has, for some decades now, moved towards a welfare model with increasing market elements. This means that the areas where there is a risk of corruption, improper influence, and conflict of interest have increased. Through the privatization of public activities, the democratic control over welfare services has decreased. Extensive fraud and crime have been revealed with assistance payments, home care, and various forms of employment support to name a few examples.

Hat and harassment against both politicians and civil servants, not least at the municipal level, risk affecting decision-making and deterring people from taking on political assignments or employment where the vulnerability can be great. This makes our public administration and our political parties weaker.

The debate exists in many places. When we now stand here in the chamber of the Riksdag, we naturally need to ask ourselves what more we can do in our capacity as members of parliament. Citizens should be able to expect that we take both democracy and the threats to democracy very seriously.

Therefore, I want to once again urge Gunnar Strömmer to take a collective grip - not just to lay down an investigation, but to appoint a parliamentary commission where we are given the opportunity to leave the party-political cudgels that will surely be waved in this debate outside the meeting rooms. Let us jointly take on the fight against corruption and improper influence!

(Applause)

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have gathered here today to debate the issue of our democratic institutions and how we protect them from infiltration and other unauthorized influence. The issue is important, as it actually concerns the fact that our entire society - our open, equal, and democratic society - actually runs the risk of imploding.

I just want to make a small historical look back. We have, in our part of the world, in the northern part of Europe, created one of the world's best and most well-functioning countries. The journey here has been long. We have a thousand-year Christian heritage and a long democratic tradition but also revolutionary and decisive periods such as the Reformation and the Enlightenment. All of this forms the basis for our society. But we also have the folk school, the temperance movement, nationalism, free enterprise, the Swedish model, and the Social Democrats' folkhemstanke. All of this is in the mix that has created our country, our democracy, and our welfare.

It has not always been an easy journey, but a large part of the explanation is that we have had a sense of belonging. Sweden and other countries in the Nordic region also belong to the world's most homogeneous countries. It is about culture, history, religion, morals, values, language, ethnicity - all the things that have made us feel a sense of belonging with one another. This sense of belonging has been important, not least to explain how it can be that Sweden is still one of the world's least corrupt countries. This is, of course, also connected to the debate we had a couple of weeks ago.

But – and this is a very important question – because of the large immigration and multiculturalism, all of this is starting to crumble. We have a country that is becoming increasingly divided and segregated, and it is not strange when we have brought people here to our country. It is not about valuing people differently, but it is about that people come from parts of the world where one does not have this sense of belonging, does not understand what democracy means, and has no trust in the state, authorities, and so on. It is clear that this creates problems. And it is clear that it also creates problems for the Swedish social fabric if these people do not succeed or never get the chance to become a part of our society.

In a few decades, we have received hundreds of thousands of people in our country, and it is clear that this creates segregation and exclusion. It creates a situation where one looks rather to the family, the clan, than to our commonality. I intend to touch upon this a bit more closely in my next speech.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Allow me to express my surprise. I wonder what is happening with the country's leadership. The previous government started an inquiry into countering unauthorized influence through, among other things, corruption and infiltration. The new government chose to scrap the inquiry. At least the Moderaterna seem to regret this because they have requested today's debate on infiltration and other unauthorized influence. Had the government kept the inquiry, we could have received a significantly more comprehensive and competent account of the state of affairs than any hour of debate here in the chamber can provide, and furthermore, proposals for measures.

In the debate on corruption, which was recently held at the request of the Vänsterpartiet, the responses from the bourgeois side were in essence evasive, despite many fine words. Now, they apparently want to downplay the issue of corruption by focusing on infiltration. Both are important, and the difference is not always great.

We have revolving doors between politics and the business sector. Representatives for the business sector can even step straight into the government, with the Minister for Education as a former board member in a school company as a clear example. This is a form of infiltration that is visible and not criminal, but which raises questions about whose interests the minister prioritizes, the schoolchildren's or the school companies'. The issue is sharpened by the fact that the Minister for Education is shelving the inquiry into introducing the principle of public access in all schools. The sum is a poor example of how democracy should be administered.

The secrecy regarding who is allowed to receive compensation through the enormous electricity price support is also a worrying decision in conflict with the principles of the rule of law. The opposite, that is, opening up for transparency, would increase the possibility of preventing the influence of criminal actors, including infiltration.

