Confidentiality in the Swedish Social Insurance Agency's processing of electricity support cases and the abolition of the duty to provide control information

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has had a stable and predictable electricity system that provided us with electricity every hour of the day, all year round and regardless of weather and wind, at a relatively good price for the country's electricity consumers. This is something that the red-green politics has unfortunately seen to partially dismantle, the effects of which we are now seeing.

We now have a sometimes unstable system with strongly varying prices. During the last year and a half, we have seen extremely high prices, which has given rise to a rarely seen cost crisis for our households and our business sector. It is for that reason we stand here in the chamber today and talk about electricity support. I think it is utterly regrettable that we have reached a situation where we are forced to make payments to our citizens in order to reduce the effects of the cost crisis.

It is urgent to arrange the payments to the Swedish households. On behalf of the previous government, Svenska kraftnät has developed a price model that will alleviate the effects of the high electricity prices. The payments shall be financed by the so-called congestion fees that each of us electricity consumers - primarily in southern Sweden - have paid via our electricity bills. Försäkringskassan has been tasked with administering the payments because, in its capacity as a paying authority, it has the ability to handle large volumes of payments.

Mr. Speaker! The bill concerns the classification of information regarding individual electricity consumers as confidential in two respects.

One concerns the so-called installation ID, which is a designation for the electricity subscriber's connection to the power grid. To get an idea of what protective value this information is attributed, one should know that all Swedish installation IDs are stored, for example, with Energimarknadsinspektionen. These data are de-identified there, which means that it is not possible to link an installation ID to an individual subscriber, and these de-identified data are subject to secrecy. Thus, these data should also be subject to secrecy at Försäkringskassan.

The second part concerns personal data in connection with the payments that Försäkringskassan is to carry out. In this part, I want to emphasize that I am a strong advocate of the principle of public access, democratic openness, and transparency. The purpose of this openness and transparency is that the public should be able to scrutinize the state, hold those in power accountable, and demand their rights. The purpose is, however, not that citizens or the media should scrutinize individual citizens. The form of society where we keep track of each other and people's private affairs through state registers is not something I strive for. Nor is it the reason for our principle of public access, which exists to scrutinize power.

Mr. Speaker! For that reason, I mean that it is not through the scrutiny of individual payments to individuals that we as a society should examine this. It should instead be handled through well-established and democratic oversight institutions, such as the National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, but also by the media.

The media can always request information that does not concern individuals and scrutinize the implementation in the usual manner. We must remember that the media have never before, at least as far as I know, scrutinized payments from Försäkringskassan to individual citizens, on a personal basis, in the way that some now argue should occur.

In today's Sweden, we have more and more extensive registers of our citizens than in most other countries in the world. We have population registers, vehicle registers, registers for corporate involvement, and private credit registers, to name a few examples. The risk is thus that we already today have a society where none of us is any longer a common private individual, but where everyone is becoming increasingly public figures. The risk is that the sanctity of private life, which is established in the constitution, is devalued over time, and it is my firm goal to stand guard over this. Therefore, remember that the principle of public access is intended to scrutinize power, not the people.

Mr. Speaker! For that reason, the principle of public access shall be used to create democratic transparency and openness regarding the exercise of power, which will always be possible after this law has been introduced. In addition, the Swedish National Audit Office, which is directly under the Riksdag, will audit the application and implementation of the reform. Together with the regular media coverage, this will be able to give us a comprehensive picture of the situation.

This electricity support shows similarities and is analogous to last year's electricity support to Swedish households. Last year's electricity support was handled by the grid companies, which thus provided even less transparency since not even the Swedish National Audit Office, for example, could conduct an in-depth audit of the electricity support management. Thus, it is reasonable to ask what is the reason for the fact that there is more criticism of the solution we are presenting here. This can be audited to a greater extent than that which was carried out by the previous government and which in practice was completely impossible to audit.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the bill and rejection of the motions.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to Lars Engsund and the arguments put forward that, according to some parties, we should vote through a bill that imposes certain obligations regarding how the electricity support is handled and paid out with secrecy.

In the opposition, the Moderaterna have often been strongly critical of the party that has held power for many years, that is, the Socialdemokraterna, regarding transparency, openness, and the possibility to scrutinize the underlying documents for the decisions that the power makes. They have been sharply critical of limiting insight into decision-making processes and very keen to highlight how important it is to be able to see how taxpayers' money is distributed through the budget that is decided.

We are all aware that electricity prices have skyrocketed and that companies and individuals are in great need of support. This will cost taxpayers large sums, and therefore it is important that the support is targeted. In order to be able to scrutinize this, it is required that journalists and opinion leaders can look at how the support is actually distributed. What are the reasons why this specific state support and how it is distributed should not be able to be scrutinized in the way we are used to the state's resources and the distribution of them being scrutinized according to the principle of public access, Lars Engsund?

