Response to interpellation 2024/25:374 on friendship corruption
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that appointments should be made on objective grounds and that the government is working broadly to combat corruption through a new action plan and an investigation covering cronyism and marketization 1. M argues that corruption and infiltration are growing problems in public administration 1 and that both protection for employees and transparency are necessary 2, but argues that there is no evidence that salary issues are a widespread problem 2. S argues that the government did not answer questions about cronyism in the first response 3 and that a previous investigation wasted time 4. S proposes a definition of corruption that includes cronyism 3 5. S argues that the advent of marketization has increased corruption and sees political steering of salary setting at the Government Offices as a danger 5. S considers the government's proposal on strengthened criminal protection for public employees to be positive 5.
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! Patrik Björck has asked me if I and the government intend to review how cronyism can be combated in appointments and recruitments, and if the government in that case can consider giving additional directives regarding cronyism to the Commission on criminal law measures against corruption and misconduct in office.
Appointments within the state shall be made on objective grounds. The delegation of employer policy within the state means that personnel and competence supply are matters for the respective agency's operations. The agency's management is responsible to the government for the operations and shall ensure that they are conducted efficiently and in accordance with applicable law. The government continuously monitors the agencies' operations.
Combating corruption in all its forms is a central issue for the government, and work is being carried out on a broad front. This summer, the government adopted a decision on a new action plan against corruption and undue influence. With this, further steps are taken to strengthen the public administration's ability to stand up against corruption, infiltration, and undue influence. The action plan also includes strengthening civil servants in their role as public officials.
We are strengthening the protection for public employees against violence, threats, and harassment to safeguard the integrity of public decision-making. Most recently, in February, the government decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation with proposals for strengthened criminal protection for public employees. The proposals involve, among other things, that the provisions on violence or threats against a public official are expanded and clarified, and that the sentencing scales are tightened. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force in July this year.
Another important part of the government's work is the review of the criminal legal framework regarding corruption and misconduct in public office that Patrik Björck has highlighted. The investigation has a broad mandate and is to submit sharp legislative proposals. The mandate includes, among other things, taking a position on whether today's framework for corruption offenses needs to be modernized and made more effective and whether the criminal liability for misconduct in public office should be expanded.
The public has legitimate demands that public activities are conducted in a responsible and correct manner, and an effective system for individual accountability is needed when different types of irregularities are committed. Here, an expanded responsibility for misconduct in office can complement the regulations on bribery and other corruption offenses. I look forward to the commission's proposals, which will constitute an important basis for the government's continued work.
Combating and pushing back corruption and undue influence is ultimately about safeguarding our free and open society and trust in the rule of law. The Government takes these issues very seriously and will continue to drive the work on them.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer!
I wrote this interpellation in view of the fact that there has been a long discussion regarding this matter of corruption and so on. The government commissioned an inquiry into increased official responsibility in 2018, and it was then concluded that no legislative changes were needed. Then, in 2022, the Social Democratic government commissioned a new inquiry that was to look at corruption and influence. That inquiry was shut down by Gunnar Strömmer, and the investigator wondered if the government shut down the inquiry because they did not want to take part in the effects that market interests and privatization of public activities have had on the occurrence of influence and corruption. This is part of the reflection I had that lay behind my interpellation.
The government has now chosen to initiate a new investigation. A special investigator shall review corruption and official misconduct. In the investigation directive, one can read the following: "In Sweden, there is no generally accepted definition of corruption. Corruption can, however, be said to mean that someone exploits their position to achieve improper gain for themselves or others."
That prompted me to ask questions, among others, about whether the government intends to review how cronyism can be combated in appointments and recruitments and whether, in that case, one could consider giving an additional directive to the aforementioned ongoing investigation to consider cronyism.
Now that I have taken note of the Minister for Justice's response, I do not think I have received any answer to my questions. I have received a reasoning from the Minister regarding the issue of corruption, and we can partially agree on that. I think perhaps that from the Minister for Justice's perspective, much weight is placed on the responsibility for official misconduct and that it is directed at individual officials. I hear nothing about the question I raise which concerns marketization and which economic interests are thereby involved and how it affects society's preparedness against corruption. I therefore think that there is a slight imbalance.
I have read the written response several times and listened to it here in the chamber, but I do not think it mentions a measure against cronyism anywhere, other than in the introduction where my interpellation is referred to. Therefore, the questions regarding that remain, Madam Speaker. Does the government intend to review how cronyism can be combated in appointments and recruitments? Can an additional directive be imagined? I would like to have an answer to that.
