Response to interpellation 2024/25:369 on the Prime Minister's responsibility for the recruitment of national security advisors
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the Prime Minister's responsibility in the recruitment of a national security advisor. M believes that the recruitment was correct as the person had relevant competence 1 2 3 and that the Prime Minister had no reason to question the security department's assessment 1 2 4. M argues that there is no reason to overrule professional agency parts or evaluate ongoing preliminary investigations 3. S believes that the recruitment was a major mistake and a security risk 5. S argues that the Prime Minister has weak leadership 5 6 7 and that one should not hire close friends for important assignments 7. S believes that a respectful distance to illegalities was not maintained 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck has submitted a number of questions concerning Henrik Landerholm. The questions concern the government's decision to employ him as national security advisor, when I became aware of various incidents in which he has been involved and why one of these incidents has not been reported to the police.
First, I can state that Henrik Landerholm resigned from his position in the Government Offices on January 27. It was a decision that we agreed upon.
The government's employment of Henrik Landerholm was reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution in the spring of 2023. During that inquiry, I provided a very detailed account of the recruitment process and for the employment.
Since 2002, Henrik Landerholm has been entrusted by several different governments with many different non-political state leadership positions within the foreign and security policy area. In 2002, he was appointed by the Persson government to be rector of the Swedish Defence University and subsequently by the Reinfeldt government in 2008 to be director general of the Folke Bernadotte Academy. Then, in 2011, he was appointed head of the combined Swedish civilian operations in Afghanistan. Thereafter, in 2013, he was appointed ambassador in Riga.
The Löfven government appointed Henrik Landerholm as ambassador to Abu Dhabi in 2017, and in 2021 he participated on behalf of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on-site in the Swedish evacuation from Afghanistan. That year, the Löfven government also gave him the assignment to become the first director-general for the new Agency for Psychological Defence.
Madam Speaker! It was the experiences from these different assignments from different governments that led to Henrik Landerholm being employed as the country's first national security adviser. A unanimous Committee on the Constitution also found that there had been no deficiencies in that handling.
Now the Social Democrats want the committee to once again review this recruitment process. At the same time, other opposition parties want other issues linked to Henrik Landerholm to be reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution. I will, of course, also this time before the committee, account for what I know, but I can already now repeat what I have expressed several times: It is important not to be careless and not to make mistakes. Therefore, the mistakes that have been made, just as Henrik Landerholm himself has expressed it, are bad. Under the circumstances, we were therefore in agreement that he should leave his post.
Regarding Patrik Björck's question as to why no police report was filed, I can only state that the incident in question was investigated and handled by the Government Offices' security department in accordance with current procedures. The overall assessment was that some other measures against Henrik Landerholm than conversations were not applicable. After the investigation was complete, I received general information about the incident and the assessment that had been made at that time. I had no reason to question this.
A preliminary investigation is currently underway, and the legal process must, naturally, take its course.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Mr. Prime Minister! The Prime Minister appointed a national security advisor at the beginning of the mandate period. The Prime Minister is responsible for all government work, but in this case, the Prime Minister's responsibility is extra clear. The appointment of the national security advisor has been shadowed by question marks and problems from the very beginning. The recruitment has been questioned, and since then, the problems have only continued.
I asked the Prime Minister how the recruitment took place and on what grounds specifically Henrik Landerholm was chosen. To this, the Prime Minister responded by referring to KU's review of the questioned recruitment of Landerholm. It might have worked if Landerholm had been the adult of the task as national security advisor. But with the benefit of hindsight, it has shown that the recruitment of Landerholm was a major mistake.
Landerholm became yet another one in the crowd of failed recruitments that the Prime Minister was responsible for. Landerholm became a security risk. How could it become so? Has the Prime Minister's close friendship with Landerholm influenced that a poorly thought-out recruitment was carried out? These are questions that are asked not only by us Social Democrats but also by members of the Prime Minister's own party, according to reports in the press. The most likely explanation is that the Prime Minister's close friendship with Landerholm explains the failed recruitment.
