Foreign espionage (pending constitutional proposals, etc.)

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now going to discuss a constitutional matter that has sparked debate over the past few weeks. As usual, the debate is coming late; it would have been welcome if arguments and the like had been aired earlier. But now we are where we are.

The arguments that have been put forward that the proposal, among other things, complicates journalistic scrutiny of international cooperation and other matters, I shall attempt to discuss. I will later describe what has been done to try to prevent such limitations.

To begin, one must ask what problem it is that one is trying to address with the proposal. A person who acquires information that is sensitive with regard to national security in order to forward this, for example, to a terrorist organization with state-like control over a geographical area, for example, IS/Daish, cannot be punished under the espionage provision as it is designed today. We are now addressing that deficiency in the legislation.

International peace and security-promoting collaborations are based on trust between the countries that participate. We must also be able to protect sensitive information within these collaborations. Therefore, it is reasonable that we have legislation that does not allow one, for example, to disclose information to foreign powers or terrorist organizations.

Disclosing secret information will not be punishable if it is justifiable with regard to purpose and other circumstances. Our assessment is that investigative journalism clearly falls outside of what is punishable. But it can also involve opinion-forming or the disclosure of irregularities. Simply a holistic assessment of purpose and circumstances must be made.

Furthermore, the proposal is based on making a proportionality assessment. It must simply concern exceptionally high protection values. The purpose is also not to make journalistic scrutiny impossible. It would, however, be completely irresponsible towards partners to be unable to prevent dissemination that clearly has the purpose of causing harm, not to critically scrutinize.

The special procedure for crimes against freedom of the press and freedom of expression with JK as prosecutor and a jury also aims to protect freedom of the press and freedom of expression. We have an additional protective function in it. We believe that the proposal is designed to enable the difficult balancing act between openness and secrecy that an international cooperation is based on.

If the changes were to create unexpected problems, we are, of course, open to reviewing the legislation. I move for approval of the committee's proposal in KU's report and for the rejection of the submitted proposal.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall tell one thing to Member Hans Ekström. Sometimes it seems as if the Social Democrats live in the belief that they have a majority in this chamber and that they still decide everything on their own.

What is being done with this bill is that one is opening Pandora's box. The Social Democrats have in several contexts said that the intention is not that. That is certainly true. Most often when one makes constitutional amendments, the intention is good. There is absolutely a good purpose. But this is a proposal that is characterized by naivety.

It will not lead to closing the gaps in the laws that one says one wants to address. The safety valve that is referred to by almost all parties will lead to great uncertainty among whistleblowers, journalists, and publishers regarding what will be criminal and illegal to publish and what will not be.

Just because one gains knowledge of something from a whistleblower can be subject to conflict of interest. It is a huge problem that one opens up for this constitutional change despite enormous and massive criticism from all referral bodies that represent free, independent and scrutinizing journalism, which all parties in here say they want to protect.

(Applause)

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! One can discuss where the naivety lies. Is there perhaps a naivety if we do not have instruments to reach the one who spreads information with the purpose of harming Swedish personnel or foreign personnel in international collaborations? Perhaps that too can be called naivety.

This proposal has been developed to manage the difficult balancing act we face regarding openness and transparency, and also to provide sufficient guarantees so that terrorist organizations cannot obtain information under the protection of the legislation that is intended to protect the press and freedom of expression.

I mean that the proposal achieves that balance. Should it turn out that it does not, I believe that many of us in this chamber understand that we must do something about it.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I truly hope that the member is correct and that there will be a large majority in this chamber to rectify the deficiencies that, in any case, I, my party, and some other parties see can occur.

If one had only wanted to reach, for example, IS and those who have a territory but are not a state, one could have done that in a much simpler way in the legislation than what is being done now. Now, one is also withdrawing our freedom of information and a lot of other things simultaneously and referring to security.

We have a proud tradition in Sweden of free media. I believe we should safeguard that. We must incorporate the criticism from the referral bodies that have pointed out what major gray area problems will arise as a result of this change.

It will lead to enormous uncertainty about what one will be able to publish. Not everyone is a lawyer. Not everyone will know whether they are covered or not. Therefore, people will self-censor. They will not dare to be whistleblowers.

It is a huge problem. It was actually a bit naive of the Social Democratic government that submitted this proposal in the spring not to include it more.

(Applause)

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! Before the referral, the consultation bodies had been heard and guarantees had been built into the proposal in an attempt to protect the activities and the oversight that we agree are important in a democratic society.

Who would want to participate in an international cooperation with Sweden if we cannot protect personnel and our partners and the information we are shared in those cooperations? There may be a degree of naivety in that regard.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Not everyone may know it, but we Members of Parliament know that there is a room just a short distance from here. It is the room for the good deed. There, people who have shown great courage and who have made great contributions for other people are recognized. For example, Raoul Wallenberg's deed is recognized there. I believe and hope that also Anders Kompass will one day be recognized in the room for the good deed.

But it pains me quite a bit and makes me feel ashamed to read his testimony in an article in Aftonbladet yesterday. His testimony and description of how exposed and vulnerable one is as a whistleblower is something we all here in this chamber should take in and reflect upon. And then he "only" risked losing his job within the UN. But he dared. He dared to risk his job to be able to alert about the UN soldiers' abuses against children.

Madam Speaker! This report is also a pending constitutional proposal. We usually have a consensus in Sweden that we view with great concern how other countries restrict freedom of expression. We also heard in the party leader debate earlier how several party leaders expressed concern over restrictions on freedom of expression and the principles of the rule of law.

We also usually have a consensus in this chamber that we view with great concern when the work of the media is hindered in other countries where one can no longer scrutinize or write what one wants - things we here in Sweden usually see as self-evident parts of our democratic society.

Free, independent, autonomous, and scrutinizing media constitute a foundation in the construction of a robust democracy. In Sweden, we have a long tradition of freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and our media landscape contains a great diversity of TV and radio channels and newspapers. This we shall, of course, safeguard and be proud of.

In our vicinity, we also now see many frightening examples of how state-controlled media, for example in Russia, make it difficult for the people there to get a true picture of what their army is doing right now in Ukraine. Fortunately, there are still brave journalists and activists who, despite threats and hatred and at risk to their own lives, try, and succeed, to break through the state propaganda.

Around the world, the conditions for journalists' opportunities to do their important work are deteriorating. This is a very worrying development. Last year's press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders showed that the number of countries where press freedom is considered to be good has never been as small as it is now.

In that light, one should also see the Left Party's criticism of the government's proposal. We consider that the proposal should be rejected in its entirety. I therefore move for approval of all reservations - 1, 2 and 3 - in this matter.

The government's proposal means that new crimes against freedom of the press and freedom of expression are introduced and that both the freedom of the press and the freedom of acquisition are restricted.

