Response to interpellation 2023/24:705 on the nationalization of the people's movement grant
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 is not nationalizing civil society aid but wants to increase transparency, efficiency, and competition 1 2. M believes that the changes are necessary to strengthen civil society and address problems with corruption and conflicts of interest 1 3 4 2. S argues that the decision is an attack on popular movements and a nationalization of the aid 5. S believes that the government is pulling the rug out from under organizations, making hasty decisions without consequence analyses, and wasting tax money 5 6 7. S argues that the government damages Sweden's image and leaves people in vulnerable positions by terminating agreements 8. S wants the agreements to be allowed to run out 8 4.
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 Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! Olle Thorell has asked me how I and the government justify the decision to restructure and nationalize the aid system. To begin with, it can unfortunately be stated that Olle Thorell's question is based on a total misunderstanding. Nowhere in either the government's reform agenda or in any of the other governing documents that are guiding for aid policy can one read about any nationalization of civil society aid.
I have also been asked what measures I and the government plan to take to ensure that the transition to the new system is carried out with consideration for the adverse effects it may have for the organizations and people who today benefit from the Swedish aid mediated by civil society.
That only certain organizations are given the opportunity to apply for funds from strategies and, in practice, through their status as a strategic partner organization, SPO, are guaranteed funds from the civil society strategy implies low competition and reduced opportunities for organizations that do not have a pre-privileged position. That Sida today does not consider anything other than the SPOs' applications can, in the long run, lead to that one simply does not select the applications that have the greatest potential regarding the aid's goals.
The Government decided on 29 February to task Sida with analyzing and submitting proposals for an alternative model for the allocation of the aid that is currently channeled through the SPOs. The assignment also includes, among other things, producing a consequence analysis. The assignment aims to strengthen the role and added value of Swedish civil society in development cooperation and to increase transparency, openness, and efficiency. The assignment also includes analyzing the conditions for a more open, transparent, and inclusive application procedure. It is my and the Government's assessment that this could contribute to reducing administrative costs and transaction links in Swedish aid activities, which in that case is in line with the Government's aid policy priorities.
That the assignment to Sida and an alternative model for application and allocation of aid would damage the image of Sweden as a reliable and long-term partner is a claim completely without merit. On the contrary, good conditions are created for the broad Swedish civil society to reach out to local organizations in partner countries to an increased extent. The Government also sees that an alternative management could lead to applications for funds being made on more equal terms for all civil society organizations as well as increase transparency in the decision-making. It is an important priority for the Government.
Olle Thorell also highlights what he describes as threats of termination of agreements. The agreements with the strategic partner organizations are managed by Sida. I therefore ask to be allowed to refer questions concerning the management of the agreements to the authority.
Civil society has and will continue to have a completely central role as an independent force in the implementation of Swedish aid. This is in no way in opposition to the idea of being able to improve current systems for the allocation of funds within aid. Transparency, efficiency, and the possibility of external auditing are prerequisites for Swedish taxpayers to also continue to be willing to finance a generous aid.
The Government will now await the result of the collective assignment to be developed during the spring and then prepare a new model for the allocation of funds within the framework of the civil society strategy from 2025 onwards. Naturally, the new model will be developed with the ambition to avoid harmful uncertainty and to enable continuity and long-term perspective in the important work that Swedish civil society performs together with local partners.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! The storm of criticism does not only come from us in the opposition. Civil society is in complete revolt. Has the Minister not noticed? During my rather many years in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have not seen anything like the anger and frustration from a united civil society. And it does not only concern the 17 SPOs. They are in themselves umbrella organizations and organize many more. They have 1,750 projects in almost 100 countries. It is therefore a matter of even organizations that are not SPOs seeing this for what it is, namely an attack on the Swedish popular movements. It is an attack that is part of a larger puzzle where one also targets folkbildningen, Allmänna arvsfonden, and other things.
