Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ett olämpligt ansvarsutkrävande - En studie om att genom misstroendeförklaring utkräva ansvar av statsråd

Nilsson, Kajsa LU (2022) LAGF03 20222
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ansvarsdebatten som följde av Transportstyrelsens it-affär 2017 inspirerade min frågeställning. Den lyder: Är det lämpligt att utkräva ansvar av statsråd för brister i förvaltningsmyndigheters verksamhet genom misstroendeför-klaring? Frågeställningen avgränsas genom att utgå från Ahlbäcks tre krite-rier angående ansvarsutkrävning. Dessa lyder: någon ska kunna urskiljas som ansvarig, kunskap ska finnas om huruvida den offentliga verksamheten bedrivits bra eller dåligt och det ska finnas mekanismer att utkräva ansvar. Jag tillämpar de två första kriterierna och lämnar den sista med ett konsta-terande om att misstroendeförklaringen är en sådan mekanism. Vidare an-vänder jag rättsdogmatisk metod för att redogöra för institutet... (More)
Ansvarsdebatten som följde av Transportstyrelsens it-affär 2017 inspirerade min frågeställning. Den lyder: Är det lämpligt att utkräva ansvar av statsråd för brister i förvaltningsmyndigheters verksamhet genom misstroendeför-klaring? Frågeställningen avgränsas genom att utgå från Ahlbäcks tre krite-rier angående ansvarsutkrävning. Dessa lyder: någon ska kunna urskiljas som ansvarig, kunskap ska finnas om huruvida den offentliga verksamheten bedrivits bra eller dåligt och det ska finnas mekanismer att utkräva ansvar. Jag tillämpar de två första kriterierna och lämnar den sista med ett konsta-terande om att misstroendeförklaringen är en sådan mekanism. Vidare an-vänder jag rättsdogmatisk metod för att redogöra för institutet misstroende-förklaring. Jag använder ett friare kritiskt perspektiv när jag jämför och argumenterar mot min teori. Materialet jag använt är till störst del förarbe-ten och litteratur.
Institutet misstroendeförklaring instiftades i Sverige som ett resultat av lagstiftaren vilja att föra in parlamentarismen i författningen. En misstro-endeförklaring kan riktas mot hela regeringen (vilket görs genom en förkla-ring mot statsministern) eller mot ett enskilt statsråd. Ett ärende om miss-troendeförklaring får ej beredas i utskott, vilket utgör ett undantag mot be-redningstvånget. Grunden i den svenska förvaltningsmodellen är myndig-heternas självständighet mot regeringens departement. Sverige tillämpar ett förbud mot ministerstyre. Utskottens roll är att bereda ärenden och lägga fram välgrundade förslag innan riksdagen fattar beslut i frågan.
Misstroendeförklaringen kan riktas mot ett enskilt statsråd för något som ligger bortom dennes möjlighet att ingripa, som en brist i förvaltningsmyn-dighetens verksamhet. Det saknas tillfredställande argumentation i förarbe-tena rörande denna principiella brist. Vidare finns inget lagstiftat krav för att säkerställa om bristen föreligger i statsrådets agerande eller uppkom i ett senare led i förvaltningsmyndighetens verksamhet.
Min slutsats är att det finns en principiell brist i möjligheten att kunna ut-kräva ansvar från statsråd för brister i myndigheters verksamhet, eftersom statsråden inte har möjlighet att styra dessa på grund av det svenska förbu-det mot ministerstyre. Beredning av ärendet i utskott skulle kunna klargöra omständigheter som hade gjort misstroendeförklaringen mer principiellt riktigt. Beredandet skulle kunna klargöra om misstroendeförklaringen här-rör från bristande förtroende på grund av statsrådets underlåtenhet att full-föra sitt ansvar eller endast en brist i förvaltningsmyndighetens verksamhet. Denna logiska brist kan dock inte med säkerhet avhjälpas då det inte finns några lagstiftade krav för att uppfylla informationsbehovet. Svaret på min frågeställning blir därför att det är olämpligt att använda misstroendeför-klaring för att utkräva ansvar från statsråd i den situation som frågeställ-ningen uppställer. (Less)
Abstract
The IT-case of the Swedish Transport Office in 2017 combined with the debate that followed on accountability inspired my question. The question reads as follows: Is it appropriate to hold cabinet ministers accountable for deficiencies in administrative authority activities through a motion of cen-sure? This question is answered by using Ahlbäck’s three criteria for ac-countability. These read: someone should be able to be distinguished as accountable, knowledge should be available about whether the public ac-tivities were conducted well or poorly and there should be mechanisms to demand accountability. I apply the first two criteria and leave the last one stating that the motion of censure is one such mechanism. Furthermore, I use the... (More)
The IT-case of the Swedish Transport Office in 2017 combined with the debate that followed on accountability inspired my question. The question reads as follows: Is it appropriate to hold cabinet ministers accountable for deficiencies in administrative authority activities through a motion of cen-sure? This question is answered by using Ahlbäck’s three criteria for ac-countability. These read: someone should be able to be distinguished as accountable, knowledge should be available about whether the public ac-tivities were conducted well or poorly and there should be mechanisms to demand accountability. I apply the first two criteria and leave the last one stating that the motion of censure is one such mechanism. Furthermore, I use the legal dogmatic method to present the institution of motion of cen-sure and a freer critical perspective when comparing and arguing against my theory. The data used for this essay consists of mainly legislative histo-ry and literature.
