Response to interpellation 2023/24:464 on the government's working methods

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Patrik Björck for the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the chamber today.

Patrik Björck has asked the Prime Minister if he intends to take measures regarding the government's working methods so that it becomes possible for the Prime Minister to participate more often in the Riksdag's interpellation debates and thereby strengthen the Riksdag's important democratic mandate as the government's oversight power. He has also asked the Prime Minister if he intends to take measures so that the minister responsible for the issue will also come to the chamber and participate in the debate.

The interpellation has been handed over to me.

One of the Riksdag's fundamental tasks is to monitor how the government conducts its work. That the task can be performed effectively is a prerequisite for our system of government, which is based on the principles of parliamentarism. Against that background, it is important that the members of the government participate in interpellation debates.

The Government is jointly responsible for the pursued policy and for the answers given in the Chamber. This also applies to my answer to the now-posed interpellation.

Which minister responds to an interpellation in an individual case is determined based on how the responsibility is distributed within the government. The distribution of responsibility is set out in the Ordinance on Instructions for the Government Offices and the ordinances that the Prime Minister decides with the support of Chapter 7, Section 5 of the Instrument of Government. Against the background of this distribution, there are rarely grounds for a Prime Minister to respond to interpellations.

In this context, it should be noted that there are also a number of other occasions for the scrutiny and questioning of the ministers, not least the Prime Minister, for example, special debates in the Chamber, the Prime Minister's question time, which took place as recently as yesterday, and the scrutiny of the ministers' performance of duties that is carried out by the Committee on the Constitution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer.

Mr. Speaker! I must first say that I have great respect for the Minister for Justice. He is a good representative of a Swedish government. We do not share the same political basic stance, and we often have different views on substantive issues, but I still think that Gunnar Strömmer is a good representative of a Swedish minister. When Gunnar Strömmer, as in the previous interpellation debate, participates in debates on issues concerning his area of responsibility, he does so with great seriousness and respect for the members of the Riksdag. I want to convey an appreciation of this.

Mr. Speaker! Then it is probably not Gunnar Strömmers fault that he has an irresponsible boss. My interpellation was addressed to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, and it is not the first time that Ulf Kristersson runs away from his responsibility. The whole idea with the interpellation instrument is that the one who is responsible for the issues, the one who has them in their office, is the one who should also be able to discuss the issues with the members of the Riksdag.

The interpellation is written on the basis that the Prime Minister is evading his responsibility, and it is written on the basis of addressing this. It therefore becomes naturally difficult to discuss with the Prime Minister's subordinate ministers.

The arrangement in Sweden is that the Riksdag appoints the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister appoints the ministers. That is how it looks. If I had wanted to discuss any issue concerning legislation or criminal matters or anything else handled by the Ministry of Justice, it would have been reasonable for the Minister for Justice to answer that question. But I have asked questions that directly relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility as head of government. Furthermore, he is not only the head of government, but the Prime Minister is also the head of the Government Offices.

I have then asked: Does the Prime Minister intend to take measures regarding the government's working methods so that it becomes possible for the Prime Minister to participate more often in the Riksdag's interpellation debates and thereby strengthen the Riksdag's important democratic mandate as the government's oversight power?

How is the Minister for Justice supposed to be able to answer such a question in an honest way, Mr. Speaker? It becomes a bit strange.

Furthermore, I have asked the following question: Does the Prime Minister intend to take measures so that the minister responsible for the issue will also come to the chamber and participate in the debate?

Then I can refer to the next debate I will participate in here today, Mr. Speaker. That interpellation is addressed to the Minister for Finance, but there I receive an answer from the Minister for Financial Markets. It is fundamentally wrong, but it is still more in the direction of the point that those ministers have overlapping areas of responsibility.

But how the Minister for Justice is to be able to provide answers regarding the Prime Minister's measures, when it concerns that the responsible minister should come to the chamber and participate in the debate, I will not get an answer to here today. It is sad, but we must continue to pursue the Prime Minister and see if we can get him to come to the chamber and engage in a serious debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first thank Patrik Björck for the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the chamber. I also thank you for the generous and appreciative words initially, and I gladly acknowledge them.

One receives background material before such an exchange of views, and I have noted that Patrik Björck has raised these issues for a long time, not only in relation to the current Prime Minister. I must nevertheless say that it is an honest and consistent work regarding these important issues, and I am happy to express my appreciation for that.

Fundamentally, it is about the fact that the questions that Patrik Björck raises are such that the entire government has reason to consider and reflect upon, and the answers provided should be such that an entire government can stand behind them. They are constitutional in their character, and therefore it does not feel unnatural that I also have the opportunity to shed light on them in today's exchange of views.