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, we can well state that this time it is not a question of tax revenue but of the so-called congestion charges. The congestion charges have been paid by each of the electricity consumers through electricity bills. One can say that it is a reimbursement this time. It is therefore not about tax revenue.

As I mentioned, we have a number of registers in the country. We must protect and safeguard the sanctity of private life.

It has gone very quickly when this model has been developed by Svenska kraftnät. There is an urgency, because there are many households out there - and also many in the business sector - who are currently suffering greatly from the high costs and perhaps even have difficulty paying the electricity bill that is to be paid within a week.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I did not quite understand why it should not be possible to audit how these electricity subsidies are to be distributed. It is not a matter of tax revenue but of other types of fees that come into the state, but it is still a state subsidy.

Lars Engsund said that it has gone fast. The preparatory organization that exists within the Government Offices has a limited capacity. Here, a bill has been pushed through concerning restrictions of the principle of public access, that is, secrecy. It is an intrusive piece of legislation based on a fundamental principle that is enshrined in our constitutional laws.

How is it that under these conditions, when companies and private individuals are waiting for quick decisions to receive the support, resources are being spent on investigating a proposal such as this, which is legally complex and involves a departure from a fundamental principle, instead of focusing on getting the support out?

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, we have a well-functioning follow-up system. It is the Swedish National Audit Office that can perform that form of audit, which the member surely knows.

Secondly, this type of task, which was handled by the grid companies last year, is normally subject to secrecy. I see no reason for anything other than that they should be subject to secrecy regardless of who pays out the money. Now it is Försäkringskassan that is to pay out the money, because it is a paying authority. The assessment is that this goes fastest. It is large amounts of money that are to be handled.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have approximately the same questions for Lars Engsund as the previous speaker.

I must give Lars Engsund credit – he is at least standing here and taking the debate, unlike all the other parties in the government base. Lars Engsund is at least trying, in his own way, to explain why the Moderaterna and the government are presenting this proposal. But what is it that makes one make a completely different assessment than the Council on Legislation, and why is the Council on Legislation's criticism not taken into account in the bill? What I have seen that the government has written about concerns the mapping that Lars Engsund was touching upon.

It is a bit funny to note that just a few months ago we made the second decision regarding the pending constitutional proposal on purposeful protection of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Moderates then, together with other parties, pushed through the proposal that existed from a unanimous investigation on limiting constitutional protection for certain mapping services, which Lars Engsund was involved in. I think this is a bit interesting.

In the proposition, it says a lot about the concern that unserious electricity suppliers would abuse them if these specific pieces of information were made public. If Sweden's electricity market is so unserious, we in Vänsterpartiet are completely open to regulating this. We are extending a hand here.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us get to the bottom of this and take a look at the Council on Legislation and the criticism that has been voiced against the proposal. Above all, criticism has been directed at the preparation of the matter itself regarding deadlines, responses to referrals, and so on. It is, however, up to the chamber of the Riksdag to decide whether one truly has sufficient grounds to make a decision.

The Council on Legislation also points out, admittedly, that it does not consider there to be grounds to classify the information as confidential because it is not, as they say, privacy-sensitive. But this is ultimately a political judgment, I believe, and the political judgment is something that the Riksdag does in this chamber.

When it comes to the market part, it is clear that there are always deviations in a market; the member surely knows that is the case. This does not mean that there are reasons to change the market conditions, but it is a statement of fact. This is something that we obviously must work with through other instruments.

Furthermore, KD are also registered on the speakers' list.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the information that KD has signed up for the debate. I look forward to that, as I have many questions to ask the government parties. KD had not signed up when I last checked, so I thank you for the information.

I think it is a bit strange - this is probably the first time these parties are talking about privacy. When it concerns, for example, proposals on search zones, it might be enough that one is present in a place where the police will in the future introduce a search zone for one to potentially be subjected to a body search. This, if anything, is an infringement of privacy, but then it is not so important. It is right now, in this case, that it is important to protect how much money will be paid out in support.

Just as the member pointed out earlier, it is already quite simple today to estimate the electricity consumption of different households. It should therefore not be a huge problem to make such information public. Among others, the Council on Legislation has stated that these are not privacy-sensitive pieces of information.

If there had been a serious referral process, and not such a short handling, the government could have received more input, for example from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, whom we visited last week. The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated then that there was so little time – only a couple of hours – that it was not possible to respond to the government's proposal.

Last week, a party leader debate was held. In front of the interviewed party leaders, all but one stated the cost of their latest electricity bill without blinking or hesitating. How can this be so sensitive regarding integrity? I do not understand how one has landed on this.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder where this debate was last year when the electricity support management was to be handled by the grid companies. I cannot recall that it was preceded by any debate in this regard at all.