Madam Speaker! For the first point, one should always be cautious when it comes to such matters regarding introducing new criminalizations, that is, new crimes, especially when it concerns changes to our constitutional laws. If changes are to be made anyway, they must be well-substantiated and have been carefully analyzed based on the principles of necessity, effectiveness, and proportionality. Furthermore, the issue has not been investigated in a broad parliamentary committee, as is usually the case in such matters.

We therefore consider that the investigation on which the proposal is based has not shown any need to introduce these new crimes. Already today, one can be prosecuted for a crime if one damages the security of the realm.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, it is stated in the investigation that the number of cases concerning the disclosure of sensitive information within the relevant international collaborations does not appear to be so large, but that it is nevertheless worth criminalizing because it is so serious and punishable. This becomes a very strange circular reasoning. If the problem with this crime is not so large, and perhaps does not even exist, it is very difficult to see why there is a need for this new criminalization.

Thirdly, we are very concerned about what the consequences will be if the proposal is introduced. A number of referral bodies - quite heavy ones, in fact - and a united media industry have expressed massive criticism, and many concerned Swedes have also reached out now that they have become aware of the proposal.

For example, Journalistförbundet sees a great risk that the bill will significantly limit the possibilities to report on Sweden's actions abroad. Publicistklubben writes that a restriction of the freedom of information risks having a strong restraining effect on persons who participate in or in other ways gain insight into international operations. They will no longer provide information, and this risks in the long run leading to that information which should become known will probably remain secret.

One can also note the large number of responsible publishers for various media who, only during the past week, have shown in a concrete way how this will affect their work - dagligdags.

This risks, in other words, creating significant self-censorship among media and individuals, who may no longer dare to sound the alarm about irregularities. As Tidningsutgivarna point out, the proposal can also have a restraining effect on general freedom of expression and the citizens' willingness to dare to point out irregularities.

It is, Madam Speaker, a clearly and concerning referral response, to say the least. This applies particularly in the time we now live in, when we see how blocking and censorship are used in an effective way to stifle people's access to information. One must ask all these parties and their representatives in this chamber which irregularities and which journalistic revelations they want to silence. What is it that the public should not be made aware of?

Another part of the proposal entails an increased possibility of using secret coercive measures, for example, secret wiretapping, secret camera surveillance, and secret data retrieval. In addition to the deeply problematic issue that this could risk compromising source protection, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection has directed serious criticism at the proposal because they consider that the investigation's proportionality analysis regarding the use of secret coercive measures does not meet the requirements set for such an analysis in the Instrument of Government.

What is perhaps even more remarkable, Madam Speaker, is that our then Minister for Culture, Jeanette Gustafsdotter, participated as an expert in this very investigation. In her statement, she wrote as follows: No one should either consider that the mass media should remain silent about such collaborations as is the question here, nor that their information and news reporting should be limited to some kind of communiqué-like journalism that restricts itself to the reporting and reproduction of officially announced information from the Armed Forces or other authorities. The risk, however, is obvious that a coverage of the relevant crimes in the crime catalog will have just that inhibiting media effect that the investigation distances itself from. Against that background, I cannot stand behind the investigation's proposals in this part.

In other words, there is a risk that the media will become a megaphone for the Armed Forces.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the government's proposal is poorly substantiated and that it entails unacceptable restrictions on our constitutional laws. The proposal risks giving foreign states a major opportunity to influence what may and can be written in Sweden. This is not only harmful for Sweden but also for our democracy and our security in the long term. The proposal is completely disproportionate.

It is worth noting that the Liberal Party's party leader Johan Pehrson was responsible for the Liberal Party's statement regarding the previous decision. He writes: "That journalists report on or reveal irregularities or abuses within international operations could clearly create irritation in countries that Sweden cooperates with, and perhaps in some cases even damage Sweden's relations with these countries. But freedom of speech cannot be subordinate to such state-political considerations."

He continues: "In summary, I believe that the government's bill does not have the clarity and predictability that is necessary to ensure that individuals do not, out of caution, refrain from exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of expression and information. If the proposal cannot be clarified and revised, the bill should therefore not be approved." These are words I agree with, but unfortunately, the Liberals no longer do.

I also want to briefly point out the debate that has preceded this proposal, Madam Speaker. I particularly regret that several parties supporting the proposal have avoided answering the media's questions and explaining their position. One actually has a responsibility—all of us elected representatives in this chamber and around in municipalities and regions do—to answer, explain, and account for how we have thought and not shrink a debate that is ongoing. It is actually a bit cowardly. I unfortunately believe that it will fuel the contempt for politicians that we should collectively counteract. Furthermore, we should, of course, safeguard the trust that we have recently received.

(Applause)

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for a very interesting speech, Jessica Wetterling! If the proposals had been designed in the way that Jessica Wetterling describes here at the rostrum, I would have been very concerned, but there are some important things to address.

I will, for example, take up the fact that we already have espionage legislation that in many parts is similar to that which is now being presented regarding foreign espionage - but with a very large exception, Madam Speaker. There is no justification exception in today's espionage legislation that applies to internal affairs in the Kingdom of Sweden. How can it, therefore, be the end of our freedom of the press, our freedom of information, and our freedom of expression if we have a piece of legislation and propose a similar one but add an exception for the purpose of securing, among other things, the freedom of information?

We must remember that it is not a crime of negligence that is being introduced into the legislation, but the purpose—which a prosecutor must be able to prove in court for a judgment to be rendered—shall be to assist a foreign power and harm the interests of the realm.

Furthermore, it is not the case that a secret task becomes illegal simply because one happens to get it in one's lap. The criminal classification that the member was groping for earlier is gross unauthorized handling of a secret task. For the crime to be considered gross, there must therefore be aggravating circumstances. A publicist who receives a task from an informant must, according to the new bill, subject themselves to aggravating circumstances before such an act can be considered illegal.

How do some of these requirements fit a typical informant who turns to an editorial office and wants to expose irregularities?

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Erik Ottoson; I have now written down the concept of gross unauthorized position so that I will remember it for the future.

I want to point out first that I am not making this assessment on my own. A united press corps makes the same assessment as Vänsterpartiet. This proposal - even though there is a safety valve, which Vänsterpartiet thinks is good - opens up a large gray area and great uncertainty. One might have to remember that some of us here in the chamber may be lawyers by profession, but journalists are primarily journalists. Neither do whistleblowers necessarily need to be lawyers.

This leads to a large gray area where there will be great uncertainty regarding what one can engage with, what tasks one can leave, and what it can lead to in the future. That is the big problem.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The gray area that potentially arises is not painted in sharper colors just because there are representatives in this chamber who make it grayer and raise concerns that one would in this way forbid things that are de facto not forbidden or criminalize situations that are de facto not criminalized.

Our task must reasonably be to clarify for a concerned press corps what is legally right and wrong in this regard. Then we must be very clear that this is difficult legal matter - absolutely - but that only makes our task even more important, that is to say, to explain what this is about.

