Response to interpellation 2023/24:325 on the government's work and the management of the Government Offices
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the salary directives are an instrument to recruit and retain skilled employees and that the process for producing them has been the same for a long time 1. KD emphasizes that the intention was not for employees to receive higher pay for working with the Tidö Agreement, but rather that the documents are mentioned to exemplify what is important for the supply of skills 1. KD admits that a formulation was unfortunate and that it actually should never have been included. KD denies that the salary directive was the subject of political negotiations with SD 2. 2 KD argues that it has been interpreted as if one should politicize the salary setting 2. 2 KD believes that they have corrected this and that both the Prime Minister and those responsible for HR at the Government Offices have stated it publicly so that this is interpreted in the correct way 2.
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 Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked the Prime Minister to account for how the Government Offices' salary principles came to be and whether these principles will be applied. The question has been posed against the background of a debate article in Dagens Nyheter. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
The wage directives are presented as part of the annual work of reviewing the wages for the employees covered by the framework agreement for wage setting in the state. The directives include, among other things, the principles and operational priorities that shall form the basis for the wage setting. For the Government Offices, this is an important instrument to be able to recruit, motivate, develop, and retain skilled employees.
In the agency Government Offices, it is the administrative head and the organization under him who are responsible for producing the directives. In the work with these, an initial analysis of the agency's competence supply challenges is conducted, whereby the need for prioritizations is clarified. The departments and the trade union organizations participate in that work. A dialogue is also held with the political leadership of the Government Offices where the direction is aligned at an overall level. The process for producing annual wage directives has been the same for a longer period.
The intention has not been that the circumstance of working on the implementation of the Tidö Agreement in itself should give employees a higher salary. The distribution of the economic space does not reflect any such ambition either.
This autumn's salary revision is in its final stage. As in previous years, priority has been given to skilled employees who have performed well and achieved sought-after results within all areas of operation.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! As appeared from the answer, I have asked the Prime Minister if he can account for how the Government Offices' salary principles came to be and whether these principles will be applied. It is a bit sad that it is not the Prime Minister who is here answering the question posed to the Prime Minister.
Those who are careful and listen to what is said in the speaker's chair can note that the Minister for Civil Affairs, in the previous interpellation debate, with Niklas Karlsson, explained why it was he who answered the interpellation that Niklas Karlsson had submitted to the Minister for Finance. In his answer, Madam Speaker, to Niklas Karlsson, the Minister for Civil Affairs says: "The work within the government is so distributed that it is I who shall answer the interpellation." One can have a certain understanding and respect for the fact that the one who has the questions in the government is also the one who engages in the dialogue with the members of the Riksdag. Interpellation debates are indeed part of the Riksdag's oversight power over the government and should be taken seriously. It then feels naturally serious and good that it is the Minister for Civil Affairs who comes here to the chamber and takes the debate with members regarding questions for which the Minister for Civil Affairs has responsibility.
Madam Speaker! I return to the interpellation that I have submitted to the Prime Minister, elected by the Riksdag. The Prime Minister has, in turn, appointed his government members, who can be held accountable by the Riksdag, for example in interpellation debates.
The Prime Minister is not only the head of government. The Prime Minister is also the head of the Government Offices. In which part of Erik Slottner's areas of responsibility does it include being head of government? Is Civil Minister Erik Slottner also Deputy Prime Minister? Is the Civil Minister also Deputy Head of the Government Offices? In which part is it that Civil Minister Erik Slottner comes and takes over this responsibility from the Prime Minister?
Is it the case that we have a Prime Minister who simply chooses not to take responsibility for the tasks that fall upon the Prime Minister? Then it is an important signal not only to the Riksdag but also, naturally, to the voters, who ultimately have to demand that our constitution works and that the Riksdag has the possibility to control the government through, for example, interpellation debates. Therefore, the question, Madam Speaker, which I hope I will receive an answer to here is: In what role is it that the Civil Minister assumes the Prime Minister's responsibility, and is it generally the case that it is the Civil Minister who is to lead the government and the Government Offices? Is that how we are to interpret this?
