Response to interpellations 2024/25:527 and 534 regarding the Prime Minister's role in the handling of the situation surrounding the national security advisor

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Patrik Björck and Annika Hirvonen have submitted a number of questions to the Prime Minister concerning the former national security adviser.

The interpellations have been handed over to me.

I note initially that a legal process is currently underway regarding this. I cannot anticipate that process and can therefore 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 of the Riksdag.

Regarding the confidence in the former national security advisor, I note that this person has left their employment, why the question is no longer relevant.

When it comes to the recruitment of a new national security advisor, I cannot anticipate that process here. It can, however, be noted that the previous appointment was reviewed by the Committee on the Constitution in the spring of 2023, and a unanimous committee then found that there had been no deficiencies in that handling.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Björck (S)

Madam Speaker! My interpellation regarding the Prime Minister's actions in connection with what has prompted an indictment against one of his close associates was thus addressed to the Prime Minister. It read as follows:

"Now, the former national security advisor Henrik Landerholm has been indicted for negligence regarding a secret task by grossly negligently and unlawfully disclosing information concerning matters of a secret nature, the disclosure of which to a foreign power could cause harm to Sweden's security. Day by day, new alarming facts emerge in the Landerholm scandal. To this point, the Prime Minister has answered vaguely and briefly to the questions asked in connection with this affair. It is now time for the Prime Minister to fulfill his duty toward the Riksdag and actually come prepared to the chamber and account for how much he knew in the matter and when he became aware of the security debacle."

Now the Prime Minister has refused to appear in the chamber. He is therefore not fulfilling his duty towards the Riksdag. The Prime Minister is chicken out, Madam Speaker. It is remarkable and disappointing.

The questions I had intended to ask the Prime Minister are as follows:

When did the Prime Minister receive information about the various security problems linked to Henrik Landerholm?

The Prime Minister has previously stated that he received information about the misplaced secret documents. But did the Prime Minister receive information about the forgotten phone and the forgotten notebook, and could there have occurred other incidents of the same nature that the Prime Minister has been informed about?

Did the Prime Minister have full knowledge of Landerholm's mistakes when the Prime Minister made the assessment not to report these serious mistakes to the police?

The recruitment of Landerholm has received much and justified criticism, but what were the conditions for Landerholm to manage his heavy assignment? Was there a structure surrounding the national security advisor, or did the Prime Minister and his State Secretary fail to build up an organization that corresponded to the seriousness of the task?

Has the Prime Minister continued to have confidence in Henrik Landerholm?

It was these questions I had intended for the Prime Minister to answer. They are important questions, but the Prime Minister is failing in his duty and his obligation towards the Riksdag and is instead sending the Minister for Justice. It might have been acceptable if the Minister for Justice had been briefed on the matter and actually answered the questions. But it is quite obvious that the Minister for Justice has not been prepared for this debate, at least not when it comes to these questions, or else the Minister for Justice is also covering something up in this affair.

In the minister's response, there is no answer to a single question. It is quite customary in interpellation debates that the ministers actually answer the questions and note which questions they have received. But that does not occur in this response.

First, the Prime Minister fails in his duty towards the Swedish Riksdag. Then, the Minister for Justice fails in his duty by ignoring important questions from the members of the Riksdag. In the response, Madam Speaker, the Minister for Justice said: "I note initially that a legal process is currently ongoing regarding this. I cannot anticipate that process and can therefore also not comment further on a number of the questions that have been asked."

What is he basing this on? No one has requested that the Minister for Justice should preempt any legal process or disclose any confidentiality regarding a preliminary investigation or indictment. No one has requested it. But I could ask further questions to the Minister for Justice.

The Minister for Justice considers himself unable to answer a number of the questions that have been asked. On what grounds is that? And why does the Minister for Justice not answer the other questions?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Government Offices are not obscuring anything, said the Prime Minister before it emerged that employees had deleted various emails that were relevant to the preliminary investigation which has now led to charges against the Prime Minister's former national security advisor and childhood friend, Landerholm.

Madam Speaker! I submitted an interpellation to the Prime Minister in which I asked when the Prime Minister became aware that Henrik Landerholm had left documents at the Kursgården and what measures the Prime Minister has taken.

