Response to interpellation 2022/23:382 on the continued existence and development of the Institute for Human Rights
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the continued existence and development of the Institute for Human Rights. L emphasized that the government upholds human rights and fulfills international obligations 1 2 3. L argued that it is obvious that Sweden should follow the Paris Principles and that the government has no reduction in ambition regarding human rights 2 3. L explained that no preliminary decisions can be given during the ongoing budget process 2 4. S emphasized that the institute shall operate independently and based on the prescribed forms 5 6 7. S expressed concern over signals regarding the institute's future and requested clear information for organizations requesting a position 5. S highlighted the institute's importance and strategic location in Lund 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! Per-Arne Håkansson has asked me what initiatives I intend to take so that the Institute for Human Rights can continue to operate in its current form.
The Institute for Human Rights was established as a new agency under the government on 1 January 2022. The agency's mandate is regulated in the Act on the Institute for Human Rights. It plays a central role in the work by, from a holistic perspective, monitoring, investigating, and reporting on how human rights are respected and realized in Sweden.
The EU Council of Ministers has several times agreed to urge all Member States to establish national MR institutions and to ensure that their activities can be carried out in an effective and independent manner. Most Member States have national MR institutions.
It is a self-evident matter that the government will also continue to safeguard human rights and fulfill our international obligations in this area.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Minister Paulina Brandberg for the answer to my interpellation regarding the Institute for Human Rights. I also harbor no doubt whatsoever about Paulina Brandberg's stance on the work to safeguard human rights and that it is important.
It is also emphasized that it is a self-evident matter for the government to safeguard human rights and fulfill international obligations in the area. It is also emphasized that the agency's tasks are regulated in the legislation.
As I interpret the answer, it does not however appear whether there is any will or ambition from Paulina Brandberg and the government for the institute to be able to conduct the activities from the outside given current forms and whether it will be allocated resources to be able to develop the work.
For my part, I participated in the Committee on the Constitution when the report on establishing the institute was presented in this chamber on 9 June 2021. This was prompted by an in-depth preparatory process and an investigation that was commissioned for the purpose as early as 2016. It was reported back continuously, and when the report was completed, there was broad support among seven parties, except for the Moderaterna, to stand behind the establishment itself. During the vote, seven parties also voted, except for the Moderaterna, for the institute to start. So it happened on 1 January 2022.
An important issue in the preparatory work was precisely to ensure independence, i.e., that this should not be an organ directly from the government. The conclusion was that the institute should have significantly greater freedom than other agencies and, among other things, decide its own organization and operational direction, this in order to emphasize precisely the independence.
The institute has been placed in Lund and is led by a board consisting of members with expertise in the field of human rights and experience of qualified work within civil society, the justice system, legal practice, and academia. Recently, the first annual report on the institute's activities was published. I understand that it may also have been presented to the government; we have received a presentation in the committee.
What has prompted my interpellation are the worrying signals that have emerged regarding the existence of the institute. When the decision was made, there were, therefore, seven parties behind the formation. But in April, it was presented by the Sweden Democrats, who during the preparation were behind the formation, that the institute is being questioned. A leading Sweden Democrat stated that it was not needed. At that point, it seems as if the existence of the Institute for Human Rights hangs by a slender thread.
In an open letter to the government, which I also refer to in my interpellation, 49 organizations have joined together to call for a clear position on precisely the future of the institute. Among those who have signed this letter are Unicef in Sweden, Hörselskadades Riksförbund, Läkare i Världen, Raoul Wallenberg-institutet, Svenska Kommunalpensionärernas Förbund, Civil Rights Defenders, Antidiskrimineringsbyrån, Amnesty International - a long row of popularly anchored organizations in civil society.
Therefore, I want to ask Paulina Brandberg to elaborate on her answer. Is there reason for concern regarding the institute's future? What message is there to give to these organizations based on the concern that has been expressed?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! The member is absolutely right that I feel a deep commitment when it comes to safeguarding human rights. I am therefore very proud that during the Swedish presidency, now that we have the eyes of the world on us, we have participated in developing council conclusions on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the role of civil space regarding the protection and promotion of fundamental rights in the EU.
