Response to interpellation 2022/23:116 on the work against corruption
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M (1) does not rule out a review of rules for party funding and elected officials' independence but emphasizes that changes require broad parliamentary anchoring 1. M (3) argues that current rules are a result of broad agreement and that issues such as transparency registers are complex 2. M (5) wants to make a serious rethink of the regulation and proposes an investigation with sharp legislative mandates 3. M (5) wants to meet with experts to make the directives for a new corruption investigation sharper and discuss this with all parties in the Committee on the Constitution 3. M (5) argues that there are practical solutions to the issues despite their complexity 3. M (5) is open to investigating transparency registers 3. M (7) wants to conduct an investigation with sharp legislative mandates and, together with the Government Offices and the Committee on the Constitution, review rules for party funding 4. M (7) also wants to give parties the opportunity to submit input to investigation directives that handle corruption issues in a broader way 4. MP (2) argues that the legislation has large gaps and must be tightened quickly, and that a transparency register must be introduced 5. MP (4) considers it unacceptable that foreign powers can influence Swedish politics through party contributions and demands a ban on funding from third countries 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Märta Stenevi has asked me whether, in view of the corruption scandal in the European Parliament, I will initiate work to establish a transparency register and tighten the rules regarding party donations in order to reduce the risk of corruption and protect the Swedish Riksdag and our elected institutions from the risk of serious loss of confidence.
Märta Stenevi also highlights Kalla fakta's review during the 2022 election campaign. Kammarkollegiet opened supervisory cases in the autumn regarding the parties that appeared in the program. On January 10 this year, Kammarkollegiet decided to write off all cases, as, according to the agency, it had not been shown that the parties in question had violated the provisions in the transparency act.
The current transparency law is from 2018 and was established after a review by a parliamentary committee. With the law, increased transparency was created, among other things through expanded requirements for revenue reporting and a ban on receiving anonymous contributions over a certain value.
The question of a register of lobbyists – which Märta Stenevi mentions in the interpellation as a transparency register – has been the subject of several investigations. For example, the 2014 democracy investigation, which had a parliamentary reference group, judged that such a register is not desirable. The Riksdag has also on several occasions in recent years rejected motions on the theme.
With that said, I do not rule out that there may be reasons to review these regulations regarding transparency in party funding and other issues concerning ensuring the independence of elected representatives. It is very important that Swedish democracy and its institutions, including the political parties, enjoy a high level of trust. It is also important that the regulatory frameworks are clear and easy to use in practice.
Changes in this area should not occur without broad parliamentary anchoring. I am prepared to discuss with representatives from all parliamentary parties if there is an interest in a review and which questions should, in that case, be included.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! The corruption scandal in the EU shook the parliament in December. Millions in cash were seized. Raids were carried out at known politicians, even raids in the parliament's own offices. Several EU parliamentarians were arrested following allegations of corruption and money laundering. They are said to have received bribes to influence decisions in favor of Qatar - bribes from the same Qatar that mercilessly violates human rights and which tortured thousands of migrant workers before the football World Cup.
In the midst of this scandal, the parliament acted and quickly stood behind stricter rules to counter corruption. The Green group presented three sharp proposals which were also voted through. The proposals concerned the reporting of all side incomes, a ban on financing of members and their parties from third countries, and a cooling-off period for former parliamentarians.
However, several Swedish parties voted against taking these completely necessary steps against corruption. The Moderates voted against all three proposals. The Moderate government party that the Minister for Justice represents thus voted against introducing a ban on receiving donations from, for example, Qatar, Russia or Iran. It is the same government that is now leading the presidency in the EU's Council of Ministers and which claims to have democracy as a priority on the agenda.
Madam Speaker! This could have been astonishing if it had not also so clearly reflected the total paralysis that characterizes the government's work against corruption at home. What did the Swedish government do after Swedish politics was shaken by revelations that five parties actively tried to circumvent the law in order to be able to receive anonymous party contributions? Absolutely nothing!
The Chamber Office has recently presented the investigation requested by the Left Party. They discovered no violations of the transparency rules. In the interpellation response, the Minister argues that this indicates that the laws are sufficient. But in reality, it is precisely the opposite. The Chamber Office's investigation shows with all desired clarity why the laws must be tightened, and quickly.
This legislation was introduced to create more transparency and prevent corruption. The Swedish people have the right to know which forces the parties depend on for their funding and whose agenda they are driving. On paper, we agree that the influence of money on politics should be able to be scrutinized. But in front of the hidden camera, we see how the cheaters creatively try to bypass the legislation and counteract its purpose.
The law therefore has such large loopholes that it rather functions as an alibi to hide influence on the parties than increases transparency. It is deeply worrying. The law on transparency in the parties' financing must be tightened. A transparency register must also be introduced, so that the Swedish people find out who is influencing politics.
Madam Speaker! From the Minister's response and the government parties' actions in the European Parliament, it is very clear what the government does not want to do. But now I wonder what the government actually wants to do to counter corruption in the EU and in Sweden.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Regarding the procedures in the European Parliament, I do not have more detailed knowledge of exactly how these votes are conducted. I will very gladly look into that. None of the proposals that Märta Stenevi mentions are of such a nature that the Moderaterna have any principled objections. Then I do not know exactly what the practical design of the proposals has been or how they have been treated in parliament. I will gladly come back to that.
