A new law on security guards

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I move for the proposal in the report to be approved.

There is a remarkable paradox in today's public conversation; yes, perhaps also in the private conversations around the kitchen tables at home. Despite the fact that the individual in our nation's history - 500 years or more, depending on how one counts - has actually never had a stronger basis for feeling secure than today, we are investing enormous resources in security and safety. And it is increasing. For the sake of clarity, I mean safety in a substantial sense, that is, not risking being struck by accidents, sudden death, or other mischief.

And if you are not a member of a criminal gang in any of our underprivileged areas, the risk of being affected by violence is probably lower today than we have ever measured in historical time, not least thanks to the fact that our public environments have become significantly safer because the youth do not drink as much and hit each other in the city, but also because our school and home environments no longer use violence to resolve conflicts or discipline one another, as was common a couple of generations ago. Still, the population is whipped up into a state of mind of fear. There are, of course, populist reasons for this, but there are also strong economic interests. This occurs in combination with the fact that the Police Authority has not succeeded in a sufficiently large extent in getting police officers into outer service in crime prevention activities, which the large seminar conducted under the auspices of the Justice Committee in the First Chamber last week showed with all desirable clarity when researchers and representatives for authorities were allowed to speak out.

In one way, much of the work of creating security in our country has been privatized. In that context, good and purposeful legislation needed to be in place. And they must go in step with each other.

Security guards, which are the subject of today's discussion, have significantly greater tasks today and are present in significantly more places than before, and so it will be for the foreseeable future. This is not least about the fact that there is a strong pressure on municipal representatives to work with safety issues in places that are perceived, or are, unsafe, for example public transport hubs or streets and squares. But even the private business sector is purchasing safety services at a historically high level.

We politicians must acknowledge the fact that insecure places become safer with uniformed personnel on site. In the bill, reference is made, among other things, to the Swedish Police Authority's own report *Tryggare kan ingen vara*, written by authors from Örebro University, which has demonstrated the fact that uniformed patrolling personnel make people in environments where they initially experienced insecurity feel significantly safer. This specifically applies to foot-patrolling police, which has proven to be incredibly effective.

In any case: the role and scope of the security guards have thus changed, and we need to get legislation in place. I am once again the first to speak and shall describe some points.

Firstly, it is about the police being able to appoint security guards in a significantly larger geographical area than before. This could, for example, be a matter of an entire city center. In that case, the legislation meets the requests that have existed for a long time in a good way. This will significantly relieve the Swedish Police Authority, not least before the current expansion phase of the police's numbers is completed. I will add that this is at all times done under the responsibility and leadership of the Swedish Police Authority. It is not left free.

Secondly, it is about how and where the educational issues and the ambition levels should be placed. Those issues have been the subject of an investigation. Here, the parties in the labor market and the security companies have jointly submitted a referral statement where it appears that they consider that there should be a regulation and that the Swedish Police Authority is the most appropriate level to assess this issue.

Thirdly, the main point of the bill is the changes concerning in which contexts the security guards shall intervene and act. The police shall be allowed to hand over to security guards the transport of those who have been detained for intoxication according to LOB. It is undoubtedly such a matter that will relieve and ensure that the police can refine their operations in both the short and long term. Now, some of the drunks or other mentally ill may perhaps be in such a state that police intervention is still required. In those cases, there shall be clear boundaries for when police are required and when they can be handled directly with the help of security guards.

Another somewhat more controversial point concerns whether a security guard should wait for a police officer in order to be able to identify someone who has been detained, arrested, or removed from a location. Here, it may be a question of difficult trade-offs, and it concerns personal integrity. We have said that we can accept this. One reason lies in the fact that one can shorten the time for the person deprived of liberty until they are identified. Today, someone can be made to sit and wait for a long time in an unwelcoming place before a police officer is on site who can handle the identification. Then, in many cases, the person deprived of liberty can leave almost immediately. Thus, the time for the deprivation of liberty can be reduced, and that is good.

Finally, the security guards will also, according to the bill, be given the opportunity to pour out seized alcohol, provided that it is of small quantity and value.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, we see that this proposal entails well-considered and reasonable changes regarding the security guards' role in society.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating a new bill regarding the powers of security guards.

According to the proposal, security guards shall be granted extended powers. This can be good in certain contexts when it comes to the work of strengthening the maintenance of public order and safety as well as increasing safety in society.