What we must take note of is that we agree that the Riksdag's work in scrutinizing the government is a completely crucial part of our parliamentary system of government. It is obvious for this government to facilitate and enable such a scrutiny process. An active dialogue between the government and the Riksdag is completely central.

Let me also say that it is not the case that the Prime Minister is evading Patrik Björck's questions. I believe you have had an exchange of views on related issues in connection with a question period in the chamber. It is not an entirely accurate description that Ulf Kristersson is not addressing the questions that have been raised today, but they have been debated in many different contexts here in the chamber as well, even in a direct exchange of views with Member of Parliament Björck.

This is fundamentally positive. This is how the interaction between the government and the Riksdag should look, and this is how the interaction between the chamber and ultimately the Prime Minister should look.

It is a very justified expectation from the members of the Riksdag that the interpellations are handled in a serious manner, that the answers provided are well-elaborated, and that they are answered within the allotted time to the greatest extent possible. In that regard, I myself have some room for improvement after seeing the statistics for the last season. Now we are working hard to be here within the 14-day deadline in almost every case.

I can assure Patrik Björck that this is a position that not only I hold but which is shared by the Prime Minister and the entire government. My hope is that the exchange between the government and the opposition can continue in order to strengthen the democratic dialogue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the response from Gunnar Strömmer to the question posed to the Prime Minister, he cites the Government Offices and the ordinances that the Prime Minister decides with the support of Chapter 7, Section 5 of the Instrument of Government as the reason why the Prime Minister should not come and answer his interpellations within his own area of responsibility.

If one then looks at what is stated in Chapter 7, Section 5 of the Instrument of Government, which is referred to as a reason for the Prime Minister not to take his responsibility, one sees that it states the following: "At a government meeting, the head of the department is the presenter in those matters that belong to his or her department. The Prime Minister may, however, order that a matter or a group of matters, which belong to a certain department, shall be presented by another minister other than the head of the department."

So, this is about the organization of the government meetings. It is good and well that it is described in the Instrument of Government. I have no problem with that. But it becomes a bit strange when one cites just that chapter and that paragraph so that the Prime Minister can escape his responsibility. There is, as it were, no support for that which I can interpret. Now, I am admittedly not a trained lawyer, like Gunnar Strömmer, but I must still say as a layman that it is difficult to find support for that interpretation in that chapter and that paragraph.

If one looks further into the Instrument of Government, one sees that it states that members of the Riksdag "may submit interpellations and questions to a minister in matters concerning the minister's performance of duties." It is Chapter 13, Section 5, which I can provide, and it states that I have the right to ask questions to the Prime Minister when they concern his performance of duties.

Reference is also made to the Rules of Procedure. It is described in Chapter 8 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr. Speaker, that an interpellation "shall be in writing and be addressed to a specific minister". It is very clear. The Speaker decides whether an interpellation may be submitted.

This is, therefore, regulated carefully and properly in the Instrument of Government. But I think it is a bit funny to refer to these paragraphs in the answer when it is not possible to find any support in the source, in this case the Instrument of Government and the parliamentary procedure.

Then the Minister for Justice takes up the fact that the Prime Minister has other occasions when he or she, in this case he, can be held accountable and answer questions and debate with the Riksdag. That is true.

The Prime Minister's Question Time is such an occasion. As I have said, I have submitted questions for the Prime Minister's Question Time. So that is how it is. However, there is a huge difference. It applies to all ministers. Even the Minister for Justice comes here for Question Time, but that is a complement. It is not that Question Time replaces the interpellation debate. It is a very strange way to interpret it. In that case, the Minister for Justice could refer to the fact that he actually appears for the Riksdag's Question Time. Why would the Minister for Justice then bother to come here and answer interpellations?

It is two completely different forms of debate. An interpellation debate provides the opportunity to debate properly and receive a reply, not just be brushed off when one does not have the opportunity for a reply. That is how it often goes during the question period. The Minister of Justice does not do that, because the Minister of Justice has a different respect for the Riksdag, but there are cabinet ministers who use those types of methods.

I also want to say that if it is reasonable and adequate for the Prime Minister to come and answer questions during the Prime Minister's question time, I shall go through what type of questions the Prime Minister answers there, because in that case they must be questions that are reasonable for the Prime Minister to answer. Then I shall return with interpellations that relate to that type of questions and ensure that the Prime Minister comes here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrik Björck, for an interesting contribution!

When it comes to the important issues today, I first just want to say that my experience is that long parliamentary experience as a rule trumps lawyers when it comes to understanding even the theory and practice of the constitutional laws.

