Response to interpellation 2024/25:663 on the recruitment of a new national security adviser
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the recruitment of a new national security advisor. M argues that the recruitment of Henrik Landerholm has been reviewed without any inaccuracies or cronyism being established 1. M emphasizes that the function is in place as the national security council and its secretariat are established 1 2. M denies that the Prime Minister pulled strings regarding Tobias Thyberg 2 and claims that the security advisor himself stated that he did not want the job 3. M argues that the recruitment is proceeding with necessary diligence 3. S claims that the Prime Minister has not learned from previous failed recruitments and argues that the function is not in place as long as the advisor is missing 4 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 the Prime Minister if he has drawn any lessons from the previous recruitment of a national security advisor, if it has had any consequences that the position is not yet in place, and what factors influenced the recruitment process. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
The National Security Advisor assists the National Security Council and is responsible for the analysis, coordination, and direction of issues concerning national security. The Security Advisor also assists the Prime Minister in foreign and security policy matters and issues concerning national security. Given the mandate and the security policy situation, high requirements are placed on the Security Advisor's suitability, both from an operational perspective and from a security perspective. Since the Security Advisor participates in security-sensitive activities, a security clearance is conducted before he or she is employed.
The purpose of the security screening is to clarify whether the person can be assumed to be loyal to the interests protected in the Security Protection Act and otherwise reliable from a security perspective. In the screening, circumstances that may entail vulnerabilities in terms of security shall also be considered. The security screening shall be conducted through a holistic assessment based on a comprehensive basis.
After the completed recruitment of a new national security advisor, information emerged that could have significance for the security screening, which is why a follow-up security interview was scheduled. I cannot go into the more detailed assessments that were made in this case. I can, however, state that the person in question, before the follow-up interview had taken place, chose not to assume the position themselves.
The work within the National Security Council continues as before. It is a comprehensive and well-functioning organization led by the appointed National Security Advisor.
The Government Offices, of course, continuously monitor the security work in order to further develop it.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! I have submitted this interpellation to the Prime Minister. First and foremost, I regret that the Prime Minister will not come here and answer the interpellation. Now I have to debate it with the Minister for Justice instead, Madam Speaker. I assume that the Minister for Justice is well-versed in the issues and can answer all the questions that arise in the debate and that he does not try to evade questions by saying that he has no idea or does not know because he actually does not have responsibility for the subject.
After the brief introduction, I would like to remind everyone what this is about. It is about how the Prime Minister, after the scandal involving the former national security adviser, started the recruitment process to find a new person for the job. On Thursday, May 8, Tobias Thyberg, who had previously served as ambassador to, among other places, Afghanistan and Ukraine, was presented as the Prime Minister's new national security adviser. After a few hours, he chose to resign. The reason was that DN had asked questions about images of a sensitive nature and that the Government Offices were not supposed to have been informed about this.
The Prime Minister calls it a failure and sees it as an obvious conclusion that Tobias Thyberg cannot have the job as national security advisor. The previous failed recruitment was considered, among other things, to be a result of cronyism. This raises questions about what relationship the Prime Minister has with Tobias Thyberg. All of this means that there are many important questions to be sorted out. In my interpellation, I asked three questions.
My first question in the interpellation was: "Has the Prime Minister drawn any lessons from the previous recruitment, and if so, which ones?" There is not a single answer to that question. One of the things that was questioned during the previous recruitment was cronyism. What is the relationship between the Prime Minister and the outgoing security advisor in this case? Getting an answer to that question would make it easier to understand what lessons have been drawn. If there is no relationship whatsoever between them, it is an answer to the question of what lessons have been drawn.
My second question was: "In light of the fact that more than half of the parliamentary term has passed and that the Prime Minister has expressed that the function is important for Sweden's security, has it had any consequences that the function is not yet in place?" There is admittedly a hint of an answer, but it is definitely not sufficient. The answer to the question that one can possibly find is: "The work within the National Security Council continues as before. It is a comprehensive and well-functioning organization led by the appointed National Security Advisor."
So, there are no consequences of these two failed recruitments and that we have no one leading the work. Nevertheless, the Minister for Justice describes the national security adviser's function as assisting the national security council and assisting the Prime Minister in foreign and security policy issues and issues regarding national security. But that the function is not in place has no consequences whatsoever. It is a very strange answer from the Minister for Justice.
My third question was: "Which factors influenced the recruitment process?" The previous national security advisor resigned at the beginning of the year. Then a few months passed, and after that, the new failed recruitment was carried out. What is it that has influenced this? It has thus been necessary to get the function in place quickly, but this is contradicted by the fact that the function apparently has no significance. What is it that has influenced the process, which apparently has been rushed and hurried along, if at the same time you do not think that it has any significance at all whether the function is in place or not?