You cannot be convicted under this new legislation if you do not have the intent to assist a foreign power or harm the interests of the realm or the realm's security. You also cannot be convicted for ordinary unauthorized possession of a secret task simply because you obtain it, but there must be aggravating circumstances. These matters have been conspicuous by their absence in the public debate.

Regarding this matter of hiding from the media, I cannot feel that I identify with that image. I will be available to the media outside this chamber immediately after this, and I am absolutely available for media who want to get comments. I have also given comments to several different media outlets. Unfortunately, there are those who have claimed that one has been unreachable despite not having received a phone call from the newspaper in question, and that is also an interesting experience, I can say.

Overall, our task perhaps becomes even more important, namely to explain what this is about. One is not judged for accidentally leaving a task that concerns something secret if it is not the case that one has as a purpose to hand it over to a foreign power or harm the realm's security, or has aggravating circumstances when one receives such a task in one's lap.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! The member speaks a lot about aggravating circumstances, intent, and such. It is obviously a matter of judgment, and that is precisely the reason why many lawyers within, for example, the Journalists' Association put forward extensive criticism. I am not saying that journalists are completely without legal competence; that was not my conclusion in the previous reply.

The committee members spoke in a previous matter about the importance of incorporating the criticism of heavy referral bodies. I do not think that has been done in this case. A safety valve has been added – absolutely – and that is good. But this creates a gray area and an uncertainty. And the criticism from the heavy referral bodies, which one says they want to listen to, has persisted even after the safety valve was added. But in this case, it is apparently not so important to listen to heavy criticism from the referral bodies. I truly regret that. I think it is a pity.

(Applause)

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

We are therefore dealing with the Committee on the Constitution's report KU7, where foreign espionage is proposed to be criminalized and introduced as a crime against freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The bill implies, among other things, that foreign espionage, gross foreign espionage, and gross unauthorized handling of a secret task based on foreign espionage are criminalized and included in the Penal Code.

Since the proposal in some parts concerns constitutional amendments, it is required that the Riksdag votes twice with a general election in between. The proposal has had support from an overwhelming majority during Sweden's two most recent governments, and that support has also been reflected in the Committee on the Constitution.

The threat today may be of a somewhat different character than during the previous government. At that time, Sweden stood out, among other things, as one of the EU member states that had the highest number of volunteers who traveled to the Middle East to fight for the Islamic State, while today's threat is located somewhat closer to us geographically. But regardless of whether the threats come from the Islamic State, al-Qaida, al-Shabab, or dictatorial states in our vicinity, it is clear that Sweden must tighten its legislation in this area.

Today's criminal law protection for sensitive information is, according to this and the previous government, deficient. The currently applicable regulatory framework can, in the worst case, fall completely outside the scope of criminal liability and, in the best case, only be punishable as a breach of confidentiality.

As recently as last week, charges were brought against a pair of Iranian brothers with Swedish citizenship who are suspected of having sold defense secrets to Russia, perhaps for over ten years, and it is unfortunately likely not the last incident we will be forced to live with. It makes it clear that we cannot have a relatively toothless regulatory framework in this area.

Actions that can have serious consequences for Sweden, Sweden's security, and our international cooperation and relations require that we have a legal protection closer to and in line with that in other countries with a common legal tradition, for example our immediate neighboring countries and other EU members.

Some concerns have been mentioned regarding, for example, investigative journalism. I note these concerns but do not agree that they would in any way be sufficient to not stage this improvement of the current regulatory framework. The purpose is by no means to restrict freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but rather, as said, to improve a deficient current regulatory framework and move closer to the current regulatory framework of, for example, our Nordic neighbors, who obviously do not see anything particularly controversial in their respective regulatory frameworks.

To unlawfully acquire or disclose information with a direct intent to assist a foreign power should be uncontroversial, in Sweden as in our neighboring countries. We experience it as ensuring that the legislation does not hit actions that have a journalistic or opinion-forming purpose.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are usually not a strong advocate for a strong public service. My opinion and my belief, however, is that the Sweden Democrats still think it is important to have a strong freedom of speech. Especially on digital platforms, the Sweden Democrats usually distinguish themselves by saying that, for example, private companies should not be allowed to restrict freedom of speech. I would like to hear from Member Lars Andersson what journalism and what revelations it is that the Sweden Democrats do not want to see.

I have also noted in a large number of articles that the Sweden Democrats have not wanted to express their position. Why is it not being explained how you have come to this position, now that you are in favor of this proposal which has nevertheless received a fair amount of extensive criticism?

Then I must mention something about the espionage case that was discovered this weekend. I view it very seriously, and I believe that Member Lars Andersson also does. But that case is not affected by this. Ordinary espionage is not committed by publishing something in a mass medium or on a website. One usually has a client, in this case perhaps the Russian state, and then one leaks information directly to this. One does not go around via a publishing license, via some kind of front or journalist, or by saying that one is a journalist oneself.

I also do not quite understand why the member is making the connection to this very serious espionage case.

(Applause)

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question! I only drew one of many examples that could be brought up regarding espionage in general. I believe that the regulatory framework we have, which today is relatively toothless, must align a bit more with what many other countries have at their disposal.

As said, I do not see this as a restriction of freedom of the press and freedom of expression at all. Even if one paints different conceivable, potential, hypothetical scenarios of how this will be applied and not applied, I am very confident that, when it comes down to it and we have a concrete case, the law will be applied according to this regulatory framework as it was intended. It will have nothing to do with restricting freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! De facto, we are restricting our fundamental freedoms and rights. It actually states so in the committee's joint press release on the Riksdag's website, if I remember correctly. Especially when it comes to the freedom of the press, it states so at least.

I agree. I hope that this will not lead to what I am worried about. But if we are now to look at the rest of the world, we can also look at our Nordic neighboring countries. We can look at Finland and Denmark. There, they have different legislation than the one we have in Sweden, and there journalists are prosecuted for espionage crimes. It is a major problem.

I do not think we should harmonize our legislation to restrict our civil rights and freedoms. I think we should safeguard them. I think all parties in this chamber of the Riksdag should think about it once more.

(Applause)

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet is making an analysis. To your great credit, you are actually the only party that has consistently been against this proposal. An overwhelming majority is making a completely different analysis, and that must simply be respected.

I do not see this at all as something that goes against the media's right to express or write anything. A requirement has been formulated that the perpetrator, through the act, must have a direct intent, an intention, to harm a foreign power or equivalent. I think the safeguards are sufficient, and I welcome the decision.

But as I said: All credit to you for being the only party to have been consistent in your criticism of the proposal!

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! The investigation that led to the proposed law on foreign espionage was presented during the S-MP government's time a few years ago. It was therefore long before Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine and long before discussions about NATO membership were on the agenda at all.

