Better opportunities to carry out detentions

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to approve the committee's proposal in the report. We Social Democrats believe that the law enforcement authorities should have better tools to be able to quickly and effectively find those individuals who are off the radar and pose a serious security risk. There is a reasonable balance here regarding which coercive measures can be used. Furthermore, we feel that the rules for reporting on the use of coercive measures have been strengthened in a good way.

This part is fundamentally about the need for a guarantee of legal certainty for the individual. But there also needs to be a certain restraining effect on the authorities, an extra little pat on the shoulder to remind them that secret coercive measures should not be used extensively or too lightly.

We do, however, have a specific statement where we follow up on the criticism that I will devote my speech to. We have expressed this in several other matters in the recent past. It is fundamentally about the fact that we need to give some extra thought when we make changes regarding secret coercive measures.

This report is one in a long series of matters—just in the last year we have actually had ten different such matters in the chamber—which concern the demarcation between our freedoms and rights and the rule of law's need for effective tools, as I spoke about earlier. In that intersection lies the assessment that we politicians sometimes must make. Sometimes we need to stop and squint. I have said this here in the speaker's chair before. We sometimes need to take a step back and try to see the whole of that minefield of proposals, more or less well-considered, that are presented.

When this is on our table, the Council on Legislation has repeatedly tried to remind us of that, and we do not have the strength to make that assessment every time. There are many reasons for that. The most fundamental reason is that we naturally want to do everything in our power to, for example, combat the gang crime that poisons our society day by day. But we can state that the need to show decisiveness and make moves perhaps sometimes prevents us from stopping at that crossroads.

There may be someone here in the chamber - no one mentioned, no one forgotten - who thinks that this matter of individual privacy and rule-of-law principles is some PK thing from the middle of the 20th century or some 90s thing. It is not.

Now, as an old history teacher, I shall be a bit pedantic. Those rulers have found themselves at that intersection for an incredibly long time. Not least the provincial lawmen – I look at the Speaker here – had to find themselves at the intersection between the individual's freedom, the peasants' right to their own land and independence, and the peace laws. They had to handle that question. The constitutional monarchs had to handle that question. Even the pioneers for universal and equal suffrage in our country found themselves at that very intersection. The Council on Legislation tries time and again to remind us that we must take it seriously.

We find ourselves in many respects at a concluding stage politically. It is quite obvious. Populism has taken hold in Europe but also in our country. It is very un-Swedish.

A contributing cause to why we have actually taken a step away from what has made Sweden function best is how we make decisions. It is about a thoroughness in decision-making. We listen, we investigate, and we back down. We investigate further, we listen again, and we adjust. And in the end, we compromise. It may be seen as a self-evident matter. But it is rushed and pushed through. Too little is listened to. Too little is adjusted. Compromises are hardly made at all, unfortunately.

I want to assert that in this situation we are beginning to approach the limit of how much we can stress-test our system. Every step may be seen as necessary and is logical in the moment. But when the cumulative decisions become problematic, we must take a step back or begin to reflect. I believe that is what the Council on Legislation is trying to remind us of, somewhat discreetly or not very discreetly.

We have a number of temporary legislations that affect human rights. Several heavy-weight bodies argue that the assessments of interest and proportionality constantly yield the same outcome, to the detriment of the individual and their fundamental freedoms and rights. There are reasons for reflection there. Temporary legislations of this kind are not always for the better. It rather suggests a certain uncertainty among the legislators.

It is, therefore, our fundamental perspective on this report. It is a complex regulatory framework we are dealing with when it comes to secret coercive measures. The framework is spread across different regulations. It is difficult to get a consolidated picture of the legislation. The extent to which individuals' personal privacy is affected, we have not seen before.

This bill certainly contributes to this, and that is what we are aware of. But we need to get a more unified picture of the regulatory framework for secret coercive measures as a whole. We do not only need to compile that picture. We also need to remain at this turning point a little longer and weigh things carefully.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve reservation number 1 from the Left Party, but I simultaneously stand behind both of our reservations.

