Response to interpellation 2023/24:636 on removed wording in the regulatory letter to the Armed Forces

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Adrian Magnusson has asked me about the government's reasons for deleting the wording "The Armed Forces shall continue to develop the capacity for early dialogue and cooperation with relevant authorities and organizations in planning and testing processes for renewable energy production" in the regulatory letters for 2023 and 2024 regarding the Armed Forces.

I share Adrian Magnusson's view regarding the need for expanded energy production. In the government's energy policy direction bill, the government proposes that Sweden should plan for an energy need of at least 300 terawatt-hours by 2045 (prop. 2023/24:105). This implies a great need for fossil-free electricity production that contributes to a rapid expansion of the energy system.

The Swedish Armed Forces have, in recent years on several occasions, reported how the agency works with cooperation and dialogue in the planning and permitting process for wind power. What has clearly emerged is that the Swedish Armed Forces contribute most effectively to the expansion by participating in early stages where the use of land and water areas is planned, for example in the offshore planning.

The Armed Forces provides responses every year to several hundred consultations regarding planned wind power projects. When the authority sees that an adaptation is needed to enable coexistence, a dialogue is initiated with the applicants. In cases where a project cannot be implemented without harming defense interests, it is generally not possible to conduct further dialogue regarding the underlying reasons due to defense secrecy. It is for these reasons, among others, that it is important that the defense's interests are handled in early planning stages.

Creating the conditions for increased energy production is an important issue for the government. The Armed Forces are actively participating in several collaborative projects with various agencies to provide better conditions for the expansion of wind power, and I therefore see no reason to keep the assignment in the regulatory letter.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer to the interpellation. It is for the most part a good answer that I welcome. It is also significantly better than the answer I received to my written question, which was the reason why I wrote an interpellation instead. It is pleasant and pleasing when one's work effort leads to it becoming even a little better. It pleases me.

I originally asked the question because, in conversations with various wind power actors, I have been informed that the dialogue with the Armed Forces is perhaps not always, if I may put it diplomatically, top-notch. There is room for improvement, to put it cautiously. This is also evident from a number of news articles and written questions from other members.

Dialogue is important. We need to have as much domestic energy production as possible, as the Minister is pointing out, and at the same time, it needs to be sustainable.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, there is much talk about the importance of energy production and that it needs to be established quickly. Offshore wind power is a fast and efficient way to get this energy production in place. In order for it to go even faster, all possible obstacles need to be removed.

There are a number of investigations looking at rapid ways to get this offshore energy production in place. The Minister for Defence himself mentioned some in his answer to the written question I referred to earlier. The final reports from some of these investigations, as well as subsequent legislation, are however at least a few years away. At that point, we need to do what we can here and now.

Even though I think it was a good answer, it was with some surprise that I took note of it, at least the part that can be summarized by saying that the Armed Forces already do this and that it therefore does not need to be included in the regulatory letter. It is not a completely uncomplicated view of agency governance. I do not quite recognize the reasoning from other regulatory letters. If one were to have such a reasoning—they already do it, so it does not need to be included in the mandate—one could, for example, strike out the Police Authority's crime-fighting mandate. So I do not think that is the reasoning there, and neither is it when it concerns CSN's mandate to pay out student grants to the country's students.

The signal that can be sent to the Armed Forces and to producers of renewable energy may be that dialogue is not important, especially not at an early stage. In that case, we could instead end up in long and expensive processes where different stakeholders spend time developing plans for large projects only to then see them rejected by the Armed Forces. This could perhaps have been avoided if there had been an early dialogue and an opportunity to reach a consensus through early understanding.

Madam Speaker! We must nevertheless know that there are also security policy gains to be had from having a dialogue on, for example, establishing offshore wind farms. It is not only problems and concerns, as it can sometimes be portrayed as.

The wording in the regulatory letter that we are discussing today nevertheless gave a clear signal that the Armed Forces would be active in dialogue and discussion with authorities and organizations in planning and review processes for different types of renewable energy. I have spoken about offshore wind power here today, but it could apply to solar power, onshore wind power, and a lot of different types of energy. The Armed Forces cannot act as a lone island in a society that is an archipelago, if I may put it that way.

