Response to interpellation 2024/25:563 on the Minister for Justice's knowledge of what prompted the indictment of a close associate of the Prime Minister
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 Minister for Justice has not received specific information but has gained knowledge through news reporting 1. M considers the motion of confidence to be overplayed since the former security advisor has left their employment 1. M claims that it was reasonable for the questions to be handled in the Government Offices 1. M argues that discretion is in place as the questions are subject to legal review 2 and that they are answering to the best of their ability 2. S considers it serious that neither the Minister for Justice nor the Prime Minister had knowledge of the security policy situation 3. M argues that the questions deserve to be treated with seriousness 4 and that ministers are expected to observe discretion 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! Patrik Björck has asked me a number of questions concerning the former national security adviser. The questions concern when I became aware of various incidents and whether, within my area of responsibility, I had confidence in him.
I have not received any specific information regarding what is highlighted in the interpellation, but I have become aware of this through general news reporting.
The question of confidence is no longer relevant because the former national security adviser has left their employment.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! ”The Minister for Justice's knowledge of what prompted the indictment of a close associate of the Prime Minister” is the heading of this interpellation. I have submitted it to the Minister for Justice, because the last time there was an interpellation debate on the matter, the question was submitted to the Prime Minister. Then the Minister for Justice came and answered questions that were submitted to the Prime Minister.
Now it will become much easier for the Minister for Justice, I hope. Now the Minister for Justice does not need to answer questions posed to the Prime Minister, but rather questions posed to the Minister for Justice. I assume that it will then become easier for the Minister for Justice to answer.
Madam Speaker! One advantage of the previous interpellation debate was that the Minister for Justice and I agreed that there were no legal obstacles whatsoever for the Minister for Justice to answer these questions. That was good.
During the previous interpellation debate, I only had a faint inkling as to whether the Minister for Justice had any kind of legal education in his CV. I have now gone through the Minister for Justice's CV and been able to confirm that the Minister for Justice has a legal education. That is good. But then one could also have expected an answer.
KU-notices and legal processes do not prevent the Minister for Justice from answering reasonable questions from Members of Parliament, who exercise the oversight power that is one of the Riksdag's important tasks. We shall simply ensure that the government behaves, is fit to govern, and follows law and justice. It is one of the Riksdag's important tasks.
I am asking questions to the Minister of Justice and would like to have answers.
The first question is whether the Minister has received information regarding the various security issues linked to Henrik Landerholm.
The second question concerns the fact that the Prime Minister has previously stated that he has received information regarding the misplaced secret documents. When did the Minister for Justice receive that information?
The third question is whether the minister had full knowledge of Landerholm's mistakes when the Prime Minister made the assessment that these serious mistakes should not be reported to the police.
The fourth question is whether the minister, within their area of responsibility, had confidence in Henrik Landerholm.
The answer we received was that the minister received no information other than via general news reporting regarding these questions. In that case, I feel very worried as an elected representative who is supposed to maintain the oversight of the government. We thus have a Justice Minister who received no information about a serious security breach in the government and who only received information via general news reporting about something that seriously damaged the Swedish government and Sweden as a country. The only information the Justice Minister, who sits in the government, received came from general news reporting. That is, of course, extremely serious in itself.
Furthermore, the Minister for Justice came here and answered questions posed to the Prime Minister in a matter concerning the Prime Minister's performance of duties without having obtained any information whatsoever beyond that which appears in general news reporting. Even that, Madam Speaker, is very serious. It is disrespectful towards the Riksdag as an institution. It is disrespectful towards the laws and rules that govern our democracy. I actually expected a bit more from the Minister for Justice.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the opportunity to discuss these issues here in the chamber once again!
A central question posed in the interpellation is at what point in time I became aware of the circumstances in question. They were also raised in a previous interpellation to the Prime Minister, which I very much did come here and answer.
The straight answer to the question is that knowledge of the events – Henrik Landerholm himself proactively raised some of them – I received in connection with the news reporting on this. Then it is clear that I have also been informed that the questions have been handled by the security department at the Government Offices. They have assessed the questions that are raised in connection with this.
I still want to return to one of the fundamental issues in the interpellation, which concerns whether I have had any kind of prior information. That is, after all, what lies behind the question about the timing? I have not had that. On the other hand, it is clear that when the questions were actualized, I, like others, received information on how the questions were handled in the Government Offices. The answer is well-known at this point. The questions were handled by the security department at the Government Offices.
