Response to interpellation 2023/24:796 on increasing corruption in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that it is crucial to counter corruption to maintain trust in the public administration 1. M argues that Sweden has lost points in international indices and that it is therefore necessary to analyze trends and take measures, such as a new action plan and an inquiry into criminal legislation 1 2. M emphasizes that organized crime constitutes a system-threatening element that requires robust protections for public decision-makers 2. M refers to Brå assignments that show how criminal actors use facilitators to gain access to permits and confidential information 3. M believes that there is a strong interest in working preventatively to reduce vulnerabilities 3. M argues that there is a knowledge base and recommendations on measures that are an important part of the ongoing action plan 3. M believes that there is a great need to continue building knowledge about the threats to the integrity of the public administration and the political system through free research and government inquiries 4. M promises that they personally and the government will continue the work to safeguard the public's integrity and the free and open society 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.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me what I think about the fact that Sweden is increasingly corrupt and what measures I intend to take to counter corruption and undue influence.
I want to first establish that it is extraordinarily important to counter all forms of unauthorized influence and corruption. In order to maintain a high level of confidence in the public administration, the citizens' trust that the activities are conducted correctly and that public funds are not used on incorrect grounds is absolutely crucial.
Historically, Sweden has performed well in international corruption indices. It is fundamentally something to be proud of and something we should safeguard. Then, we all know that one should be cautious about drawing far-reaching conclusions from a change in score and ranking during some single year. On the other hand, there is, of course, reason to analyze any potential trends.
Even though Sweden continues to rank at the top, we have lost both points and rankings in Transparency International's corruption index since 2012, when the first measurement with the current method was conducted. It is, of course, a result, seen over a longer period, that should be taken seriously. Our society is not immune to actors who in different ways try to exploit their influence in an improper manner. Therefore, the government has also taken a long series of measures in various areas to counter corruption and undue influence.
Let me first mention the national strategy against organized crime (skr. 2023/24:67) which the government decided on in February this year. In it, one of five goals is precisely the need to build resilience against unauthorized and improper influence. The direction is also very clear: Unauthorized influence must not gain a foothold in Swedish society, whether in public or private activities.
In January, the report A stronger protection for public employees against violence, threats, and harassment (SOU 2024:1) was submitted. Among other things, it contains proposals for an enhanced criminal law protection for civil servants against violence, threats, and harassment. The report has been referred, and the proposals are now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Parallel to this work, the government has in a fast-track developed a proposition on strengthened protection for certain police employees (prop. 2023/24:102). Those proposals entered into force already at the end of April this year. Furthermore, a parliamentary committee has been tasked to review certain issues regarding insight into the financing of political parties and consider whether rules should be introduced that set requirements for transparency and insight into contacts between political decision-makers and lobbyists (dir. 2023:88).
On 1 February this year, the government also decided to appoint an inquiry to review the criminal legislation on corruption and misconduct in office (dir. 2024:14). The inquiry shall present its proposals in the middle of next year. No comprehensive review of the corruption offenses has been conducted since 2012, and therefore I believe it is high time to review the legislation in order to ensure that the regulations offer effective tools for the law enforcement authorities.
In February, an investigator was tasked with considering whether expanded possibilities should be introduced for municipalities to access information in the belastningsregister (the record of previous convictions) and the misstankeregistret (the suspicion register) during ongoing employment and in connection with an offer of employment or assignment (Ju 2024:A). We have also given the Crime Prevention Council a mandate in the area which will provide us with further valuable knowledge.
Two completed investigations have submitted proposals on areas where the risks for conflicts of interest and corruption are known. These concern partly the investigation on transition restrictions in public activities (SOU 2023:45), and partly the investigation on supplier control in public procurement (SOU 2023:43). Both have been referred, and these proposals are also being prepared now in the Government Offices.
In addition to this, the government is currently preparing a new action plan against corruption and undue influence that takes a broad approach to these issues. In February, Civil Minister Erik Slottner and I conducted a round-table discussion with representatives from state agencies, municipalities, regions, the business community, and civil society as part of the process of developing the new action plan.
I conclude by stating that the work to counter undue influence and corruption is constantly relevant and affects us all. I believe there are very good opportunities for broad political unity and look forward to continued good cooperation in these important issues.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying a few words about what corruption and undue influence are and why it is so incredibly important to work against this.
Corruption and undue influence is a poison in the world, and all work that can be done to reduce this needs to be done. This applies both in Sweden and in other countries. We see that this not only affects trust in the entire society but also affects the economy, poverty reduction and trade - everything that has to do with what matters in our societies.
Just as the Minister for Justice said, we have had a very good job for a long time. We have fared well in the so-called ranking, because we have worked against corruption and in any case have been free from corruption to a very large extent. It is truly important.