These tasks are normally subject to confidentiality and are even treated as trade secrets by the electricity grid companies. I see no reason why it should not continue to be so, regardless of who it is that pays back the congestion fees that we who live in southern Sweden have paid in via our electricity bills.

Regarding the timeline for the referral process, we know that it was a very short referral period. If I remember correctly, the referral was sent out shortly after lunch on Friday, and a response was expected by lunch on Monday. With all due respect, there was an entire weekend to work with. Sometimes it is the case that one has to work on weekends; both Jessica Wetterling and I know that.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

It is a serious time we are living in. Economic uncertainty, high inflation, and the Russian war against Ukraine have confronted us Swedes with choices and situations we did not expect at all. The high electricity prices have led to problems for both households and companies, and the demands for support measures have surfaced frequently.

We Social Democrats already chose last year, when we were in government, to support households. During autumn and winter, prices have continued to be high. The new government promised to have an electricity subsidy in place by November 1, 2022. Today we write on January 25, 2023, and note that the subsidy will hopefully be paid out during the month of February.

We are therefore addressing the proposal for confidentiality regarding the support for electricity users that the government has submitted in today's report KU16.

We Social Democrats have, admittedly, had views on the chosen model of letting Försäkringskassan handle the payments. But the support must be in place, so in that part we have chosen not to oppose.

We are, however, critical of the government's proposal to classify the payments of the support as confidential. We believe, like several referral bodies including the Council on Legislation, that the reasons the government provides for the proposal are not sufficiently strong. Furthermore, the fact that the government chooses to propose an inverted harm requirement means that it will, in practice, become impossible to audit how the support has been distributed and managed.

Mr. Speaker! The principle of public access is an order that we Swedes are very proud of. If the Riksdag is to make decisions on new secrecy provisions, trade-offs must be made. The support that is now to be paid out amounts to approximately 17 billion kronor. Here, there is an obvious public interest regarding where the money goes as well as the accuracy and distribution profile of the support.

In the responses from a number of instances, the great public interest and the possibility for transparency and scrutiny are emphasized. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that regarding the payments of the electricity support, it is important that journalists and researchers are given the opportunity to scrutinize the support and any potential consequences.

The Swedish National Audit Office chooses for itself what it wants to audit. We can hope that the Swedish National Audit Office makes such a decision that an opportunity is given to see the consequences of the electricity subsidy, but there is no guarantee.

In the report, the majority's position is expressed that the data in compiled form could be used to provide a picture of the habits, lifestyle, and finances of individual individuals and groups within the relevant electricity areas, and since the data are collected directly from the electricity grid companies, individuals will also not be able to prevent the data from being submitted to and stored at Försäkringskassan.

The Social Democrats' view is that the data being collected does not include such sensitive information as is expressed in the bill and that electricity consumption specifically would also not provide such a comprehensive picture of habits and finances as is claimed herein. As mentioned earlier during the debate, there are already many pieces of data related to, for example, income, tax, and vehicle ownership that are available for the public to access and which in many ways provide a good picture of a person's living conditions. In light of this, data on electricity consumption, much of which is already available via, for example, municipal electricity grid companies, do not appear to be of a particularly sensitive nature in relation to the interest in transparency.

It is, however, correct that individuals cannot prevent the information from being submitted to and stored at Försäkringskassan. But it is this model the government has chosen, so it also does not constitute a strong argument as to why secrecy with a reverse damage requirement should prevail.

In conclusion, I would like to once again move for the approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

That an opposition party criticizes a government is not particularly unusual. But this matter, which in practice means that the government chooses to classify the payments of upcoming electricity subsidies in the strongest way in 20 years, has according to the Council on Legislation been prepared in such an inadequate manner that the Council's opinion is that the preparation requirement according to the Instrument of Government is not fulfilled and therefore should not be able to form the basis for legislation. It is criticism from the Council on Legislation of a rarely seen magnitude.

I assume that this is unfortunately only a foretaste of what awaits this mandate period and that the government, with a narrow but still majority, will push ahead. We shall see how many react this time.

But the important thing in this matter, besides the fact that the government does not take into account the criticism from the Council on Legislation or other referral bodies, is that the government makes principled departures from what has previously been completely obvious to all of us: that the principle of public access is something self-evident and important that we all safeguard and defend.

Not all government parties are even participating in this debate. I would have wished that it were because the government parties were making study visits to the Council on Legislation. But that is not the case, because you are sitting here waiting to debate other matters where the committee is in agreement and which are not quite as controversial.

It is a pity because I have quite a few questions for the government parties. Why are so few of you participating in the debate? Has this matter moved so quickly that the government parties' members in KU have not had time to familiarize themselves with the matter?

That could be understood because the time was extremely tight. Because of that, JO chose, as mentioned, not to respond as a referral body, even though they had the entire weekend, just as we opposition parties did. On Thursday afternoon the bill arrived, and the response time expired on Monday. We had the entire weekend, then!

