Response to interpellation 2023/24:242 on combating corruption in public administration
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government has taken a clearer grip on corruption by giving the Crime Prevention Council the mandate to investigate system-threatening actors 1. M wants to appoint an inquiry on register control, a new action plan against corruption 1 and wants the countermeasures to include civil servant responsibility as well as transparency 2. M emphasizes the importance of breaking down secrecy barriers 3, working across party lines 4 and that the previously scrapped inquiry was too broad 2. M wants an action-oriented plan 2 and broad parliamentary anchoring 4. S argues that the government's work is a continuation of previous Social Democratic initiatives 5. S emphasizes the need for parliamentary consensus 5 and that knowledge and competence development are just as important as increased penalties 6. S argues that it has dragged on because the government scrapped an inquiry that was almost finished 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! Per-Arne Håkansson has asked me if I intend in the near future to take any new initiatives for a broader rethink regarding the work to combat undue influence and corruption, and what such a rethink would entail.
The fight against undue influence and corruption is very important. In this, laws and rules that are effective in practical work are of central importance. But undue influence and corruption are also part of a broader complex of issues concerning the integrity of public decision-making. Therefore, the government has since last spring taken a new and clearer grip on the issues.
Among other things, the Crime Prevention Council has received two assignments in the area. One, which was partially reported this week, aims at system-threatening actors who exert unauthorized influence over elected officials, political parties, and decision-making assemblies. The other shall report what enablers or insiders have for role and function for criminal activities committed by criminal networks.
The Courts Administration, the Prosecution Authority, and the Economic Crime Authority shall shortly report on their assignments regarding how security work can be strengthened in order to, among other things, counter unauthorized influence directed towards the judiciary.
The criminal law regulation also naturally belongs to this broader scope for combating undue influence and corruption. In August, legislative changes entered into force that strengthen the criminal protection for journalists and practitioners of certain socially beneficial functions.
The Government Offices are also proceeding with the work to appoint the previously announced commission of inquiry which shall review the regulation of corruption offenses and the responsibility for misconduct in office. The commission shall present sharp legislative proposals to, among other things, ensure that the criminal legislation is effective, purposeful, and adapted to Sweden's international commitments. Within the framework of the commission, the EU legal legislation on the area of corruption, which is currently being negotiated in Brussels, shall also be taken into account.
As part of the work to counter infiltration of the public administration, the government also intends to appoint an inquiry in the near future which shall expeditiously review expanded possibilities for register checks.
I can also mention that the Council against Organized Crime, of which I am the chairman, at the last meeting on 6 December, together with a long line of authorities, specifically discussed measures to counter unauthorized influence and infiltration from organized crime.
It can be noted that in connection with the current action plan against corruption in the public administration expiring at the end of the year, the government intends to produce a new action plan that takes a broad approach to the work against corruption and undue influence.
An additional layer to what I have now highlighted is the issue of increased oversight in the financing of political parties and transparency in contacts between political decision-makers and lobbyists, where a parliamentary committee will, this summer, conduct a review and consider the need for further regulation.
All of this is some examples of a broader approach against unauthorized influence and corruption - where, therefore, the work within the government is already ongoing.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer. It is pleasing that he is tackling the questions. I note that part of the work constitutes a continuation of the initiatives that the previous Social Democratic government put forward and also of that which is subject to work within the European Union on a broader level.
A broad parliamentary support is, as I can see, of decisive importance for achieving long-term success. In this case, I have no reason to believe anything other than that it is also Gunnar Strömmers starting point. Ultimately, it is about people's confidence and trust in society's institutions, and in this work, I assume that we are both motivated to move forward.
Even though Sweden, together with our neighbors such as Denmark, Norway and Finland, belongs to the countries with the least corruption in international indices and rankings, we are not spared either. The interpellation refers to the worrying tendencies that forces with links to organized crime risk entering the welfare and social systems.
In recent years, we have received reports that criminal networks have attempted to infiltrate the public sector. This can occur through pressure on public officials to share information or issue certificates, or by intimidating them into passivity. This concerns both state and municipal authorities.
A current example is the recently announced judgment in Attunda District Court against a female official who leaked information to outsiders and was convicted of gross breach of confidentiality, a legislative work that the previous government otherwise initiated.
Those who work closest to people in everyday life, for example social secretaries, permit officers, but also political decision-makers, perhaps primarily in smaller or medium-sized municipalities, are often those who are most vulnerable.
I have personally met representatives and officials in municipalities, as well as school leaders, who have described situations where hate and threats have occurred from relatives or others involved in exerting pressure regarding individual cases and matters.