As for passivity, I do not know if I think it is a precisely correct description. Now we stand here a few weeks after Kammarkollegiet concluded its review. You and I met here before Christmas, Märta Stenevi, and then we spoke about the same issues. I thought it was reasonable to await the outcome of that review. Now I say that I am completely open to discussing whether a review of the rules needs to be made regarding both party financing and, in that regard, other issues that may be of importance to create both a high integrity for parties and for the political institutions as well as increased transparency and reliability from the voters' perspective.
Then I think that the tone sometimes becomes a bit exaggerated, considering that all the rules we are now talking about were decided a couple of years ago, after proposals were submitted by a government that the Miljöpartiet sat in, and had its background in a parliamentary committee where all parties participated and blessed the content.
It does not in any way prevent us from now raising and discussing the question of a review. But it is not the case that the rules we have would be a result of different parties having an interest in driving this in a restrictive direction without transparency. On the contrary, there has been a broad consensus on designing the rules as they appear. Some trade-offs are practically difficult. They have been addressed by all parties and have landed in this result. Nevertheless, I believe it can be wise for the government and the Riksdag, in a dialogue between the Ministry of Justice and the Committee on the Constitution, to raise these questions and how a common roadmap can look.
If we broaden the perspective, we can say that there are several issues that this investigation handled but which were set aside at that time. Often, there are very difficult conflicts of interest. One issue that was raised but was set aside was the fact that many people who join trade unions indirectly must support political parties that they do not vote for. Each can understand that from a freedom of association point of view, this is something that can be questioned. But in the other balance scale, there are freedom of association arguments which say that voluntary associations must be able to be characterized by majority decisions and that it is therefore still reasonable that one is allowed to give money, for example from trade unions, to the Socialdemokraterna. It highlights that there are issues where many legitimate interests must be weighed against each other. There are several issues that have been raised earlier but set aside because it was judged that, practically speaking, it was the way one needed to proceed.
I am personally quite open to discussing a transparency register in a Swedish context. But in the large democracy investigation, where all parties were involved, that question was set aside because it was judged that there were other democratic problems associated with such a register. Who should be included? How should it be sorted? Are there problems with a state certification of certain interest groups but not others? Simply put, the questions are complex. Wise parties – all in this chamber – have previously concluded that this is not relevant. I am happy to make it relevant, but I believe that the tone sometimes does not quite match the complexity of the questions. Let us gladly take it further from this point and discuss it. Let us also start from the premise that we have a common interest in that these questions are handled in a balanced way.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! There are many solutions to the problems that Strömmer highlights. We have also, on several occasions, highlighted the concerns we saw with the legislation. We have seen how recent events have truly highlighted that, just as we feared, we have enormous holes in the legislation.
We also have five parties in the Swedish Riksdag that are prepared to use those loopholes in the legislation to benefit their own party activities instead of using the opportunity to be transparent towards the citizens.
The fact is that Sweden is declining in Transparency International's corruption index. This year, Sweden received its worst ranking in eleven years. As reasons for the decline, one mentions, among other things, the scandal with the parties that have received anonymous contributions, but also issues regarding procurement.
The previous government appointed an inquiry into corruption and undue influence in public activities and the business sector. It was a much-needed review of what effects the increased involvement of market interests and privatization has had on the occurrence of influence and corruption in publicly funded activities.
The government has now chosen to stop that investigation without appointing a new one. This naturally means that the work will be delayed by several years. For a government that is concerned with addressing corruption and undue influence as quickly as possible, it would have been entirely possible instead to supplement the investigation with additional directives if there was something missing, rather than to shut it down.
Madam Speaker! Europe is currently in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. If other countries were to succeed in influencing the EU's or Sweden's decision-makers through party contributions, it could have enormous consequences.
All four parties included in the government base were open to bypassing the law on transparency in party funding. How are we as citizens then supposed to know who is behind the parties' funding when one is so obviously prepared to go very far to hide the trail of the money?
For Miljöpartiet, it is unacceptable that foreign powers risk having free rein to influence Swedish domestic policy by financing the parties. The Swedish people have the right to know which economic interests or which foreign power is influencing the politics.
Madam Speaker! Is Minister Strömmer prepared to proceed here in Sweden with what the Moderaterna opposed in the European Parliament and ban political parties from receiving funding from third countries? Or does the government think it is right and proper that the Swedish parties, through creative arrangements, can bypass the transparency requirements for party contributions and receive money from countries such as, for example, Qatar?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I am prepared to work with this with the broad public interest as the starting point. I might perhaps think that Märta Stenevi would rather use it a bit insinuatingly as a party-political battering ram. But it may turn out during the process that there is a more constructive intention behind the rhetoric.
We can break it down into two parts. Regarding the first question about corruption, it is quite true that Sweden has fallen in the corruption index. It may not be the result of the last few months of government tenure. In that case, it is a closing balance of an eight-year government tenure where Miljöpartiet has been a central part.