I want to dwell a little on this regarding the signaling value. The Minister for Defence has, in his response, accounted for the motives and, as mentioned, landed on a reasoning similar to that this is already being done and that the writing and the assignment can therefore be omitted. But how does the Minister for Defence view the risk that this sends a strong signal that dialogue is not important, both to the authority in question and to those who are interested in contributing to domestic and sustainable energy production?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Since the Minister for Defence in the previous interpellation debate also welcomed those other than those who are currently working with defence policy to engage in defence policy and participate in the debates, I could not help but request the floor to say a few things about what is being discussed right now. It concerns the importance of the Armed Forces and the Armed Forces' role in the entire social structure.

When talking about defense capability, it is easy to only consider how the armed forces should be equipped, what they should comprise, and who should contribute. We talk about regiments, we talk about air defense systems, we talk about artillery, and we talk about general conscription.

In recent times, civil preparedness has also become important, given the uneasy security situation we live with. Alongside the armed forces, we must also have a civil capability, so that the civilian population can survive and be cared for in the event that disaster strikes and Sweden is subjected to an armed attack.

The two parts are quite natural when one talks about defense capability. But there is also a third part, which is completely crucial - the war between Russia and Ukraine shows this, among other things. It is about motivation, about the will to defend. It is about people's will to stand up for and defend their right to live in their own way and defend their country.

If the armed forces' capability is 10 and the civil preparedness is 10 but the motivation is 0, then 10 x 10 x 0 becomes nothing. But if the armed forces' quality is 5 and the civil preparedness is 5 but also the will to defend is 5, then it becomes 125. I believe it is important not to forget this.

Since we have both worked within defense policy previously and had a lot to do with one another, I know approximately how the Minister of Defence thinks. I know that the Minister of Defence understands the value of the will to defend and that it must also exist.

If one is to build and create a will to defend, I mean that the Armed Forces must also be a part of society. The Armed Forces cannot live as an island. It cannot even be, if I may sharpen it a bit, as the Defense Minister's party colleague once expressed it, a self-interest, a special interest. The Armed Forces must be a part of society. And if the Armed Forces are to be that, the government must choose to and dare to govern its agencies.

In this case, I do not really know how the government has intended, actually. If we compare the regulatory letters that the Minister for Defence has now sent to the Armed Forces with the regulatory letters that the Minister for Defence's predecessor, Peter Hultqvist, sent to the Armed Forces, we can see that they have completely removed the parts concerning climate transition, energy supply, and so on.

That cannot simply be left to the authority, the Minister for Defence. The authority must understand its mission. And sometimes it must be stated clearly, even if one thinks, believes, and hopes that the Armed Forces should understand it themselves.

That is why I believe Adrian Magnusson's question to the Minister for Defence is fully justified. Why should the Defence Forces' part in the energy transition, in climate policy, and in the view on wind power not also be an explicit goal from the Minister for Defence and the government?

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for your interpellation!

It is also pleasing to see Niklas Karlsson back in the saddle in defense policy. We had an absolutely excellent cooperation within the framework of the Defense Committee. A warm welcome back! I hope that it is not a temporary stint but that we can continue the excellent dialogue.

Let me begin with the deteriorated security situation, which we all in this chamber are certainly in agreement about. In light of the serious situation, the Armed Forces will need to exercise more than they have done. They will need to grow more. Then, goal conflicts can arise. We have also seen that previously, not least when it comes to offshore wind power. It is about the fact that offshore wind power can affect the maritime situation picture. It can also affect the air situation picture. It can affect the possibilities for low-altitude flight and different types of exercise activities. Those are the goal conflicts that can sometimes arise in the area.

The second question concerned the regulatory letters. It is entirely correct that this was included in the regulatory letters for 2022, 2021, and 2020. Why is it not included now? There are two reasons. The first is that we should be aware that what is stated in the regulatory letter regarding the agency's obligation to cooperate and create good conditions is also stated in Article 5 of the Armed Forces' instructions. It is explicitly stated there that the Armed Forces shall conduct that type of activity. It is clear that we can mark it in the regulatory letter in order to send signals. But the person who reads the instruction sees that the Armed Forces already has that mandate.

