Response to interpellation 2023/24:239 on the process for appointing secretaries of state
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that state secretaries are important officials who require great suitability and that the existing routines for recruitment and security screening are fully adequate 1. 2 M argues that the government has majority support and that the voters rejected the previous Social Democratic government due to a lack of ability to handle societal problems 2. 3 M emphasizes that oversight bodies have not found any formal errors in the cases mentioned 3. 4 M considers that citizens prioritize solutions to major societal problems over rhetoric 4, that persons in leading positions should be discerning and wise 4 and that proper security screenings should take place 4. 4 M sees no substantive grounds for changes in the recruitment process 4. S questions the government's fitness to govern and argues that the process for staffing the Prime Minister's office has gone off the rails. 5 S argues that the government's reputation is damaged by state secretaries being forced to resign due to lack of judgment 5. 6 S argues that the public support for the government base has disappeared because voters are tired of broken election promises 6. 6 S argues that the Prime Minister has weak support as he ducks in the debate and does not take responsibility for his policy 6. 6 S argues that the government base received support through grandiose election promises 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)
Mr. Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked the Prime Minister whether the routines used in the recruitment of secretaries of state are fully adequate and whether there is reason to review these routines. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
Initially, I can agree that State Secretaries are important officials and that it is obviously important that their recruitment is carried out with care. The State Secretaries lead the work within a ministry, closest to the Head of the Ministry and other members of the Government. The State Secretaries are primarily responsible for planning and coordination within the ministry and in relation to other public bodies, and they ensure that the work is carried out in accordance with the planning. Therefore, high requirements for suitability are placed on them. They also often participate in security-sensitive activities, and those who participate in such activities undergo a security clearance before they are employed.
When it comes to the security clearance, the purpose of it is to clarify whether the person can be assumed to be loyal to the interests protected in the Security Protection Act and otherwise reliable from a security perspective. During the assessment, circumstances that may imply vulnerabilities in terms of security must also be considered. The security clearance shall be conducted through a holistic assessment based on a multifaceted basis. Part of the investigation is a register check where information is retrieved from various police registers. Information from the register check is provided to the employer only if it can be assumed to be significant for the security clearance.
When appointing political officials, such as secretaries of state, several different functions within the Government Offices collaborate. I have confidence that the routines that exist within the Government Offices for, among other things, security screenings are fully adequate.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have a government that has weak support in public opinion, and we have a Prime Minister who has weak support in public opinion. There are, of course, a number of different reasons for that, for example, broken election promises and a weak economic policy, which have been addressed in a number of interpellations debates during the year.
At this point, the government's fitness to govern is being questioned more and more, and that is the background to the interpellation I submitted - to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The answer I receive and who it is that gives the answer does not diminish the concern over the perception that more and more people are beginning to question the government's fitness to govern.
The interpellation has been submitted to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, Mr. Speaker, and my first question is: Why then? In the answer, it only states somewhat cryptically that it has just been submitted.
Normally, there is a standard answer when interpellations are handed over to other ministers, Mr. Speaker. It happens because one thinks that the subject itself falls within the minister's remit and concerns, so to speak, and the answer is then "The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who am to be on the interpellation." Is the work within the government so distributed that it is the Minister for Justice who ultimately is responsible for the government's work, Mr. Speaker? Is it the Minister for Justice who is responsible for appointing state secretaries to the Prime Minister? That is my second question.
The third question I would like to ask the Minister for Justice naturally depends a bit on how he answers question one. The response to the interpellation did not state why the Minister for Justice is handling this interpellation, which I would have very much liked to discuss with the Prime Minister. It is also extremely strange that I additionally receive a message from the Government Offices stating that the interpellation cannot be answered in time, Mr. Speaker.
We have a regulatory framework here in the Riksdag. According to the constitution, the Riksdag appoints the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister appoints his ministers. The Riksdag has a power of oversight and must be able to monitor that the government performs its work in a reasonable manner, and that is where the interpellation debates are important. One has 14 days to answer an interpellation.
I would have had great understanding if the Prime Minister, with his pressured program, had not managed to do so within 14 days, Mr. Speaker. But if I have counted correctly, there are 24 ministers in the government, and if it now doesn't matter who answers – which apparently it doesn't – it is remarkable that none of the government's 24 ministers have managed to answer an interpellation within the stipulated 14 days. The handling of this interpellation is therefore remarkable, Mr. Speaker, and it raises further questions regarding the government's competence.