Now Sweden is losing. A friend of order might perhaps think that it is not so much to talk about losing from third to sixth place; it is just a ranking after all. It might not be so worrying if we only lost in ranking, because it could be the case that other countries become better. It would be good if more countries became better at handling corruption and became less corrupt, so that it would not be possible to engage in undue influence.
What is problematic is that we are losing points. Even if it is a little, it is a turn that we have seen and that I and many with me think needs to be taken very seriously. If we see that there are fluctuations where corruption increases in Sweden, we must really take it seriously and work hard to address it.
The Minister of Justice says that it is not possible to draw far-reaching conclusions, but I think that one can draw quite far-reaching conclusions. When we decrease in points, we need to take it seriously.
I want to return to a question that I raised in this interpellation and which I have previously asked in a written question to the Minister for Justice. When it comes to corruption, a considerable amount of knowledge is hidden. We believe that not only in Sweden but also in many other countries, there is a dark figure when it comes to corruption and undue influence. We do not always know exactly how large the corruption and the undue influence is or how much of this is taking place.
That is why the Social Democratic government took the initiative for an investigation. The investigation was tasked with compiling knowledge on improper influence and corruption, analyzing risk factors for improper influence and corruption, and proposing measures to prevent and combat improper influence and corruption. Why is this so incredibly important? Yes, because we must have the right knowledge in order to be able to propose the right measures.
One of the first decisions the current government made was to shut down this investigation. Now the Minister for Justice says that they have a number of measures underway. My opinion, however, is that we lack the knowledge that we could have obtained through this investigation now when we are going to move forward and handle this.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
It is quite true that we laid down this investigation. We simply had a higher level of ambition. I mean that a major deficiency with the previous investigation and its framework was that there was no legislative mandate. We needed to mobilize investigation resources regarding the hardware in this, namely what consequences it is ultimately to have for the criminal legislation. It is a matter of incorporating the development that has occurred in recent years, not least in the EU law area.
As a basis for the proposals that this investigation shall submit, it is naturally also necessary to ensure that there is a solid knowledge of the character and extent of the problems. It is therefore self-evident that the knowledge-enhancing assignment is also included in this investigation plan.
I would also like to say that the knowledge-enhancing assignment, together with the risk analysis and not least the action part, is the very basis for the work on the new action plan for which the Ministry of Finance is the lead agency and which is to be presented later this year. This will also provide the operational power for various actors in the entire society to work in an offensive manner to reduce risks and vulnerabilities in a knowledge-based way and take a multitude of concrete measures, which will be set out in the action plan.
When it comes to the ranking, it is not actually me who is saying that one should be careful about drawing all too far-reaching conclusions from a single measurement, but I dare to assert that this is a fairly well-established view. What is interesting, of course, is to try to discern a pattern over time. Unfortunately, it is the case that we have gradually lost ground since this ranking was introduced in 2012, even though we still stand well in an international, European, or Nordic perspective. Above all, it is difficult to discern from the ranking exactly what it is that causes us to have potentially lost ground over time.
I think we can nevertheless afford an experience-based, fairly well-founded hypothesis that this concerns a number of different things in our society. I believe it is very important to have breadth and to realize that these are measures that must now be directed towards the public sector in all its forms, not least because public decision-making naturally exists in municipalities and regions and at the state level, but it must also encompass the private sector. This applies in particular to the private business sector, which includes very heavy economic actors and actors who have a close interaction with public actors, not least within the procurement area.
To this is added a development that I cannot say whether the index captures, but it is in any case a development that we see and that I believe everyone is extraordinarily concerned about. It concerns the strong and system-threatening element that exists in organized crime. It is about undue influence, pressure, infiltration and other things that are very closely related to corruption or in any case have the same purpose, for example to influence public decision-making, obtain advantages for oneself at the taxpayers' expense or undermine democratic structures.
Several of the measures I mentioned are aimed, among other things, at precisely this part of the corruption threat in order to create more robust conditions for, for example, municipalities, public decision-makers and individual personnel categories that are particularly vulnerable to this type of improper influence.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Just as the Minister for Justice says, corruption is not only about the exchange of money for information or the changing of decisions, but also about threats and harassment. That is why we talk about both corruption and undue influence.
Our government did some other things in addition to appointing the investigation that I continue to think had been important. It is good that an action plan against corruption and undue influence is being developed, but is the round-table discussion referred to here sufficient? We need to have good knowledge to truly know how things are. For example, Brå has shown that attempts at influence are increasing, which certainly is linked to the current situation in Sweden. With increased crime levels, the undue influence on agency personnel also increases, which is incredibly worrying.