At that time, it was more about how IS would be finally defeated and how we would avoid sensitive information falling into the hands of al-Qaida. The proposal for new legislation thus concerned criminalizing that type of information transfer to a foreign power or similar organization with the purpose or risk of harming Swedish cooperation and partners.

To enable journalistic work and whistleblowing intended to highlight irregularities or other grievances in collaborations with other countries, a "security exception" was introduced to make it possible to publish information about, for example, abuses or other deficiencies within Swedish international collaborations. Based on that basis, the bill that we now have on the table was presented for a first of two votes this spring, to the extent it concerns constitutional laws for freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

With all respect for those who were involved at the time, one might still say that the waves of debate did not go very high at that time. The proposal was also adopted, as you all know.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also voted yes to the proposal in the first of the two decisions required to change or add to a constitutional law, primarily with the intention of closing loopholes in the existing espionage legislation, with the mentioned justification exception. This was in the spring of 2022, so just a few months ago.

Before the second and final vote to be held in the chamber later today, with the adjustment in KU last week, the debate, however, has gained considerable momentum.

Those who see the proposal as reasonable have asserted that it has primarily aimed to complement existing legislation with similar rules also for international cooperation with other states and the like. The risk of self-censorship and that important information regarding irregularities will thus not come to light is assumed by the law's proponents and advocates to be limited.

But a great concern has also been expressed regarding the boundaries, ambiguities, and interpretations of the proposed legislative text. Examples of how the law would be applied are also lacking.

Critics have emphasized that the restrictions on freedom of expression and the press, despite the justification exception, are very extensive and not sufficiently well-justified. Others have raised the boundary-setting problems that could lead to a situation where journalists and civil society organizations choose to refrain from publishing information for fear of legal consequences.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a great understanding of the objections. Transparency, openness, defense of participation and accessible information are important values for us.

Our renewed weighing of the pros and cons based on the changed circumstances has resulted in that we today will vote no to the proposal. We find that the drastically changed situation in the world with the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine and, in particular, Sweden's application for membership in Nato has created conditions for international relations that neither in number nor complexity could have been foreseen at the time the proposition was drafted.

We have also been alerted to the fact that the proposal lacks clarity, particularly regarding the so-called safety exception. It is intended as a kind of valve that makes publications and other disclosures legal as long as the purpose is not to harm Sweden and our relations with other states and intergovernmental organizations.

For the Green Party, it is obvious that we should have robust legislation against espionage. At the same time, it is important that the media and civil society are secure that their investigative activities are not threatened. The source who holds sensitive information about irregularities must dare to speak freely. It is not they who should be the target here. The spear should be directed at those who want to harm the security of Sweden and our partners.

Madam Speaker! Here I had intended to move for the rejection of the bill. That is what I shall do. With the information and contributions in the debate that have come in the last few days, I think we have a lot to consider. It could justify my and our proposal, that is to give this additional time for consideration.

It is partly about us as legislators. We may not have completely done our homework in all contexts. We have had difficulty explaining it to those who have been critical or wondering. We may have been a bit in a hurry to get this through with only a few months' interval between the first and second proposal.

We can also reflect on the media, which have been slow on the ball, as they say. It has also not been fortunate for the discussion. All of this has come in the last few weeks.

So we cannot have that. We cannot have a society where the media does not trust the legislator and where the legislator does not listen to the media or civil society organizations. The media must here represent a large group, the media and civil society.

I think it is highly reasonable to open up for the possibility that this may take another year, just as we have proposed as a reserve option, by first rejecting the bill. If it is not granted, we have, together with Vänsterpartiet, submitted a request for a stay of proceedings. If it is granted, it means that certain parts of the bill could be declared on hold for at least one year. This would provide room for further preparation and a living debate, which is important in major changes, not least of our constitutional laws, and in the debate that has now seen the light of day.

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask for a couple of clarifications, especially one. I may perhaps provide a clarification of my own.

Jan Riise describes from the rostrum that the justification exception is what makes intent required. That is not the case. I want to be very clear about that. The justification exception stands on its own. The requirement of intent stands on its own. They are two different things, two separate foundation walls and defensive walls around this legislation.

When it comes to the declaration of invalidity, perhaps Jan Riise can explain to me the genius in that it can encompass the parts of the bill that he and Miljöpartiet want to push through but not the parts of the bill that Jan Riise and Miljöpartiet do not want to push through. The result of a declaration of invalidity would most likely be that the constitutional proposals will be decided upon and gain legal force, but the parts that are not constitutional proposals, which he does not have as great objections against, will be delayed by a year.

Will Jan Riise be so kind as to explain to me and the Chamber the wisdom behind this?

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your objections! I truly regret if I did not distinguish between the justification exception and purpose and intent here. It is clear that I know it.

But this highlights a bit of what I was looking for. We in the legislative assembly have not been skillful enough at explaining the rather complicated jurisprudence that lies behind the proposals. And it does not become any simpler by us throwing in a dormant proposal, which is even harder to explain.

I do not think we can use it in the constitutional matters, just as the member pointed out. It may, however, apply to questions 2 and 3 or b) and c), which concern changes and additions to the Penal Code and the Code of Procedure.

I think that if this were to be approved, the entire process would have to be reconsidered. The constitutional amendment in itself is not enough to achieve what was the intention with this bill.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to hear.

I have another reflection. Miljöpartiet describes its conversion on the issue, from being for it to now being against it, based on the fact that there will be more collaborations with other countries – i.e., that which was the purpose to enable with the proposition.

Can Jan Riise describe the Green Party's considerations when, in step one, one stands behind a proposition aimed at making more collaborations with other countries possible, and when more collaborations with other countries become possible and are about to be implemented, one gets cold feet and backs out? Will Jan Riise be kind enough to explain the considerations that led to that conclusion?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Before I give Jan Riise the floor, I would like a clarification before the upcoming vote. Does the motion to dismiss and the declaration of suspension mean that Jan Riise moves for approval of both reservation 1 and reservation 2 and reservation 3? Is that correct?)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, that is correct. Thank you for the question!

Madam Speaker! The journey we have made, I tried to describe in the speech. It began during a period when there was talk of IS, al-Qaida and Finland, if I am correctly informed - no other comparisons. It was a period when the number of conceivable contacts was quite limited.

As I said, we did not have a suspicion about this regarding Nato. That is not what is decisive. But it means that the possibilities for trust deficits in a relationship with another state or an intergovernmental organization increase very significantly. Likewise, the possibilities increase when it comes to conditions of things, misunderstandings, irregularities, and other occasions that we would like to be alerted to. It may not increase exponentially but quite strongly with the number of conceivable partners, both countries and organizations. That was what we were looking for.

