Response to interpellation 2025/26:140 on the Government Offices' disclosure of documents
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 principle of public access is a cornerstone of democracy and that requests for documents should be handled promptly 1. M notes that the Government Offices have conducted an investigation and taken measures to create better robustness in the handling 1. M explains that delays are due to complicated confidentiality assessments, high workload, and weekends 2. M argues that everyone in the Government Offices takes part in the support material to meet expectations of openness 3. M argues that it is important to maintain transparency and meet expectations for prompt handling 4. M argues that workload and confidentiality assessments have caused delays even for the Prime Minister and State Secretaries 4. S argues that the Prime Minister's office deliberately and systematically delayed the release of documents 5. S considers that the Prime Minister's handling appears as a sham maneuver to avoid responsibility 5. S wants to know which investigation has been conducted at the Government Offices to get to the bottom of what falls outside JO's area of supervision 6. S considers it to be the Prime Minister's responsibility to answer questions about his office 6.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Laila Naraghi has submitted a number of questions to the Prime Minister on the grounds that Dagens Nyheter, DN, has submitted complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen – the Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO – against the Cabinet Office and the Government Offices. The questions concern whether the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office, or the Government Offices have conducted any investigation into what is presented in the complaint and which falls outside the JO's supervisory responsibility. Laila Naraghi asks what such an investigation, if it has been conducted, has concluded, and, if an investigation has not been conducted, what is the reason for that. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
First, I can state that the principle of public access is a cornerstone of Swedish democracy and public administration. Transparency in public activities is intended to counter the abuse of power. A request to access public documents shall therefore be handled promptly.
Such a request is examined within the department that holds the document. DN's report to JO covers seven cases concerning documents that were held at the Statsrådsberedningen and the administrative department. JO has previously requested that the Government Offices conduct an investigation and comment on what is presented in the report. The Government Offices have also conducted such an investigation.
In the statement to JO, the Government Offices point out that the experiences from this period have been followed up and have led to measures being taken in order to create better robustness in the handling of surrender cases. Training initiatives for employees are being carried out, and support materials are being developed or reviewed to facilitate the processing. These initiatives generally apply to the handling of surrender cases, that is, they encompass documents that fall both within and outside JO's area of supervision.
Against this background, there are currently no grounds to carry out any further investigation.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! AB Dagens Nyheter has, in a complaint, submitted a grievance to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, JO, against the Government Offices and the Government Offices. The whole matter concerns how the Prime Minister's Office has handled a journalistic request for the disclosure of documents in the review of the Prime Minister's childhood friend Henrik Landerholm. He was previously a security advisor but has, as is known, left that post.
It has concerned very long waiting times for DN to receive documents according to the principle of public access. JO has requested that the Government Offices and the Government Council conduct an investigation and comment on what is presented in the report. JO's supervision, however, does not cover the government or individual ministers, so JO is prevented from reviewing Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson and State Secretary Johan Stuart. It falls instead upon the Riksdag in accordance with the Instrument of Government.
Mr. Speaker! It thus falls upon the Riksdag itself to carry out the review that JO finds impossible to perform within the scope of the supervision it has decided to initiate. Therefore, I submitted an interpellation to the Prime Minister in his capacity as head of both the Statsrådsberedningen and the Regeringskansliet. In the interpellation, the question was raised as to whether the Prime Minister, the Statsrådsberedningen, or the Regeringskansliet has conducted any investigation into that which is presented in the report to JO but which thus falls outside JO's supervisory responsibility and concerns the parts that it is up to us in the Riksdag to review, and, if such an investigation has been conducted, what it concluded and what measures have been taken.
Mr. Speaker! According to the Minister for Justice's answer, no investigation has been conducted regarding that which falls outside the JO's supervision. The question then becomes: Who made that decision? Is it the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State?
Mr. Speaker! It does appear from the Minister for Justice's response that educational initiatives for employees are being carried out and support materials are being prepared or reviewed to facilitate the processing, and that this applies to cases that fall both within and outside JO's area of supervision.
The Minister of Justice's answer was very brief, so I must ask for clarifications on who participates in these educational initiatives and who prepares and receives these support materials. Has the Prime Minister received them? Has the State Secretary received them? Have their politically recruited staff members participated in the educational initiatives and received the support materials?
Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the Minister for Justice asserts that the principle of public access is a cornerstone of Swedish democracy and the public administration. Transparency in public activities is intended to counteract the abuse of power. A request to access public documents must therefore be handled promptly. It is good that the Minister for Justice says this, but it is also a matter of living up to it.
I have myself experience of good cooperation with Gunnar Strömmer, and I appreciate the Minister for Justice. I have expressed that previously. Since it is now the Minister for Justice's responsibility to answer, I assume that the Riksdag can receive answers regarding what it is up to us to examine.