Those who read carefully about the corruption problems highlighted in the rankings will see that a number of issues are being raised that have also been problematic for the government that has resigned. This applies in particular to the way state appointments are handled or, for that matter, the way state agencies engage in opinion-building.
If we are to be a bit fair in the description of Sweden's corruption problems, as highlighted for example by Transparency International, there are probably several who have reason to engage in some critical reflection.
Just because of the importance of the questions, we can perhaps say that it is significant that the investigation that Märta Stenevi refers to was completed as late as August after eight years. If it was so urgent, why had you not taken up the questions eight years ago? It was even after Miljöpartiet had left the government that the investigation was completed.
I agree that the questions are so significant that they deserve directives that are approximately 200 percent more distinct than the directives that the previous government managed to produce. We intend to make a serious new attempt. I have been clear about that when we have communicated this approach.
This means, for example, that several of the mapping assignments that were placed on a government inquiry can be assigned to government agencies. It must be an inquiry that is not only intended to map out, but which is to be given sharp legislative mandates.
Let me mention, for example, that I imagine that in April there will be instructions from the EU that we will need to comply with as a country. This means that a new investigation will need to devote itself to legislation and not just mapping and discussion.
Next week I will meet all the experts who were involved in the first investigation proposal to discuss how the directives for the new investigation can be made significantly sharper. This is something that I also intend to discuss with all parties in the Committee on the Constitution. I imagine that the Green Party would certainly like to be part of that discussion in a constructive way.
Regarding several of these issues, I would like to come back to them, if one wants to give one's colleagues in this house the benefit of the doubt for a moment, that there absolutely are practical solutions to them. But that does not mean that they are easy.
I return to the Democracy Inquiry, which truly examined the question of a transparency register. In a rather deep balancing act in relation to parties in parliament, it concluded that it was a matter that was very difficult to implement in Sweden, partly in light of international comparisons, and partly constitutionally for slightly different reasons.
Now, I still think that it is one of the issues that we should look at. I also believe that it is possible to find ways to handle the problems that have been seen previously. Just because people do not jump into the barrel at once and say that we should proceed without reflection, we cannot assume that it is an expression of them not wanting to find ways to open the system and make it more transparent.
Let us rather sit down in a constructive manner, work through the questions, and give them the respect they deserve by virtue of their complexity.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! Minister Strömmer finds my remarks insinuating. I can assure you that there is no such ulterior motive whatsoever. On the contrary, these are very serious issues. They have also become significantly more serious during recent years. This is both due to the developments we are seeing and due to our global situation.
There is every reason to take these issues very seriously and act promptly. We are prepared to act very constructively. We will also submit proposals in the committee regarding these issues.
All four parties in the government support have shown themselves to be prepared to bypass the laws on anonymous party contributions to hide who is influencing their politics. Sweden is plummeting in Transparency International's corruption index.
In the European Parliament, a huge corruption scandal linked to a foreign power is exploding while we find ourselves in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War.
The citizens of Sweden have the right to know whose money is influencing politics and to be able to follow whose pockets a political proposal benefits. The citizens of Sweden have the right to demand that the government, in a difficult security policy situation, closes the possibility for foreign powers to influence the political parties.
Madam Speaker! It is obvious that in a conservative Sweden, the state and capital sit comfortably and profitably in the same boat. But when they also make room for rogue states, our entire democracy risks capsizing.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I give Märta Stenevi points for the rhetorical power in the concluding remarks. But it would be better to listen to what I have to say than to be completely stuck in one's prepared speaking points.
What I am saying is that with joint forces we shall tackle all the issues that Märta Stenevi raises. Many of the things that we raise could possibly have been dealt with by Miljöpartiet in government during the eight years behind us if it had been as urgent as Märta Stenevi now wants to make it regarding.
I can summarize what we are going to do. First, we will take a new approach regarding the corruption investigation. We will conduct an investigation that receives sharp legislative mandates. We can outsource the mapping to other actors. That is one thing.
The second thing is that we, together in the Government Offices through the Ministry of Justice and the Committee on the Constitution, shall sit down and work through the issues that Märta Stenevi raises.
It concerns to what extent a review needs to be made of the rules governing party financing, something that the House jointly decided on only a few years ago, and in such cases which questions it should cover.
It is also a matter of providing an opportunity for parties here in the chamber to make their comments on the directives for an investigation that shall also handle corruption issues in a broader way.
When it comes to the issue of transparency registers, I am completely open to it. But I think it is a bit unprofessional not to acknowledge that there is also a complexity in the issue, which all parties in this Riksdag have highlighted in depth on several occasions in previous investigations. We are still going to work through the issue, but the constructive approach will show to what extent one is prepared to recognize the complexity in the issues.
It was that which concerned the foreign power that I possibly thought was insinuating. I think it is completely correct to discuss – and it is being actualized now in the processes in the European Parliament – whether financiers in third countries should in one way or another be able to pay parliamentarians or political parties. It is definitely a question that should be included in such a review.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.