In Vänsterpartiet, we are deeply concerned about both corruption and infiltration – they are increasing. Both are fueled by the fact that more and more of what has been managed within the public sector is privatized and often driven by profit interests. In addition to the fact that this automatically shrinks democratic oversight and the democratic arena, it increases the space for various forms of improper and criminal influence. What is happening? Well, welfare crimes and corporate-related crime continue to grow.

I naturally want to return to the question in the next speech.

(Applause)

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate is about undue influence, a subject that spans a broad field. It includes many different types of influence directed at a number of different actors, but they share the commonality that all such influence operations, if they succeed, undermine trust between people, between companies, and between individuals and the public—a trust that is completely fundamental for our open society to function and for the democracy we live in to enjoy legitimacy. Therefore, it is important that we succeed in identifying all kinds of risks for undue influence, regardless of what form it takes, and that we find countermeasures against the poison that it actually represents when corruption has taken hold and can spread through the body of society.

Mr. Speaker! Improper influence can, for example, mean that a social worker is intimidated through threats or other means into refraining from deciding that a child should be taken into care, even though there are good grounds to make such a decision. It can mean that a caseworker at Försäkringskassan favors an acquaintance by granting them a certain benefit, even though the applicant is not entitled to it. And it can mean that a bank employee grants a person with no legal income large housing loans, a decision that results in black money being laundered white.

We unfortunately see more and more of such attempts at unlawful influence and pure infiltration as organized crime moves forward its positions. When I worked as a prosecutor, I experienced myself how such attempts can look. It concerned attempts directed at me in my exercise of authority to get me to revoke intervention decisions, but in investigations I also saw insider trading at major banks, irregularities in public decision-making, and lawyers who leaked confidential information.

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a serious problem with serious crime in Sweden, and it is extremely important to push it back. As a prosecutor, I have worked with economic crime, and I want to emphasize how closely the violent crime we see today is linked to organized economic crime. In that, there also lie incentives for infiltration and corruption. As said - this is a poison, and we must quickly inject an antidote to stop the spread of its effects.

Therefore, it was very welcome and not a day too early when the previous government last summer commissioned an inquiry to review what measures were needed to counter this, in a broad sense. However, some months ago, the new government announced that this inquiry is being scrapped. I have previously heard various arguments for this, and I look forward to hearing more about it from the Minister for Justice, as well as what will happen more concretely. It is pleasing that the Minister for Justice sees that it is important to have cross-party cooperation in this matter.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking about undue influence - or impermissible influence - on the democratic institutions. Our Minister of Justice has set an exemplary tone here, but I would still like to broaden the discussion a little bit.

The recent debate has surely not escaped anyone. It concerns the acquittal in the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden in a rape case. One of our pillars in democratic society is the judiciary, and for several days, a debate has raged over whether this judgment is correct or not. This has also resulted in a couple of lay judges being called to a political party to receive, as it was expressed, a coaching conversation. Or were they intimidated? I do not know. But the result was, in any case, that these lay judges, who have sworn a judicial oath, after this conversation decided to request dismissal from their duties as lay judges. Some commented on this as being a wise decision. But the chairman of the National Association of Lay Judges was of a different opinion, and he had been told that the lay judges were subjected to pressure.

The former Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström was not lenient in his criticism when it came to this. The party's actions are nothing other than an abuse of power that brings to mind countries such as Poland and Hungary. It also sends signals to other lay judges that they should watch out when it comes to this. And that can indeed affect how one judges in the future.

I think this is a particularly serious case of improper influence on our courts and our judges. One can reflect on the system we have regarding how lay judges and judges are appointed. Perhaps it should be decoupled from the political world.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We see alarming signs of infiltration and influence in Sweden that we have only seen in TV series before. When those series were broadcast, those kinds of violence and methods of power were not so well known to us, but now they seem to occur more and more even in Sweden. It is persons and networks with violence capital that cause officials to perhaps, in the exercise of their authority, make different decisions than they otherwise would have made.

In the same way, unfortunately, it is the case with politicians. There is currently a hair-raising example from Brussels, where the independent country and UN member Qatar has apparently bought both football and goodwill through lavish gifts.

It is, therefore, sticks and carrots. Threats of violence or promises of rewards usually get orderly people to do things they do not want to or should not engage in.

This is not how we should have it. We must not let these kinds of patterns and power relations grow and destroy trust and confidence. That this is illegal and should lead to investigation and consequences is obvious, but more than that is required.

Mr. Speaker! We need to build our society to be more robust and resilient. We need strong public organizations, clear routines, secure staff, and present and responsive managers. The National Audit Office has recommended that the government establish a function that can support authorities, municipalities, and regions with practical advice and tools. We in Miljöpartiet think that would be a good step forward.