It is a big step one takes with this reform. It is something that is new in Swedish law. And it is partly very important and partly strongly problematic.

I mean that every society, including the Swedish one of course, must have the opportunity to use coercive measures in order to be able to investigate and, not least, prosecute crimes. But such coercive measures definitionally imply a restriction of freedoms and rights that are fundamental to democracy. Therefore, the legislation and the means that the legislation provides must be surrounded by strict restrictions.

This proposal contains a continuation of certain principles that are already established when it comes to secret coercive measures. The starting points are different basic pillars. It must be consistent regarding purpose and need and be proportionate in relation to the intervention one makes. There must, therefore, be a tangible need to do this, and less intrusive measures are not sufficient. Proportionality must not disturb this.

Generally, this concerns something that is important from a legal certainty perspective. Authorization for a majority of the secret coercive measures and the review of the principles must take place in court after an application by the prosecutor, and there must be a public representative participating in the authorization review so that there is a check and an opportunity for the representative to request a review of the decisions.

An important principle is also that the person who is affected by secret coercive measures shall, in retrospect, receive information about this and an intelligence report on the measure. This must, however, occur in retrospect; otherwise, it will not be effective.

I mean that the proposal we have before us now is reasonable in large parts. It is important to be able to find a wanted person who is hiding to avoid investigation, prosecution, or the execution of a sentence, especially if it concerns a wanted person who has committed serious crimes, which is practically always the case if it concerns physical or sexual violence. In that part, I therefore stand completely behind the government's proposal.

At the same time, the government's proposal means that secret surveillance of electronic communication and secret data retrieval can be directed not only against wanted persons but also against persons who there is reason to assume that the wanted person has contact with or will contact.

In that part, I agree with, among others, the Bar Association, which argues that this should not be permitted because these persons are in no way suspected of or convicted of crimes. That it is proposed that there should be a compelling reason for the measure does not change that position.

Another objection is that the government's proposal implies that prosecutors, without limitations, shall be allowed to decide that information that has emerged during the use of surveillance of electronic communication according to the new law may be used for purposes other than those that formed the basis for the measure. This is what is commonly called surplus information. Information from secret data retrieval shall, however, only be allowed to be used to initiate a preliminary investigation or to prevent crime, and otherwise only after special permission.

There are two principles here, one which states that one should be allowed to freely use surplus material and one for another part of the material, if it concerns secret data retrieval. This is questionable, especially in the part which states that one should be allowed to use surplus information without restrictions and without any control other than that it is the prosecutor who decides.

It also becomes serious based on a comment that the Council on Legislation has made. They mean that it needs to be highlighted extra that the information collected may be stored for a long period, with non-negligible possibilities of using it for purposes other than those for which it was originally collected, and that secret coercive measures can then also be used against persons who are not and have not been suspected of a crime.

Against this background, I want to emphasize the importance of us rejecting the government's bill in the parts concerning secret coercive measures against persons other than those who were primarily intended, and likewise that prosecutors shall not be allowed to handle surplus information that has been obtained during secret surveillance of electronic communications for purposes other than those that formed the basis for the original decision. These are two important exceptions.

I also want to mark the issue regarding the possibility of using secret coercive measures against foreigners who fail to comply with their reporting obligation. In that regard, Vänsterpartiet does not accept the government's assessment and proposal. We consider it to be going too far to expand the use of secret coercive measures to locate a person who is subject to a reporting obligation. The Riksdag should therefore reject the government's proposition also in the part concerning the control of foreign citizens who have failed to comply with their reporting obligation.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill Better opportunities to carry out deprivation of liberty. The bill aims to provide the law enforcement authorities with better tools to be able to quickly and effectively pursue persons and locate foreigners who pose a serious security risk.

Current provisions in Chapter 27 of the Code of Judicial Procedure have enabled the use of secret surveillance of electronic communication for the purpose of locating a reasonably suspected person of immediate interest in a preliminary investigation or to enable an interrogation, but not for the purpose of executing a deprivation of liberty of a suspected or convicted person. We are now enabling that.