I also want to emphasize that the references to these provisions are not an expression of any legal hair-splitting. Nor is it, if one listens carefully to the answer, an expression of reasons for the Prime Minister not to answer interpellations. It is a description of how the process goes in the Government Offices when deciding who should answer a question. It is not a direct reference to why Ulf Kristersson is not here answering in the chamber today. What is stated, if I am not completely off base, is that the distribution of responsibility in the government and the application of the guidelines usually lead to that it is not the Prime Minister but ministers who answer the interpellation in the chamber. That is a correct description of it.

I also want to confirm that it is, of course, the case that the question time does not replace interpellation debates. What I wanted to object to was the description or the implication that the Prime Minister, so to speak, is keeping away from all exchange with Parliament. At least, one can sense between the lines or from the spirit of Patrik Björck's debate contribution that this is what is being insinuated.

I just want to remind, for the sake of safety, that the Prime Minister was here in the chamber and answered questions as recently as yesterday. Patrik Björck has had the opportunity to ask several of the questions we are now discussing in a direct exchange with the Prime Minister here in the chamber in connection with a question period. It was neither more nor less than that which I wanted to bring up.

I do not think that retrospectives need to determine how to handle things moving forward, but I can certainly say that the question we are now discussing is not new, nor is it in an exchange between the opposition and the government. If we extend the time perspective to 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years, we can state that this question has been discussed.

Patrik Björck has been very active in connection with conservative prime ministers and somewhat less active when it comes to this type of issue in relation to social democratic prime ministers. On the other hand, one can say it lies in the nature of the matter – the opposition is to scrutinize the government. But I believe that the one who holds the bottom record, or what one should say, when it comes to presence in this type of exchange of views is Göran Persson. I do not know if he set a standard for prime ministers after him.

I can at least emphasize that Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister has a very high level of ambition when it comes to the exchange with the Swedish Riksdag. This also applies to interpellations. Now, it has been natural that some of the questions that Patrik Björck has raised in the form of interpellations have been handled by other ministers. But it is no forecast for the future, rather I believe that when we summarize these four years, perhaps not only Göran Persson will be seen as distanced when it comes to the presence in interpellation debates, but possibly also other Social Democratic prime ministers after him.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! No, I did not insinuate that the Prime Minister is evading his responsibility. I stated it explicitly. It is not really in my personality to insinuate things. I say straight out what I think and feel, for better or worse.

The difference with the Prime Minister's presence at the question period is that the Prime Minister must be present at the question period. So one can still describe it that way. Now I do not know if one can discern that from some sanction system or similar, but it would probably be considered extremely strange if the Prime Minister also abstained from the question period. I believe it would cause a rather strong storm of criticism, not only in this house but also in the media and among political scientists and people in general who care about Swedish democracy. There, the Prime Minister has no possibility at all to choose, I would venture to say.

When it comes to interpellation debates, the Prime Minister has taken the opportunity to choose. Therefore, it is a bit difficult to compare it with the question time in that way.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister for Justice for what we see as a brightening or an opening – that there is some commitment from the Prime Minister that he will make room in his calendar between various mingles and other things and ensure that he comes to the Riksdag to answer interpellations concerning the Prime Minister's performance of duties and areas of responsibility. I took it as an outstretched hand, this intention to, so to speak, improve the statistics. With the hope of meeting the Prime Minister here in an interpellation debate, I thank the Minister for Justice for today.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Patrik Björck for the opportunity to discuss important democratic issues this Friday morning at the beginning of March.

We agree on most things, that is to say, the importance of members of the Swedish Riksdag, regardless of whether they belong to the opposition or a governing party, having good opportunities to exercise control over the government. There are many important instruments to achieve this, and interpellations are undoubtedly one such. Question periods are another, special debates in the chamber a third, and the Committee on the Constitution's reviews of the government and the ministers, including the Prime Minister, a fourth. All of this is indispensable elements in our democratic system, and the fact that we are discussing these issues today, I think, is dedicated to nurturing this order in an important and good way.

I do not want to be polemical here in the conclusion, but I still just want to emphasize that the Prime Minister has not taken any right in any respect. All such decisions are, of course, made based on the right that applies, and it is in the nature of the matter that every minister is responsible for the entire government's positions and that questions directed to one minister can sometimes pass over to another. This applies, of course, to the Prime Minister as well. It is, however, not an expression of an ambition in any respect.

I am sure that today's exchange of views will be followed by more and that Patrik Björck may experience other people in this speaker's chair than just the Minister for Justice - even if it is obviously associated with both benefit and amusement.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)