The independent non-profit organization Transparency International, with a number of experts in the field attached to it, has emphasized that the greatest risks within the public sector for corruption are procurement and so-called cronyism involving both conflicts of interest and the abuse of position and power.
The previous government commissioned Statskontoret three years ago to promote a good administrative culture and the agencies' work against corruption. That assignment included providing situational reports and developing support, and a final report was to be ready during the current year.
As late as last week, I received information from Statskontoret regarding the work at the meeting of the Committee on the Constitution. I also noted that the final report Step by step - The authorities' work against corruption is under development was presented. It shows a continued need for active preventive work.
Regarding the government's governance and expectations of the authorities in their work, the report emphasizes that there is a need for clarifications. What is identified are management and organization, knowledge and awareness, risks and risk analyses, as well as concrete measures.
Statistics Sweden focuses primarily on the state authorities and argues that there is a lack of a state authority with coordinating responsibility and proposes that a group of authorities with combined expertise be tasked with continuing to follow up the work. As mentioned, the issues are addressed in both a regional, a municipal, and a state dimension.
The Minister for Justice mentions in his response the meeting on 6 December with the Council for Organized Crime, where he himself is chairman. Which questions does he take with him from that meeting? Can we expect any initiatives moving forward based on what was specifically addressed on 6 December?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Per-Arne Håkansson, for the opportunity to discuss these pressing issues here in the chamber!
Let me first agree completely with the description of reality that Per-Arne Håkansson makes. There is no doubt whatsoever that the systemic threat in organized crime - that is, the consequences this crime has beyond those for individual crime victims - to no small extent concerns precisely the risk of infiltration, pressure, and threats. It is directed at both public officials and representatives of political parties.
We have seen examples in social services, at city planning offices, and in parts of the municipal administration that handle social assistance. We have also seen examples in leisure activities that municipalities outsource to other actors and in political parties, where one has not been able to be certain that infiltration by various criminal actors has not occurred.
All this means - in addition to the vulnerability it entails for the public employees who become the subject of this type of extortion, threats, or pressure - great risks to the integrity of public decision-making. Ultimately, it also entails great risks for the citizens' trust in the public sector.
The examples that Per-Arne Håkansson raises from the justice system underscore that not even the justice system can be certain of not being subject to this type of activity. Therefore, it has been important for me to give clear mandates to the courts, the prosecution service, and so on to work very methodically and purposefully with increasing security both for individual employees and for the operations as such.
I would also like to emphasize two other parts. First concerns the meeting with the authority on December 6. We have had a very good exchange during the twelve months I can oversee. This also concerns many authorities that lie outside the Ministry of Justice's portfolio, i.e., the Tax Agency, the Social Insurance Agency, the Enforcement Authority, the Public Employment Service, and so on. This is, to a large extent, a common problem for the public sector.
I experience that we have had two main currents in the discussion. One has been about the importance of removing secrecy barriers between authorities so that information can be shared to create greater robustness in the interaction between each other and also become more offensive and push back the gross organized crime, including the type of activities that we are now talking about.
The second thing we discussed extensively at the meeting on December 6 was how we can create greater protection around individual employees in the public sector. It concerns those who are at the ends of the capillaries – those who meet the criminal actors. How do we increase the protection for these employees while simultaneously not jeopardizing transparency in the public sector and the citizens' opportunities for accountability? That was the framework for the discussion.
We spoke, for example, about the investigation that will deliver proposals in January and which aims at precisely the vulnerability of public employees and how their privacy can be safeguarded in different ways but also how they can be protected in a different way than today. It was an important message that I received on December 6 and which I took with me from the meeting.
Lastly, I want to say that we will take a broad criminal law approach to these issues in the new year. I still want to emphasize that the most important thing is the preventive work, which is not actually about the punishments. Therefore, I want to place a special focus on the action plan against corruption that we are developing now during the spring term. It will be an incredibly important tool for the public sector across the entire country.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Mr. Speaker and Minister for Justice! I would like to dwell on one of the primary questions in the interpellation, which is also addressed here. The previous Social Democratic government commissioned an inquiry with the task of conducting a review that, in addition to the state level, should also include regional and municipal activities as well as the business sector, with a particular focus on activities that are publicly funded. The government chose to abandon this inquiry with reference to wanting to achieve a broader rethink of the issues.
In this context, it can be mentioned that already in 2018, as I understand it, an agreement was reached between Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, Vårdföretagarna, and Fremia in consultation with business organizations and the Institute against Bribery. The purpose has been to turn to active actors within healthcare and elderly care, the personal assistance sector, and others that are wholly or partially financed by public funds.