To locate a foreigner who has not fulfilled their reporting obligation, it is currently possible to obtain information on in which geographical area a certain communication device is or has been located, but not to obtain other types of information or use secret coercive measures for the purpose of finding the foreigner. This too will now become possible.

That wanted persons are located and that the consequences are carried out is important for several reasons. Not least, it concerns the public's trust in the justice system. The state must have both the ability and the decisiveness to effectively execute judgments so that perpetrators are held accountable for their criminal acts.

It is also about the citizens' safety. The wanted persons may be seriously mentally ill or prone to violence or risk continuing to commit crimes. Regarding foreigners, it can involve presumptive terrorists or persons who may pose a serious threat to Sweden's security. It can also be about the risk of crimes being prescribed or that suspects can destroy evidence or influence witnesses.

Secret coercive measures, such as secret wiretapping, camera surveillance, room bugging, as well as surveillance of electronic communications, are important parts of the work to access organized crime. Here, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are initiating a number of measures to improve our law enforcement agencies' ability to use coercive measures.

In addition to today's bill on being able to track down convicted persons and locate foreigners who pose a serious security risk, last year we implemented the largest change of secret coercive measures in modern times, when we made it possible to use them for preventive purposes. Thanks to the new legislation, the police, already after three months with the new law, have arrested over 30 people with the help of this. Before the end of the parliamentary term, we will also make it possible to direct secret coercive measures against minors who commit serious crimes.

In the proposal, there are reservations from Vänsterpartiet and a special statement from Socialdemokraterna. They are concerned about the intrusion into personal privacy that the bill will entail for wanted persons and foreigners who constitute a serious security risk. I am not worried at all, Mr. Speaker. Their personal privacy is not very interesting.

That we see this type of change only now is perhaps because the Sweden Democrats are involved in governing Sweden. Previously, consideration has obviously been given to the well-being and personal privacy of criminal individuals rather than to the law-abiding citizens' right not to be subjected to crime.

It may sound harsh, but the appalling development of serious crime in Sweden is not something that has arisen out of thin air. It is created not only by political decisions but also by the lack of political decisions. To not take necessary political measures is, in fact, also a decision in itself.

Sweden has been a safe country. Those listening to this have surely themselves experienced or been told how one didn't need to lock the bicycle or even lock one's house when leaving home in the past. But then politicians in Sweden chose not to lock Sweden's borders and to have lax prison sentences. Then it was up to the citizens to lock their houses and get alarms with dispatch.

Even decades ago, it could be seen that the situation was not sustainable. But it is only now, when the Sweden Democrats are involved in governing Sweden, that the political decisions are being made that should have been made many years ago. The question we are discussing here concerns a typical such example. Why has this, an obviously reasonable measure, not been implemented earlier? It has obviously been a problem that criminals have evaded justice. Yet these measures have not been implemented until now.

Politics is about will. But unlike the author of the quote, our will is not to create either a divided, multicultural society or a lawless criminal justice system, but we want to create a safe and cohesive Sweden, where the foundations of the home are community and empathy - a Sweden where the rights of the diligent citizen always come before those of the criminals.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, there are 1,300 cases concerning persons who are wanted by the Prison and Probation Service. That is, there are 1,300 criminals who are not serving the sentence they have been sentenced to but are instead at large. They can be tracked down by the police by locating where their mobile phones are used, but the police do not have permission to do this. Now we are changing that.

Thousands of convicted criminals at large are unfortunately just one of many examples of the chaos that the Social Democrats' incompetence has caused. I say as the country's Prime Minister: You Social Democrats should be ashamed!

Mr. Speaker! Decision by decision, we will now bring order to Sweden. The powers proposed in the bill are both reasonable and necessary. They also concern persons who have deviated from a decision on arrest or detention.