Now, unfortunately, this is not a one-time occurrence, but the Prime Minister is evading his responsibility and handing over interpellations to ministers who do not have responsibility for what the interpellations concern. This is serious, I think, Madam Speaker, and it is something that one should reflect upon. Perhaps the Speaker's Presidium should reflect on this and initiate a dialogue with the Government Offices regarding how the Riksdag's important oversight power is handled.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Now, there is this point from Patrik Björck regarding the question of form. I will not comment on that much more than by saying that I have been given this interpellation. This is probably due to the fact that in my role as Minister for Civil Affairs, I am responsible for state employer policy. Then, it is the case that no minister in itself is responsible for wage directives and such, because it is not a political issue; no minister sets wages. Since the question itself is not political, it is perhaps not obvious which minister should answer the interpellation. But since state employer policy falls under the Minister for Civil Affairs, there is a logical connection to me answering this interpellation. That is the comment I give on the question of form.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! This contribution was perhaps what one could expect. But it is, in fact, the case that the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for both the Government Offices and the government. I could understand if it happened on some single occasion, if the Prime Minister was ill or had some other assignments that made it difficult to find any space in the calendar, that he handed over interpellations. But the tendency is that the Prime Minister hands over all interpellations somewhat randomly to any minister in the government, and that is, of course, regrettable.
I move to what I had wanted to discuss with the Prime Minister: the directive where it states that the Government Offices will specifically prioritize persons who work with implementing the Tidö Agreement's policy. This is not just something that has upset me and other Members of Parliament, at least from my party, but this is something that upsets both political scientists and people who have the task of controlling state power, in addition to the control we have in the Riksdag, that is, for example, journalists. There are very many organizations out in Sweden, including Civil Rights Defenders, who take up this as an example of Sweden being in the process of losing democratic status. This is not some small issue. It is an incredibly important issue.
Furthermore, the question leads one to wonder, and not just about who is the head of government – the Civil Minister or the Prime Minister. One naturally also returns to this as not only a political but also a constitutional problem. Who is it, really, who leads the government? Is it Jimmie Åkesson who is the real leader of the government? Is that why this type of directive is being pushed through, which specifically aims to politicize non-political civil servants during the salary setting? That is the core issue, and as I said, it upsets not only me but very many who study this. Jurists, political scientists, and journalists with long experience of following Swedish politics think that this is very noteworthy and that there are strong reasons to criticize it.
But in order to try to see the answer a bit positively and see if one can perhaps move forward a little bit, Madam Speaker, I perceive it as that the Minister for Civil Affairs is sent here to act as a lapdog and more or less directly admit that it was a misstep and a mistake to go out with this type of politicization of the civil service. The Minister for Civil Affairs says, despite everything, in the answer – and I can be grateful for that, Madam Speaker – that the intention has not been that one should use this directive in such a way that one would give employees higher wages because they work with the implementation of the Tidö Agreement. That is what the Minister for Civil Affairs answers. The Minister for Civil Affairs also answers – this I cannot quite verify, but I naturally take the Minister for Civil Affairs' words as truth – that it has not also become so. The Minister for Civil Affairs says in the interpellation answer that the requested result has been achieved within all areas of activity and that the directive actually has not been used in practice.
Then my questions, Madam Speaker, to the Minister for Civil Affairs are: Can we agree that it was an act of overreach to issue this type of directive? Is it the case that the government is now distancing itself from this directive and admitting that it was wrong?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it must be said again that the wage directive is not a politically decided directive. Wages are not set by the government or by political parties. Consequently, the wage directive for the Government Offices' employees has not been at a political level or been the subject of any negotiation between the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, as is insinuated here. It is anchored on an overall level at a political level with the government, but no more than that. It is anchored more deeply with the trade union organizations.