It almost feels like the Minister is trying to gaslight us all. In the response, the Minister says that it is absolutely not about any nationalization of aid and that it is a total misunderstanding. But that is not it! It stands clearly and distinctly in the government decision that from January 1, Sida shall map out the consequences of a transfer of responsibility to the agency in order to take over the further mediation of support from January 1, 2025.
They take it from civil society organizations, give it to a state agency, calculate that it will cost 420 more employees at Sida and ½ billion kronor to administer - but say that it is not any nationalization and that it is a total misunderstanding. It is just nonsense from the minister!
I understand that a Moderate minister's instincts run counter to everything nationalization stands for, but that is precisely what one wants Sida to investigate. It is not a misinterpretation.
Regarding the desire to reform aid, I understand and appreciate it. We also want to reform aid. Wanting to find new ways to convey aid and ensuring that more people receive a share of it is not wrong. It is instead about your way of doing it. It is as if one thought there was a mess in the display cabinet at home and therefore went there with a demolition saw and a sledgehammer. When people think it was stupid and wonder why you did that, you say: "We see things in a new way and are not trying to sweep problems under the rug."
It is clear that one should be able to reform and change, but do it in a reasonable way! You could do it in another way with the agreements that Sida is now forced to break; they are only doing as they are told. It states clearly and distinctly that they shall investigate and take over the operations. They therefore terminate the agreements with the various organizations, which in turn terminate agreements with their partners, organizations, and projects all over the world. This could involve children with disabilities in Rwanda who do not receive the help they have previously received. You are now pulling the rug out from under them and saying that everyone has simply misinterpreted what the government thinks.
You could instead write in a regulatory letter that new agreements shall follow the new principles, while already entered agreements shall be fulfilled. A single sentence in a regulatory letter can make an incredible difference, Johan Forssell. Why are you so reluctant to change anything when it has obviously become very wrong?
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Johan Forssell, with whom I had a debate on these issues exactly one week ago. During that debate, however, I did not receive answers to my questions, and there are still very many questions to be answered. Both Lotta Johnsson Fornarve and Olle Thorell have asked relevant questions today regarding the concern that civil society feels right now.
It is not only the 17 strategic partner organizations that feel concern, but so do those who are members of these organizations. We must remember that the SPOs constitute umbrella organizations which in turn have several hundred members, and they in turn have thousands of local partners. All of these are now affected by the fact that the agreements are being terminated.
In the previous interpellation debate I had with Johan Forssell, Madam Speaker, the Minister stated that no agreements have been terminated. That is not true. The strategic partner organizations have had to terminate approximately 1,700 agreements due to decisions made by Johan Forssell and his colleagues.
There is a claim that is repeated not only by Johan Forssell but also by all government parties, namely regarding how many links aid money is channeled through. It is said that it is channeled through seven links, but I have still not received any example of which projects, amounts or organizations it would be about. I would very much like to have concretization and examples of when it has been further channeled in seven links.
If aid money were actually passed through seven stages, it would of course affect transparency and the possibility of carrying out proper controls. That would clearly be a problem. But I have been involved in aid projects for ten years, Madam Speaker, and I have never experienced aid money being passed through seven stages. Nor has Sida found any basis for this claim. It only seems to come from Johan Forssell and his colleagues.
If one builds their politics on such arguments and claims, one must have grounds for them, otherwise it becomes an unfair blackening of civil society. On one hand, it is said that civil society is incredibly important and will play a decisive role in Sweden's aid policy. On the other hand, it is said that they must learn to manage on their own and not live on tax money.
I think these are remarkable statements, Madam Speaker. Such statements provide no reassuring messages about the future of civil society in the aid policy.
Madam Speaker! Oversight and transparency are incredibly important. I agree with the Minister that we need to increase transparency and ensure that we can access the cases where corruption occurs and where tax funds are used incorrectly. I do not, however, quite understand how transparency and oversight increase in aid projects by making hasty decisions without any consequence analyses whatsoever.