Persons who have been sentenced to a custodial sentence are in many cases very motivated to stay away and stay hidden. It has also become easier for criminals to cross borders to other countries without leaving any traces behind.

Suspected and convicted persons shall not be able to evade investigation, prosecution, or punishment. This applies particularly, as previously pointed out, to dangerous and violent individuals. The law enforcement authorities shall be able to quickly and effectively find wanted persons.

I note that the Social Democrats here in the speaker's chair seem to be more interested in the privacy of suspects and the convicted than in solving these very serious problems. And the Left Party considers this to be "problematic".

The expanded powers were also needed to be able to locate foreigners who pose a serious security risk. Sweden's terror threat level has been raised from level 3 to level 4. We have far too many far too dangerous people in Sweden who cannot be deported or taken into custody. Several of them have an obligation to repeatedly and at certain times report to the Police Authority. When they fail to do this and disappear, they must be able to be sought.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the government bill and against the motion being discussed in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We were a bit in the line of fire for Member Kärrholm's speech, which perhaps will lead to a bit of a clarification regarding the years we have governed this country, which we obviously should be ashamed of, according to Member Kärrholm.

I am not ashamed in the slightest. It was we Social Democrats who made the decision that 10,000 new police officers should be on the ground. We implemented reforms, for example the expansion of police training, which has led to the fact that we have practically reached that goal. There are many politicians who stand and talk about that one should go there and that one should do these things. We delivered, to the letter.

Our government also delivered more repressive measures in this area during its time than any government ever in our country's history has done. We do not need to be ashamed.

We need to be ashamed a little bit because we have not handled the crime-preventive aspects with the same weight as the repressive ones. There we can be a bit reflective, but not when it comes to this.

There is a whistling of inaccuracies in this room. Time and again, claims are made. Another member said a short while ago that one did not need to lock the doors previously. A small detail is that residential burglaries have been halved in our country since 2016. How does one meet such a discussion with someone who is obviously on another planet? After the large refugee reception in 2016, residential burglaries have ironically been halved in our country. This is a fact.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Member Löberg approaches the rostrum grinning. I am not grinning at this. I take these problems most seriously.

It is naturally very good that residential burglaries have been halved. But we have a situation where children are shooting each other in the head. We have a situation with 1,300 cases concerning persons who are wanted by the Prison and Probation Service. This is an enormous political failure that we have inherited from the Social Democrats.

I am less interested in which legislative changes the Social Democrats achieved and more interested in what effect they have had in reality. Reality speaks its own clear language. During the Social Democrats' period in power, the problems became larger and worse in substantial respects, and now we are correcting this decision by decision.

I do not think the member should stand up and grin when we are talking about such serious issues.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kärrholm has a not so low-affect style of debate, which I perhaps think one should mark against.

When it comes to results in criminal policy, it is about getting legislative processes to reach their goal and getting authorities to achieve the quality targets we have. Right now, the government is rather lost when it comes, for example, to meeting the challenges of the Prison and Probation Service. They are very eager to enact laws in here. They have a lot of announced laws that will result in us having an enormous problem regarding where we are to have all these people locked up somewhere. They do not have the answers there.

There are no answers - and this is the central point - regarding how we are to reduce the gangs' new recruitment. There are no answers on how one intends to work on crime prevention in municipalities, in operations with a social-preventive focus. That is where answers are owed.

Perhaps Member Kärrholm should have devoted himself to answering this instead of reviewing people's appearance. That might have been more reasonable.

In his speech, Member Kärrholm also discussed that the level of terror has increased in our country - during your watch, it should be added - partly due to the Quran burnings that the chairman of the Justice Committee and your comrade Richard Jomshof have encouraged. According to the Swedish Security Service, one of the reasons is the international context surrounding the Quran burnings. It is your own comrade who thinks it is a good idea to engage in such things. This should be condemned by Member Kärrholm.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin with a linguistic correction. Smirking has nothing to do with appearance. It has to do with behavior, and the member might want to reflect a little on his behavior.