The agreement that has been reached can be seen as a complement and a guideline in addition to existing laws regarding bribery. As I see it, investments, which the Minister of Justice mentions, in knowledge, awareness, and competence development are perhaps just as important as further increased penalties.
Based on the question, I want to say that it has now been almost a year since the previous government's investigation into corruption was laid down, and approximately the same answer is given regarding the question as was the case when it was last taken up here in the chamber. It was on February 8, when my colleague Eva Lindh asked the question. Since then, I have also raised this in a question period and received the answer that the preparation is ongoing.
It has been a year, and the investigation that the Minister for Justice chose to scrap just over a year ago would, by this point, almost have been completed and perhaps could have constituted a well-founded basis for the new investigation that you have stated your intention to appoint.
Two questions that will inevitably arise are: Why has it taken so long? And what will the countermeasure that has been announced concretely entail?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding the investigation that we commissioned, it can be said that it had its points. What I perhaps myself considered to be a weakness was that it was a very mapping-oriented and broad investigation. The sharper legislative issues, both in terms of EU law and criminal law, were not included.
We chose to split the issues in a different way and to assign the mapping assignments to agencies, for example to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, in order to achieve mappings of a long series of the problems we are now talking about in that format, to then handle the legislative issues in a special investigation format. It is correct that the directives are being finalized at this moment, and I look forward to the investigation being completed during next year.
The directives aim at the Swedish corruption provisions but are also written in light of the developments in the area we have seen at the EU level – even during this year. Background material for such an investigation has therefore been added.
It should also include questions about civil servant responsibility, which is a very important part of what concerns corruption. It is about countering corruption through transparency, openness, follow-up, and accountability, and it also applies, of course, to the responsibility for decision-making in the public sector. We believe there are great points to be made by addressing these issues jointly, and that is what should happen in the new year.
Let me underline something that I perceive Per-Arne Håkansson is also touching upon in his posts: The criminal law is naturally important, as it sets the ultimate boundaries for what is permitted and describes the consequences for those who engage in corruption or other improper actions in this area. But it is clear that it must also be about the preventive, the preventative, work. It is that which, above all, should prevent corruption, infiltration, and other pressures from occurring.
I therefore want to draw attention to the action plan that will be developed by the Ministry of Finance, but in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, during the spring. It can be said that it addresses some points that have emerged from the agencies when they have reviewed Swedish action plans in the area. The points have concerned that they have been quite descriptive but not particularly action-oriented and concrete.
We now want to remedy this with a new action plan against corruption and undue influence that is also action-oriented and concrete, and which should be able to provide very concrete guidance for authorities, municipalities, regions, and other actors in the public sector when it comes to creating robustness and preventive work regarding these types of serious problems.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Gunnar Strömmer! The continued focus on these issues is welcome. There is every reason to take advantage of the experiences made and the knowledge gathered during this time when the issues may have had a particular focus and been raised, as mentioned, on the initiative of the previous government. We have the Whistleblower Act, which was introduced in 2021 and which means that individual employees shall be able to report misconduct in a workplace. Lobbying is also mentioned in the answer, which can become the next issue to analyze and work with.
As I see it, we have a common responsibility as political representatives to work towards ensuring that trust in society's functions is maintained, as well as for increased awareness of the importance of what seems obvious to many citizens: openness and equal treatment before laws and rules.
One of Sweden's most important assets, also from an international perspective, has long been the high quality in our country's public administration. I consider it important that we continue to work forward with these issues in order to strengthen the trust in and confidence for the Swedish social system.
Thank you for the discussion so far! We will return to some of the questions in the future.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Per-Arne Håkansson for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
There are questions here in the world where there may be an intrinsic value in having certain debates, disagreements, and differences of opinion. This, however, is a prime example of a public interest area where we have a very strong interest in working together across party lines to create a robust protection for both the privacy of the public sphere and for the citizens' trust in the public sector. In that, it truly lies to take hold of and build upon the work that both previous governments and other actors have done.
I want to emphasize the value of broad parliamentary anchoring. For example, we have appointed a parliamentary commission where all eight parties in the Riksdag are included regarding the financing of political parties. There are also related issues there, for example, regarding so-called lobbying in light of experiences from the EU Parliament.
These questions are not very easy to regulate in a good way. There are always conflicting interests. But it is very promising that they are handled in a broad political context where all parliamentary parties are included. I hope that it can also be a basic agreement in all the broad work outside of that investigation in this area during the rest of the mandate period.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.