When it comes to the process that led to me and our parliamentary group wanting to say no to the bill, it has many more dimensions. I may not go into those here. But among the most important, we of course have the public participation in the discussion, which did not exist previously. The media and civil society have alerted not only us but I suspect also all of you. We then found it appropriate to reassess the situation based on the changed situation.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The legislation we are discussing today is, to say the least, complex with many dimensions. Hopefully, this chamber debate will mean that we can make it clearer what the matter is about.

A clarification was just received. It was not only what the Green Party first indicated as its main reason for turning, but it was also the public pressure that has arisen in this discussion that has caused the Green Party to now have a different opinion.

Madam Speaker! My view is that one does not treat such difficult, serious and complex issues as constitutional proposals.

What is this matter actually about? Well, it is about the fact that we today have espionage legislation in Sweden which entails a number of different restrictions regarding what kind of information one is allowed to leak in different ways. It does not only concern direct leaks to a principal; the dissemination of information that has been obtained for the purpose of providing it to a foreign power and to harm Sweden is also a form of espionage. It is important to keep that in mind.

What is the problem? Have we noticed a long series of articles with information that should have been kept secret? No. The problem is that we have a possibility in our constitution and our legislation that entails risks of dissemination in that way, especially in combination with how our freedom of the press and freedom of expression is arranged. It has caused other countries to be cautious about providing information to Sweden, and it has complicated our relations and our cooperation not only when it comes to relations to other countries in general but also when it comes to such important things as building defense together.

Absolutely, it originated in the so-called Hultqvist doctrine, to build security together with Finland, but it is also not the case that the number of contacts with others has increased to such a mild degree due to our NATO membership that it should have any direct impact. The fact is that we have been a partnership country to Nato and received large amounts of intelligence information sent to us, but also large amounts of intelligence information withheld from us for various reasons. The risk of dissemination with constitutional protection was likely one of them.

Why is it important to protect our realm against espionage and foreign espionage? It is fundamentally about protecting our constitutional order. It is about the defense of our democracy, the defense of our freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and the defense of our free life and our free lifestyle here in Sweden – that which we hold dear and that which the Committee on the Constitution has as its absolutely most important task to constantly defend.

The legislation proposed today regarding foreign espionage is in many parts similar to the legislation that exists for espionage in general. One must have the intent to assist a foreign power. One must have the intent to harm Swedish interests. In this, there is a justification exception that is incorporated in order to, beyond the protective walls that are already in place in existing espionage legislation, further raise the protective walls for our freedom of the press and freedom of expression. That exception means something, Madam Speaker. It is not insignificant at all.

Then there are those who wish that in the preparatory works and in the committee's report, it should be made much clearer what this might involve. But in Sweden, we have a legal tradition that functions in a certain way. It is based on the fact that we have independent courts and that our judges rule under the laws and interpret our legislation. This chamber does not have the task of interpreting the legislation. It is another important value that we as politicians in general, and the members of the Committee on the Constitution in particular, have to safeguard: the independence of the courts to adjudicate.

It is also an important issue to take with us in this, which makes us should be restrained from becoming all too concrete. There are many legislations that we implement without having accounted in detail for how they are to be applied. It would be inappropriate to do so to an all too great extent. There is also quite a lot in the preparatory works that can provide guidance. The preparatory works are, after all, the framework, the interpretation key that one should use to interpret what is written in the lines of the law book, what is written in the lines in this proposal.

The only crime that we do not introduce here which could possibly be a crime of negligence concerns gross unauthorized access to a secret task. I had an exchange of remarks with Member Wetterling regarding this a short while ago, and one of the things we discussed then was precisely this.

Just to clarify: For it to be considered a serious crime in Swedish law, quite a lot has to be present. It becomes serious if there are a number of aggravating circumstances, that is, not just if one happens to get a task in their lap, not even if one has even sought out the task. There must be something additional that complicates this.

It is also not as it has sounded in the media in various contexts that all informants and all whistleblowers are now to start trembling in their boots. One must remember that the prosecutor - in this case the exclusive prosecutor the Chancellor of Justice - in any case with supporting evidence must prove that the intent has been to assist a foreign power and/or to harm Sweden.

It is perhaps with permission to say that nothing fits any of the known whistleblowers. This was not Anders Kompass's purpose in uncovering the irregularities that he spoke about. Which foreign power was he supposed to turn to? Very unclear, I would say. I find it very difficult to imagine that it was the purpose. There is absolutely nothing that indicates it, and if it is to be judged in court, there must be supporting evidence that proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

In addition to this, there is another safeguard that is not discussed enough in this discussion. As I mentioned, the Justitiekanslern is therefore the exclusive prosecutor in all crimes related to offenses against freedom of the press. It is not just any prosecutor who may engage in this. It is the Justitiekanslern. And the Justitiekanslern, in turn, has an instruction in our Freedom of the Press Act which it must always comply with.

Chapter 1, Section 10 of the Freedom of the Press Act states as follows: "The person who is to judge on abuse of the freedom of the press or in other ways watch over that this constitutional law is complied with should always keep in mind that the freedom of the press is a foundation for a free social order, always pay more attention to the subject and the idea than to the expression, as well as to the purpose more than the method of presentation, and in doubtful cases rather acquit than convict."

In ordinary cases, it is sufficient for a prosecutor to be able to foresee a conviction in the case they intend to bring to indictment. But it is not sufficient for the Chancellor of Justice, who is therefore the only one who may bring an indictment when it concerns crimes against freedom of the press. The Chancellor of Justice must, in addition to being able to foresee a conviction, comply with what I have just read out, and also the Chancellor of Justice, not just the court, shall rather acquit than convict.

Against that background, Madam Speaker, I find it extremely difficult to see the immense clouds of concern that have gathered in the media coverage over the past week. I am almost puzzled as to why it is becoming so, and I believe it has to do with the difficult complexity of this matter. It is very difficult to digest, and I would have had difficulty doing so without help from our fantastic secretariat in the Committee on the Constitution, which is filled with the realm's perhaps most competent constitutional lawyers.

With the help and understanding one receives regarding what is actually at stake, I have become calmer. It is not that we are now restricting the media's ability to report on irregularities. We are restricting foreign powers' ability to harm us and our democracy through our free, democratic system of government, to sow division between us and use our own openness against us.

This is one of democracy's inevitable paradoxes that leads to the conclusion that we must always be ready to defend our democracy. If we do not, our democracy will die a death of naivety. There are examples where it could have progressed seriously in that direction.

But, Madam Speaker, let us not go that way. Let us stand up for what is right, proper and important when it comes to the defense of our freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

With this, I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I almost have to apologize to the new members of the Committee on the Constitution, who perhaps think that this is how we usually debate in KU. We are usually concise and do not request so many rebuttals from one another. Often we are in agreement on our proposals, and we in KU usually guard that proposals should be introduced in broad consensus.