Or is it that the matter has been so embarrassingly handled? That would be a quite reasonable reason. I would also be angry if I were you.

Just as MP Malin Björk said, it is interesting that so much time and energy has been spent on getting this confidentiality provision in place. The regulation for the electricity subsidy itself was completed quite a long time ago, so the electricity subsidy could have been paid out several weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker! The principle of public access is an indispensable part of our democracy. It constitutes a guarantee for the rule of law, fair administration, and effective governance by enabling the public to gain insight and thereby be able to monitor public activities. The principle of public access is expressed in various ways in Sweden's constitutional laws, for example, in the right to freedom of expression, the freedom of communication for civil servants, and the publicity of public documents.

It is always a balancing act between the public interest and personal privacy, but the main rule in Sweden has until now been that public documents are public and that one has a self-evident right to access them.

There are also different types of confidentiality protection. Here, the government chooses to take the criterion that implies a so-called strengthened confidentiality. This means that for the information to be able to be disclosed, it must be clear that the disclosure cannot be considered to lead to harm. Absolute confidentiality is thus the strongest form of confidentiality.

Member of the Board Engsund previously spoke about the media's scrutiny - this means that it will become very difficult for the media to scrutinize this. But it is something that the government parties have no problem with because one has also introduced foreign espionage and did not then either safeguard journalism's right to access information.

We in the Left Party uphold both the principle of public access and personal privacy. But here, we follow the same line as the Council on Legislation, which considers that these are not so privacy-sensitive pieces of information that they need to be covered by secrecy.

We note, just as the Council on Legislation, that there are major deficiencies in the preparatory process. There has been such a rush that the Council on Legislation considers that this is not sufficient as a basis for legislation. It is quite serious criticism, one could say. But the Council on Legislation also has much criticism on the merits, and I actually believe that the government parties are aware of that.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Jessica Wetterling for the speech! I think it is quite ridiculous in some parts.

One must have the timeline clear in mind here. When it comes to the regulation on electricity support, we know that it was decided on 22 December. After that, a referral process took place for the Council on Legislation and other bodies regarding the bill. One must also remember that it is urgent to get the support out, and it is not entirely uncomplicated administratively to get these relatively large amounts out that are to be sent to the Swedish households.

A question to Member of Parliament Jessica Wetterling: In analogy with last year's electricity support - where was the debate about classified information then? There was no possibility for anyone outside to scrutinize the effects of the electricity support management that existed during last year.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am quite sure it is January 25 today. It has been over a month since the decision was made on the ordinance. And since it is an ordinance, it does not necessarily have to go through the chamber of the Riksdag. I assume that a decision could have been made on it within the government even before December 22.

I agree that it is an administrative burden. Absolutely! That is also why we have not demanded a rejection in the part concerning control data. I agree that households need to receive their electricity support. This is not about that. This is about whether they should be public data or not.

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

Lars Engsund (M)

Mr. Speaker! It must be remembered that this is not tax money. These are funds that each person, every electricity consumer, has paid via their electricity bills. The electricity support management is confidential with confidential information regarding installation ID, consumption and so on. And there is nowhere, as far as I can remember, payments of social support and so on that are a public document.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must apologize if I sound arrogant, but I think the government parties are behaving extremely arrogantly towards the Council on Legislation in this case. I also actually think it is a bit strange to speak of the previous support here in the debate. In fact, even the Council on Legislation does not agree with that in its opinion, if one looks closely.

There are many electricity companies that today are municipal companies and therefore are covered by the principle of public access. The Council on Legislation actually has a reasoning regarding how many of the pieces of information that today would be public or not but will now be classified as secret for 20 years, because this will apply to the whole here.

I also think it is a rather interesting argument that money paid into the state is something we are just waiting to get back in a refund. Sorry, you cannot answer now, but what other things that we pay in in different ways do we have the opportunity to then get back? It is actually only a congestion fee that we can then get back. I am quite sure that these congestion fees have not been paid out as support previously. I do not think they have solely been put aside, but they go towards investments, for example, to build away the congestion. But does that mean that some in the general public then have a small share of the expansion of our electricity grid?

(TALMANNEN: That was a closing remark, so Lars Engsund does not have the opportunity to answer those questions.)

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

The principle of public access is one of the cornerstones of our democratic system of government – that individuals, opinion leaders, and investigative journalists can not only request, but also have the right to receive, public documents. This right ensures that citizens can gain insight into the exercise of public power and can monitor how power is exercised. We Swedes often highlight this principle of public access with pride, and rightly so, for it lays the foundation for free opinion formation and for free debate on many different issues in society.