The threat of terrorism in Sweden is due to the fact that we have very many violence-seeking Islamists in Sweden, nothing else. The Prison and Probation Service has a shortage of places that existed when we took power. When your party colleague Morgan Johansson was Minister for Justice, he boasted that one had now indeed locked up so many criminals that it was full in the country's institutions. But this was, in fact, nothing to boast about, but rather a political failure that we are now solving with a clear plan, where the Prison and Probation Service expands institutions and builds new institutions. In December this year, we will be finished with the investigation to be able to rent prison places abroad.

The preventive work has not functioned in Sweden. That is why we see the problems we see. Now the government has developed a social preventive strategy that is well-thought-out and comprehensive. That the government would have no policy or strategy regarding this is downright dishonest. I do not want to believe that the member is so totally ignorant.

You problematize my debating style and call for a more low-affect approach. No, on the contrary: The problems we have in Sweden are largely due to the fact that in large parts of society, we have devoted ourselves to a low-affect approach. Actions have not had consequences, and there has been a generally widespread naivety. Now we are changing that. Now we are getting Sweden in order. Now we are stepping up after your failures.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind the members that all members shall always speak through the Speaker, which is why "you", "you" (objective) and "your" are expressions that we do not use.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! It is a state's duty to protect its inhabitants from being subjected to violence and crime. A state shall therefore prevent and prosecute crime but also investigate and prosecute persons who commit crimes. It is part of the social contract that one follows the laws oneself and that the justice system is there for one if one is subjected to crime.

A state needs legislation and resources of various kinds to be able to do this. The now proposed legislation on better opportunities to carry out detentions is important to recreate safety, to carry out our state decisions, and to maintain confidence in the rule of law.

But the proposal also clearly shows the Center Party's view on the use of coercive measures. We see the need for secret coercive measures, and when used correctly, they are often completely decisive. However, we are often more cautious when it comes to using them preventively or without concrete suspicion.

The cases we are talking about today concern either persons who are already convicted and against whom a penalty is to be executed, or persons where there are decisions on deprivation of liberty – they can therefore be detained or remanded in custody. It can also be about cases where, for other reasons, there is a risk to the security of the realm regarding foreigners who neglect their reporting obligation.

We consider it reasonable and proportionate to use some of the secret coercive measures available in our legislation in these cases. There is serious organized crime in our country that we need to combat. Many different tools are needed to do this, for example, new legislation such as that we are debating today, expanded cooperation, and more resources. In the recent past, we have received information on how wanted persons can continue to commit crimes from other countries. It is completely unreasonable.

But by reason of what has been said in the debate, I also want to emphasize the importance of us having a police force that is present throughout the country and performs its job. Significant resource reinforcements have occurred that the Centerpartiet has stood behind, but a great responsibility rests on the government, which governs and leads the authorities, to ensure that these tools can now be used correctly. There is time for legislation, but there is also time for delivery and for bringing down crime in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Even though we stand behind today's proposal, we see, in common with other parties, that there is a great need for a rethink or a major update of our country's use of coercive measures in general and the so-called secret coercive measures in particular. A fragmented and unclear legislation does not provide our public officials and our justice system the clear and strong tools they need.

Even though it is a question of secret coercive measures, which by their nature are precisely secret, our citizens must have a reasonable opportunity to know when these can and should be used. It is unbecoming of us as legislators, who hold a mandate from the people, to enact laws that the people can understand and internalize as easily as possible.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal. It is needed in the short term. But the government needs to initiate that we, in the longer term, get even better and clearer legislation regarding these important crime-fighting tools.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In May 2022, there were 204 persons detained in their absence, 382 remanded in custody in their absence, 29 who had escaped from forensic psychiatry, 25 who had escaped from prison, 868 who had not reported to serve a sentence and 1,683 who were to be detained or taken into custody with the support of the Aliens Act or the Act on the Care of Young People. In total, there were 3,191 persons registered as wanted by the Police Authority according to this snapshot from May 2022. As we heard in previous speeches, there is reason to assume that the number of persons wanted has increased since then.