If one goes to the Government Offices' own website, one can observe that the government's work and the various functions are described as follows: "The Government Offices is the government's staff and is led by the Prime Minister." It is unambiguous; there is nothing written here about the Minister for Justice. Furthermore, it states: "This means that the Prime Minister is both the head of government and the head of the agency Government Offices." This is the background to why it is quite remarkable that the Prime Minister himself is not here answering these interpellations.
I can say in parentheses that I submitted an interpellation regarding salmon fishing to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer. It was handed over to Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren. Therefore, my final question to the Minister of Justice is: Why did the Minister of Justice hand over the interpellation on salmon fishing to the Minister for Rural Affairs?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let us begin by stating that we have a government that has a majority in voter support based on the voters' results in the election one year ago.
It is a government that has a majority for its budget in this chamber, and it is, strictly speaking, the first time in eight terms or something similar that we experience such a thing. It is a government that received a mandate to get Sweden in order because the voters rejected eight years of Social Democratic rule—not least when it comes to the handling of essential security issues. We remember, for example, the scandal surrounding the Transport Agency in that regard.
It is with the assurance that the country is now in safe hands that I stand here and answer questions from the Member of Parliament.
When it comes to the distribution of responsibilities in the government, it is very natural that it is I who handle the issue for the simple reason that the questions raised in the interpellation concern officials who participate in security-sensitive activities and undergo security clearances. According to the appendix to the Government Offices' instruction, it is I who am responsible for ensuring that the Security Protection Act is followed. Therefore, this interpellation has been handed over to me.
I agree that questions should be answered in a timely manner. For my part, I am in the chamber almost every week and answer many interpellations. I regret if this one has had to wait somewhat – it is not an expression of either a lack of motivation or a lack of respect for parliament. I am very pleased that we instead get the opportunity to have a respectful and meaningful exchange of views on this issue here today.
I actually did not know that the interpellation on herring fishing had been submitted. As a resident of Ångermanland, I must say that I regret it, as I myself am very involved in the herring issue. In my own hometown of Örnsköldsvik, it is unfortunately the case that the availability – or rather the lack – of herring means that surströmming production is now in jeopardy. I imagine that the question has landed with Peter Kullgren because he is responsible for fisheries issues in the government.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! I also concluded that it might have been reasonable for that question to end up with the Minister for Rural Affairs. However, I still have not received an answer as to why the Minister for Justice, of all the cabinet ministers, stands and answers a question that is obviously addressed to the Prime Minister and which obviously falls within the Prime Minister's area of responsibility. There is still reason to wonder about that question.
I move on to the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, that is to say, the government's fitness for office. This is also about judgment and how the public perceives the government and the government's work.
Quite recently, one of the Prime Minister's secretaries of state was forced to leave their post due to illegal eel fishing. According to what I have understood, it was common knowledge that this was the case even before the Coast Guard intervened. It is not just about security clearance but also about judgment and sound judgment, fitness for government, and trust among the citizens. It seems as if the process for how the Prime Minister staffs their office has completely gone off the rails. This news had barely dried on the tabloids before the next problem arrived. That concerned a preliminary investigation initiated against another of Kristersson's secretaries of state regarding illegal construction and environmental crimes.
Once again, public confidence in the government's competence is damaged.
This, Mr. Speaker, is not only a problem for Kristersson and the sitting government, but it is a problem for Sweden and the Swedish people. We find ourselves in a security-wise difficult time. We are threatened by war all around us. We have a Nato application that is ticking away and which never moves forward. The government's reputation is important - both internally and in foreign policy. If it is damaged, I am concerned as a Member of Parliament and as a Swedish citizen.
It is this that is the background to why we question what routines are in place when one appoints secretaries of state at the Prime Minister's Office. It would, again, have been much more constructive to have discussed this with the person who is not only the head of the government but also the head of the Government Offices.
I can still try to ask the questions that I should have asked the Prime Minister.
Ålfiskaren was forced to resign after the revelation. My question then, Mr. Speaker, is how it is going with the secretary of state who is suspected of illegal construction and environmental crimes. Will that secretary of state also be forced to resign? This is one of the questions that I had looked forward to discussing with the Prime Minister. Ålfiskaren had, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, been quite open with his fishing on social media before the Coast Guard intervened. Did the Prime Minister know about this when he hired Ålfiskaren as secretary of state?
The person suspected of illegal construction was previously forced to leave another heavy political trust position, as party secretary for Folkpartiet, in connection with another criminal case. The question I had intended to ask the Prime Minister is: Was the Prime Minister aware of this when he recruited his state secretary?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I think it is quite bold of Member Patrik Björck to bring up the subject of government competence. The voters evaluated the Social Democratic government's competence in an election that was only twelve months ago and failed the Social Democrats' competence and ability to handle the major societal problems that Sweden has had for far too long. These problems range from the gross organized crime to the weak economic growth, problems with healthcare and falling school results.