As a result of the legislature's willingness to bring parliamentarism into the constitution, the institute of motion of censure was introduced in the Swe-dish constitution through the Instrument of Government. A motion of no confidence can be directed against the entire government (which is done through a declaration against the prime minister) or against an individual minister. A motion of censure cannot be prepared in parliamentary commit-tee, which constitutes an exception to the obligation to prepare such mat-ters in committee. The basis of the Swedish public administration is the independence of the administrative authority from the governmental de-partments. The role of the committees is to prepare matters and make well-founded proposals before Parliament decides on the matter.
The motion of censure can be directed against an individual cabinet minis-ter regarding something that is beyond their ability to intervene, such as a flaw in the activities of the administrative authority. Sweden does not allow ministerial rule. The argumentation in legislative history about this funda-mental flaw is not satisfying. Furthermore, there are no legal requirements to meet the need of information on whether the problem concerns the ac-tions of the cabinet minister or if the flaw arose in the activity of the ad-ministrative authority.
In conclusion, it exists a fundamental flaw in the ability to hold ministers accountable for deficiencies in the activities of the authorities. The cabinet minister is not allowed to influence the authority because of Sweden’s pro-hibition on ministerial rules. This logical deficiency could be solved by pointing to the cabinet minister’s inadequate action within its mandate. However, this is not a satisfying solution due to the ban on committee preparation in this matter which results in a lack of legal requirements to meet the need of information. Meeting this need could make it clear whether the problem stems from the minister’s neglect to not do what is in their mandate to resolve the flaw or from the action of the administrative authority solely. Preparing the matter in committee could clarify circum-stances that would have made the motion of censure more principled.
Therefore, my conclusion will be that it is not appropriate to use a motion of censure to hold ministers accountable for the situation posed by the question. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Kajsa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20222
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
statsrätt
language
Swedish
id
9104301
date added to LUP
2023-02-03 16:32:03
date last changed
2023-02-03 16:32:03
@misc{9104301,
  abstract     = {{The IT-case of the Swedish Transport Office in 2017 combined with the debate that followed on accountability inspired my question. The question reads as follows: Is it appropriate to hold cabinet ministers accountable for deficiencies in administrative authority activities through a motion of cen-sure? This question is answered by using Ahlbäck’s three criteria for ac-countability. These read: someone should be able to be distinguished as accountable, knowledge should be available about whether the public ac-tivities were conducted well or poorly and there should be mechanisms to demand accountability. I apply the first two criteria and leave the last one stating that the motion of censure is one such mechanism. Furthermore, I use the legal dogmatic method to present the institution of motion of cen-sure and a freer critical perspective when comparing and arguing against my theory. The data used for this essay consists of mainly legislative histo-ry and literature.
As a result of the legislature's willingness to bring parliamentarism into the constitution, the institute of motion of censure was introduced in the Swe-dish constitution through the Instrument of Government. A motion of no confidence can be directed against the entire government (which is done through a declaration against the prime minister) or against an individual minister. A motion of censure cannot be prepared in parliamentary commit-tee, which constitutes an exception to the obligation to prepare such mat-ters in committee. The basis of the Swedish public administration is the independence of the administrative authority from the governmental de-partments. The role of the committees is to prepare matters and make well-founded proposals before Parliament decides on the matter.
The motion of censure can be directed against an individual cabinet minis-ter regarding something that is beyond their ability to intervene, such as a flaw in the activities of the administrative authority. Sweden does not allow ministerial rule. The argumentation in legislative history about this funda-mental flaw is not satisfying. Furthermore, there are no legal requirements to meet the need of information on whether the problem concerns the ac-tions of the cabinet minister or if the flaw arose in the activity of the ad-ministrative authority.
In conclusion, it exists a fundamental flaw in the ability to hold ministers accountable for deficiencies in the activities of the authorities. The cabinet minister is not allowed to influence the authority because of Sweden’s pro-hibition on ministerial rules. This logical deficiency could be solved by pointing to the cabinet minister’s inadequate action within its mandate. However, this is not a satisfying solution due to the ban on committee preparation in this matter which results in a lack of legal requirements to meet the need of information. Meeting this need could make it clear whether the problem stems from the minister’s neglect to not do what is in their mandate to resolve the flaw or from the action of the administrative authority solely. Preparing the matter in committee could clarify circum-stances that would have made the motion of censure more principled.
Therefore, my conclusion will be that it is not appropriate to use a motion of censure to hold ministers accountable for the situation posed by the question.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Kajsa}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Ett olämpligt ansvarsutkrävande - En studie om att genom misstroendeförklaring utkräva ansvar av statsråd}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}