All of these are, therefore, people who should be sitting behind bars but move freely out on our streets and squares or have left the country. Despite searches, there are quite many who manage to stay hidden for so long that the sentence or the detention will never be executed due to prescription.

Madam Speaker! It is clearly in the interest of society that all these 3,191 are traced and taken into custody, for several reasons: Firstly, there is an obvious risk that they will continue their criminality and sink deeper into crime when they remain hidden and thereby pose a danger to the public; secondly, it is perceived as offensive that those affected by crime do not receive the redress that the punishment entails. Furthermore, it affects the public's trust in the justice system.

The police are responsible for the search for wanted persons. This is primarily carried out through traditional external surveillance or internal surveillance in the form of register checks, verification of addresses, etc., but many times the work is fruitless. In order to streamline the search, the Police Authority has requested better tools and specifically pointed out possibilities to locate wanted persons with the help of electronic communication equipment that can be linked to the wanted person.

Against the background of rapid technological development with increased digitalization, it is reasonable that the police can sharpen their methods even in this area. The proposal that is now on the table is that the police shall, under certain circumstances, be given the opportunity to use coercive measures in the form of secret surveillance of electronic communication or secret data retrieval.

The prerequisite is that the measure must be of particular importance in order to locate the wanted person. In addition, there are a number of other requirements that must be met for secret coercive measures to be used. Particular importance means, among other things, that other possibilities to locate the wanted person have been exhausted or judged hopeless or would entail a large amount of work.

It should also be emphasized that the now proposed coercive measures are considered the least privacy-intrusive measures of the secret coercive measures that the law permits. It is therefore not a question of secret wiretapping or secret camera surveillance.

It is clear that there is a need for better tools for the police, and we Christian Democrats now assess the proposed coercive measures as proportionate, well-motivated, and expedient, and therefore call for approval of the bill.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! As the son of a historian and as someone who once myself was enrolled at Stockholm University to study history, I thought it was interesting to hear the member from the Social Democrats talk about the old peace laws. They are, as is known, from the 1200s.

I have been an active police officer for over 30 years - and I have sat in a police car. I have often wondered: What is actually happening in the Riksdag? What is actually happening in Rosenbad? How do they think? Because laws have been missing. There have been holes in the legislation. We police officers have wondered: Why are those holes never closed? Why is nothing being done?

This has, therefore, been the case during the last 30 years, so it doesn't matter which party color has governed the country.

Now we finally have a government that actually understands this and that is beginning to plug these holes. The law that we are debating today is a law that does that. We are all here in the chamber generally in agreement that this law was needed, and that is pleasing. But what has emerged when I have listened to the debate here is that we are somewhat in disagreement when it comes to this matter of privacy. It is about the value of being able to effectively search for a wanted person and apprehend that person, or being able to actively and quickly search for and find a dangerous person who has escaped from a facility. We weigh that against the intrusion into personal privacy that this law and these measures entail.

It must be kept in mind that all coercive measures that the state, including through the police, carries out are some form of intrusion into personal privacy. But in order for us to have a functioning rule of law, we have agreed that authorities in certain cases, through their personnel, may carry out certain measures that are an intrusion into personal privacy.

The police may, for example, arrest a person, place a person in handcuffs, lock a person in a cell, take blood samples, take urine samples, and so on. We have, at least as far as I know, no problems with that in here. It is trusted that the police, in this case, do their job and carry out the infringements on personal integrity correctly.

Madam Speaker! Another issue that has come up in the debate is this matter of surplus information. It is information that the police may come across in connection with the use of this law. There is some criticism that the police and prosecutors will be able to use this information all too easily.

I do not really see that problem in my world. If the police, during a surveillance where they are out looking for a certain person, get a tip about upcoming serious crime or ongoing serious crime, I actually think that information should be allowed to be used. It would be strange if the police were to become aware of, for example, a serious crime, such as kidnapping, and were not allowed to use that information to be able to prevent the kidnapping - very strange.