The Government Offices exist, among other things, to ensure that the government's policy and will are realized in practice and in reality. The government's will and policy are issued, among other things, in the Government Bill, which is also mentioned in the salary directive, which in turn is based on, among other things, the Tidö Agreement.
Why the two documents, the government statement and the Tidö Agreement, are mentioned is precisely to exemplify what is important to secure competence supply in order to be able to push through what is in the government statement and the Tidö Agreement. It was not intended to provide a salary premium for employees who work specifically with these issues.
I do not need to stand here and waffle. It has been done from many different sides. It was an unfortunate formulation. It does not mean that the government is distancing itself from the entire wage directive. But this formulation has not been good. The Prime Minister has said this in an article in Dagens Nyheter.
I can quote directly what the HR Director has clarified on the Government Offices' internal network Klaranätet: "The intention with the formulations in the salary directive was to exemplify such areas where it is particularly important to ensure the organization's goals and competence supply needs. Assisting the government in the implementation of its policy, as expressed in, among other things, the government statement and the Tidö Agreement, is of course self-evident."
I want to clarify that salary-setting managers this year, as well as in previous years, shall prioritize skilled employees who have performed well and achieved demanded results within all areas of operation.
It is precisely to clarify that the interpretation that has been made by, among others, the opposition, but shall also be said of journalists and political scientists, is not correct. Therefore, we have also said that the formulation was unfortunate and actually should never have been included.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Now the Minister for Civil Affairs answers here that the directive was not subject to any negotiation. That is also one of the things that has been harshly criticized. The trade union organization's view is that a negotiation has been held with the employer regarding wage directives. Then this has come completely aside without negotiation. One has thus not fulfilled their obligation as an employer. That is another aggravating circumstance.
Now, I do think, Madam Speaker, that it is commendable that the Minister for Civil Affairs here takes to heart the massive criticism that has come from political circles, journalists, lawyers and political scientists and admits that it was wrong. The government has made a mistake. That was very good and satisfying.
That there was no negotiation, as the Minister for Civil Affairs said, was one of the things that was so harshly criticized. I had also intended to ask questions about how those negotiations took place in that case, when the addition was introduced, and so on.
We will not get any further with that part. We must conclude that we have a government that, in this very unfortunate situation where one is governed by the Sweden Democrats, ended up in a position where one made mistakes, had unfortunate formulations, and failed to manage the Government Offices.
He did not manage his task of handling the government work. The Civil Minister has now taken responsibility for it. We shall have to thank him for that. It was wrong, unfortunate, and a big mistake.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! The latter was truly a far-reaching conclusion by Patrik Björck. He argues in his post that I, in my post, have invalidated or rejected the entire functioning of the Government Offices and the government's work. It was a very nonsensical post, if I may say so myself.
As a civil minister, I have not been involved in the revision of the wage directive. I did not say that it has not been caused by any negotiations, but it has not been caused by political negotiations.
It is not the case that we have sat at government meetings and invited the Sverigedemokraterna there and sat and negotiated the wage directive. It has not gone in that way, as I thought was insinuated here, that it is the Sverigedemokraterna who have steered the government in political negotiations. That is not how it has gone.
Sometimes formulations can be interpreted slightly differently. Sometimes the outcomes and interpretations of different formulations do not always turn out as one had hoped from the beginning. In those cases, one has to go out afterwards and say: This was not the intention of the formulation. The intention was to exemplify things that form the basis of the government's policy.
The Government Offices exist, among other things, to realize the government's will and policies. These are expressed in the government statement and in the Tidö Agreement. Therefore, it is very important that we have resources and competence supply that can ensure that the government's will is implemented in reality in a democratic manner. This is exemplified.
It has been interpreted as that the wage setting should be politicized. Because it has been interpreted in that way, we have of course corrected this and stated it publicly both from the Prime Minister and from those responsible for HR at the Government Offices so that we interpret this in the correct way. That is what has occurred and nothing else, Patrik Björck.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.