Who made the decision that that which concerned the Prime Minister's and the State Secretary's management and leadership of the Prime Minister's Office – that is, the Government Offices – should be exempted from the investigation?
Who has participated in the educational initiatives and received the support material that has been mentioned?
Who produces these trainings and this support material?
Have the Prime Minister and his staff received part of this?
Mr. Speaker! I hope that our exchange here today can be concrete and constructive so that we in the Riksdag can fulfill our task of scrutinizing the government in accordance with the Instrument of Government.
I hope that we can avoid the twists and turns that the Prime Minister and his staff have previously shown towards both Dagens Nyheter and us in the Riksdag, and I hope that we can have the type of constructive exchange that the Minister for Justice and I have been able to have previously.
Since these questions fall outside the JO's review and it falls upon us members of parliament to examine them, I ask the Minister for Justice to answer the simple, concrete four questions I have now posed.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Laila Naraghi, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
Regarding that which is covered by JO's review, i.e., the handling that took place in the Government Offices minus that which concerns the Prime Minister and his State Secretary, the overall conclusion in the opinion is that it should have been answered more quickly, and several circumstances are pointed out that hindered prompt handling.
It was complicated confidentiality reviews, high workload and intervening holidays – it was around a Christmas holiday. Fundamentally, it was the same reasons why the disclosures regarding the Prime Minister and the State Secretary took time. That is the entire background.
The same handling and the same circumstances are the explanation for why even requests for documents were not handled with sufficient promptness. There are reasonable explanations, but there is also a recognition that it is of course urgent that it happens promptly.
Even though there are quite reasonable explanations, such as extensive confidentiality reviews, high workload and intervening holidays, it still should have been answered faster. In light of this, one can state that there is nothing more to investigate there, if I may put it that way. Fundamentally, it is the same circumstances.
Regarding the questions about the other matters, i.e., the points raised concerning who received the information and support material and who prepared it, it is as far as I know that the administrative department in the Ministry for Government Affairs prepares it. It is clear that everyone there who is affected by the disclosures receives that material. I am certain that we in other parts of the Government Offices will also be able to access the support material, as it is in everyone's interest to be able to meet those types of requests in a prompt manner.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the partial answers! I note that I did not receive full answers to the questions, so I will repeat them here.
It is troublesome that the questions are not answered completely. However, it is perhaps not surprising, as this has until now not been the Minister for Justice's responsibility. The Minister for Justice is, as is known, the head of the Ministry of Justice. He is not the head of the Government Offices or the Prime Minister's Office. He does not even work there, Mr. Speaker, and has until now not been involved in the national security scandal, which has many layers and parameters.
Since it is the Minister for Justice whom the Prime Minister has now called upon to answer questions here, it is here that I must follow up on the questions. That is how the order is.
Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Minister for Justice is not responsible for the preparation procedures at the Prime Minister's Office or the administrative department. I have worked at the Government Offices myself, so I have a relatively good picture of the organizational chart and the distribution of responsibilities. But now, as has been said, it is the Minister for Justice who is here.
I want this to be said: This appears to be yet another of Kristersson's feints to avoid responsibility and scrutiny in these issues, as in so many others, and as if some party strategist has decided that the more popular Gunnar Strömmer should handle this. It thus becomes the Minister for Justice who has to handle the Prime Minister's mess.
Mr. Speaker! Kristersson's handling is troublesome, to say the least. AB and Dagens Nyheter have, in a complaint to the JO, put forward extensive complaints against the Statsrådsberedningen and the Regeringskansliet.
It is a fact that the Prime Minister's Office has significantly delayed the release of documents to Dagens Nyheter, and this appears to be deliberate and systematic.
Mr. Speaker! Dagens Nyheter has reported that their requests regarding the matters were delayed. These are, therefore, matters concerning the Prime Minister's best friend – the childhood friend and former security advisor Henrik Landerholm.
To quote Dagens Nyheter's editor-in-chief Peter Wolodarski: ”Everything was delayed. It could take weeks to receive public documents, which the newspaper requested based on the principle of public access. The delay was so remarkable that it appeared as if the scrutiny was being outright opposed. To test this hypothesis, DN sent a new, similar request – but under the fictitious name Simon. Nothing was said about Dagens Nyheter. This time, the documents arrived within two days. And they were delivered digitally. For DN's journalists, the corresponding request took between 30 and 46 days. The material was then printed on paper, not as is customary digitally, and had to be collected during limited opening hours.”
Peter Wolodarski notes that the government has thrown sand in DN's scrutiny machinery when it comes to Henrik Landerholm. This, Mr. Speaker, is troubling, to say the least – I will not exaggerate. The Government Offices have obviously and deliberately had completely different procedures for the disclosure of documents to DN and to the fictitious person Simon. It appears obvious that the Prime Minister and his colleagues intended to sabotage DN's scrutiny of the Prime Minister's best friend Henrik Landerholm.
