Response to interpellation 2025/26:582 on access to security-sensitive facilities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government has strengthened the protection of security-sensitive activities through new legislation that gives supervisory authorities greater power to intervene in unsuitable contractual conditions 1. M argues that increased reporting requirements reduce risks of illegal labor 1 2 and that the need for security protection has increased due to foreign powers' intelligence gathering, the expansion of the total defense, and the Nato membership 2. M argues that security protection is being expanded to secure Sweden's functionality and counter sabotage 2. M considers that it has been a serious problem in several places 3 and that the focus now should be on implementing the new legislation 3. 4 S argues that the government lacks a unified national situation picture and a clear risk assessment of unauthorized labor 4. 5 S argues that crime in the labor market is a systemic threat and that it is important to know who is moving in critical operations 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.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Hanna Westerén has asked me how I and the government assess the security and defense policy risks of illegal or unregistered labor occurring in or in connection with security-sensitive facilities.
Hanna Westerén has also asked whether I and the government have a national situation assessment of the occurrence of unauthorized or uncontrolled labor within protected activities, and what it shows in such a case, as well as whether I and the government consider the current security protection and supervision to be sufficient, especially in complex contracting and subcontracting links, to ensure control over which individuals are granted access to these environments.
Hanna Westerén has furthermore asked what concrete measures I and the government intend to take to counter the exploitation of subcontracting chains to bypass security clearance requirements or enable the infiltration of operations of importance to the total defense, whether I and the government intend to tighten the requirements for control, follow-up, and responsibility for clients and operators within, for example, the energy sector, transport infrastructure, and industry-critical nodes, and how I and the government ensure that detected cases are not only handled as labor law or migration-related deviations but also analyzed from a security threat perspective and contribute to a coherent national threat and vulnerability picture.
The requirements for security protection are changing continuously in step with developments in the world around us and in the field of information technology. At the same time, there is an increase in security-sensitive activities conducted under private management and increased international cooperation. The deteriorating global situation places particularly high demands on the operators responsible for important functions in society, for example infrastructure as well as production and transport of necessary goods and services, and who continuously enter into agreements with other actors.
In recent times, situations have arisen where there has been a need to change or terminate contractual arrangements that have posed risks to Sweden's security, but where it has been shown that the contractual arrangement was not covered by the existing intervention possibilities in the Security Protection Act (2018:585).
Against this background, the government proposed in the bill Extended opportunities to intervene in security-sensitive activities (prop. 2025/26:182) new tools for the purpose of giving the supervisory authorities expanded opportunities to intervene in ongoing contractual and cooperative relationships that are deemed unsuitable from a security perspective. The proposal also gives the supervisory authority the opportunity to make temporary decisions in order to be able to intervene more quickly against contracts that are considered to pose risks to national security. On 1 July 2026, these legislative proposals entered into force.
The proposals also mean that the actors who carry out security-sensitive activities need to report to their supervisory authority that this type of sensitive agreement has been entered into. The operators may then be forced to carry out additional security assessments and suitability tests if the authorities consider it necessary in order to be able to assess whether the procedure is unsuitable from a security perspective. With these changes, the protection of security-sensitive activities in Sweden is strengthened. Thereafter, it falls to the relevant operators and supervisory authorities to ensure that the rules are complied with. The Swedish Security Service has produced various guidelines and information films aimed at providing support in the work of applying the security protection regulatory framework. The guidelines are directed at operators and are available on the authority's website.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Defence Pål Jonson, for the answer!
The background to my interpellation is simple. Sweden is in a serious security policy situation. We are building up the total defense, strengthening our preparedness, and investing large resources in protecting operations that are crucial for our country's security. At the same time, as I describe in the interpellation, many of these operations are built on extensive contracting and subcontracting chains. This applies to the energy sector, transport infrastructure, and other operations of great importance for Sweden's functioning and resilience. This means that many people daily move in or in connection with environments that can be security-sensitive.
My question to the Minister concerns what happens when people who should not be there are there anyway. Therefore, I ask how the government views the security and defense policy risks when illegal or unregistered labor occurs in or around security-sensitive operations. We know that this has occurred in Sweden on a number of occasions. I consider these to be reasonable questions, and I also think they are necessary questions in the situation we find ourselves in.
Pål Jonson's answer describes changes in the security protection legislation. Tools that the supervisory authorities have received and obligations that the operators have are reported. However, I am missing some answers.
I asked whether the government has a unified national overview of the occurrence of unauthorized or uncontrolled labor in protected activities and what such an overview shows, if it exists. I also asked how the government assesses the risks from a security perspective. But the answer from Pål Jonson does not state whether the government has such an overview, nor does it state whether there is any clear risk assessment.