We need a well-developed internal security effort with robust support for exposed staff. Even a smaller municipality, like the one I come from, reports increasingly more attempts at fraud and other things. This includes, if not direct violence, significant discomfort and a working environment for those who are exposed that is far from acceptable.

We want to introduce whistleblower protection also for employees in state-owned companies and employees in companies that perform services procured by state agencies. It is important to strengthen the individual's position and for the possibility to expose irregularities.

We also need a present and well-resourced police force. This applies particularly to the local police, who can cooperate with other authorities and actors in the local community and who can prioritize issues regarding unauthorized influence.

We must build a present society that works closely with civil society organizations and people for a greater and stronger collective capacity. To that end, we shall support professional handling of cases and the appointment of staff. This involves, for example, being careful and economical with solutions where people are hired primarily on local merits.

In summary: a strong focus on leadership, coordination and presence.

I join the welcoming committee for the parliamentary inquiry which extends over the mandate that the former had and perhaps some new ones as well.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, one can trust the authorities and democratic institutions. Laws and rules are followed. Sweden stands well in international comparisons where the degree of, for example, corruption is measured. You can neither bribe yourself into an operation for your child nor can you threaten yourself into a building permit or otherwise influence so that democratically made decisions do not apply to you. We also generally trust our authorities and each other, and that trust is important. It builds a stable democracy.

Therefore, it is extremely serious when reports emerge of how, for example, criminal networks attempt to infiltrate and influence society at different levels. It concerns social services, authorities, and civil society. This must be combated with full force.

Unauthorized influence on democratic institutions and processes is a serious threat to democracy. It contributes to people not feeling that they can trust authorities, that they do not dare to contact authorities when they are in need of support, or that they perhaps do not dare to engage politically.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals have long demanded a series of measures to stop this development. It is about stricter democratic conditions so that unserious associations cannot share in tax funds. It is about strengthened protection for civil servants, not least social secretaries. It is about a battery of measures to bolster the preventive work against gang crime, so that fewer choose the criminal path and so that children are not lured into crime at a young age.

Authorities, civil society, and other important actors who uphold our democracy must be given tools to be able to prevent and preclude undue influence. Many important initiatives have been taken, but more needs to be done. And it is both urgent and welcome that all parties here see that the development needs to be reversed.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my first speech, the government and I, as Minister of Justice, will continue to work on these issues methodically and in several parallel tracks. I would now like to highlight some of the measures intended to strengthen society's collective resilience against unauthorized influence.

Firstly, it is completely correct that we are making a new attempt regarding the investigation concerning these issues. We perceived that the investigation we initiated had a purely mapping mandate. We want to redo it so that it is an investigation that can present sharp legislative proposals when it comes to the criminal law regulation of corruption. We thus envision a tightening of the criminal rules when it comes to corruption.

In the same investigation, another very important question shall be investigated, namely the question of accountability, which to a large extent is the other side of the coin. The so-called official responsibility, which also follows from the Tidö Agreement, will be an important part of that investigation.

Secondly, there is no doubt that it is important to obtain more knowledge and information. And the parts of the previous investigation that concerned pure mapping issues, we will handle in other ways. We give Brå a new government assignment to analyze the illicit influence exerted by system-threatening actors and groups. The focus will be on the threat or influence directed towards elected officials, political parties, and decision-making assemblies at all levels. In this context, I also want to highlight a mandate that Statskontoret has – to analyze issues regarding corruption and infiltration specifically at the municipal and regional level. There, all aspects of these issues will be addressed.

For the third, there is a national action plan against corruption. It expires in December this year. How it is to be continued will be one of the central processes for handling these issues in a systematic way. The action plan falls under my colleague Erik Slottner, and the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance will work very closely together in those processes.

For the fourth, I will invite representatives from all eight parties in the Riksdag to deliberations partly on the broader grip on these issues, how they should be handled and how that scope should be anchored in a good way, and partly on party-related and other democracy-related issues concerning the parties, funding, contacts with commercial and organized interests etcetera.

We have a strong general and common interest in doing this in a systematic way, and we also have a strong interest in that the processes we initiate lead to more concrete results than just mappings. It is about extremely sharp legislation aimed at pushing back the gross organized crime that largely lies behind the improper and impermissible influence we are debating today.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to thank the Minister both for the presentation and for the measures that are presented, but I nevertheless want to say that the investigation that was commissioned this summer and which the government has already managed to scrap was not just about analysis. It was about both conducting a review and developing measures that may be needed to counter unauthorized influence and corruption at the state, regional, and municipal levels. It is excellent that this is being taken further.