But we in the Left Party are not entirely satisfied with all parts of the proposal. We consider it inappropriate that security guards should be allowed to transport intoxicated and impaired persons according to LOB, the Act on the Detention of Intoxicated Persons. The proposal is primarily justified by the argument that it would relieve the police's workload. But there are significant risks to both legal certainty and the individual's privacy if security guards are given the authority to transport persons in the manner proposed. Security guards, for example, have no specific healthcare training, which should be a prerequisite if one is to take care of persons who are so strongly impaired that they cannot take care of themselves.

In recent years, we have seen cases where heavily influenced persons who were taken into custody have died. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, 19 people died in police custody between 2017 and 2020. Alcohol was involved in several of these cases. In 2022, a young woman died in the remand prison in Trollhättan after being taken into custody in accordance with the Act on the Detention of Intoxicated Persons.

The medical interventions at sobering-up units are simple but vital. It is important to ensure that the patient lies in the recovery position without risk of falling and is monitored continuously, as well as that there is access to medication for acute conditions such as epileptic seizures and opioid overdoses. Therefore, all sobering-up and detoxification should take place within healthcare. No one should be locked up in the police's holding cells and run the risk of dying from alcohol or drug poisoning.

That the opportunity to transport persons according to LOB is given to security guards, who completely lack specific training to care for people with these severe traumas, creates a risk that the situation will worsen further and that the number of LOB-related deaths will instead increase.

The investigation has also not sufficiently clarified how the individual's vulnerability would be reduced by the proposed regulation. I therefore believe that the Riksdag should reject the bill in this part.

When it comes to the proposal that a security guard shall be allowed to body-search persons in connection with removal or detention to the extent necessary to establish the person's identity, this is a very intrusive measure. There is a risk that body searches are conducted on unjustified grounds. There is also a risk that security guards engage in racial profiling or ethnic profiling. The Riksdag should therefore reject even this part of the bill.

Vänsterpartiet also has a reservation regarding increased training for security guards, reservation 2, which I also move for approval of.

Today's training is far too short and lacks important parts that should be included in a training for security guards. According to current regulations, the security guard training is two weeks long. After that, security guards are granted the authority to use violence, a right that otherwise only the police have. It is remarkable to say the least. Two weeks is far too short a time for this authority.

Unfortunately, there are many examples of when security guards have used violence in a way that has not been justified, and unfortunately, it often affects people who have an ethnic origin other than Swedish. I believe we all remember the film of a pregnant woman with dark skin who is forced out of the subway car by two security guards and then pressed down on her stomach against a hard wooden bench on the platform.

This can lead to certain individuals being singled out by the justice system to a greater extent, which damages trust in society. To address this, a longer security guard training should be introduced. The training should have more focus on grounds for discrimination and conflict management. Security guards also need to receive special knowledge on how children and young people should be approached in order not to exacerbate conflict situations.

In the investigation for the bill, it was proposed that the basic training should comprise at least 160 hours. Despite this, the government does not present any proposal in this context to strengthen the training, which is a very significant deficiency and highly noteworthy. A longer training for security guards should reasonably be in place at the same time as the new law enters into force.

I assume that the commission's proposals will be further processed within the Government Offices, but I still consider it important that a notification regarding the education be directed to the Government. It should be considered in this context whether the education should be extended further, in accordance with what several referral responses to the commission suggest.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the committee report A new law on security guards. It is a very welcome law because the old law is outdated and needs to be modernized. There has been a need to reform the current law on security guards, LOV, as the use of security guards has changed significantly since the law's inception 40 years ago.

A question that has repeatedly been raised over the recent years is whether security guards can be used in a better way than the current law allows in order to thereby meet society's needs for safety and order in public places.

The Swedish Police Authority has stated that the increased use of security guards has led to the law being very difficult to follow. The current law is not adapted to the requirements that different actors set in order to be able to use security guards. For example, there is uncertainty regarding how large geographical areas the Swedish Police Authority can designate for security guards. Both the Swedish Police Authority and a number of municipalities have also submitted proposals to the Ministry of Justice regarding amendments to LOV.

Mr. Speaker! During the negative criminal developments of recent years, the Police Authority has had an increasingly greater use of security guards to counteract public order disturbances as well as in the work of creating safety. The negative social development has led to security guards having an increasingly greater importance for maintaining public order in society.

An example of this is that the Swedish Police Authority, in its operational analysis for the coming years, has concluded that security guards are a resource that can complement the police's work and contribute to ensuring that police resources are primarily used in situations where police competence is indispensable.