Perhaps one moved too fast, and perhaps Sida was too quick to interpret the government's decision. But the government is still responsible for the policy that results. What has happened is that the agreements have been terminated, and that does not increase transparency or oversight. What is happening now is that agreements need to be terminated quite quickly, and that is to waste tax money, Johan Forssell.
I would like to have some concretization regarding in which projects aid money has been passed on through seven links.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the members of the debate for the discussion, which touches upon a very important area. Perhaps it could benefit from a little more reflection and from people calming down a bit. I note that very many inaccuracies are being spread in the discussion. It is almost so that one gets the impression that there is an agenda. It contributes to anxiety rather than explaining.
We are only at the beginning of the process. The agreements have therefore not been terminated. Look at what Sida has communicated! They announce that they will do it here at the turn of the year. When I look in my calendar today, it still says May. The entire description that 1,750 agreements have already been terminated is simply not correct. This is wrong. Still, we hear it time and again from the Social Democrats. One can think differently and have different opinions, but let us not spread inaccuracies. No one benefits from it.
Our ambition with the change is to open up the system and achieve more transparency and efficiency. We want to enable more organizations to be able to apply for funds and move away from the onward transmission that sometimes occurs through very many different links. On page 16 of Sida's internal audit report, it is written about onward transmission in five links. Then an additional two links are added: one from UD to Sida and one from Sida to the respective SPO. Each such link naturally entails different transaction costs and administration.
The government has the ambition not to do as one has always done, but we want to ask the questions that are very important but which are perhaps sometimes difficult. How do we ensure that as much of the Swedish taxpayers' money as possible reaches all the way to the end of the operation? We must tackle the problems. One cannot simply hang a veil over the problems in the display cabinet that was spoken of earlier and go out into the spring sun and enjoy the fine weather. We must actually open the cabinet and look at the glasses. Are they broken? Should they be used or not?
Just the other day, we received an internal audit report that points out serious problems here: lack of routines linked to transparency, lack of routines linked to efficiency, lack of routines linked to corruption in aid, and lack of routines linked to conflict of interest. We choose to tackle these problems, address them, and do something about them. Do the Social Democrats not see this? Or are they so stuck in the old way of thinking, that one should do as one has always done? That is exactly how the Social Democrats think regarding trade and aid, or about having more openness and transparency.
It is about the taxpayers' money, Olle Thorell. It is the voters who have worked to put these funds together. We have a responsibility to act when we receive alarm reports. One cannot simply say that it is a problem but do nothing about it. It is apparently to be business as usual, and everything should roll on for many years to come. That is not credible. That is not acting on reports like the one we have received.
If you think this is problematic, shouldn't you then welcome us looking at these parts already before the change is complete? Can we not hear what you think about it?
I want to emphasize one thing. No new system is ready yet. We are still waiting for two or three reports from Sida. The new system will come into force at the turn of the year and enable more people to participate in the aid in a more open and transparent way than before.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! How pleasant to have a debate! We should do this more often, I think. It will be necessary, because the Minister obviously has such a completely different view of reality and is trying to continue with this gaslighting, now by focusing on an internal audit report that shows risks of nepotism issues. It is therefore not a question of concrete examples where nepotism has occurred and decisions have been made in the wrong way, but about risks. It is clear that there are risks of nepotism in an agency that deals with aid. It is clear that people are hired who have worked in other aid activities at some other time in another organization. Is that not a strength? Is that not wrong? Or how does the Minister want Sida to find competent staff? Should they be born at Sida so as not to be tainted by cooperation with civil society?
It is not individual case officers at Sida who make decisions, but rather committees where proposals are presented. There are also routines at Sida for handling conflict of interest issues—the same routines that exist within all state activities. If, for example, a county governor decides to put up a notice in the reception and advertise a job that is then given to a friend, there are routines for how to handle this. There are whistleblower functions and investigative journalists who write, and that is very good. So it should work in state agencies, even at Sida.