Mr. Speaker! I actually requested the floor because I want to ask Gunnar Strömmer if there will be any parliamentary committee. If the question is now urgent for all the parties in the Riksdag, is it not then time to actually stretch out the hand and say that we shall have this parliamentary committee?

We have not heard the entire debate yet, but I have heard some of the speeches and realize that in some respects we perhaps need to raise the level and try to reflect on what is the mandate of the Riksdag and the government in this context. What measures could we agree on to ensure that we truly minimize the risk of unauthorized influence, which is indeed extremely serious?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I foresee that we will have a parliamentary committee. The question is only what the scope shall be regarding the issues for the committee.

I think it is obvious that such a parliamentary committee should engage in what is party-related. If we look at how those issues have been handled, i.e., which rules apply to the funding of parties in issues that have concerned, for example, various transparency registers for contacts with the outside world and so on, it is in broad parliamentary agreement and with the Riksdag as the basis. I think that is obvious.

Whether such a committee should also devote itself to the broader issues or if they should be addressed in separate tracks through expert investigations or otherwise is something we are currently considering. I will gladly return to that in the discussion with the various parties in the Riksdag.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! One of the parts in the investigation that the government has chosen to scrap was to look at the privatization of publicly funded activities and what it leads to when one actually expands the areas where it is possible to meet for corruption, nepotism, and other improper influence.

I still want to ask the Minister if he does not see the risk that corruption and undue influence actually increase when one gets that type of economic interest and, furthermore, limited transparency.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! This government will not back down on any questions that are significant regarding corruption and infiltration, nor will it do so regarding the interaction between public and private interests.

When it comes to the questions that largely dominate the debate regarding the impact on public administrations and the impact on parties, it is still primarily other problems that are in the foreground, and this on good grounds. Serious organized crime or criminal gangs linked to clan structures of various kinds, which in and of themselves also largely engage in using companies as criminal tools, have been the pattern if one looks at prominent cases, for example, in Göteborg, Södertälje, Botkyrka and elsewhere. This applies both in terms of pressure on the public administration and the, one must still say, quite tangible attempts at infiltration of political parties that we have also seen.

As I said, I do not shy away from other issues, for example when it comes to the interface between the business sector and the public sector, but I believe that the main problem that we need to tackle is another.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor for two reasons.

One reason is that I am a bit worried about official responsibility. We have had that previously, and it has often meant that responsibility for what an organization does or does not do is pushed down the hierarchy. Subordinates are forced to take on a responsibility that they perhaps should not have because, for example, there are not enough resources to work sufficiently on an issue.

The second reason is that I saw at a press conference that Brå has apparently received a mandate from the Minister for Justice to inventory infiltration. That would perhaps be a step forward, but I would also like to hear comments on that. Is it part of the ongoing work?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally want to take the opportunity to calm Gudrun Nordborg's concern in both respects.

In the question regarding official responsibility, I personally think it is extraordinarily important to remember that when it comes to the independence, impartiality and objectivity of the public administration and the citizens' trust in the public administration, it is also to a very high degree about transparency and good conditions for accountability. However this accountability is to take place, everyone, both the citizens and the public administration, wins if it is clear and distinct.

If I am to take a very concrete aspect of the whole when it comes to the exercise of authority against individuals, it is obvious that those who hold public power in relation to individuals must, naturally, also be able to be subject to accountability if something goes wrong in some way.

That is what this investigation is intended to rectify: clear processes for accountability for the benefit of the citizens and the public administration.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am unfortunately not reassured by the Minister for Justice's statement. I appreciate that a priority is marked for us to have trust and that there should be transparency. But then we must remove all these secret classifications and withholdings that the government unfortunately delivers now and which create a concern that we actually do not know what authorities and public institutions are doing and what the argumentation looks like leading up to various decisions.

I welcome trust and transparency, but I do not want us to push responsibility down the hierarchies without us achieving a reasonable distribution of responsibility. That is something I can look forward to.

I received no answer as to whether a mandate has been given to Brå.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall make a new attempt to calm the anxiety.