The closest answer I get is the phrasing "to combat corruption – in all its forms – is a central issue." That is good. I can sign off on that. But now I pointed out a specific issue, and I believe the public – the voters – are very interested because there are many current discussions about such problems. I just participated in a debate here in the chamber with the Prime Minister about an appointment in the Government Offices, where cronyism may have been relevant. It was part of all the problems that affected national security.
That is why it is important that this part is not brushed aside. The Minister for Justice refers to the fact that there is a broad mandate, but I would still like to get an answer as to whether the Minister for Justice has any ambition to tackle a current problem, specifically cronyism.
I have a proposal for a definition of corruption, which I can give to the Minister for Justice, since there is none today.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer and Patrik Björck for submitting this interpellation. I requested to participate in the debate because this is an important issue that the Minister and I have debated previously.
I believe that quite a few in Sweden do not really feel that they know so much about corruption. We have not talked particularly much about it, because Sweden has previously been very good. When one visits other countries, one notices that it is absolutely crucial. In several countries where corruption is a major problem, it sets a brake on the development of society.
We are not vaccinated against this. We may have previously been good at spotting corruption and what is called improper influence, but that does not mean we will always be good at combating it. One must work on it all the time.
We have seen in several surveys that there is an increasing trend of corruption in Sweden. One might think that it does not mean much that we have lost some rankings, but it does, especially for the trust in society. We have had a great advantage, as the trust in authorities and in democracy has been our gold.
When organized crime, and everything it entails, also enters into corruption and illicit influence, and even when everything else deteriorates as Sweden regresses, we must be vigilant. It is required that we act and learn more. That was why the Social Democratic-led government commissioned the investigation that my colleague Patrik Björck raised. It is also required that we are good role models. It is important that we cannot be questioned when it concerns, for example, cronyism. I therefore think it is good that we discuss this in the chamber once again.
I think that the Minister Gunnar Strömmer also this time answers the interpellation in a good way. There is quite a lot that I can agree with. What is missing are answers to the questions that Patrik Björck has asked. We have not really received answers on how to proceed and whether the measures that the Minister mentions will really make a difference.
Even though we have debated the matter previously, I also still wonder about the reason why the investigation was discontinued. Several of the aspects that they wanted to look more closely at, for example the private sector's interest in public activities, we do not really get answers to because the investigation was discontinued. We have therefore lost time, and time is important.
In addition to the questions that Patrik Björck has, I would still like to have answers as to why the investigation was discontinued.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the question of why the previous investigation was discontinued. It was done to gain time. It was an investigation that did not have a mandate to submit any sharp proposals and did not have any legislative mandate, but rather it had a broader knowledge-enhancing mandate. We chose to discontinue it because we wanted to take action, both by renewing the action plan against corruption that is already decided and underway and by replacing the previous investigation with a new investigation that was given a broad and sharp legislative mandate.
Let me move on to the questions that have been raised. It first concerned marketization. I assume that by that, it is meant corruption in the relationship between the public and the private. It also concerned cronyism, if by that one means that one gives improper benefits, for example in connection with appointments to positions, which are then not based on merit and skill but on personal relations. All of this is covered by the new investigation.
When we say that it is a broad mandate, it is not to say that certain things should not be included or that we do not want to talk about certain things, but rather that the mandate the investigation has and the legislative issues on the investigation's table aim at all variants. One can imagine that improper benefits in connection with an employment can arise due to friendship or other personal relationships, that one wants financial gain, or that one is subject to threats or extortion. There can be a long line of different reasons why, for example, a service appointment did not proceed in the correct way. All these aspects are included in the new investigation's mandate.
The short point of the long speech is that all the relevant issues raised by both Patrik Björck and Eva Lindh are included in the investigation mandate. And the reason we laid down the previous investigation was that we wanted to gain time. It was too broad and had no sharp legislative mandate. We replaced it with partly a concrete action plan against corruption, which is already underway, and partly an investigation framework that received exactly a sharp legislative mandate. I very much look forward to reviewing the underlying documents.
I also want to address the question of whether corruption has increased or decreased in Sweden. Reference was made, among other things, to Transparency International's index – I do not know if it was stated explicitly, but that is what has been relevant recently. Some problematize indices of this type and argue that it is difficult to draw conclusions from them. But one can read them together with other sources, for example, such as those the police express in annual reports and others. In the annual report for 2023, for example, the police's department for special investigations states that corruption, insider activity, and infiltration are growing problems in public administration. If we read different things together, I believe we can take as a starting point that these problems are growing in Sweden, not decreasing.