A typical question such as that which is worth gaining insight into and debating is how the state distributes funds. Over the past year, a hot topic of conversation has been electricity prices, a subject that has become increasingly hotter as the temperature on the outdoor thermometer has dropped. When electricity prices have skyrocketed and electricity consumption during autumn and winter has increased, small business owners have seen their profitability hit rock bottom and homeowners have seen their electricity bills multiply. And then the state must step in with support for those who need it most. Centerpartiet has long maintained, long before election day, that effective support must be put in place quickly.

The legislation we are discussing here today, that confidentiality shall prevail for information regarding electricity subsidies, is in no way necessary for households and companies to receive state support - not at all, and it is important to emphasize that. The money that certain companies and private individuals were promised during the election campaign must be revealed. Therefore, one can do nothing but marvel at how the government has chosen to prioritize its resources at the Government Offices. At the responsible department, the one led by Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch, officials have been tasked with producing new legislation so that citizens, taxpayers, shall not be granted insight into how power is exercised in this case. For it is precisely this that the bill we are discussing here entails: that the power and how it is exercised, in the form of the distribution of the state's resources, will not be able to be scrutinized. Information on how the electricity support proposed by the government will be distributed will not be accessible until in 20 years. As long as the government considers it necessary to place such information under confidentiality - 20 years. And no, the Swedish National Audit Office's possibility for scrutiny cannot replace the right to obtain documents through the principle of public access.

Mr. Speaker! The principle of public access is a constitutionally anchored principle that gives the public the right to insight and may only be restricted if there are conflicting interests where the interest of protection carries more weight. Only if these conflicting interests are so worthy of protection that the information requires secrecy shall the public's interest and right to insight give way. And every time it is considered to introduce a new secrecy provision in our legislation, a careful balancing between the different interests shall take place.

As said, there is clearly a strong general interest in being able to access information regarding electricity consumption and support. Strong interests worthy of protection are required to deviate from the principle of public access, but such interests do not exist here. The Government has not succeeded in demonstrating this. This is obvious to anyone who reads the bill and anyone who reads the Council on Legislation's stinging criticism of the proposal.

For information to be considered so worthy of protection that it is covered by secrecy, it is required that the information is sensitive, and that the persons concerned could be harmed if the information is disclosed. The information that is now proposed to be covered by secrecy concerns households' electricity consumption and amounts that can be linked to this consumption. These are pieces of information concerning an individual's finances, in the same way as information about how much I earn is a piece of information about my finances. This piece of information, what income a person has, is fully available to each of us. Information about an individual's finances is generally not of a sensitive nature.

Nor neither does the circumstance that information on how much electricity someone consumes is usually only known by the electricity user and the electricity supplier make the information sensitive. Nor is it particularly unusual that that type of information, i.e., such as those concerning matters between individuals, is stored with authorities and thus becomes a public record.

Tasks that can form the basis for electricity support are therefore not such that they differ from other tasks that occur at authorities, and this means that it is not possible to justify a special protection of confidentiality by referring to the fact that they usually only occur between consumer and supplier.

The government has claimed that the information to be submitted to Försäkringskassan, which is to form the basis for the assessment of electricity support, can provide a picture of the habits, lifestyle, and finances of individual individuals and groups, but without further describing how the information on consumption and the amount paid can together provide such a picture. Today, information on where you live, what car you drive, whether you have a car, and whom you live with is fully available and public. This information probably says more about your lifestyle and finances than how much electricity you use. There is therefore no reason to classify the information as confidential for that reason either.

The arguments presented for deviating from the principle of public access, that the information is so sensitive that it should be covered by secrecy, simply do not hold up given the considerations that must be made to deviate from the principle of public access. Therefore, the proposal is poor.

I note that the government also wants information on installation IDs to be covered by secrecy. In the bill, the government has completely omitted reporting what protection value these pieces of information have, but in order to deviate from the main rule of public access, it is necessary to provide a good justification for why a secrecy designation should occur. Such reasons are completely lacking here, and therefore the government's proposal to introduce secrecy for these pieces of information should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is, to say the least, regrettable that several parties who have said they stand behind the proposal do not seem to want to take the rostrum here today and explain to the voters why they want to implement the proposal. We have seen representatives for the Moderaterna have an exchange of remarks on this in the rostrum, and for that, I thank you.

I saw this morning that the Christian Democrats had also signed up for the speaking list. They had not yesterday, and I wondered then if the Christian Democrats would come and tell how they intend to proceed. It is positive that they are doing so. But the Liberals, who are a party that claims to safeguard fundamental freedoms and rights, have not signed up for this debate.

The government's coalition partner, the Sweden Democrats, which is a large party here in the Riksdag with three times as many full-time remunerated members as my party, the Center Party, does not seem to be able to produce a single one of the 73 members who can prepare a speech here in the chamber today. I find that strange. The Sweden Democrats usually talk about standing on the side of the little person against power and the establishment. For me, this is about citizens being given the opportunity to scrutinize power. I interpret it as that one is simply not prepared to stand up for the decision that one is going to make.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservations 1 and 2.