The second reason why we do not routinely include it every time in the regulatory letter is that on October 24, 2022, we received a detailed report from the Armed Forces on how they wish to further develop the cooperation. In that report, the Armed Forces are clear on a number of areas. They want fast, efficient, and predictable processes. These are goals that I believe we can all agree on.

The Armed Forces also have very concrete proposals for how those processes should be achieved. Above all, it is said: When it comes to our contribution, it will be much better if we enter early in the planning process rather than in the permitting process. That is agreed upon by everyone.

The Armed Forces' extensive report is an important contribution to the ongoing investigation regarding offshore wind power. The Armed Forces is involved in those processes as an expert authority and is therefore actively working on the issue.

I want to emphasize another thing. If you do not believe me or believe that the Armed Forces are committed, I suggest that you read the Armed Forces' annual report for 2023. There is a long passage there about how they work in dialogue with other authorities, also in order to be able to create balance between the Armed Forces' growth and the needs we all have, also when it comes to access to better energy.

These are the considerations behind why we have not included it in the regulatory letter. It is stated in the instruction. If one does not believe me or believe that the Armed Forces are working on it, one can advantageously review the Armed Forces' annual report, where I think they account very well for the work being carried out within the Armed Forces, also in order to be able to resolve these coexistence issues.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! I trust the Minister for Defence. There is no reason not to believe what the Minister for Defence says.

I note, however, that I have received three different answers. I received an answer to the written question. I received an answer to the interpellation. And here in the debate, I receive another answer, this one regarding Article 5. It is a bit unfortunate that one has to pull it three times before finding out about these types of things. But such is life sometimes.

Yes, there may be goal conflicts between offshore wind power and the Armed Forces and the defense interests that the Defense Minister raised. But there can also be coordination gains. It is not impossible to assume that an armed attack could occur against, for example, energy production in the future, against large offshore wind farms. In that case, they could perhaps, in consultation with the producers, practice in, for example, those types of areas. That is also something one could imagine.

This sometimes becomes a very one-sided discussion, as if all types of establishments of wind power or offshore wind power were to be harmful for security policy purposes. I am not convinced that is the case.

I did not really get an answer on how the Minister for Defence views the signal value of deleting this. It has nevertheless been perceived as a step backward in the Armed Forces' mission, at least by those I have been in contact with. It has been noted that it has been deleted, and it is perceived as that the Armed Forces have received a partially changed mission. In that case, it would be good if the government and the Armed Forces were clear that the mission remains, even if it may appear in the annual report and the like.

We live in a time when we must manage the climate challenge but at the same time ensure that we get more energy production. In that case, it is important that the government is clear that all types of power sources are important, even from security policy aspects.

It must not be the case, as we have touched upon several times here, that the Armed Forces are perceived as an independent party. We are living in a time when the Armed Forces' words carry great weight. There is a risk that society perceives the Armed Forces' words as law. It is important that the Armed Forces is an active social actor and does not see itself as decoupled and as being able to do exactly as it wants and that the rest just have to comply, because it is also about creating general acceptance for the Armed Forces' considerations - not just when it concerns the wind power installations.

I am of the conviction generally speaking that within politics, words matter. Formulations matter, and one can send quite powerful messages by changing or adding words and changing or deleting formulations. Therefore, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that one has chosen to delete this formulation and has not been clear externally – in my opinion, at least – that the mandate remains. I appreciate that during the discussion it has become somewhat clearer what the government intended with the deletion, but I do not quite know if I share the assessment that it was correct.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Karlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! It is part of the bourgeois narrative that Nato is the answer to everything, including this issue. I will not argue any further about it, but I nevertheless note that the Minister for Defence expresses the view that he is keen for the Armed Forces to be a part of society, that the Armed Forces should participate in the climate and energy transition, and that what has emerged from the previous regulatory letters also implicitly applies moving forward. I am glad about that. I just want to send a message to the Minister for Defence: Do not be afraid to steer the agency! It needs a clear direction.

It is also good when we are politically in agreement to talk about it. One can sometimes experience that it is unspoken. There will be reason for me and many others in the Swedish Riksdag to follow up on this issue and to ensure that work is actually being done on this in the Armed Forces, regardless of what is stated in the appropriation letter.