I am not getting any answers to my questions, Madam Speaker. This is a problem. But we can perhaps start by trying to clarify whether there has been any friendship between the Prime Minister and the outgoing security advisor Tobias Thyberg or not.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Patrik Björck for the questions.
Let us begin with the recruitment of Henrik Landerholm. That recruitment has been reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution, and it has been concluded that there were no inaccuracies. If Patrik Björck has his own views, I can do nothing about that. But I nevertheless rely to a much greater extent on what the Committee on the Constitution has to say on that issue. The allegations that Patrik Björck makes regarding cronyism may perhaps be put forward by an individual member here in the chamber, but it is not a criticism that the Committee on the Constitution has concluded. To the extent that we take these issues seriously, I think it is reasonable to proceed from this in that matter.
I have no closer knowledge of the personal relationship between the Prime Minister and Thyberg, but from what I know, nothing has emerged that suggests a personal relationship between the two of them previously. Tobias Thyberg is a highly regarded person who has held important roles in the Foreign Ministry under both Social Democratic and bourgeois governments. Among other things, he was appointed ambassador to Ukraine by the previous Social Democratic government. I believe that few have questioned his suitability in those respects.
What made him withdraw from this role was, as has also emerged here, information about images. This information had not appeared in the security briefing. He chose to step down himself before the follow-up conversation took place. That is what I want to say about that matter.
Then Patrik Björck repeats several times that the function is not in place. I would then like to emphasize that the function is very much in place. There is a national security council, and there is a secretariat. There is also a function that leads the secretariat.
It is quite true that a recruitment for the role has been ongoing since Henrik Landerholm's departure. But that does not mean that the function is not active. The function is maintained by an assistant national security advisor, and the daily work continues with the same intensity as since the day the function was established.
Regarding the claim that it would have been rushed, hurried through or something similar, it has been a very thorough process. Then, it is naturally unfortunate that it ended as it did. But it is also known what circumstances were such that it turned out in that way, that the person in question chose to withdraw from the role before he had practically taken office. That naturally means that a new advisor must be recruited. That work is ongoing at this moment.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice has in previous debates hidden behind the so-called KU review. What is interesting regarding friendship corruption and the former security advisor Landerholm was that it took an extremely long time for the Prime Minister to see the gravity of what was directed at Landerholm before he pulled the silk thread.
It took an extremely long time. It has been questioned, and it has been argued that the long time was due to cronyism. It is nothing that the KU has investigated, Madam Speaker. I just want those listening to this debate to find out about it.
What has caused friendship corruption to be highlighted once again is that it took an extremely long time for the Prime Minister, despite there being very strong indications, evidence, and information that Landerholm was not suitable for the role. It went month, after month, after month. Many have stated that it probably was due to friendship corruption.
When it comes to Thyberg, we learn that nothing has emerged regarding friendship corruption. No, I don't think so either. It only took the Prime Minister a few hours to pull the silk thread when it came to Thyberg. Many have questioned whether it was reasonable to draw such conclusions as the Prime Minister did regarding what could have been held against Thyberg.
What was placed on Landerholm was heavy. It was truly important. That is why it is exciting to find out that if a person does not have a friendship relationship with the Prime Minister, the smallest little detail in the context can cause one to pull the silk thread without actually thinking.
But if, as in the Landerholm case, one has solid evidence that the person in question is actually not suitable, it takes months of journalistic investigation before the prosecutor files charges, and then you pull the silk thread.
It is clear that there is an enormous difference between how the Prime Minister acted in the case where there has been a documented friendship and the case where the Minister for Justice now says that there was not such a friendship. That is why it is interesting to clarify how the Prime Minister acts when there is a deep friendship and when there is no friendship.
Now the Minister for Justice has noted that there is a great difference in the different processes. In one, there was the deep friendship. There, the Prime Minister acted in a certain way. In the other, where there was no friendship relationship, it went very quickly and, according to many, perhaps even thoughtlessly before the employment relationship was terminated.
It matters for what one does and how one expresses oneself, and it has not been scrutinized by KU. There is a KU report that will be processed within KU. The Prime Minister's actions in connection with all these facts coming to light have not been scrutinized by KU. It is not true. It is not correct.
We will have to see what the KU review eventually concludes. We will have that debate when it is on the table. It is not at all impossible that I will submit an interpellation in connection with that happening.
Here and now, we have observed that no lessons have been drawn from the previous recruitment. We have received no answer on that. We have also received no answer regarding which factors have influenced the recruitment process.
Then there is the question of whether the function is in place. It is in place, says the Minister for Justice. But it cannot be in place if the person who is to lead and coordinate the work at the National Security Council has not been recruited. Then it cannot be considered to be in place.