What Johan Forssell is trying to do is to divert attention from this cleaning of the display cabinet. It is clear that it needs to be cleaned. We need to polish the glasses, perhaps arrange them in a different order, move in more glasses and remove others. But you have taken out the chainsaw and the sledgehammer and are trying to clean with them, and that is completely wrong.
I want to address the part of the answer concerning the fact that the image of Sweden is being destroyed by this. The Minister continues his gaslighting and says that there is no evidence whatsoever for this. Yes, there is. Look here at what I have found – a letter! It may not be that Johan Forssell has found it in his inbox, but it is a letter to OECD-DAC with a copy to Minister Forssell and Director-General Granit at Sida from 340 organizations in 60 countries – concerned civil society organizations putting forward criticism of this reorganization of civil society aid and describing the risks that exist. 340 organizations – that is evidence if ever there was any! They are listed in alphabetical order from ACT Alliance Global to Zambia Youth Federation. You only have to read through them, Minister, if you want evidence for this criticism. And it is clear that this damages the image of Sweden.
The Minister says that we are making things up, that agreements have not been terminated and that we are fueling anxiety. That is completely wrong. The fact is that agreements have been terminated and staff have been fired. People in extreme vulnerability are being left to their fate. That is doing harm. One of the fundamental principles in aid work is: Do no harm. Stop doing harm, Johan Forssell! Abandon this path towards nationalization! Ensure that a new regulatory letter is written to Sida where these agreements are allowed to expire!
Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Johan Forssell for providing some form of concretization when it comes to the seven links. One can absolutely count UD to Sida as one link and Sida to SPO as another link. But, Madam Speaker, what has been communicated is that aid money would have been passed on in seven links in the aid projects themselves, and that is not true.
When it comes to tax money, I agree with Johan Forssell. We must not waste tax money. I completely agree with that. I also do not think that tax money should contribute to corruption. I do not think that there should be reduced transparency regarding taxpayers' money, but rather increased transparency.
But that is exactly what is happening now, Johan Forssell – one is wasting the taxpayers' money. When one does not carry out proper impact assessments before sending assignments to Sida, that is exactly what happens. Instead of Swedish taxpayers' money being used to promote democracy, improve women's health all over the world, and work with the humanitarian efforts that the world is in acute need of, one needs to focus on terminating contracts, firing staff, and trying to interpret the very unclear signals from the government. It is a waste of the nursing assistant's and the construction worker's wages, Johan Forssell? By carrying out proper impact assessments, one also gets a better outcome. This is where the government has completely failed, Madam Speaker. If tax funds are to be used prudently, one must have a well-founded picture of reality.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall clarify some matters regarding what has been said here.
We are a government that does not want to do as has always been done. We are a government that challenges old truths. The basis for this is that we believe that aid is so incredibly important. There is potential to do very much more than before by finding new synergies and new collaborations, making changes, focusing on the areas where Sweden has an added value, and always asking important but sometimes difficult questions about efficiency, transparency, and openness.
When making these types of changes, it is clear that it can raise questions. Sometimes it can even cause concern. I understand that. But we, as political decision-makers, must always ask ourselves how we use the taxpayers' money in the most effective way and how we achieve the best results. That must be the guiding perspective.
The process is very open and transparent. We already described last year that we would review the further distribution. We have given a mandate to Sida with clear date-specified milestones for when reports should be submitted, and we will have a new system after the turn of the year. That is what, Madam Speaker, my opponents in the interpellation debate forget or do not tell – a new system will come with a new allocation of funds to civil society, and applications will be able to be made. It is clear that the transparency will be greater. Perhaps the competition will also be greater, and it is fundamentally very good that we ensure it is the most effective projects that receive support.
Here we have a responsibility. When organizations hear that 1,750 contracts have been terminated, I understand that they become worried. But that is wrong! 1,750 contracts have not been terminated. What Sida has done is to notify that at the turn of the year they will terminate contracts and enter into new contracts. If the Social Democrats really care about these organizations, then do not spread inaccuracies! It creates worry. This is not correct.