It is quite true that Gudrun Nordborg received no answer; the time ran out. Now I will strike! Yes, Brå has received a mandate, and it is very natural for that reason that the background to the improper and unacceptable influence we are now talking about, which pressures the public administration and political parties, largely originates in serious organized crime. That Brå specifically receives such a mapping mandate is, therefore, in my opinion very natural. Furthermore, it is a highly qualified authority that will be able to provide us as political decision-makers with an extraordinarily high-quality basis in that part.

When it comes to issues of secrecy, I just want to say: Yes, it is clear that we shall have publicity as a starting point - the principle of public access is strong for good reasons - but it is always a balancing act between that and information that is sensitive regarding the individual's privacy. It is not the case that all payments to individuals from Försäkringskassan are subject to public access, but there is a balancing act in the legislation between precisely publicity and personal privacy. Exactly how that balancing act should look in each individual case is, of course, something that must be handled continuously and with good judgment.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome that a parliamentary committee is to be appointed and that we are to look broadly at the issues concerning how public administration and political parties are exposed to external influence and threats. It is positive.

At the same time, as I mentioned in my speech, I have seen insider cases in banks. I have, after all, worked at the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM). I quote from EBM's situation report on economic crime this year: "Most cases of corruption and influence involve key figures within the business sector." There is, for example, influence in procurement involving key figures at the procuring companies, and in connection with real estate transactions, bank officials and real estate agents have participated in money laundering crimes.

I have seen this myself, and I therefore wonder a little what the Minister for Justice sees that we need to do when it comes to this.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Björk for an extraordinarily important question. I think it is of great importance that we talk about corruption in a broad sense, also when it concerns things that fundamentally have nothing to do with political decision-making but with other decisions that take place, for example, in the business sector.

At the same time, I am of the opinion that the private sector has come much further than the public sector in corruption issues, particularly regarding both the legal regulations and, for that part, the supervision. This applies not least to the municipal level and the regional level. It also applies to several of the new phenomena we are now talking about, such as serious organized crime which in many cases is clearly linked to various clan structures that do not hesitate to deeply penetrate our democratic institutions - including the parties.

I am in no way saying that the questions Malin Björk raises are insignificant, on the contrary. But I actually believe that both the knowledge deficit and the legislative deficit are even much greater when it comes to the public sector.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have another question, and it concerns this matter of official responsibility. I know that the Minister for Justice and the coalition parties want to bring it in to introduce further criminal law regulations regarding this.

There was an investigation that submitted its report last spring and which concluded that any potential benefits would simply be less than the disadvantages that exist. Above all, it is the case that a considerable amount of regulations are required if one is to regulate something under criminal law and achieve a guarantee of legal certainty for those who could potentially commit misconduct in office. I would therefore like to know how the Minister for Justice thinks regarding such a regulatory framework for all those agency decision-makers that one actually talks about in the debate. What would be required, and how cumbersome would the regulatory framework potentially become?

Furthermore, much of it concerns threats and violence or harassment against certain officials who do not dare to make decisions. Would this not increase the risk that they do not dare to make decisions?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! One could possibly say that the investigation commissioned by the previous government was commissioned rather reluctantly. This may also have been reflected somewhat in the tone of the directives to that investigation. It was the Riksdag that, so to speak, pushed this through, against a very resistant government.

There are other investigations that also lead to conclusions - conclusions that, with a different mandate, not least a clear mandate to submit concrete proposals, possibly could have looked different. In that respect, I therefore judge that it is extraordinarily important to take a new approach and come up with sharp proposals.

I know that there are fears that a criminal liability will lead to even greater caution when it comes to making decisions. I personally believe—and this lies behind the Tidö parties' line in this issue—that uncertainty and lack of clarity in matters of responsibility is a much more serious hindrance, both for the administration's way of functioning and for the citizens' trust in the administration, than clarity. Then, of course, there must be robust regulatory frameworks around this for it to function in a legally secure manner.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the invitation to cross-party talks, Minister!

It is sometimes a bit ungrateful to be last in the exchange of remarks, because one has to strike out the questions that have already been asked. But I thought I would try to ask some other question.

We have observed that many parties have received new members recently, but that we are far from the glory days we saw in the 60s and 70s. This means practical things such as fewer people being present at annual meetings and, in practice, it becoming easier to take over and perhaps build up a dominant position—which in the long run can lead to undue influence on a municipality or region, with fraud, threats in procurement, and everything else we have heard about.