A particular aspect of this, which we have not discussed today but which I nevertheless believe must be introduced so that we can get a broader picture of the issues, is the element of organized crime which is new in Sweden. We are talking about what the systemic threat consists of, and in addition to terrible consequences for individual crime victims, it consists of the fact that this is a crime that has enormously offensive claims and eats its way into public administration – speaking of this, with the line between private and public. It also corrupts private markets by using companies as criminal tools, and it cuts through and gets into public activities and other things. All of this, taken as a whole, justifies the reform measures that are now being taken.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I shall continue with what I did not quite have time for last time. There is a proposal for how one can define corruption – I refer to Transparency International, which the Minister for Justice also mentioned in his statement. They say that corruption is the abuse of a position of power for personal gain, which usually occurs through bribes but can also consist of so-called cronyism, where people in power in various ways favor relatives or friends over others, more qualified individuals. It is the latter that we have seen very many examples of in Sweden recently. One thought is that we could try to bring these issues into the new investigation – that is why I am posing these questions.
If I try to interpret the Minister for Justice positively, I perceive that he means that one can answer yes to my first question. I did not think it was that clear in the initial answer, but I think it has become clearer now. This means that the Minister for Justice intends to review cronyism and combat it in appointments and recruitments. I perceive it as a yes, perhaps with a small question mark, but still a yes. This is included in some way in a whole.
Regarding my second question, I also perceive the answer as yes, but there the Minister for Justice does not make the analysis that any additional directives would be needed; this is also included. I see the Minister for Justice nodding, so I am satisfied in that regard. It is positive – then we can move closer to each other.
I also want to include another positive comment regarding the Minister for Justice's response – it concerns the government's proposal on strengthened criminal law protection for public employees. I think it is a good starting point from the Minister for Justice that employees are cared for and defended in that way. This needs to be expanded and clarified when it concerns violence and threats against officials. I think this is a positive point that the Minister for Justice takes up.
I wonder a bit about just this side of the discussion, which I have experienced a bit from the bourgeois side. The focus has very much been on individual civil servants, and one has somewhat underestimated the threat from the situation that the Minister for Justice expressed, that private capital is entering public operations and all the risks that arise as a result. We Social Democrats perhaps experience this as a somewhat greater threat. That is not to say that the other might not possibly be a problem, but in an investigation submitted as recently as a few years ago, it was stated that no legislative changes were needed in that area. But it is clear that it is always good to review this. We think there is an imbalance in the reasoning from the Minister for Justice's side, and that is why it is good that the protection for public employees was included. I still want to say that we think this is very positive.
Whether one can agree with the conclusions in Transparency International's investigation or not, I do not dare to answer, but it is nevertheless stated that Sweden has fallen to the lowest level ever. From having been one of the world's least corrupt countries, we are now at the lowest level measured for Sweden when it comes to corruption. We are, of course, still doing well globally, but it is sad that we are on our way down. It is clear that it is positive if we can collectively do something about this.
I would like to raise one further issue in this discussion. There have been discussions about the pay scales at the Government Offices and that there have been attempts to steer them politically. We have had a debate about this previously. I also perceive this as a danger. There are different ways to subject civil servants to pressure, but if they come directly from a political side, it is very concerning. Could the Minister for Justice comment on this?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you once again, Minister – I appreciate that we at least share the commitment to do something about this. It is truly a poison in a society when corruption increases, so we really need to do everything we can.
Let me still be a bit questioning regarding what the Minister of State says. He says that we did not need to know more – the Minister for Justice had sufficient knowledge, and that was why he laid down the investigation. But in that case, the Minister for Justice would not need to say that we think we know how it looks with the corruption. It is precisely for that reason we would have needed to complete the investigation that the previous S-led government appointed.
I naturally think it is good if we can come up with legislative proposals or other things that mean we can do something about corruption. But we also need knowledge.
This is, just as the Minister says, very much about the advent of marketization in the public sector. It has affected corruption and meant that there is an interest in making economic profits by influencing the public sector – so-called unauthorized influence.
I think it is good that Patrik Björck also highlights friendship corruption. This has for a longer time been an area where, despite us having ranked high, there have nevertheless been concerns. It is not decreasing now, so we need to do something about it and lead by example.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me comment on some of the questions that have been raised here.
Of course, we must increase knowledge about these issues just as with many other issues. Then one may have different views on in what format this should occur to be as effective and purposeful as possible. We perceive that there are many good initiatives dedicated to increasing knowledge about these issues and also combining this with practical application.
Let me, for example, mention the assignment that the government has given to Statskontoret and the Crime Prevention Council. It concerns, based on a broad knowledge of these issues, both developing and disseminating support material to various actors in the public administration in order to be able to work against corruption and other related problems in a concrete way.
It is clear that we must learn more, and it is clear that the investigation which now has a sharp legislative mandate will not submit proposals based on a void of ignorance. It is in the nature of the investigation that the legislative proposals to be presented must be based on a solid analysis of the problems that the various legislative measures are to address.