Just over twelve months ago, the voters asked themselves: Which government option is most credible in terms of competence and tackling the major societal problems that, unfortunately, grew enormously larger during the eight years the Social Democrats were in power? The voters' answer was unambiguous – for the first time in a very long time, they delivered a majority for the formation of a government, and it was not the Social Democrats who received the voters' confidence to deal with the future. I might say myself that what I hear from the member possibly confirms that the voters were not entirely wrong twelve months ago.
Possibly it was also so – if we are now to discuss secretaries of state – that part of the assessment included the fact that several secretaries of state had to leave the then Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, not because they had fished for herring or eel in an improper manner, but because of one of the biggest scandals, which also had enormous security consequences for Sweden, Swedish security, Swedish authorities, and Swedish citizens, namely the scandal with Transportstyrelsen.
The Prime Minister's Secretary of State had to leave his post due to the real security threat that the failure caused and the real security consequences it had. Sadly, it was not possible to hold the Secretary of State who was responsible for the Transport Agency during the period in question, namely the Minister for Infrastructure's Secretary of State, accountable. He had, in fact, had to leave his post because he had engaged in excessively expansive travel at the taxpayers' expense, so no opportunity was ever given for any accountability there and then regarding these parts.
I can only state that in its own way it is fortunate that these issues are not in the hands of individual members of Parliament, in light of the somewhat party-politically colored evaluation that the member is attempting to make here in the speaker's chair.
The Committee on the Constitution of the Riksdag has examined these issues, including the questions that are now being asked from the rostrum. In the cases that are now mentioned, it has been concluded that no formal errors have been committed. Citizens can be satisfied and reassured knowing that the formal oversight bodies that exist, also here in the Riksdag, have looked at the issues and concluded that no errors have been committed.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that I am not receiving answers to any questions at all. One of the questions that the Minister for Justice could devote his concluding remarks to is: Will the State Secretary who is suspected of illegal construction and environmental crimes be forced to resign in the same way as his colleague, who engaged in illegal fishing, was forced to do? I did not receive an answer to this question.
The Minister of Justice is trying to claim that he and the government had some kind of majority support from the Swedish people twelve months ago. Well, that is how it is – the constellation that, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, constitutes the government basis received support in the election. It was obtained by putting forward ambitious election promises – we have debated electricity support, people's finances and fuel prices – which made people support the government basis.
I do not know when the Minister for Justice last opened a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but this support is eroded. It has disappeared, much like the snow disappeared in the last rain. It is gone; it no longer exists. The voters are tired of broken election promises and have left the government's supporting parties in their opinion polls. The Prime Minister has historically weak support, not only because he leads a government that fails to fulfill election promises but also because he ducks in the debate, is not seen, is not present and does not take responsibility for his policy. That is why the opinion support today - not twelve months ago - is so weak.
I can send along a small tip to Gunnar Strömmer that he can convey to his boss. I do not think it is a smart strategy for the Prime Minister to duck the debate. I would say to colleagues: Stand up, take the debate, and dare to be Prime Minister! Could the Minister for Justice send that greeting to the Prime Minister?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Pleasantly enough, I have a party leader who managed to create a majority for his government alternative when we met the voters twelve months ago. He negotiated so well that the Moderaterna lead a government that now gets to seize the mandate that the voters gave the government.
It is to get order in Sweden in a situation where crime has grown over ten years. There has been a tripling of fatal shootings. There is a criminal economy that amounts to 100-150 billion. There has been a tenfold increase in the number of children who are now prosecuted for the very gravest crimes linked to murder and the like. It is that reality that we have had reason to take over.
It is a weak economic development, the weakest in Europe when it comes to growth. Against that background, it was not so strange that when it came to the bottom line, the citizens decided that the interest in solving our major societal problems outweighs all the rhetorical interests that the Social Democrats performed with a basis that could not hold together before the election. It is on that mandate that we now govern and tackle all societal problems.
I can possibly send a tip back. I believe that over time, voters have shown themselves to reward the one who focuses on the major societal problems and not on the political game. Judging by the opposition over the last twelve months, it feels like an insight that has possibly been lost among the Socialdemokraterna. Our exchange of views today, I think, largely confirms that observation. We shall take our respective tips to our respective party leaders.
Regarding today's discussion, I just want to emphasize the importance of that persons recruited to leading positions in the Swedish public administration shall be of good judgment, wise, and good, and that proper security screenings shall take place before recruitments. In the event that changes are required in that part, I am open to it. But there is nothing in today's exchange of views that has provided any substantive basis for any such changes.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.