So far, we do not know that much about how it looks at the municipal and regional level. The Minister of Justice might know, and in that case, he is welcome to share his knowledge. SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) has, however, produced a report which says that the problem with unauthorized influence in municipalities appears to be increasing. But we need to know how and what we should do about it. This was also what the investigation focused on so that one could obtain both increased knowledge and proposals for measures.
It seems to be very much about what happens between the paying public sector and the performing private sector. There are great threats and clouds of concern here. It is hardly the case that private providers within public activities are decreasing, and therefore we really need to include this and manage it.
I agree with the Minister for Justice that we need to review the criminal legislation. Obviously, the consequences of engaging in corruption and undue influence need to become greater. But my question is about how we are to counter the occurrence. If the penalties increase, corruption and undue influence might decrease, but we do not know that. More measures and efforts are needed to counter the occurrence of this.
What knowledge does the Minister for Justice have regarding the public sector and the threats and harassment that are increasing not only against state officials but also in municipalities and regions, and regarding what measures need to be taken?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me start from what we know and highlight two solid reports prepared by an agency under the Ministry of Justice. It concerns two assignments to the Crime Prevention Council.
The first thing concerns the role and function of so-called enablers for criminal activity. This assignment is completed, and we have received both a solid knowledge base and proposals for measures.
The second assignment concerns precisely the illicit influence carried out by criminal actors in the space between business activities and the public sector, which is directed towards either political decision-makers or government officials.
The first assignment was reported in March this year, and here Brå points out that criminal actors ensure they have facilitators inside the systems. It concerns everything from facilitating logistics and creating legitimate facades for criminal activity to obtaining favorable permits and decisions, as well as access to confidential information about family members, other persons in criminal networks, childhood friends, customers, etc.
Brå points out that an enabler can have different characteristics: manipulative, developmental, business-oriented, or placed. Even though the discovered cases are few, it is pointed out, in connection with the dark figure Eva Lindh mentioned, that these vulnerabilities are likely significant.
I agree that the penalties are a kind of ultimate consequence, and we obviously have a strong interest in working preventatively to reduce the vulnerabilities and ensure that this type of crime does not occur at all. Furthermore, Brås's underlying material shows that in the cases that come to the judiciary's attention, these are vulnerabilities that are practically handled in operations. Brå provides many proposals regarding both the preventive work to reduce the vulnerabilities and the concrete handling, such as routines and other matters. It is, among other things, about different functions in different operations having to interact in a better way in order to be able to counter this type of corruption and the like.
So, there is a knowledge base and recommendations on measures here, and it is an important part of the work that is ongoing with the action plan I mentioned.
We have built on this with an additional assignment. In December last year, we received a knowledge base on the impact on individual elected representatives, parties, and decision-making assemblies at different levels. We are now waiting for Brås's proposal based on this basis.
Let me mention some of what is contained in this knowledge base. The actors are perceived to be very strategic in their actions, and they often use methods that can be legal but very unpleasant for those who are targeted. This can have consequences for, among others, elected officials, for example, that they limit their lifestyle habits and avoid pursuing certain political issues. Not least, it is pointed out that the risk is that younger people affected by this have a poorer chance of resisting and therefore leave politics.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Let me ask two questions that I hope the Minister for Justice can answer in conclusion.
My first question is: Does the Minister for Justice hereby consider that he has sufficient knowledge to take the measures that are reasonable to address the increasing corruption and the increasing illicit influence in society?
My second question is: Can the Minister for Justice promise me to take this issue as seriously as I believe it should be taken? Even if Sweden has only lost a few points, we are on a downward slope when it comes to corruption and undue influence.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by again thanking Eva Lindh for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. They are important in themselves but also in a much broader perspective, as an essential part of being able to safeguard our free and open society.
The first concerns the processes that will now result in a new concrete action plan against corruption and undue influence and so on, which will be presented this autumn. I feel very confident that it is based on solid experience and knowledge of the problems that such an action plan is intended to address – an action plan intended to reduce vulnerabilities and risks and increase robustness against this type of corruption and undue influence.
I also feel secure that several of the agency assignments that are underway, not least those that the Crime Prevention Council has had and still has, will provide us with further knowledge that will be essential for us moving forward. The same applies to ongoing investigations in the criminal law area.
With that said, I believe however that we have a very great need, through independent research, government inquiries and other processes, to continue building up our knowledge regarding how different parts of these threats against the integrity of the public administration and the political system de facto look, so that we can continue to develop and sharpen our work moving forward.
In short: Good basis, but we will need even more moving forward.
The second point concerns the promise, and to that question I can answer an unconditional yes. I can truly promise that I personally and this government will continue this work because it fundamentally is about safeguarding the integrity of the public sphere and our free and open society.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.