The security advisor was furthermore a civil servant employed within the Government Offices, not the Ministry of Justice. That the matter is handled in the Government Offices is, in my opinion, fundamentally very reasonable.
Regarding the questions of confidence, there is also a rather natural answer, since it did not involve a civil servant whom I was the head of. It was not a civil servant whom I had responsibility for at the department that I head. Furthermore, the civil servant has completed their service in the Government Offices. Therefore, I mean that questions of confidence in that sense are moot.
If Patrik Björck, however, wonders how the cooperation with the national security advisor functioned within my areas of responsibility during the time he held his position, the answer is that it functioned perfectly.
The background to the interpellation is fundamentally different. Questions of confidence in general are moot because the person in question is no longer employed at the Government Offices.
Let me go back to the somewhat sweeping claims about legal grounds and the one with the third. I myself have never put forward any legal grounds as a basis for which questions I answer or do not. What stirred up emotions a bit for the interpellor last time was, as I understand it, the fact that in my answer I informed, which is not particularly odd, that a legal review of the case is ongoing. The Committee on the Constitution is also reviewing the matter. This I said informatively, and one might still say that these are facts that are difficult to argue against.
Against that background, I have, of course, answered questions both last time I was here and now. If Patrik Björck is not satisfied with the answers, that is another matter. But it is clear that I am answering the questions.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the fact that I am now slowly but surely beginning to receive answers to my questions.
The Minister of Justice has had an excellently functioning cooperation with the security advisor. I have received an answer on that now. I did not get to know that from the written answer. I have also received an answer that the Minister of Justice has been made aware of and has been informed in the matter by the Government Offices. I did not get an answer on that in the written answer. It is therefore coming slowly but surely, bit by bit, here.
Then come some strange claims from the Minister for Justice, Madam Speaker. He says that the questions are handled in the Government Offices and not at the Ministry of Justice, and that he is not the superior of the person in question. But I originally posed questions to the Prime Minister precisely because the questions had been handled in the Government Offices and because he was the superior of the security advisor. The Prime Minister then sent the Minister for Justice here without any information, knowledge, or preparation in the matter.
It is the attitude towards the Riksdag that is strange. To come here and say "I cannot answer the questions because I am not the manager for this person, this is not handled at my department and I have not been informed on the questions" is not serious, Madam Speaker.
Then we have the statement on whether the question of confidence is relevant or not. I assert that the question is very important in order to be able to assess the government's fitness for office. That is what the Riksdag does through its power of oversight over the government. Furthermore, it is not particularly important whether the minister thinks the questions that Members of Parliament ask are good or bad. That is not decided by the minister. Ministers do not choose which questions they receive in the Swedish Riksdag; instead, they are expected to answer the questions that the members ask.
I would like to correct the Minister for Justice a little. Fortunately, I had with me the minutes from our previous debate. The Minister for Justice says that he has in no way referred to any legal problems with answering questions. Let me read aloud from the parliamentary minutes, where Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer said the following: ”I note initially that a legal process is currently underway regarding this. I cannot anticipate that process and can therefore also not comment further on a number of the questions that have been asked. I can also note that a review of this will subsequently be carried out by the Committee on the Constitution.”
It is very, very difficult, Madam Speaker, to interpret it in any other way than that the Minister for Justice, in the same way as the Prime Minister, is trying to hide behind the fact that a legal process is ongoing when the Minister for Justice stands here and is to answer questions from us Members of Parliament. This was a direct quote from the parliamentary protocol. The parliamentary protocol is public, so everyone listening to the debate can state whether it is I or the Minister for Justice who is right. We can leave this there.
Why is it so important for us to figure out what has happened during the government meetings and how people have spoken to each other about this extremely important issue? An issue that immediately leads to the security advisor having to resign, to a preliminary investigation being initiated, and to an indictment being filed is not just any issue. This is, therefore, supposed to be something that has only been handled at the civil servant level and that the government has not discussed or talked about at all.
Is the government completely unaware that Swedish security is being torpedoed? If so, it creates a great sense of unease. Now, I do believe that both the Minister for Justice and the Prime Minister have greater knowledge about this than they admit here in the chamber. But not answering questions correctly is also not good.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! No, I do not, of course, value the questions that are asked by Members of Parliament, regardless of whether they are asked by Patrik Björck or someone else. That is the first thing.
Secondly, I answer them to the best of my ability.