These council conclusions, which Sweden has participated in developing, include, among other things, an appeal from the council to the member states to establish or facilitate the establishment of national human rights institutions in accordance with the UN's so-called Paris Principles.
The so-called Paris Principles set out, among other things, the minimum requirements that shall apply to an institution for human rights and are minimum requirements that were formulated at an international working meeting in Paris in 1991. It is stated here that an institution shall act independently and have a broad mandate to promote and protect all human rights as established in the constitution or other legislation. The institution's composition or competence is also specified there.
The UN's Paris Principles also state the institution's tasks and the importance of broad representation from civil society and which working methods the institution shall have the opportunity to use. The mandate should be stated in law or the constitution, and the institution shall be given sufficient resources to be able to carry out its mandate and responsibilities.
I am also proud that Sweden, during its presidency, on April 20-21 this year, organized an international conference on institutional protection for human rights in times of crisis. This was a conference that was organized in cooperation with the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency.
I mean that from this, there can be no doubt whatsoever that it is self-evident for this government that human rights shall be protected. We shall, of course, also fulfill our international commitments.
It is true that there has been a party-political move from the Sverigedemokraterna regarding the institute. But as the member knows, a budget process is currently underway, and it is practice not to provide any advance notices of results in any of those negotiations during an ongoing budget process. I will not provide any such advance notices either, and the government will return with the finished budget in the autumn.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! Yes, Sweden has proud traditions regarding human rights, as Paulina Brandberg has just described.
We may have the world's oldest freedom of the press and freedom of expression law. We have been advocates at the formation of first the League of Nations in the 20s and then the United Nations in the 40s. We have also pushed forward when it comes to several of the declarations for human rights that have been drafted.
Even though we have well-functioning institutions in Sweden, an institute for human rights has been missing. In Europe, it is now only Malta that lacks an institute for this. Now that it has finally, one might say, been established and realized, there is reason to give space for the institute to be able to carry out its work based on the purposes that have been laid down.
I still do not hear any answer in Paulina Brandberg's account on how she views the institute's continued existence. Is it possible to elaborate on that?
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! As I said, it appears from the so-called Paris Principles, which Sweden through council conclusions has urged all EU member states to follow, that states shall have independent institutions to monitor how they live up to human rights and certain other issues that are also linked to how these institutions shall work. Today, it is the Institute for Human Rights in Lund that has that task.
We will, of course, return with an announcement in this year's budget regarding how it looks. But to anticipate a budget process is not practice, and I will not do that either.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! Yes, I have noted that Paulina Brandberg does not wish to provide an update on the continued existence of the Institute for Human Rights in this interpellation debate. But I still want to highlight the importance of the institute and the importance of the work being able to be carried out within the forms that have been established.
Not least, the location in Lund is interesting in this context. The institute is linked to Ideon and the UN Innovation Centre, which is located there. Nearby is also the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, which has operated in this field for a long series of years. There is also a connection to the UN Village in Copenhagen and the work against border barriers for peace and freedom that is built in there. The location is therefore well chosen, and the Nordic cooperation has indeed served as a model in the world for diplomatic work for human rights and democracy.
It is now, as has been said, 75 years since the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into being. It would be utterly regrettable at such an occasion, the 75th anniversary, if Sweden's Institute for Human Rights were to have only a couple of years of existence.
My message to Paulina Brandberg is that it is important to provide information regarding the institute's continued existence in order to safeguard the work for human rights also in the future.
Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for the commitment regarding these issues, a commitment that we share. Human rights must always be ensured and also defended. It is incredibly fundamental in a democracy.
Even though I cannot give any information regarding the budget process that is currently underway, I want to be very clear that this government will in no way have any reduction in ambition when it comes to the fulfillment of human rights. It is also a self-evident matter for us that we shall fulfill our international commitments.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.