The second question I asked was when the Prime Minister became aware of the various incidents involving misappropriated documents and phones, as well as other security risks associated with Henrik Landerholm's lack of judgment. To this question, the Prime Minister answered very vaguely and said it was after the investigation was complete. I have follow-up questions on that. Follow-up questions are part of the interpellation debate. When did the Prime Minister receive information about the irregularities?
My third question was why the Government Offices did not, on their own initiative, report the offenses that should be assessed as serious and which are now the subject of a preliminary investigation. The Prime Minister's answer was: "After the investigation was complete, I received general information about the incident and the assessment that had been made at that time. I had no reason to question this."
It is a staggering answer for several reasons. First and foremost, the Prime Minister has therefore only received information about one of all the incidents where Landerholm has shown poor judgment. The assessment of Landerholm's suitability should naturally have included all the different incidents that have occurred. They are each serious individually, but collectively completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the Prime Minister had every reason in the world to question the assessment. Why did the Prime Minister not review the assessment? It is obvious, Madam Speaker, that the police have reviewed the assessment. Should not the Prime Minister himself have done so and, as the person responsible for and the highest chief over the government's work, have had a substantial safety margin regarding what is illegal?
It has also emerged that it took two years to register the incident in the public records. Why did it take so long? Is this a common procedure in the Government Offices?
Finally: The Prime Minister defended his security advisor all the way into the cabinet, even though he knew what had happened.
There are many questions and so far few or vague answers. But, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister now has ten minutes, divided into three speeches, at his disposal to explain himself.
With weak leadership in a time of great unrest in Sweden and the world, when we most need strength and strong leadership, the debacle with the national security advisor is unfortunately a picture of the opposite. Weak leadership, Madam Speaker, is not what Sweden needs in times like these.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to say that as Prime Minister, one is of course always ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the Government Offices. That is clear. Just as clear is it that there are structures within a large employer for how different things are handled, even when things do not go as they should have.
That is why there is, for example, a security department responsible for issues such as these. There is also a human resources department, a finance department, and other structures that are quite self-evident. I had no reason whatsoever to question their handling of this matter, and I still have no reason to do so. I am not involved in individual personnel matters but naturally receive overall information after processing. That is exactly what happened this time as well. I feel secure with this.
A preliminary investigation is currently underway, and for very obvious reasons, I do not intend to preempt it. I do not intend to interfere in it. I do not intend to evaluate anything in it, as that is entirely the task of the judicial authorities. I will not comment further on the preliminary investigation.
The recruitment has, as mentioned, been reviewed by KU. They found no reason to question it. I also described just now that it concerned a person who had been entrusted with important security policy tasks by several different governments. There were good reasons for such competencies to be important when the country's first national security advisor was to be appointed. In the same way as other vital security policy positions in the Swedish state are appointed on such merits, it was also natural here.
Otherwise, I have no further comments and naturally look forward to the Committee on the Constitution's continued review.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I have some follow-up questions and reflections regarding the answer I received from the Prime Minister.
The first question concerns when the Prime Minister became aware of this debacle and all the mistakes, that is, that the person who was responsible for Swedish security actually put Swedish security at risk. When did the Prime Minister become aware of this? I have not received an answer to that, and I would like to, because it has not emerged.
Why is it so important to poke at when it happened? It is because the Prime Minister says that he had no reason to question the assessment that was made of all the mistakes. But as soon as it became public knowledge, when it was registered in the public records after two years, when the press wrote about it and when the police gained knowledge of it, it immediately became the subject of preliminary investigations and police inquiries. Then one is very close to illegality.
Of course I understand that the Prime Minister cannot comment on the preliminary investigation, a possible indictment, or judgments. I respect that and do not demand it. But what I demand is that the Prime Minister examines himself a little with critical eyes. If these are events that have occurred over a long period, I believe that the Prime Minister has had knowledge of them for a very long time. In that case, the Prime Minister has also had a long time to question whether a reasonable decision was made. If the Police Authority immediately concluded that this borders on illegality to such an extent that we are talking about preliminary investigations and that it falls within the Security Service's jurisdiction, a small bell should have rung somewhere with the Prime Minister.