I note, of course, that it is two small parties that are protesting most loudly. I have respect for the democratic process, but a part of the democratic process is also the debate in the chamber, that there are certain tools in the Instrument of Government to resort to when one is a smaller party. That is also what the smaller parties are doing now. There were, in any case, enough members to submit the motion to test if there is receptiveness in the chamber to declare parts of the proposal dormant.

Member of the Board Ottoson spoke earlier about the importance of incorporating criticism from major referral bodies. That has been done with the justification valve. What I am wondering about is why one does not incorporate the criticism that follows, when the same referral bodies say that the justification valve is not sufficient. Have the Moderaterna not taken any note of the fact that there is still a remaining criticism? That criticism has existed ever since the investigation's proposals were presented. It has not emerged in the last week, even though it has been more topical in the media recently.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jessica Wetterling for the requested reply. It is always enjoyable to debate with Member Wetterling, and she knows that I think so. The convenient thing about the Left Party is that one knows where you stand. You are consistent and long-term, even if you are wrong.

When it comes to the referral bodies, I agree that one must do exactly as Member Jessica Wetterling says, namely take heavy criticism seriously. I completely agree with that. But it does not mean that one always has to agree with the criticism. One must take it in, one must assess it, one must see if one is right or wrong, if one has understood or not understood, if one shares the opinion or not. And that is exactly what we have done here.

Here we see the difference in this matter compared to the previous matter. In the previous matter, we shared the criticism. We understood that here we might have gone a bit too far and that here we needed to back down in order to, once again, protect our democratic foundations.

Here it is another situation where we believe that the criticism from the referral bodies goes too far and does not take into account all the safeguards that the Social Democratic government, in harmony with many other parties in the chamber during the previous mandate period, built up around the legislation.

The big difference is the content of the criticism and whether one judges it to be correct or not. We mean that if this restricts our freedom of information and our freedom of the press and expression to even that mild degree, it is strange that the law has not already collapsed, given that the existing espionage legislation is very similar, but without the exception. That one expands an existing legislation conformally and tries to extend it to cover an additional circumstance, which is not in itself particularly extensive, does not mean that we are dismantling our freedom of the press and expression. On the contrary! It means that we ensure the protection of it.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Erik Ottoson that it is important to investigate matters thoroughly. Therefore, I believe one of the major problems with this proposal is that there has not been a broad parliamentary investigation that has examined the issue, just as was done in the previous case.

Then, of course, one can still take impressions from the referral bodies. There, each party must form its own opinion on which criticism to take into account, what considerations to make to balance the issues, and what position it will then arrive at.

I also share Member Ottoson's view that we have a fantastic secretariat at the Committee on the Constitution, but there are also lawyers, freedom of speech experts, and other referral bodies that have important things to say. Even though all credit should go to our fine secretariat, there are also other parts that need to be taken into account.

I have a couple of questions for Erik Ottoson. In what way has the deficiency in our legislation hindered our international cooperation? It is not as if Sweden has not participated in various UN missions, or has not – as the member himself mentioned – been close to Nato, even if not a member. What is it that makes this intervening legislative change necessary? Does the member see no problems with the proposal, no concern? Is he completely convinced that this will lead to something good?

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! I absolutely do not want to hold the Committee on the Constitution's office hostage in any way for my opinion. I will state clearly that the Committee on the Constitution's office has not said: Erik! You shall think this way.

On the other hand, I have listened to good legal arguments and explanations regarding why it looks the way it does and what it means. It has led me to my conclusion.

This bill stems from the fact that signals have been sent to Sweden in international collaborations that there is a need for restraint in the transfer of information to Sweden because it is known that the information is not sufficiently securely protected, as it is in, for example, other Nordic countries. That is the immediate need.

It is not about a number of articles or other examples of something having occurred. It is likely because we have not received such information that can be leaked. It lies somewhat in the nature of the matter that they withhold that kind of information from Sweden even in international operations. Otherwise, one easily gets the impression that Nato is an open table of intelligence or that the UN would be an open table of intelligence – if you sit at the table, you know everything. That is not the case. Even within these organizations, they withhold information from each other, to the extent that there is no mutual trust or need. The absolutely clearest thing is the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the USA. They have open channels – usually, but not always. A country like Sweden must earn that trust, and we have good conditions to do so.

Are there risks? Of course, there are always risks. That is why we create the protective walls. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether one has understood the protective walls and their protective value. My opinion is that they currently provide full protection. If they do not, it only requires a simple decision in the Riksdag to back out and remove the possibility of judging the issue. It is not a question of a constitutional amendment.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! The world we live in today does not end at Sweden's borders – thank goodness. We want to and can look further than that. And the opposite is equally valid, that is to say that the world and other countries' interests actually exist and operate here with us in Sweden. This implies great opportunities to act in a democratic spirit within the framework of different types of international cooperation, for example EU and UN.

But unfortunately, not everyone wants Sweden, and in an increasingly international world, it is necessary to further strengthen the protection of Sweden's security.

That is what the bill on the table today is about. We want to protect Sweden and Swedish interests from espionage, from foreign powers' illegitimate interests, and from forces that want to destabilize us and the international collaborations that we choose to enter into - international collaborations that we operate within because we see that they are to the benefit of Sweden and for Swedish citizens. But when that happens, when Sweden's security and interests do not stop at a border, we need to close gaps in the legislation. These are gaps that our neighboring countries Finland, Norway, and Denmark have already closed and where we in Sweden are lagging behind, gaps that allow foreign powers to exploit Swedish openness and the freedom of the press legislation for harmful purposes.

The work on this constitutional proposal began as early as 2016, and it has been out for several referral rounds. Among the referral bodies are a number of courts, several legal institutions, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the Bar Association. These are bodies that consider the importance of our constitutionally anchored freedom of expression and information, and none of them had anything to object to regarding the proposal as it was finally submitted. Nor did the Council on Legislation have any fundamental objections. Certain technical legal deficiencies were pointed out, which were subsequently addressed in the bill.

In Sweden, we are proud of our openness and that we were the first in the world to provide statutory protection for publishing thoughts, facts, and ideas in print when we adopted the Freedom of the Press Act in 1766. And it is with all right that we should be proud of that legislation, that heritage. It is a foundation in our democracy to let media scrutinize those in power in order to be able to expose irregularities and abuse of power.

It is therefore fully understandable that representatives from the media react and react strongly when changes occur in the constitutional laws that safeguard freedom of the press. That is, after all, what they are supposed to stand guard over.

That is also why we have a safety valve in this legislation, and that is why it is so important. This safety valve, which several here have spoken about, means that actions that are justifiable are completely excluded from the criminal area. Erik Ottoson clarified this here. I want to emphasize that in the preparatory works for the law, it is clearly stated that by justifiable, for example, disclosures of criminal or improper procedures within the framework of our international cooperation are meant. When I read that, my thoughts at least automatically go to the Anders Kompass case.