In conclusion, if I am now to reciprocate the kind words from the Minister for Defence, I think the Minister for Defence is a both wise and reasonable gentleman who is good to deal with. The only thing I am disappointed about is that he is moderate.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a few comments and will make a few points.

The more one works and pushes, Adrian Magnusson, the more detailed answers one receives. The fact that I now have a longer answer to give is due to the fact that this is an interpellation debate. This can be compared to what I can provide in a written answer. That form is usually shorter and less detailed. Adrian Magnusson is welcome to take it upon himself as a Member of Parliament that he pushes and engages in these issues.

I want to tell Niklas Karlsson that during the debate I haven't even had time to mention Nato. Perhaps that is why I received those kind words. We have had a good cooperation; I want to emphasize that. I naturally share the assessment that the Armed Forces are a central part of society. It is not the Armed Forces that joins Nato, but the entire society. It is about public support, commitment, and will to defend, and it is very important with strong interaction between the Armed Forces and the rest of society.

Let me also take up some questions that I know are usually complicated. The interaction that needs to occur between the Armed Forces and the County Administrative Boards concerns many issues regarding defense planning. It is covered by Chapter 15, Section 2 on defense secrecy in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act and concerns information that needs to be transferred to the County Administrative Boards. Therefore, we have tasked the County Administrative Boards to ensure that they have possession of and the possibility to handle classified materiel.

I understand the frustration many experience when there is a "no" without the Armed Forces being able to justify why, due to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. If we can move forward there, I believe it is a great gain. The Armed Forces are working on managing those processes so that they become faster, more efficient, and more predictable. Within the framework of their financial allocation to the military regions, they have increased the number of people within the Armed Forces who work with this. Within military region Mitt, for example, they have increased by five or six people, and they are doing the same within the other military regions. The goal is, of course, to achieve predictable, efficient, and fast processes.

Let me say something about signaling. It is clear that one can state something and act via the regulatory letter. It is good to send signals, but the important thing is perhaps not just what one says but also that one follows up and, above all, that it becomes practical. Therefore, I think, against the background that the Armed Forces have worked intensively on the issue, looked at the annual reports and presented the report that arrived on October 24 where concrete proposals were submitted, that it is we in politics who must make it practical. The proposals were also converted into directives as an important input to the investigation linked to permit processes for offshore wind power that is now taking place and which I understand is to be completed during the autumn.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Madam Speaker! It was pleasant to hear that if one continues to push, one gets better and better answers. I shall take that with me to debates with other ministers; I can promise the Minister for Defence that! One does not need to worry about that.

I am pleased to hear that the ambition lives on. There is still an ambition to have a dialogue between the Armed Forces, organizations, other authorities and actors. It is positive that we have received that clarification today.

I also think it is good that the Minister for Defence in his latest address highlighted defense secrecy. I believe many understand that one cannot publicly show off the Armed Forces' considerations in all these processes, but it still sometimes causes frustration. A project may have come quite far, and then suddenly you just hear a no. "Why then?" "No." Roughly that is how the answer can sound. It is therefore good that one continues to work with those types of issues. I believe that a dialogue as early as possible is the solution to resolve many of the conflicts that can arise.

I thank you for a clarifying debate and will certainly have reason to return to the question in the future, as Member Karlsson pointed out. We shall see if we can perhaps get even more clarifying answers at such an occasion.

(Applause)

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

Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Adrian Magnusson, for the debate, the interpellation, and the commitment to finding good and effective forms of dialogue and also permit processes! We agree, I believe, that the defense must grow. It will increase in scope. We also agree on the increased need for energy. These are, therefore, issues that we will continue to work on.

Sometimes it is presented as if the Armed Forces are not engaged in these issues, but that is not true. The Armed Forces are working hard on this. Sometimes one also hears that the Armed Forces always say no. That is not true either. When it comes to land-based wind power, one usually, from what I understand, says yes in approximately 80 percent of the cases. It is more difficult with offshore wind power. That is partly due to the maritime situation picture, the air situation picture, exercises, and our geographical location. Those are the goal conflicts we have to manage and ultimately evaluate. That being said – a warm thank you for the interpellation!

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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