Let me also raise the question of the balance between, on the one hand, protecting public servants and, on the other hand, moving forward the positions when it comes to accountability – that which has been called civil servant liability in the discussion because that is how the model looked once upon a time.
From some perspectives, one hears critical voices who think that in this way, the light is being directed towards individual employees in the public sector. But I want to say that both sides are needed.
On the one hand, we need to build a robust protection for employees in the public sector who may be subject to improper influence or be exposed to threats or other pressures. I do not believe the criminal law protection will be sufficient, but rather I believe we will need to do more things. I can point to one such thing that we have done regarding the police and which may become necessary in other professional categories, namely the possibility of making decisions without signing with one's personal name. One can sign with a service number in the police. One can also find other ways to protect decision-makers.
On the other hand, there is an interest in transparency. A government decision that has intrusive consequences for individuals must also be able to be followed up and scrutinized, and in many cases, it must be able to be appealed. In that light, one must also see how the investigation views precisely the responsibility for the consequences of decisions.
The public sector also exercises power against individuals. Part of the transparency we want to achieve is also about being able to show the citizens who is responsible for a certain decision and how we can hold people accountable for the decisions. We must therefore both protect public employees in different roles and at the same time clarify the possibility of holding people accountable for decisions, which shall partly be transparent and partly be possible to follow up for the citizens.
If we are to take these issues seriously, for example, cronyism, perhaps one should also sometimes express oneself with greater precision on the matter. I caught, for example, that we were supposed to have seen very many examples of cronyism recently. Well, let those instances that have the task of reviewing these issues do so and come with their conclusions. This also applies in every respect to salary setting issues in the Government Offices.
I certainly find there is no basis from the Committee on the Constitution or any other body indicating that this should be a widespread problem. But it is possible that the interpellator has access to other source material than those who review these issues in public have.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I mentioned as an example a previous debate here in the chamber quite recently, where cronyism was discussed in the appointment of national security advisors. That is an example. I could, of course, continue. But it is not individual examples, but the tendency that is the problem.
As an employee, one can be subjected to threats. The question was whether the employer can then, in some sense, steer through salary setting so that one does not perform their assignment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. It was a question that I also had as an example.
They changed the investigation. They abolished the sitting investigation because there were no sharp legislative proposals, and so they appointed a new one to gain time. That can be the case. But the problem from my perspective is that they investigated the issue just recently. At that time, they concluded that there was no need for any sharp legislative proposals. That was, so to speak, the result of the investigation. Now I don't remember if this was the summer of 2022 or exactly when it was, but it is in any case not a decade-old investigation but a fairly recent investigation that has investigated the issue and concluded that the needs did not exist. Then a new investigation was appointed, and they laid that one down. We must have the facts in the matter ready for us.
Now we will have to evaluate the investigation that is coming. If it comes with a convincing argument that there is a need for new and amended legislation, we are prepared to look at that. But it is not that long ago that the issue was investigated.
We will have to see about this with sharp legislation, as was said. Cronyism is a major problem. I do not think I need to bring up all the examples that exist. Those who read newspapers and media have countless examples to lean on.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Since Patrik Björck mentions the former national security advisor, I would like to say that it is good to have some precision in how one describes the issues. I feel that there is a value in this because the issues are so significant. Let me just state that precisely that appointment procedure has been reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution, and a unanimous Committee on the Constitution, including Patrik Björck's own party, found that no deficiencies had emerged in how this had been handled.
Now I have understood that the process is to be subject to review by KU again. I am convinced that it will be done in a thorough and good manner. I still believe that it is important – if one is to use that term – that in individual cases one can also rely on a review that has been conducted by someone who has had the task of determining whether friendship corruption has actually occurred or not.
With all this said, I am very pleased that we have had the opportunity to speak about these important issues today. It has been about cronyism, about the major corruption risks that exist between the private and the public sectors, about the broader risks of undue influence and infiltration, about corruption in relation to organized crime that threatens the system, and very much more. We can also agree on the value of increasing our knowledge about these issues in different ways, even if we may disagree on exactly in which processes it should appropriately take place.
I personally believe that there is a need to tighten the legislation in certain respects. It remains to be seen whether the investigation makes the same assessment.
I also want to highlight the work that is now taking place based on the new national action plan against corruption, which has also been established in the recent past.
Another important process that has not been talked about so much concerns the entire procurement apparatus, where, for example, it is a major deficiency that there are no national registers that are easy for municipalities to consult to know which actors they are dealing with and so on. There is very much to do there. Let us return to this in an appropriate format in the future!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.