If the position is intended to support the Prime Minister in important security policy issues and the advisor has not yet been recruited, one cannot claim that the function is in place.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck is throwing himself into it in a customary manner with words like friendship corruption. If it is to be about that, there must be a corrupt friendship at the bottom.
That question has, after all, been examined by the Committee on the Constitution, which has concluded that the recruitment of Henrik Landerholm was not characterized by any such circumstances that resulted in any errors during that recruitment. Therefore, I think it is difficult to assert that there should be a corrupt friendship at the bottom.
What assessments were made by the Government Offices' security department and administrative department regarding the previous security advisor are, naturally, questions that must be answered by them.
Then it was mentioned that one was pulling the silk thread. In that regard, as the questions are serious and should be taken seriously, something that I nevertheless perceive in some sense is said between the lines by Patrik Björck, it is important to stick to the truth.
Patrik Björck claims that the Prime Minister pulled a silk thread. The fact is that the national security advisor in question himself has said that he chose to terminate the employment himself. This occurred before a follow-up security conversation had taken place.
That means that the entire claim that the Prime Minister has pulled a silk thread and has treated one person differently than the other is a completely incorrect starting point for the discussion.
Let us go to the source, to the person who is affected, and trust what that person says about what has and has not happened in this case, because for the event we now have a substantive interest in discussing these issues in a correct way.
Regarding the function, since that was the word used, the national security council is established. There is an office linked to the council that has also been established for a long time. It is led in the daily work by a head, and that is also happening now.
It is clear that it is important that a regular head arrives on site as soon as possible. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. But it is not the case that there is no function, that there is no security council, that there is no office assisting the council, and that there is no assisting national security advisor.
That work is ongoing. It is also quite essential to describe it in a correct way. That being said, it is naturally the government's endeavor to have a regular person in that role as soon as possible. That work is ongoing.
Patrik Björck (S)
Madam Speaker! When one speaks of a silk cord, it is an expression for ensuring that a person leaves a task. It is about a person with power ensuring that a subordinate leaves their position.
If the Prime Minister says: A self-evident conclusion is that he cannot have that job, is a subordinate employee's self-evident insight: If my highest boss publicly says that I obviously cannot have this job, then I cannot stay.
I do not know exactly how it went from a labor law perspective when the employment was terminated. I do not even know if the employment is terminated, or if the employment perhaps remains at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I cannot handle the labor law part of this. The Minister for Justice can certainly account for that in his concluding remarks.
When the Prime Minister so quickly and so clearly goes public and says that the obvious conclusion is that he cannot hold that job, then there is no possibility for a national security advisor appointed by the government and the Prime Minister to remain in that position. We must be able to agree on that, surely.
It is the Prime Minister who has pulled the strings. Some reports in the press say that at the UD, terms like "thrown under the bus" are used, or whatever imagery one wants to use when the Prime Minister makes it clear to a subordinate employee that he is not suitable and that it is a self-evident conclusion that he cannot have the job.
It is clear that the Prime Minister must take responsibility for that. It may be the case that the purely labor law basis is different. But it is obvious that it is the Prime Minister's responsibility that this person has announced that he no longer holds his position. It is not possible to interpret it in any other way.
It is just a pity that the Prime Minister is not here, taking this debate and taking it seriously. But we will well have the opportunity to return.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! The big problem is, of course, not that the issue would not be serious. It is. It is also not a problem that the Prime Minister would not take the issue seriously. He does.
Right here and now, the big problem is that Patrik Björck is not providing correct information in this discussion. One can certainly have different perceptions of the weight of the statements that the Prime Minister made, but he nevertheless made the statements the day after the national security advisor himself had announced that he did not want the job. It happened, as I can remember, on the night of a Friday – if I am not mistaken – and the Prime Minister then had to comment on this during that Friday.
This matter regarding the silk cord means, as Patrik Björck himself says, that a person who is superior or holds a position of power in practice fires someone. But the statements that Patrik Björck cites in support of that thesis were, therefore, made after this person himself decided that he did not want the job. This occurred before a follow-up security meeting, which certainly could have created a certain clarity regarding the circumstances, had taken place.
Let us gladly return to the questions. I hope that the Committee on the Constitution does so with greater clarity and possibly also with a somewhat stronger sense of adhering to correct circumstances and laying them as the basis for its assessments.
I have today, in any case, clarified several important matters. Previous recruitments have been reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution, and there are no formal errors. That has been able to be pointed out. The current function is in place, and the work is ongoing. There is also an ongoing recruitment of a new permanent person. It is, of course, important for the government to complete this expeditiously, but without for that reason's sake compromising the thoroughness that this type of process requires.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.