It can be tempting to sit in very many chairs at the same time. Yes, says Olle Thorell, we shall tackle the problems with lack of transparency and even risks of corruption and conflict of interest. But make no changes! Business as usual! It shall continue to roll on. All chairs at the same time!
I am becoming quite used to this. We have had the exact same discussion about the one percent goal. The government is making a mistake by abandoning the one percent goal, we have heard it time and again. But what happened when the Social Democrats presented their budget? Are you left with any one percent goal? No, the other day I don't think it was mentioned with a single word in their budget. They are following the government in the path we have taken - it is a matter of some billion.
One cannot sit in all the chairs at the same time. It might be a luxury one can have in opposition, but one cannot govern a country in that way. Then one must start taking responsibility and making priorities, and that is precisely what we are doing now. We are not trying to hide these problems. We highlight them in order to be able to handle them and ensure that the aid becomes more transparent and more effective.
Madam Speaker! One thing I know: If we do as we have always done and do not tackle the problems, if it only remains lip service, more such reports will come. Then we will have more problems with lack of transparency and perhaps even corruption. And one thing, Madam Speaker, I want Swedish taxpayers to know: Their money shall never, ever come even close to corruption.
Olle Thorell (S)
Madam Speaker! I completely agree. Swedish taxpayers' money should go to what it is intended for. It must not come anywhere near corruption. It must be audited, and one must ensure that it does the greatest possible good. There is no difference of opinion in the chamber on that.
There is also no difference of opinion when it comes to wanting to change. We Social Democrats want to change the policy. We are engaged in a major work throughout our entire party to reassess, think anew, look at mistakes we have made and try to move forward with new policy.
It also concerns the aid policy. We will invite a new reform agenda from the Socialdemokraterna for everyone who wants to be involved in contributing to it. We want to see change. But we refuse to make change in the incredibly brutal and clumsy way that the government nationalizes the people's movement aid. That is what you are doing, say nothing else.
You are nationalizing the aid. Stop it! Write a new regulatory letter to Sida where you let agreements continue and where new agreements can apply after new regulations. There is nothing wrong with taking a step back when things have gone wrong.
I wish that the government could let go of the prestige in this issue, build bridges that one burns with the popular movements in Sweden, and ensure that it works for what we should all be focusing on, namely helping poor and vulnerable people in countries where their rights are violated and where the need is great.
I believe Johan Forssell has good intentions. I truly hope that he takes to heart the debate we have had today. I would like to thank him very much for that, and I take this opportunity to wish everyone a pleasant weekend.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! We are at the beginning of a change that aims to open up the system and create greater transparency and also greater opportunities for scrutiny. Those opportunities are not as good today as we would wish they could be.
But it is also about ensuring that it is always the best projects, those that do the most good, that receive funding and not those that have been there earlier and where things are running along. It is clear that it creates questions. Therefore, we have been keen to be transparent with the process. We are only at the beginning of it.
I received a question here about why we are not conducting a consequence analysis. That is exactly what we are doing. That is precisely why we give the assignment to Sida to report consequences not just once, but on three occasions. My friends in the Socialdemokraterna do not seem to have quite understood how the process works. The decisions have not been made yet.
In that part, 1,750 agreements have not been terminated. A new system will come into force. We have been concerned from the very beginning, and we have also said that, to ensure at all times that it becomes as seamless a transition as possible.
Madam Speaker! If one simply lets projects "run on," one also cannot address the problems that exist. Then we will not be able to address problems with a lack of oversight and a transparency that is too poor. There are even reports of lacking routines for handling corruption or, for that matter, issues with prostitution.
It is not possible to manage it if one just lets things run as they always have been. As a political decision-maker, one must dare not to sit in all the chairs at once but make certain changes. That is exactly what we are doing now.
We are a government that believes in civil society. That is why we are increasing the appropriations to civil society organizations. At the same time, we are also making changes to increase precisely transparency and openness. I would like to thank the participants in the interpellation debate for the debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.