Madam Speaker! In order to be able to assess whether the measures taken are sufficient, one must first know the extent of the problem. Therefore, I want to return to the central question: Does the government today have a consolidated national situation report on the occurrence of unauthorized or uncontrolled labor in security-sensitive activities? If such a national situation report exists, what does it show?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! It was also a rather long answer because there were six questions in the interpellation, which took some time to work through.
The interpellation concerns an important area, not least measures to counter different types of hybrid threats but also unlawful intelligence gathering. It hits exactly the Security Protection Act, which concerns the realm's security – or Sweden's security, as we now call it.
It is a growing problem with various threats, risks, and vulnerabilities when it comes to Swedish security, not least that foreign powers are increasing their intelligence gathering. But there can also be a risk of sabotage and terrorist attacks, so there are strong reasons.
I think Hanna Westerén's interpellation was even more pressing earlier. We have identified the same problem. We have also put new legislation in place, and I believe it will address much of the problem that Hanna Westerén is looking for.
When it comes to different assessments of the occurrence and volume, I do not have an exact agency task. What I have seen is an assessment of something like one case per year over the last decade. It has surely happened during the last year. Then it is difficult to assess what is a labor market issue – no one should work in different types of contracting activities without proper agreements – and what is covered by the security protection act. They are not two exactly identical things. But that being said, I have seen about ten cases during the last decade.
Then, naturally, the intelligence services perform what is called SÅB, the security intelligence annual assessment, in their security and threat assessment activities. But this is not reported openly; it is surrounded by secrecy due to foreign powers' great interest linked to this type of assessment. But to strengthen our ability to act against hybrid threats, we have – it is well known – powerfully reinforced both the intelligence and security services in Sweden for a long time.
Now we have, as we have said, new legislation in the area of security protection, which implies much greater authority for supervisory authorities to intervene where the problem that Hanna Westerén points out exists in different types of contractual changes. This legislation can also affect things that occurred before 2021, i.e., before the new security protection act entered into force. This is therefore a powerful instrument which hopefully will make it so that we will address many of the problems that Hanna Westerén points out.
What happens is that a security clearance is conducted in the usual manner. Then one can be classified from class 1 to class 3. In the usual manner, the Security Service can then be contacted, and one can naturally check criminal records and suspicion registers, a number of interviews and so on to ensure that persons who handle security-sensitive activities in different degrees also have the correct security clearance.
Madam Speaker! I just want to point out that I know that Hanna Westerén has previously submitted this interpellation, or a similar interpellation, to Carl-Oskar Bohlin. It was before the new legislation came into place, but the government saw the problem. The government acted by supplementing the security protection legislation, and since July 1, there is, as mentioned, new legislation in place which I believe will reduce the problem linked to security-sensitive activities and persons acting in areas where there is security-sensitive activity.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Pål Jonson, for the comprehensive answer! It sounds positive and encouraging for the future that there is more accurate legislation in place.
I believe it is important to pause for a few moments and really look at what it is we are talking about. The Minister has highlighted regulations, distribution of responsibility, and supervision, and that is incredibly important. But I believe we also must become clearer regarding the scope, i.e., how extensive this is.
I was previously active in the Committee on Taxation. Now I am active in the Committee on Defence. Even there, we spoke about crime in the working life and how system-threatening it is for our society as a whole. But if we talk about crime in the working life and unregistered labor in security-sensitive activities, we can all be very badly off.
I will give an example of what I am talking about. A very large producer of inputs or critical raw materials for all of us had labor that was located at a workplace under slave-like conditions. It is problematic for many reasons.
It is problematic from a purely human perspective, because no one should have to experience it that way. It is also problematic because it is insecure and dangerous for all of us that these conditions occur at, for example, an energy producer in this case. It is, as mentioned, also something that is system-threatening. We must have control over who is moving in Sweden in an intensified security policy situation, and we must, above all, have control over who is moving in critical operations.
I thought I heard Pål Jonson say that this is an increasing problem. That was somewhat what I also requested, namely an assessment of how things actually look, what it is we need to contend with, and what measures and steps need to be taken moving forward. In my previous committee work, it became very clear, as mentioned, that work-related crime is a threat to the system, but it is also extremely important within the defense area that we know who is moving on and around the facilities.
I would once again like to request and point out the importance of a unified national overview. Even though I received more answers than before, I still think the answers are vague. I consider it an important principle to be able to ensure that it is people with papers in order who are at workplaces. It is one thing in ordinary workplaces, but security-sensitive facilities are several levels higher.