I repeat the questions for which we seek answers and which it is therefore up to the Riksdag to examine, as they fall outside the JO's supervision:
Who made the decision that the matters concerning the Prime Minister's and the Secretary of State's governance and management of the Prime Minister's Office – that is, the Government Offices – should be exempted from the investigation?
Who has participated in the educational initiatives and received the support material that has been developed to improve the routines? I perceive that I received answers to that, in part. I also perceive that I received an answer to the third question regarding who develops these trainings and support materials, so that question can be set aside.
Have the Prime Minister, his State Secretary, and his closest staff also been made aware of this? I did not receive a clear answer there.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! The simple explanation for why the Prime Minister's State Secretary is not even part of the whole and is not included in the JO's opinion is, as said, that JO's review does not reach them. That is the answer as to why they are not included in the opinion, but it naturally does not mean that one has not internally looked at the whole.
I would like to repeat the circumstances presented in the statement to the JO, namely that, overall in the handling of these issues, it was of course important to meet requests from the outside world, but that it was a complicated secrecy assessment, a high workload, and intervening weekends.
It may certainly vary depending on the requests exactly which circumstances affect which documents and so on, but fundamentally, these are the circumstances also regarding the handling of the Prime Minister's and the State Secretary's documents.
Regarding the part concerning the Government Offices in general and which has been reviewed by the JO, I think it is important to emphasize that it is accepted that, despite these circumstances, it should have been handled more promptly. This applies, of course, also to the Prime Minister and his State Secretary.
I agree that it is legitimate for the Riksdag to have this discussion. We are having it today, and I have also understood that the Prime Minister has been reported to the Committee on the Constitution, where I imagine these issues will also be discussed. This, I think, is of course completely legitimate.
Regarding the precision of my answers concerning supporting material and other matters, I still think I was precise. It is clear that if such information and supporting material is produced in the Government Offices, everyone will take part in it, regardless of whether one is part of the civil service organization or part of a political staff or otherwise. I think that is very wise because we all, in our different roles, should contribute to meeting the world's legitimate expectations for openness and transparency as promptly as possible and disclose documents in cases where it is right and proper.
Laila Naraghi (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that the Minister for Justice says that what is presented in the investigation that has been submitted to the JO also applies to the Prime Minister and his State Secretary. I note this, but I shall have to read the minutes properly so that I perceive it correctly. The Minister for Justice may otherwise be welcome to clarify.
I am well aware that this falls outside the response that the Government Offices have sent to the JO because the JO does not review the Prime Minister or the State Secretaries. That was what I began by saying. It is stated in the interpellation. That is why we from the Riksdag want to know what investigation has been conducted at the Government Offices to get to the bottom of what falls outside the JO's area of supervision, namely the Prime Minister, his State Secretary, and the political staff. I am well aware of this. It is clear. But it is good if it is the case that the Minister for Justice admits that the self-criticism that the Government Offices express and tell the JO about also applies to the Prime Minister and his State Secretary. We shall look further into this. I believe that is the case – I will look carefully at the protocol and study what the Minister for Justice says here – that we simply have to return with questions to the Prime Minister regarding this.
Regarding the fact that this is also being prepared in the Committee on the Constitution, that is correct. But a broad public may have taken note of the fact that the possibility of scrutinizing this is being blocked by the Justice Minister's own party. The questions regarding the security scandal surrounding Henrik Landerholm have been pushed into the future, even though there are questions that are possible to scrutinize. That is why we are now resorting to this method of interpellations.
We simply have to return to this. I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Minister for Justice does not once again lend himself to this type of occasion, because it is the Prime Minister who should be standing here and answering questions about his chancellery, which he leads. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility, and the Swedish population deserves answers.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Laila Naraghi, for the opportunity to discuss important issues here today!
I would like to repeat that it is very important to maintain transparency and openness and to meet the media's and others' legitimate expectations in a prompt manner for such prompt a handling as is possible of requests when it concerns documents of various kinds being released.
I also gladly repeat that even though the Prime Minister and his State Secretary fall outside the JO's review and thus are not affected by the statement that has been submitted in the matter, I see that the circumstances mentioned there – that is, the workload, the intervening holidays and the complicated secrecy assessment in some cases – are what fundamentally caused the delays also when it comes to the release of the documents concerning the Prime Minister and the State Secretary. But I emphasize again the insight that despite those circumstances, which in themselves are reasonable, the handling should have occurred even more promptly. The administrative department acknowledges that in its statement regarding that handling, and it is easy to acknowledge even when it concerns the Prime Minister and his State Secretary.
We naturally also welcome a discussion on this. I am here today. As far as I understand, a review of the whole matter will also take place in the Committee on the Constitution. I think that is reasonable and correct, given that the questions are of principle and practical importance. I am sure that both Laila Naraghi and others will get more opportunities to return to these important issues 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.