Thirdly, it concerned the vote of confidence. Now, this question was posed to me and concerned my confidence. In that case, it is not unreasonable that I refer to different circumstances that are relevant to the question posed to me today, and that is also what I have done.
Then it was a question of the legal basis. If words are to have a certain precision, as it is called – and they usually have a certain precise meaning – I do not think it is particularly strange that in my answer I informed that a legal review is ongoing. I did not do that in this answer but in the previous debate.
I also do not think it feels particularly spectacular that it is in the way that over the years one has related to the Committee on the Constitution's various reviews and that one can also read out a recommendation regarding a certain restraint among ministers in relation to circumstances that are subject to legal proceedings. I even believe that if one looks back in time, one can find a Minister for Justice under whom all relevant authorities are sorted – in this case a prosecutor's office handling the indictment and eventually the courts that are to examine the issues – who also observed an extra large restraint in relation to the issues, which is not unreasonable. Furthermore, the Committee on the Constitution has paused its review of the matter with reference to the legal review.
I want to emphasize that I have not claimed that it is impossible for me to answer a number of the questions that have been raised either today or previously. For that reason, I believe that a certain restraint is appropriate.
Regarding the KU, Patrik Björck and another member in the chamber who participated in the debate around the issue were twisted the last time we met. In light of that, and also what was read before, I want to emphasize that I did not, with reference to the ongoing KU investigation, mean that I could not answer questions. I merely stated, which is a reality, that several of the questions that were raised, particularly in the previous exchange of remarks, are also subjects of the Committee on the Constitution's investigation.
I answered several questions then, and I am answering several questions today. I do so because the questions are asked, and I answer them to the best of my ability.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! We can observe that we seem to be in agreement once again that there are no obstacles for the Minister for Justice to answer the questions. Therefore, the Minister for Justice is not answering the questions because he cannot answer them. This means that the Minister for Justice, as the responsible person here – the government is indeed collectively responsible for its work – and also responsible for the Prime Minister's performance of duties, because the Minister for Justice comes here and answers questions that are addressed to the Prime Minister, i.e., is not informed about these very important questions.
He has no idea at all that Swedish security is being torpedoed. The Prime Minister has no idea. The Minister for Justice has no idea. This is just allowed to continue. Then, suddenly, a journalist finds out about this. In this situation, it is discovered that these issues have not been registered at the Government Offices. Everything has been handled haphazardly for a couple of years before the media does its job. They do the job that the Minister for Justice or the Prime Minister perhaps should have done. They should have had their administration in order and kept the government in order.
Furthermore, Sweden is currently in an extremely serious security policy situation. In that case, one cannot simply say: "This was not important. It was nothing I should have known about." The Minister for Justice or the Prime Minister could at least have said that it was very unfortunate that they could not answer the questions, because they should have been able to answer them. It is quite obvious that these are questions that they should have had knowledge of.
Now we know that neither the Minister for Justice nor the Prime Minister had any knowledge whatsoever of the serious situation. It is serious.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! It is quite true that we find ourselves in a serious security situation. Perhaps also the issues we are discussing are of that nature, such that they deserve to be treated with a certain seriousness. Without going into all the individual details in the posts that Patrik Björck has made here, it can be said that every individual part perhaps does not live up to the precision that the seriousness of the questions deserves.
Patrik Björck also puts quite a few words in my mouth, such as that this should be unimportant or lack significance, which I have, of course, never claimed. It is a reality that the circumstances and events we are talking about have been the subject of a preliminary investigation and that an indictment has been filed. This naturally underscores that the questions we are talking about are in no way unimportant, and that I have also never claimed.
Regarding the ongoing legal proceedings in this case, and for that matter other ongoing legal proceedings, there is naturally no absolute prohibition in the Instrument of Government against commenting on individual ongoing cases. But this does not differ from other ongoing legal cases. For those who read the Committee on the Constitution's reviews in this area, it is obvious that ministers are expected to observe a degree of restraint in relation to ongoing legal proceedings. In that respect, this case does not differ, at least when it comes to my exercise of office, from how I have handled almost all other ongoing legal cases. One maintains an appropriate distance in order not to comment on circumstances that are subject to legal review.
Regarding the Committee on the Constitution, I note that the issues we are now discussing will be subject to a review and an examination by the committee. I have never, neither today nor previously, claimed that that review prevents me from standing here in the chamber or answering the questions that are asked here. Then it is a different matter if the member is not satisfied with my answers. But I have answered the questions that have been asked today, and I have done so with pleasure.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.