We who are here naturally should not have any opinion whatsoever on how the parties proceed to acquire more members, but it could nevertheless be interesting to hear a bit about how the minister views this in relation to what I mentioned earlier regarding a stronger society and perhaps support for organizations, study associations, folk high schools and others who show commitment in society.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! One could say that the influx of new members does not necessarily have to be solely favorable; I have understood that, for example, when it comes to the Botkyrka management, it has been the case that several newly joined members are not allowed to come. But with that said, the parties' great challenge over a long period is naturally that the influx of members has weakened, and that applies to all political parties.

If one looks at the examples where criminal structures attempt to enter political parties, one still sees several examples that concern not only large parties but, not least recently, also smaller parties with small membership numbers. These are more fragile to external influence and therefore also somewhat easier victims, we can call it, for those who want to get hold of them. There is, therefore, no doubt whatsoever that this is an aspect of the parties' shrinking size: an increased vulnerability towards interests that in different ways want to enter and take over in an improper manner.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We within the Green Party have also discussed this regarding anonymous party contributions and transparency. I would just like to mention that before the continued debate here.

It seems that it could be sensible to increase transparency a bit when it comes to both the party contributions and whom we, within the framework of our parliamentary mandate, meet, encounter, and have exchanges with in other ways. I just wanted to hear if the Minister has any thoughts on including those types of questions in the upcoming party-wide discussion.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short meaning of the long speech is yes. Both of the questions Jan Riise raises, I think, should without doubt lie on the table when the parties are to deliberate on the rules of the game moving forward.

Then we should keep in mind that these issues have been thoroughly investigated, in the recent past and in a broad parliamentary context, and that the regulatory frameworks we have now do not have particularly many years on their backs. I do, however, think it is very appropriate, also in light of the debate that has occurred recently, to evaluate how the rules have hit in reality and whether there is room to improve them in different ways.

A question that has always been rejected previously has been that of transparency or lobbyist registers. There are, in itself, good reasons to reject it; people have pointed to democratic risks even with it, such as that it shuts out or complicates contact with the outside world for political parties. In light of how it has looked in some countries recently, not least in a European perspective, I also think there is reason for us to discuss these questions again. We do that most appropriately in a broad parliamentary context.

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

Lena Hallengren (S)

Mr. Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of being in South Africa on a study visit. I then had the opportunity to see at close range what corruption does to a society - with welfare, with infrastructure, and with the people. There are many good reasons for us to work to ensure that we do not even come close to this.

For me as a Social Democrat, it is obvious that there should be openness and transparency, that tax money should go to what it is intended for, and that we should not sell off our common property at a low price but instead care for and manage it together.

I have two short comments.

I regret once again that the government abolished the inquiry that had the purpose of reviewing which measures are needed to counter undue influence and corruption, not least in the privatization of publicly funded activities. It was to cover both state, municipal and regional activities as well as business activities and have a particular focus on activities that are publicly funded. They abolished the inquiry and still have no real idea of what to start instead. Can time pass? Is that not to underestimate the importance of the issue? Sweden is one of the countries in Western Europe that has privatized the most public activities. This creates an increased risk of corruption.

I also think there is every reason to express concern from this rostrum regarding how hate and threats affect many elected officials. Sometimes the tone on social media is so coarse that one is truly astonished. This is worrying. The person who speaks out, stands up for a decision, or puts forward their values sometimes receives so much hate and threats that people choose to refrain, end a service, or no longer engage politically. In the long run, this risks eroding both democracy and the political parties' popular anchoring.

(Applause)

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The issue with gang crime and organized crime is, in many ways, an imported problem. We can, for example, see it once again in the fraud regarding assistance compensation. We can see it when assistance companies are suspected of having infiltrated Försäkringskassan. We can also see it in how gang criminals infiltrate political parties in order to, for example, influence political decisions in a municipality. It can also involve clan leaders promising away votes in exchange for getting something in return. It is clear that this is a problem.

I also want to point out one thing that I am probably alone in pointing out here today, namely the threat from Islamism. There is a connection here that is quite important.

Today we can see how rogue states finance congregations, mosques and schools in Sweden to spread the Islamist poison. We can see how individuals and groupings with links to, for example, the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrate political parties, not only to increase segregation and fuel the division but also with the goal of gaining power and influence and, in the long run, I believe, taking control over Sweden and the institutions we have here.

This is a question that naturally deserves significantly more time for debate than what is available here today. Briefly, however, I can say that I believe the cooperation we have found within the Tidö Agreement is good. I believe we have many good proposals in the pipeline that could come to affect this. The government's reconsideration in the matter is also something that I believe is very positive.