I asked what instructions the Prime Minister has given to staff at the Government Offices and to his own staff regarding Henrik Landerholm's actions, as information has emerged that the Prime Minister's own press chief had been in contact with Henrik Landerholm about what information he should provide regarding the events – information that later turned out not to correspond with what has actually happened.

I asked the Prime Minister why the security report showing that Henrik Landerholm left the documents behind was not registered until several hundred days after it was written. I asked if the Prime Minister has taken any measures to recover the documents that Henrik Landerholm left at the country estate and which we have heard are still missing. I have also asked whether the Prime Minister, in light of this incident, will have an open recruitment process for Sweden's next national security advisor.

In response, I do not get a single word from the Prime Minister himself, but instead an explanation that one cannot enter into any of this because a legal process is ongoing. But, Gunnar Strömmer, there is certainly no legal process ongoing against the Prime Minister yet.

Why does the Prime Minister not want to tell the answer to these questions? What is it that one wants to obscure and why? Why can the Prime Minister not come to the chamber and say as it is regarding when he found out about this? Why can the Prime Minister not tell which instructions he has given to his staff and what measures he has taken in connection with this scandal?

It is important for the Swedish people that the Prime Minister takes responsibility. The only reason I can understand for why the Prime Minister does not want to speak, because a legal process is ongoing against his childhood friend, is that the Prime Minister would tell something that affects the legal process.

But then my answer is: Put the cards on the table! See to it that justice wins in the end! There must be an end to this embarrassing story, where it is newspapers that reveal new information on a rolling basis. Not only have secret documents been left in a courtyard; they have also been found by someone who has connections to Islamist extremism and Russia. Furthermore, it turns out that the information that the cabinet was locked is not true, and the documents are still at large.

This is embarrassing for Sweden. It is also clearly embarrassing for the Prime Minister. But now is the time to take responsibility – now if not sooner!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first state that the Prime Minister has answered questions, also here in the chamber. On January 16, the Prime Minister was here for a question period and then answered a number of questions concerning the matter we are speaking about today. In February, on February 21 to be more precise, the Prime Minister was here in the chamber in an interpellation debate with Member Björck and then answered questions in connection with this.

The Committee on the Constitution has initiated an investigation of the matter, and of course, the Prime Minister will participate in it.

This is the first thing I want to say. It is not that the Prime Minister is avoiding questions, but rather he has, on the contrary, answered many questions here in the chamber. He participated in the Committee on the Constitution's review of the recruitment – the review that led to the KU's conclusion that no deficiencies had occurred in the handling of that matter. He will, of course, also participate in the upcoming review that KU has announced and, as far as I understand, also paused but will return to.

The second thing is that I want to turn a little bit against the description that I have not answered any questions at all of those that have been raised.

I addressed the question regarding confidence, which has been raised by Patrik Björck, by stating that the question can naturally be posed to the Prime Minister. It may appear overplayed given that the national security advisor has left his post. There is therefore no national security advisor to express confidence in.

Regarding the recruitment, which was Annika Hirvonen's question, I want to emphasize that I did not refer to an ongoing legal process in that part. On the other hand, I referred to the fact that a recruitment process is underway, which I naturally have no reason to comment on in further detail – also because I myself have no insight into the process. But I want to emphasize that it is not at all linked to the question of an ongoing preliminary investigation, and that is something I have not claimed either.

Let me raise one more of the questions that have been posed which has no connection to either the preliminary investigation or, for that matter, necessarily the KU's review, even though the KU can certainly touch upon those questions as well.

Patrik Björck raises the question regarding the structure surrounding the national security adviser. I can only state that in connection with the government appointing the national security adviser, he was also tasked with submitting proposals on how a function in the Government Offices should be structured for coordination, orientation, and analysis of issues concerning national security.

In this, of course, it was understood to consider which organizational structure and what competencies were needed to complete the mission in the most efficient way. As the organization was expanded under the security advisor, the support around him was also strengthened. I am sure that these are issues that can recur when KU is to review the handling, but it is clear that I can also say something about it today. It is not hindered by an ongoing legal process.

With that said, I have great respect for the fact that many of the questions that have been raised in the interpellations are subject to review. A prosecutor has both initiated a preliminary investigation and filed an indictment. We are awaiting a legal process, and I do not intend to anticipate what will emerge from that process, just as I do not intend to anticipate the process that the KU will engage in, what it may be, regarding these questions as well.

(cont.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)