A question that very many in Sweden today would like to have an answer to is why the Prime Minister neglected the very serious crime against Swedish security that has come to light today thanks to the mass media. They have written about it and dug up documents that were not registered, which had not been done because the Prime Minister and the organization he is responsible for actually did not do their job.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, and that is why we are standing here today.
The Riksdag has a lot of different functions. One of these is to appoint prime ministers. The Riksdag can also remove prime ministers. In between, the Riksdag has its power of oversight. Through interpellation debates, KU investigations, and written questions, the Riksdag tries to find out how the prime minister relates to the confidence that the Swedish people's elected representatives have given the prime minister.
This is not something that can simply be waved away or dismissed by saying that an investigation is underway. Here and now, in this interpellation debate, reasonable and adequate questions are being posed to the Prime Minister. I expect an answer.
The question, therefore, is when the Prime Minister found out about all the irregularities – possibly even illegalities – that the national security advisor had committed. It is an irregularity to forget phones and confidential documents. No court review was needed to come to that conclusion. We all understand that it is not something one should do when one holds such a role.
When did the Prime Minister find out about this? I believe that the Prime Minister has known about this for quite a long time. Why did the Prime Minister not make the reasonable assessment that the whole thing was approaching, and was very close to, the line of illegalities? It should have been so obvious to have a respect for the distance that one had reported this to the police.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck speculates, guesses, and draws conclusions about an ongoing investigation. I will not do that. I have respect for an ongoing investigation. I obviously do not interfere in it. I do not guess what such an investigation will conclude.
I am dismissing nothing. I am only providing serious and factual answers to the matters I am aware of in the issue – nothing more and nothing less. The conclusion was, naturally, that the situation became untenable for the national security advisor when a preliminary investigation was initiated. I have also accounted for that.
Regarding the timing, my recollection is that I was informed in retrospect on two occasions about what had happened and about the security department's assessment, decision, and actions. I had no reason to question their decision.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! When I ask "when," I am informed of the number of information occasions. That is not quite an answer to the question. "When" is actually important, Madam Speaker, so that we can be able to assess this. The Prime Minister has one last chance in his concluding remarks to state when these two occasions occurred.
It is important for those of us who stand outside and who represent the people and the voters to know when the Prime Minister found out about this so that we can assess the Prime Minister's fitness to govern. It is not something that one can simply wave away.
I am not speculating about any preliminary investigation, but I am wondering whether the Prime Minister, with the benefit of hindsight, does not realize that many of us think it is strange that the Prime Minister did not make the assessment to maintain a significant respect for distance from illegalities in the government's work. When it came out, it led to Säpo starting a preliminary investigation. That in itself should have caused an alarm to ring in the Prime Minister's head so that he thought: It is best that we report this to the police ourselves, because it will immediately end up in a preliminary investigation if it comes out.
It is the respect for the legality of the government's work that I am reflecting on. Can the Prime Minister at least, with the benefit of hindsight, reflect on whether it was wrong and if he has made a mistake? I believe that the Prime Minister has made a mistake. I believe that everyone watching this realizes that a respect for the legality of the government's work was not maintained. It is concerning.
With that, I hope and believe that the Prime Minister, even if he does not express it here in the chamber today, may have learned a lesson. Perhaps one should not hire close friends for this type of important assignment. And perhaps one should maintain a respectful distance from illegalities in the government's work.
Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)
Madam Speaker! As I said, a person was hired who, for 22 years, had been entrusted with important security policy, non-political tasks by several different governments. This was the factual basis, which was reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution last year. I have nothing more to say on that matter.
When it comes to what happened next, there is no reason for me to re-examine what different professional parts of the authority do in matters that fall under their responsibility. They told me overall afterwards, when they had taken a position. I had no reason to question. My memory is that this happened on two occasions. I have no dates for this. Both times, moreover, it happened after they themselves had acted in the matter.
I naturally have just as little reason to evaluate an ongoing preliminary investigation. It is independent and makes its own decisions, and that is how it should be in a constitutional state like Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.