Or let us say that during, for example, an interception or a reading, one gains knowledge of how drugs are smuggled into the country, which methods are used, and who is doing it, and that one then should not be allowed to use that information. I think that is very strange. I understand that the purpose of the interception, the reading, or the acquisition of call logs and so on is to find a person who is to be deprived of liberty. I understand that, and I know it. But if the police receive surplus information that allows one to prevent serious crime, I still think that one should be allowed to use it.

Actually, one could explain this more simply if one takes it practically. Let us say that a police officer receives an alarm about a fight in an apartment. There is shouting and screaming and so on. The police arrive and knock on the door. A woman opens and says that her husband is aggressive inside the apartment. The police step into the apartment and see two weapons inside. They are two pistols lying on a table. Suddenly we have a crime, a serious crime: illegal possession of weapons. It would be very strange if the police then were not allowed to seize these weapons and file a report.

The purpose of entering the apartment was not to search for weapons. It can be said that the police received a kind of surplus information that could then be used.

I am, Madam Speaker, convinced that the police and prosecutors will be able to handle even this law in a good and professional manner. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I have been sidelined a few times during the speeches from the other political side, in relation to the side that I represent in the opposition. But now I think I have received a concrete reason to request a reply.

There are several misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I think, of what we from Vänsterpartiet have put forward. We stand behind the main proposal in the bill and think it is very important that one can prosecute properly, that one can find those who have fled and so on.

But when it comes to, for example, the surplus information, we mean that one has gone too far when, in some cases, use of all forms of information is allowed without control, and where a distinction is made depending on how the material has been obtained. When it is secret data use, some control by the court, prosecutor, and so on is required, but otherwise it is free. We also share the Council of Legislation's great concern, because there is no time limit here. How long should such information be stored? There I believe we could agree that additional measures would be needed from a legal certainty perspective for this to function well. That is why we want to put the brakes on that point.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I am well aware of the concern that one may feel. However, I am confident that the surplus information that comes to the knowledge of the police and the prosecutors is valued and used correctly. I trust the authorities. When it comes to keeping track of this, we have the Security and Integrity Protection Board, which is to look at how the information is used. I am also confident that that board functions correctly and well.

Then it concerns how long this shall be applicable. Some preliminary investigations can take years, and in that case, I think it is foolish to limit it. I do not know if the proposal was 18 months, but I think it is foolish to limit it.

I think that in some way everything has been taken into account, and I think the law is well-designed. Should it turn out – as is the case with all laws – that it does not work, it can be revised and improved. But I feel secure with how the law is written in the bill.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Martin Melin and I have different views on how much trust we should have in authorities, including the police. I have great trust generally that we have a good public system in Sweden, but I have also during my lifetime been able to witness enormous mistakes that have been committed in these sectors.

Therefore, we must ensure that what works well shall be allowed to continue doing so. We shall not subject the systems to unnecessary strain. I mean, therefore, that in this case we shall be vigilant and that we shall be able to imagine control. If it works, it is of no danger to have control stations; we would only become safer.

Therefore, I think it is a very strange argument that we are, so to speak, supposed to have blind trust in some contexts while in other contexts we are supposed to have control. I think it should apply generally, especially when, as we have now discussed, it concerns, for example, relatives who have not committed any crimes being able to be drawn into this system. If, on the other hand, information is found about the accomplices of the convicted person, the system opens up, and then the control would also say that this is okay. But other times, perhaps it is not the case.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I hear what the member says, and I also understand what the member means, even if I do not share the member's concern. I am also in favor of there being a certain level of control when authorities carry out measures.

In this case, there is an internal control being carried out by the Prosecution Authority and the Police Authority. One does not need to rely on it, but it exists. As I said, we also have the Security and Integrity Protection Board, which will also look into this.

Therefore, I still feel quite secure that the control that exists will work. I perhaps believe too much in such things, I don't know, but that is my attitude in any case.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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