This debate, as is known, concerns the electricity consumption in half of our elongated country over a twelve-month period and whether it is appropriate to classify this still quite limited part of our private lives as confidential, now that Försäkringskassan is to handle the payments and everything would suddenly actually become public documents.

Public or general documents and the right to access such documents, the so-called principle of public access, constitute one of the cornerstones of our democratic system of government. The right to access these documents may only be restricted if required with regard to certain interests specified in the Freedom of the Press Act.

It is often said that through access to public documents, a free formation of opinion is facilitated, a free and fact-based debate on various social issues, as well as the civic control of the exercise of public power.

It is therefore required that very good reasons exist to limit the public, the media, and researchers' right of access to public activities. When it is considered to introduce a new secrecy provision in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, a careful balancing must therefore be made between the interest of access and the relevant interest of protection.

Mr. Speaker! We believe there is a strong interest in being able to access information on electricity consumption and electricity subsidies. This is necessary to review what effects the electricity subsidy has. Researchers and the media must be able to evaluate the outcome of this record-breaking payment to households and individuals. This is about the fact that, if we are to work our way towards a doubling of electricity use in the future, it can be wise to know how it is distributed now across areas and in other ways, at least in this part of the country to begin with.

The reasons the government has stated for why secrecy should prevail at Försäkringskassan for these data are simply not sufficient to justify that a new secrecy provision is introduced. We note that the Council on Legislation has made the same assessment. Furthermore, we believe, like the Council on Legislation, that under all circumstances there are no grounds for a reversed harm requirement, that is, with a presumption of secrecy.

Against this background, Miljöpartiet opposes the government's proposal regarding confidentiality at Försäkringskassan concerning information on an individual's personal circumstances in cases regarding support for electricity users. Miljöpartiet further considers the basis for decisions on confidentiality to identify electrical installations to be inadequate and therefore also opposes this point. We therefore move for approval of reservations 1 and 2.

Mr. Speaker! It is about electricity bills. For the vast majority, it is a rather trivial part of everyday life, even if the prices over the past year have exceeded all guesses and put the household budget under strain for very many. But the fact remains. From a privacy perspective, a year's electricity bills are not something that should be subject to secrecy. It is not exactly medical records, what we buy in the grocery store, or whom we call or text to that is at issue here. As is known, the Council on Legislation has also come to this conclusion, together with other heavy referral bodies.

Without confidentiality, we may have to expect to be scrutinized as members of the Riksdag or even as members of the KU, but I assume we will all manage while keeping our integrity intact.

It is important to use the experiences from such a gigantic project. How is the consumption distributed across individual areas? Are there large differences? In the face of an expected doubling of the energy demand within a few years, these are of course invaluable insights. Knowing how tax money is used is a prerequisite for being able to evaluate whether we have used them in the right way.

When the miserable war is finally over and Europe's energy supply is to settle into a new balance with renewable and fossil-free, with technology that is to be developed and with complicated pricing mechanisms, it is important to have data available so that risks are minimized both for upcoming decisions and for more price shocks ahead.

In summary, we note the preparation times which, in our opinion, are unreasonably short and will follow the developments moving forward. We say no to secrecy for both customers and power plants because the intrusion into individuals' privacy is limited and the importance of openness for media and researchers is more significant.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The individual's privacy is worth protecting. Many of us react negatively when we notice that, for example, media platforms map our digital habits and send targeted advertising for sales purposes. We experience such surveillance as intrusive and unwanted. Therefore, it is good that there is a secrecy legislation that protects us from truly privacy-sensitive data falling into the wrong hands.

Several referral bodies have not judged that information on electricity consumption would be considered so privacy-sensitive that the interest in protection outweighs the interest in public access. But together with other data, they can be combined to provide a picture of habits, lifestyle, and finances of individuals and groups. Therefore, the government has proposed that the data be subject to secrecy.

But it should also be added in this context that the majority of referral bodies are generally positive. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the Court of Appeal in Stockholm and the Energy Markets Inspectorate are some of them.

Furthermore, today's matter is not about a subsidy in the usual sense. Instead, it is a refund of a portion of the electricity fees that were paid in during last year. As an electricity customer, you do not submit any application; instead, the subsidy is paid out directly. It is not possible to choose whether you want to participate in the subsidy or not.

The principle of public access regulated in the Freedom of the Press Act may, according to Chapter 2, Section 2, be restricted if required with regard to, among other things, the protection of the individual's personal and economic circumstances. According to the preparatory works for the law, it appears that secrecy refers to personal circumstances, for example, a person's address and a person's finances.

In the current bill on confidentiality in Försäkringskassan's processing of cases regarding electricity support, it is therefore proposed that confidentiality shall apply if it is not clear that the information can be disclosed without the individual or a close relative of this person suffering harm. It can actually involve persons with protected identity and address. Therefore, this basic protection was needed to begin with.