When it comes to the overall national situation, I want to say once again that I mean it is important and urgent.
I am also wondering whether the Minister for Defence considers that we need to take more measures. Is there reason to further follow up on the potential security threat that could be posed by uncontrolled and unregistered labor at security-sensitive facilities?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! There is definitely an increased need to conduct security-sensitive activities, and that is due to a number of factors affected by this. One factor is naturally that foreign powers are increasing their intelligence gathering against Sweden. Säkerhetspolisen, Must, and FRA are very clear in their annual reports that the intelligence threat comes primarily from Russia but also to some extent from China and Iran, so we simply must adapt.
It is also the case that this type of activity expands in tandem with the total defense expanding geographically and in volume. We are in a historically large build-up of the total defense, and this is hitting several different areas. It will therefore naturally characterize many of the larger needs to be able to expand security protection to different degrees. We also have different measures to prevent bottlenecks in the build-up of a stronger security protection.
A third dimension is, naturally, the internationalization. By now that we are allies within Nato, we must also be able to exchange information that is sometimes security-sensitive. There is definitely an expansion linked to this.
When it comes to the presence of labor staying illegally within security-sensitive activities, the supervisory authorities have, through the new tools available since July 1 of this year, a greater ability to intervene and terminate contracts. Greater reporting requirements on the operator can also, I believe, reduce the risk of this.
Ultimately, it is naturally about the fact that good laws are not enough, but we must also have good application of the legislation. As we also point out, there are naturally also different manuals for how the security protection act should be applied and how the supervisory authorities can act obediently and powerfully.
Now, Hanna Westerén, we have in large parts touched upon what is called security-sensitive activity, that is to say, that which is most sensitive for Sweden's security and which can concern terrorism or espionage. When it comes to the functionality of society otherwise, we have what is called society-critical activity, and that can also affect other areas. It can concern energy, communications, and different types of payment systems.
I also want to emphasize that it is not only when it concerns security-sensitive activities but also within society-critical activities – the activities that are to ensure Sweden's functionality – that an expansion of the security protection is taking place.
There has been, for some years now, an EU piece of legislation concerning the protection of critical activities. It is a CER directive, which is a sector system. There, too, one should have a better possibility to be able to audit which persons are acting within the framework of society-critical activities. Also for that reason, different types of background checks and so on will be implemented.
Both within security-sensitive activities and socially important activities, a broader work is now being built up to ensure that that type of activity is not weakened due to, for example, the risk of sabotage or unauthorized intelligence gathering.
Hanna Westerén (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Defence Pål Jonson, for the opportunity to debate this!
I am now probably making my final contribution in the chamber, so I thank Pål Jonson for very rewarding and respectful debates. I thank the Speaker's Office and its staff for a fantastic job during the nearly twelve years that I have been a member.
To return to the interpellation, I also greatly appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic without in any way disclosing operational or classified information, but instead focusing on the shell protection and the protection of our important operations.
The Minister for Defence also makes a very important point regarding the fact that this will eventually not only concern the security-sensitive facilities. Eventually, we will probably talk about significantly more, because we are talking about critical societal activities that perhaps primarily are not defense activities but which are nevertheless so extremely important for securing the functionality of society. This will mean more to monitor and more to protect and thus also an incredibly strong focus on knowing who is moving in our facilities and at our workplaces so that everyone can feel safe.
Based on what Pål Jonson has accounted for, I wonder in conclusion: Was more needed? What more should we think about and consider when it comes to the protection of our security-sensitive operations? What more can we do? How can we secure our operations? Have I understood correctly that illegal labor and labor-related crime, from the Minister for Defence's perspective, constitute security threats?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I want to agree with Hanna Westerén: This has been a serious problem in a number of places around the country. I appreciate the interpellation and that this type of problem is being raised. This can have consequences for Sweden's security; on that, we agree.
I also want to emphasize that it was precisely with this basis that we presented new legislation, which we from the government's side are pleased that the Riksdag also adopted. We now have entirely new legislation since July 1st this year which is to some extent intended to address this problem, so let us give this a little more time than a month before we pursue new legislation again.
We must ensure that we implement the legislation that exists and that there are good guidelines and guidance so that it is easy to do the right thing in these contexts. We will also give the supervisory authorities the mandate and the resources they need. We can return to this if there should be reason for further measures.
With this said, I also want to thank Hanna Westerén for a number of interpellation debates in this chamber. I have always appreciated the constructive tone and Hanna Westerén's fine work also in the Defense Committee. I wish her warm luck in her continued endeavors!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.