But we must also seriously try to understand how we have been able to create one of the world's best societies. What is it due to that one of the world's best societies is about to fail? There are explanations for this. If we do not see these explanations - if we do not understand this - it is difficult to remedy the problems we see today with, for example, unauthorized influence and infiltration. We see how our democratic welfare society is slowly but surely failing.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I requested the floor and thereby risk exposing myself to further threats and hate. However, I question what Richard Jomshof put forward both in his opening statement and in the statement just now. This is based on the idea that it is immigrants who should be responsible for the issues we are discussing here and in particular that it would be an Islamist poison entering Sweden.

I believe that we need to be vigilant regarding unethical and criminal activities regardless of whether it is a classic Swede or an immigrant who is responsible for them. I also believe that we would gain a lot if, for example, we no longer had religious free schools. Then we would stifle some of the concern regarding illegal financing.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are many explanations for the problems we see today. One explanation could be that we accuse each other of things that completely lack merit. By asking a question to me in the Riksdag, one does not expose oneself to threats. Gudrun Nordborg will have to forgive me, but I actually think it is a rather ridiculous claim, to say the least.

Something I tried to point out in my posts was that we must be able to understand why we in our part of the world have succeeded in creating some of the world's most democratic and equal countries. It is no coincidence that Sweden and the Nordic countries stand out when one looks at this, but there is a historical explanation for it.

It is no coincidence that the problems we see today are primarily found in certain suburbs and in certain municipalities and that they, unfortunately, have connections to clans, organized crime, and gang criminality. This is in many ways an imported problem; it is a fact.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I perhaps did not mean that the question to Richard Jomshof specifically was problematic, but that because I raise what I perceive as racism and anti-Muslim tendencies, I risk being subjected to attacks from individuals who, in any case, are ideologically close to Richard Jomshof and the Sverigedemokraterna.

I am also not entirely in agreement with Richard Jomshof regarding the historiography of Sweden. We have for centuries derived great joy from immigrated skills, and it is important that we truly take advantage of what is positive. We in Sweden face an enormous labor shortage today. The immigrants are those who can save the public sector, the business activities, and the environmental initiatives that we now want to undertake with competent and willing labor.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I unfortunately believe that everyone in this chamber to some extent exposes themselves to risk when they stick their noses out and have an opinion. I myself have received a great deal of hate over the years, even direct death threats. That tail is unfortunately everywhere, but I do not believe it will get better by us standing and suspecting one another. I believe we must be a bit better than that.

Once again: Many of us have a different background. I also have a different background - I have my roots in Finland. My relatives came here to work in Swedish industry.

I am not talking about that; I am not saying that all problems are there. I am only saying this: If we are to be able to solve the problems we see today and meet the enormous challenges we have, we must understand how we have succeeded in creating this society. There are historical explanations for this. It is about solidarity, about us seeing one another, and about there being a sense of community. This community has been totally shattered by the multicultural society. That is why we need to create a new narrative where we unite, regardless of what background we have. Then we must also dare to see things for what they are.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! What is happening? What is obvious is that there is a huge change in criminal activities. Previously, criminals robbed banks and cash-in-transit. Now the focus is on robbing the welfare society.

Both in Sweden and in the rest of Europe, problems linked to the labor market, with the exploitation of foreign labor, and increased crime linked to waste management are noticeable. We have also seen incredibly bold and profitable VAT scams and the establishment of airlines that then go bankrupt and can utilize the wage guarantee for those who have not lifted a single finger.

We need to do a lot. We need to protect our public common sector and safeguard the principle of public access, which provides insight and control. We need to change some of the secrecy rules so that the twelve agencies that cooperate in this arena and combat organized crime, including among others the Economic Crime Authority, the Police Authority and the Prosecution Authority, can share information at an early stage and become more effective.

Corruption, infiltration, and unauthorized influence on representatives within authorities, companies, and the banking sector contribute to an increased scope of action for organized crime. The occurrence of such crime demonstrates the importance of us also strengthening security awareness generally, providing employees with enhanced protection, and having control systems within both authorities and the business sector.

Sweden is now the chair of the EU, which means we must strive to be role models. We in Vänsterpartiet will do what we can to counter both infiltration and corruption.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! As I said initially, the subject of today's debate spans a broad field that contains many dimensions. It concerns both public and private actors. It concerns infiltration, threats, harassment and other types of improper influence.