A more flexible way of using security guards will free up resources from the police, which can then focus more extensively on their core tasks instead.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that security guards will never be able to replace police officers and that the work of getting more police officers into outer service must continue. But today's shortage of police officers means that security guards have had an increasingly important role to fill, and this also applies to the work of creating safety.

Mr. Speaker! The bill proposes a new law that shall create conditions for increased and more flexible use of security guards. Security guards shall be used to contribute to maintaining public order and safety as well as promoting security. But they shall also be given more powers, for example, to transport certain detained persons and an expanded right to body search in order to establish identity. This will mean that a police officer does not need to come to the scene to establish identity. The time a person is deprived of liberty can thus be shortened, and the security guard can return to other work tasks faster than is possible today.

Security guards will also be able to work in a larger geographical area with the new law, which will also contribute to better efficiency in the security guards' work.

Mr. Speaker! Every year, more than 60,000 people are detained with the support of the Act on the Detention of Intoxicated Persons, LOB. But today's regulations do not give a security guard the right to transport the detained person. The time from when a person has been detained by a security guard with the support of LOB until the police arrive at the scene can be very long. The waiting time for the detained person becomes even longer considering that the police must obtain information about the detention and then drive the person to a hospital, sobering-up unit, or police station.

The new law will expand the powers of security guards to detain persons according to LOB and the Police Act. By providing security guards with the opportunity to transport persons who have been detained, the waiting time for both the individual and the security guards will be able to be significantly reduced.

In addition to shorter waiting times, the proposal would also free up resources at the Swedish Police Authority, which means that police officers will be able to devote themselves to greater extent to tasks where police competence is necessary. Let me add that it will be the police who judge whether it is appropriate to hand over transports to security guards.

When it comes to the training of security guards and the supervision of security guards, I want to say that security guards shall also continue to be under the leadership of the Swedish Police Authority. The training shall be quality-assured and relevant based on the security guard's powers. A security guard's appointment can be revoked if the person, for example, neglects their obligations.

By making these changes, we strengthen the work of creating security. It will also strengthen the legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens, as it is obvious that this change constitutes a step in increasing efficiency and sharpening the focus in every part of the justice system.

Mr. Speaker! It is of absolute central importance that we use our common resources effectively. Within the framework of this work, it is an important, if not fundamental, part that we are flexible enough to adapt political measures based on how reality changes. It is precisely this approach that forms the basis for the political proposal that we are debating today.

There is an understanding that the public sector is not in all instances able to respond to all situations at any given moment. But there is also a legitimate demand that we must do our utmost when it comes to using the resources we have in the best way. The new law that is on the table today is an excellent example of a change in this direction.

Through the new law, we take another step on the way towards a Sweden that is capable of delivering the welfare that our citizens have the right to expect in a more efficient manner.

I vote in favor of the government's proposition.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that security guards fulfill an important function. Security guards are often present at public gatherings and public events, for example at football matches and pubs. Many municipalities hire security guards to contribute to increased safety. Security guards have a role in the safety-creating and crime-preventing work, which is established in the bill. Miljöpartiet agrees with that.

But a security guard cannot and must not replace a police officer. It is also important to emphasize this. A security guard can do certain things that facilitate the work of the police, but a security guard does not have and must not have police powers.

A police training is two years. We discuss from time to time that it should be extended. There are good reasons for that. But there are also arguments against it. It is a discussion that is being conducted.

But the training to become a security guard is 80 hours, which is two weeks. The Government has not presented any proposal to extend the training time, which we are critical of and consider weak. It should be done.

In the bill, it is proposed that security guards should have significantly more powers: to confiscate and destroy alcohol, to transport intoxicated persons, and to body-search persons to establish identity. These are very important tasks but also quite intrusive measures. With more powers, a requirement for extended training should be included. This was also included in the investigation that preceded the bill, where it was stated that 160 hours would be appropriate. For Miljöpartiet's part, we believe that it is a minimum, which we also write in our follow-up motion. But one could very well have discussed a longer period than that.

One can also note that with this regulatory framework, a 20-year-old who is a security guard will be granted the authority to destroy alcohol. It is the same age limit as for purchasing alcohol at Systembolaget. We have not submitted any proposal for a higher age limit, but we have among the referral bodies seen that, for example, the moderately-governed Trelleborg Municipality proposes that there should be a higher age limit for appointment as a security guard.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a new law intended to create conditions for a more flexible and increased use of security guards. Security guards shall be allowed to be used to contribute to maintaining public order and safety and promoting security. That is said verbatim.