Our judicial authorities, that is, our independent judiciary, shall, in their assessment of whether any crime has occurred at all, consider whether the actions were justifiable and particularly if the act was carried out for journalistic or opinion-forming purposes, as stated in the preparatory works. This assessment and examination lies, as Erik Ottoson has pointed out, with the Chancellor of Justice as exclusive prosecutor with the specific instruction that exists there. The assessment shall be made already there: Is this justifiable?

It is the prosecutor who has the full burden of proof for all circumstances, such as for the actions not to be justifiable. It is therefore the prosecutor who must show that it is not justifiable. Already when a preliminary investigation is initiated, the prosecutor must look at the circumstances and see if there is even a reasonable suspicion of a crime. The requirement of justifiable is thus already in the penal provision itself, so the threshold is high to even initiate a preliminary investigation.

I also want to specifically say what Erik Ottoson also touched upon. We have a responsibility as members - I think it weighs particularly heavily on us in the Committee on the Constitution - when we face constitutional amendments, which can naturally be perceived as intrusive, to explain pedagogically what it actually means. It is extremely important that we are pedagogical and actually reach out with what this is about.

When it comes to the assessment of defensibility, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a court case that was decided by the Supreme Court last year, which concerns precisely how defensibility should be interpreted within the framework of the freedom of the press legislation. In that case, a 17-minute long film from the mass shooting in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, had been published on the site Nordfront. It was a violent and graphic depiction of how a large number of people were shot to death in cold blood. But the Supreme Court, which examined an indictment for illegal depiction of violence, found that the publication was not punishable. It was defensible. That the media should be able to report freely weighed heaviest in that case. I think it is illuminating for how our courts, our independent courts, view the importance of safeguarding this.

Overall, we in the Center Party consider the proposal to be well-founded and well-balanced in such a way that it criminalizes actions that can ultimately harm Sweden's security and simultaneously safeguards freedom of expression and freedom of information by ensuring that actions that are not criminal become non-criminal.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that I have enormous respect for Member Malin Björk. I know that she is very competent. She is also a prosecutor by profession but is now a Member of Parliament.

I also know that the Center Party and, shall I say, the Liberals are the parties that stand closest to the Left Party in the defense and protection of civil rights and freedoms. That is, at least, what I have concluded during the last parliamentary term. I do not know if the member agrees, but that is my opinion.

That is why I think Centerpartiet's position on this issue is a bit strange. I do not understand how one has come to this conclusion, even though I heard the member's presentation, because I do not understand why one would exploit our media.

We have a very recent example of espionage. It was revealed this weekend. The suspects have not used press credentials and media. They have gone directly to a foreign power and handed over information which, judging by the media's revelations and the investigation protocol, is of very high severity.

It is obviously very dangerous and very bad to engage in espionage, but I do not quite understand how one came to that conclusion. How is practice supposed to develop, for example, when one should acquit rather than convict, as Erik Ottoson mentioned? The proposal will lead to great uncertainty even when there is a safety valve. Does not the Center Party see the problems in this proposal?

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

As we have touched upon earlier, it is therefore the case that it is required that one assists a foreign power for it to be a question of foreign espionage. A purpose to publish something, that is to say, not to hand it over to a foreign power, does not constitute foreign espionage. It may constitute the lesser offense of unauthorized possession of a secret task. But in the preparatory works regarding unauthorized possession of a secret task, it is emphasized in particular that the justification requirement shall be considered even more heavily.

We must remember that this legislation aims to address exactly what Jessica Wetterling was pointing out, namely acts that are harmful to Sweden. There, I actually want to say that we must not be naive. When I read the bill, I see certain passages concerning the fact that there are real threats against Sweden and that the media sector is sometimes used as a cover.

As a prosecutor, I can also say that for example that using "bulvaner" (frontmen) might seem foreign to someone who hasn't worked with it, but I have seen many examples of that. That one could do it even in espionage cases, if a foreign power wanted to use it, I do not see as particularly foreign at all.

It is naturally difficult for us to produce a concrete example where this has happened. If it was on the way to happening, none of us will probably know about it. These are probably pieces of information that are so confidential that we do not receive them, and that is what I want to emphasize. What I read here is that there is a gap, and we need to close it. But it is difficult to point out exact concrete examples. There are proposed criminals who do more than one could imagine; I have seen that myself.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I have no reason to doubt the member's testimony, not at all. But I still find it a bit difficult to understand why one would utilize our media, which have a basic practice for how they function, with a responsible publisher and so on.

I would like to ask the member of the Center Party another thing. It requires a bit extra for a preliminary investigation to be initiated. But there is also an opening here to use secret coercive measures. It is inherent in the nature of the matter that one does not tell the person who is the subject of the use of secret coercive measures that a preliminary investigation has been initiated and that one is therefore wiretapping, for example, a journalist, who may thereby risk revealing their source in a completely different case than the one that has made the journalist the subject of a preliminary investigation.

I think this is very serious and problematic, and I think it is a pity that the Center Party does not share that view.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Responsible publishers exist for media and also for blogs. It is easy to start a blog - it also states in the preparatory works - for those who would wish to do so. It does not need to cost particularly much. There are also examples of people being convicted for having published things on blogs. It does not seem to prevent some still wanting to spread things that way.

Secret coercive measures can be used, yes. If an authority wants a surveillance or an interception to take place, it must go to court and have the suspicion of a crime examined before a decision on this can be made. It must be concrete and supported by circumstances in the specific case. As regards specifically interception, which is portrayed as something that could be used, it is again required that one is suspected of the more serious crime, gross unauthorized handling of a secret task, for it to even potentially become relevant.

If one, as Erik Ottoson pointed out earlier, looks at the requirements for what constitutes a serious crime, one sees that it is such things as, for example, would be extremely grave and entail a risk in a war-like situation. It can also be about having received the information in a general or individual capacity, which is not the case for a journalist who publishes it. It is about those cases.

Again - the probability is not particularly great that we reach that point. But if it happens, it is serious if it concerns providing to a foreign state and not for a journalistic purpose, for if the purpose is journalistic, it is therefore justifiable and not criminal at all; then one cannot eavesdrop.

A chain of trials therefore needs to take place, and I see, as I have said, that the picture one paints here, with mass surveillance of journalists, is completely detached from reality.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! "A Swedish tiger" – that is what it was called during World War II. It is a self-evident fact that there is reassuring legislation to prevent important information regarding Sweden's security from falling into the wrong hands and to ensure that those who provide unauthorized information about the realm's security to a foreign power can be convicted. Therefore, espionage is included in both the Penal Code and the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

We live in a world where the threats to Sweden's security in recent years have become increasingly clear and can manifest in different ways than before. In our country, there are, for example, hundreds of people who have returned after having fought for IS or otherwise actively participated in this very dangerous terrorist organization.