Gudrun Nordborg highlighted something that I also want to emphasize the need for, namely a change of our secrecy rules. In order for the authorities that work together against this type of crime to be able to work effectively, they must be able to share information in a significantly better way than today. This needs to happen promptly, as the twelve authorities involved state in their joint report that infiltration constitutes a major threat. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister for Justice intends to do in this area.

We also need to develop control systems at all levels. When municipalities distribute grants or work against this type of infiltration, they must have routines. We need to cooperate across municipal boundaries, for example through SKR, to find effective methods. Södertälje municipality was early in working more structurally against this type of crime, and I think one can look at that as an example.

It is also important that we act quickly and together. I believe that all of us sitting here agree that this is a threat to our democracy and that we must find effective measures. With determination and focus, we shall look at what has an effect and then implement it.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! What we are discussing here today is not a new phenomenon. Over the years, I have taken part in the joint agency situational picture on organized crime, and it is quite depressing that they have highlighted this issue over the years without anything visibly happening. On the contrary, the problems have worsened.

Therefore, I welcome that the Minister for Justice now has the ambition to really tackle this and see if we can achieve a change.

While we discuss, parallel social structures are developing that challenge the rule of law and fundamentally our democracy and our welfare. I worked for many years as a police officer in Malmö and saw a shadow society emerge that we find difficult to handle. They have their own law enforcement, build structures, infiltrate and isolate themselves from our society in clan structures, which makes it difficult for us to reach it.

Therefore, I look forward to not only the police but also the authorities and politics tackling this with united strength. It is going to be a tough fight ahead.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, completely unacceptable if political contributions, decisions, and engagements can be suspected of being improperly influenced or even paid for with gifts or money.

Miljöpartiet has stated that greater openness is a necessary piece of the puzzle. We members of parliament need to be clearer about what we do here in the Riksdag, whom we meet, and what we represent. This also applies to members within the EU and in regions and municipalities. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to introduce a transparency register and has proposed that this be investigated promptly, not least against the background of Qatargate in the EU just recently. While awaiting legislation, voluntary solutions can work, for example Excel files. This should not be a partisan issue but a matter of common sense.

We are all aware of the contempt for politicians and therefore need to highlight that we also do good things, for example by explaining how we get our money and who we meet.

A threat to local political work is, of course, if groups take over in local branches or in other ways with the aim of gaining access to decision-making functions in municipalities to exploit them for their own gain. It is a known mafia strategy, in reference to TV series.

Let me also mention that specifically procurements are highlighted in both Transparency International's corruption index and the EU Commission's rule of law report. A greater resilience is required that makes impossible the wrong kind of takeovers and transfers, or thefts if you will, of taxpayers' money intended for children, users in municipal care, and other important and democratically decided interventions.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Improper influence does not only affect authorities. It also affects civil society and sometimes even political parties. Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It is built on the fact that we take responsibility for it, that we go and vote, and that people also continue to choose to spend their free time engaging politically.

Then that trend of declining membership numbers in the parties, which we have seen for a long time, is very worrying. In the 70s, between 1 and 1.5 million Swedes were members of a party. In the 90s, it was around half a million, and today it is only about 250,000 people who choose to participate and take responsibility for democracy by engaging in a party. This loss of members, which can hardly be attributed to immigration, creates a vulnerability. Local branches of political parties that consist of only a small number of members not only have more difficulty appointing positions of trust but are also more vulnerable to improper influence.

Mr. Speaker! Here, as a party, we have a great responsibility to engage more people. But even citizens in a democracy have a responsibility. Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It is built on the fact that many of us collectively take responsibility and engage.

It is very welcome that there is now a mandate from the government to the Crime Prevention Council to also map and analyze influence attempts directed at political parties. But it is equally important that the parties themselves, we ourselves, examine ourselves and ensure that influence attempts are prevented through internal processes. And above all, we need to get more people to want to take the step to be involved and influence the future, because that reduces the vulnerability of democracy.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! May I first repeat a thank you to the Moderaternas parliamentary group for the initiative for this debate and also extend a thank you to everyone who has participated in the debate. I think that it has in a very good way highlighted the depth and breadth of the problems when it comes to the risks to the integrity of our democratic institutions, whether it concerns the public administration, the political parties, or the courts and the lay judges. There is no other task that is more pressing from a democratic standpoint than to safeguard the integrity of those who carry our democracy.

I also do not think there are reasons, as this debate shows, to turn a blind eye to the links to serious organized crime, clan structures and, in some cases, even violent political extremism.

I really look forward to now systematically addressing these issues moving forward, and to doing so in a broad parliamentary anchoring.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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