Secrecy shall also apply to protect information that could be used to identify electrical installations, i.e., your and my electricity meter. A compilation of such installation IDs can be linked to the companies' business and operating conditions and are pieces of information that are normally regarded as trade secrets. If such a compilation is made public, the information can be used by unscrupulous actors and cause companies to suffer economic damage.

The proposal on confidentiality has been questioned. But in what other case is an individual's private consumption public? And what other support from society towards individuals is public?

Information on how much electricity a household or a company consumes is not public today among those who have agreements with private grid companies. That it is now being collected by Försäkringskassan is only due to the obligation that the grid companies are imposed with to make the payment of the electricity subsidy possible, something that is judged as an emergency measure since many consumers have been hit extremely hard by the sky-high electricity prices. On Monday, for example, the electricity price in electricity area 4 was 2 SEK and 11 öre per kilowatt-hour and in electricity area 3, where I myself live, at 1 SEK and 66 öre per kilowatt-hour. This while the price in northern Sweden on the same day was only 61 öre per kilowatt-hour. Roughly that is how it looked in large parts of the country last winter as well.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was very interesting to listen to Member Gudrun Brunegård's speech. I have a number of questions, and I am therefore very pleased that she is participating in the debate.

First and foremost, we are actually going to debate another matter later today concerning the Parliamentary Ombudsman's annual report. In the committee's position on that part, which I assume Gudrun Brunegård also stands behind, it states, among other things: "The importance of the principle of public access for our free and open society cannot be overstated; it is central to the Swedish legal order. The committee wishes to once again emphasize the importance of authorities and municipalities fulfilling their obligations according to the principle of public access."

I would like to ask the member if she stands behind the committee's position in this second matter. One might almost wonder if that is the case. I believe the member will otherwise be a little surprised by how well-planned we are already today.

I understand and partially agree with what the member said regarding when one starts to consider how mapped we are and what mapping is taking place, and that it can feel quite frightening, especially when it concerns targeted digital advertising and so on.

But this, which they now want to classify as secret for 20 years with the strongest form of secrecy, concerns what electricity consumption people have had over the past year. I cannot understand how precisely that question can be so extremely sensitive regarding privacy. But for example, the register for cars should say more about what economy one has.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jessica Wetterling for giving me the opportunity to respond. I just want to point out, so that everyone knows, that the reason my name appeared late on the speaking list was due to technical problems. I thought I had sent an application, but it had gotten stuck somewhere in the system. But thanks to good comrades, I got the application in so that I made it onto the speaking list. Otherwise, it would have been a shame. I would have had to register at the seated table, and that would have worked too.

This is a very important issue. The question of introducing this electricity support and that it is urgent has driven the entire process. People are actually sometimes standing on the brink of ruin because the electricity costs have skyrocketed so enormously. We have also seen a number of companies that have been hit by bankruptcy because of the electricity costs. Therefore, this is urgent.

Then it is a matter of finding a system that combines and merges the different goals that one wants to achieve. In this process, it has been seen that precisely payment via Försäkringskassan is the fastest and most expedient way, but that there is a risk that, for example, persons living with protected identities would slip through if the principle of public access were to apply. Therefore, one chooses to have the secrecy act as the basic rule. But then, in the case of public access, one can always test with an inverse harm requirement. It must be possible to clarify that the person concerned is not exposed to any harm. That is the answer.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I think the argument regarding protected identity was very interesting, with the reservation that one perhaps has not been able to familiarize oneself with this bill as well as usual given how quickly the process itself has gone, from the time the bill reached the chamber until we stand here and debate. This law is actually intended to come into force within a week.

I cannot recall the government having discussed or justified this by saying that it is precisely persons with protected identities who are the problem and that it is the reason why one needs to have this confidentiality provision for the entire payment of the support. That was new information for me.

I can tell Gudrun Brunegård that I sit on the board of the women's shelter in my hometown. There are many other problems for women living with protected identities, for example, that the possibility of having anonymous cash cards has been removed. It makes things very difficult for people with protected identities. It is also about how much is digital nowadays.

I truly agree on the need to protect persons with protected identities. But I find it difficult to see that one cannot achieve it in another way than by doing it in this manner, which has nevertheless received so much criticism.

In the government's proposition, it states that one cannot quite predict the consequences of the proposal. I think that it must primarily be due to the fact that there has been such a short consultation period and such accelerated consultation handling. Otherwise, more background material could have been submitted and thus perhaps a better decision could have been made.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is, as I said earlier, different interests that must be weighed against each other. The Government has done its utmost to find a solution that will be as good as possible.

In the debate, we hear that it has gone too fast and at the same time: Oh, so slowly it goes! This is the solution that is the absolute best under current conditions.