Sweden is now also involved in a number of collaborations with other countries. This concerns both the Nordic cooperation and the cooperation within the EU, UN, and Nato. It is naturally just as important for our country's security to protect secret information within such collaborations.

But neither terrorist organizations nor the disclosure of secret information within international collaborations are included in the current legislation. Therefore, we need to see that our house ensures that the legislation is not left without tools when someone engages in undermining and damaging Sweden's security within these areas. Through today's decision, these gaps are closed.

Therefore, it is now proposed that the law be supplemented with a formulation stating that anyone who, in order to assist a foreign power or equivalent, unlawfully promotes, discloses, or reveals information that may be detrimental to Sweden's security.

The second part, regarding foreign espionage, is therefore about Sweden being able to participate in international defense cooperation and thereby increase Sweden's defense capability and protect our interests, without protected information from the partner countries risking being handed over to a foreign power or equivalent. The addition regarding foreign espionage is a fully reasonable and necessary complement.

A Swedish tiger, I said at the beginning. But does that mean that one should keep quiet if one notices serious irregularities, for example in overseas service within the framework of an international cooperation? Or that muzzles should be put on journalists? No, on the contrary.

It is important to emphasize that in the same paragraph of the Freedom of the Press Act, Chapter 7, Section 14 a, which describes what foreign espionage entails, the following marking exists: "An act shall not constitute a crime if, with regard to the purpose and other circumstances, it is justifiable." This has been up for discussion earlier during this debate. A whistleblower who reveals serious irregularities and also normal journalistic scrutiny is therefore protected by the constitution even after the amendment.

Our Nordic neighboring countries have already secured this in a corresponding manner and do not have the deficiencies that the Swedish legislation has. With this, I move for approval of the submitted proposal.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The purpose of the current legislation in the matter is to prevent Sweden's extensive freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom of information from being exploited by foreign powers and armed alliances. It is a clear public interest that there should be a purposeful criminal law regulation of espionage-like acts. Equally obvious is that the regulation in this area has consequences for the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and freedom of information.

The proposed law on foreign espionage aims to counter the dissemination of sensitive information regarding Sweden's international cooperation. The provision on espionage is expanded from applying to those who provide information to a foreign power to applying to those who provide information to a foreign power or equivalent.

The new provision on foreign espionage aims at the act of unauthorizedly promoting, disclosing, or revealing a secret task occurring within the scope of a cooperation with another state or an international organization, or in an international organization in which Sweden is a member, where the unauthorized handling is intended to cause serious [harm] for Sweden's relations with any other state or an international organization. One example of when this could be relevant is in connection with peace and security-keeping operations.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals see a need for new legislation to target actors who exploit Sweden's freedom of expression and information to spy on the country's partners or assist armed non-state associations. Spies should also not be able to escape punishment by acting under journalistic cover.

At the same time, we have certain concerns regarding whether the exception introduced with the concept of "defensible" is sufficiently extensive to ensure the important journalistic opportunity for scrutiny that should exist, for example, during international operations. During the preparation of the law, we have put forward these points and worked to ensure that the proposal would be further scrutinized.

It has not gained traction, and a majority of the parties in the Riksdag chose to proceed with the bill in its current form at the previous vote.

Our conclusion, Madam Speaker, is that given that the global situation has changed significantly and that interest in Sweden from foreign powers and corresponding organizations has increased considerably, there is a need to close the gaps in the legislation that could constitute a threat to Sweden's security in a tense situation.

With this said, our concerns remain. We will follow very closely how the law is applied, and we will act if there are signs that it has unintended effects.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! When we first dealt with this proposal in the spring, I was very pleased that the Left Party and the Liberals shared a common view. We were both strongly critical and voted for motions to reject.

What has happened since then is that we have had an election. Now the Liberals are part of the government. One is still, as I perceive it from the member, against the proposal, but all of a sudden one will not vote according to one's opinion, but one will vote for the proposal. There will be a vote later where the proposal is set against the reservations.

There is a chance, Malin Danielsson. I understand that it can be difficult to vote for another party's reservation. But Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have made a final attempt to at least neutralize certain parts of the proposal, what is possible to do according to the Instrument of Government. I would still like to ask the Liberalerna to consider whether they cannot consider this.

The security situation has changed. I completely agree with that. There are reasons to review whether one can close the loopholes. But we have also seen several examples of how one could do it in a different way than how it is done now.

The investigation was released in 2017, and it has now been five years since then. And just as the member said, it is a significantly changed security situation. This alone should make us think a little. Therefore, I would like the Liberals to vote for a stay of execution, so that we can investigate this in peace.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the appeal, Jessica Wetterling! We would have wished that we had been heard even earlier, when we worked together to highlight the issues. It has been stated here today that there has been no debate regarding the proposal. There has been a debate about it for a long time, and we have been involved in and contributed to it.

A party that previously participated in the government has now changed its stance. We would have wished that the party had been involved in changing this from within when the previous government presented the proposal, but we can state that that did not happen.

Now we are in a different position. There are points to uniformity when one is in a government position. I believe other parties here can testify to that. We will also vote in accordance with that.

However, I hope that Jessica Wetterling and I together, once the law has passed, can act as a blue light and follow up and see if we need to make changes again, because then we have to take that type of initiative here in the Riksdag.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Malin Danielsson. I would have wished that as many parties as possible had supported a motion to reject the bill both the last time this was up in the Riksdag and now.

I must admit that Vänsterpartiet has never been part of any government, but there are certainly reasons for a government to be unified. But there are also reasons not to vote against one's own convictions, I believe.

Of course, the debate on this change will not end here, after a decision in the chamber of the Riksdag. Of course, we shall keep track of this issue. I absolutely hope that not only Malin Danielsson and I will do so, but I hope that many other members will also join us in this issue. When I have asked questions to other parties, I have heard many say that if it were not to turn out in the way that was intended, they are prepared to make changes. I think that is welcome and good. That is what I really want to say.

But it is still a bit exciting: The first time a constitutional amendment is voted on, one does not get a hearing for their proposal, but the second time it is voted on, one chooses instead to let the constitutional amendment through. I think it is a pity. But I hope that we can still work together when it comes to safeguarding the freedom of the press and freedom of expression and our other freedoms and rights in the future.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Jessica Wetterling previously read from our special statement. In the same special statement, it also states that the Liberals see a need for new legislation to reach actors who exploit the Swedish freedom of expression and information, and that spies should not be able to go unpunished by acting under journalistic cover. On one hand, this is what we see. On the other hand, we are Liberals, and we are usually able to see both sides.

If we do not pass this legislation now, it will take a very long time. Therefore, we do not want to put it on hold at this stage. But I appreciate that Jessica Wetterling and others in the committee nevertheless express that we need to follow this and ensure that it does not have unwanted consequences. I hope that we can work together on that.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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