As a Christian Democrat, one protects people living in vulnerable situations, and I know that the Left also does so. It is a very great interest - and there is a great value in - protecting individual persons. With a disclosure, not only would the identity be revealed but also the address where a person might be living under difficult conditions, for example to escape a violent partner. We must avoid that.

It is also about trade secrets. A large part - I believe even the majority - of electricity consumers have agreements with private electricity suppliers. There, trade secrecy applies. If we did not have the rule that the government now wants to introduce, the trade secrecy would be revealed. It is therefore different interests that must be weighed, and that is why this solution has become the one that the government presents.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Brunegård, for stepping up and debating here today! It is truly appreciated, and I think it is important to highlight such important legislative changes.

I am thinking about what Gudrun Brunegård said a moment ago about how, by making these pieces of information public, one could also map out or see people's living habits and lifestyle. I must say that it surprises me. Already today - regardless of electricity support or not - if one wants to know something about, for example, a family living in Danderyd, one can look up who lives at an address. One can go on Google and see that it is, for example, a large villa and that there might be a pool in the garden. One can also see how many cars the family has and how expensive the cars are. One can quite quickly, I believe, get a good picture of how the family lives.

One can probably also guess roughly how much electricity the family consumes, naturally depending on how efficiently the electricity is used. But just that part – how efficiently the family possibly uses the electricity in the large villa or with the cars they have – is a marginal part of how the family lives.

I therefore wonder how Gudrun Brunegård believes that precisely these pieces of information would contribute to being able to map out what someone's living habits and lifestyle are.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In my introduction, I took up the example of how we are monitored and controlled and how very many tasks that I myself, and probably also the member, experience as personal that are collected by various databases and media platforms. I also took up how intrusive it can feel when one receives targeted advertising because one, for example, has been on a certain page. I took it as an example of how important it is that we protect personal privacy.

As I said in a previous exchange, more and more of that type of information is being collected, and here we have to weigh different interests. This concerns partly persons living with a protected identity and at a protected address, and partly trade secrets that need to be protected. There, one needs to make a balancing act, and with the inverse harm requirement, one has established a secrecy as protection in the first instance. The principle of public access prevails, however, and one can request information. But then one must also be able to show that it does not lead to harm for the person concerned.

By this happening now, all electricity consumers will suddenly have their data transferred to Försäkringskassan. In that case, we need to have a good mechanism so that not everything suddenly gets legs, so to speak.

I want to point out once again that, for example, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm and the Energy Markets Inspectorate have supported the proposal and consider it relevant and reasonable.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker and Gudrun Brunegård! I share the view that Gudrun Brunegård paints here. It is already the case today that many of our tasks are public, and it can feel uncomfortable. But then I wonder: What are the Christian Democrats doing, and what is Gudrun Brunegård doing to ensure that such tasks are protected to a greater extent?

What I just brought up here are pieces of information that actually were not needed to scrutinize power, i.e., where I live or what car I have. Those are such pieces of information that are in no way needed to scrutinize power.

It concerns the electricity subsidies, however. The electricity subsidies, which we are talking about now, are a method that the current government has chosen to distribute resources to different groups due to the high electricity prices we have today. I mean that there is therefore a need to gain insight into this for the individual citizen to see if the subsidies hit the mark, if they are truly effective, and if they are distributionally correct. It could, for example, concern someone who takes energy-efficient measures. How does it affect? I mean that this is a discussion that we must have.

On the other hand, one can consider other aspects that are public today. But I do not hear any proposal from Gudrun Brunegård or the Kristdemokraterna about placing information regarding the car I drive or the house I live in under secrecy. It is not such things that we are talking about placing under secrecy; it is nothing that is included here. I therefore do not quite understand the picture being painted here and what the Kristdemokraterna's argument is in relation to it.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Malin Björk, for important questions that broaden the discussion! I do not quite know how I should allocate the time to answer both what concerns the current issue and what concerns the broader issue, which is actually much, much larger and concerns privacy protection versus the principle of public access overall.

When it comes to privacy protection, there are constant discussions. I myself submitted a motion last year regarding reviewing that type of issue. How much should actually be public when it comes to what is on various websites regarding one's personal circumstances?

We have, for example, several times had discussions here in the chamber about crimes against pensioners, where one can read on various sites where someone lives, what age the person is, and what their income and circumstances are. In this way, pensioners can be exposed to proactive criminal activity that can be purely horrific, devastating, and to the highest degree an infringement of privacy. This is a major discussion that we need to have.

Just from that perspective, it is important that we, when we now make decisions regarding temporary legislation for a one-time payment, which is what this is about, do not open up even more regarding these matters. Then it is clear that every person with some kind of social and environmental responsibility does what they can to improve energy efficiency. I believe for sure that one can exert those pressures even without obtaining information on just the number of kilowatt-hours consumed during 2021.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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