The proposed legislation gives the security guards more police powers and allows, among other things, transport of those in custody, body searches to establish the identity of a person in custody, and the possibility to destroy seized alcohol in certain cases.

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, it is the police's task to maintain public order and security. In that sense, the proposed legislation is a sign that the police, on their own, are currently unable to fulfill their task.

Traditionally, the appointment and powers of security guards have largely been limited to maintaining order at public gatherings and other public events, and more recently also to strengthening security in public operations, for example at hospitals, courts, and municipal administrations.

As the police, in tandem with increasing crime, have to an increasing extent transferred resources to investigation and intervention activities and also in tandem with increased centralization, the police presence in the local community has declined significantly. Since the major reorganization in 2015, the police authority has not succeeded in meeting the wishes of citizens and municipalities for a locally present and visible police with good accessibility.

The lack of present and available police has forced many municipalities to hire security guards to compensate for the police absence. This is regrettable, because fundamentally, security guards cannot fully compensate for the gaps that arise when the police leave.

With this said, I want to emphasize that this is in no way a criticism of security guards per se. The majority do a good job given their circumstances and have, as far as I know, a good and close cooperation with the police. However, it is important to continue to be clear about the demarcation between police officers and security guards when it comes to professional roles and powers.

Mr. Speaker! The new legislation enables a more flexible and purposeful use of security guards. It is the need to a greater extent that guides, and the Police Authority is given greater opportunities for increased flexibility when applications are assessed.

When making an assessment, special consideration shall be given to what type and extent the assignment is to have, where the assignment is to be carried out, and what opportunities for management and control the Swedish Police Authority will have over the security guards' work. In other words, there are continued limitations, and it is continued the Swedish Police Authority that sets the framework.

A change that is questioned in a reservation is the proposal that security guards shall be allowed to conduct a body search to establish the identity of a person who is the subject of an intervention. I myself and we Christian Democrats believe that it is inherent to the nature of the matter that the identity of the person being detained is established, but obviously with the support of the applicable regulations.

From a rule of law perspective, it is of great importance that there is good documentation of the deprivation of liberty in retrospect. It is particularly important when intervening against young people, where age can be significant for the continued processing.

The training has also been mentioned here. I do not quite understand the reasoning there, because there is already a regulation that applies to the training of security guards.

In Section 6 of this ordinance, it states: "The training for security guards shall be designed so that the students are given the knowledge and skills required for the service. The training shall be designed with special consideration of a security guard's need for professional ethical principles and theoretical and practical knowledge. The basic training shall comprise at least 60 hours."

Nothing prevents the Police Authority from organizing a training program that is significantly longer. If we now receive a new law that gives security guards increased powers, it is inherent in the nature of the matter that the Police Authority also adapts the training based on these expanded powers.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal that the Riksdag shall adopt a new law on security guards. I also move for the rejection of the present motions.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Member Torsten Elofsson. I know that he has a solid political career behind him before he became a member of the Swedish Riksdag and raised the issue of the length of education for security guards.

I think it is interesting. I heard what the member said about it being up to the police and that the regulation says at least 60 hours, which is one work week if one works a lot, one and a half times more than normal time. Does the member Torsten Elofsson really mean that a 20-year-old on 60 hours should be able to acquire the knowledge needed to use the powers in a sufficiently good way?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! That was not quite how I expressed myself; I said that the training shall comprise at least 60 hours.

Now that we are getting new legislation where we give the security guards extended police powers, it places new requirements on the training. The ordinance gives the Swedish Police Authority the possibility to adapt the training, and it also explicitly states that the training shall be adapted to the new requirements that are placed on security guards.

It is not I who determine how many hours it shall be, but the regulation delegates to the Swedish Police Authority to decide that. When it comes to the age of the security guards, it is a question of maturity and judgment whether it is appropriate or not. Furthermore, in many cases, it is still the police officer who has the supervisory authority. If there are any doubts, the question shall be submitted to the nearest police officer, and in that case, the supervisory authority shall be exercised by the police.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! More powers for what security guards are allowed to do will come with the legislation, but nothing is being done for the training. Nothing would have prevented the government from tightening the requirements in that part or the Riksdag from issuing a motion for the government to return on that part. Now, nothing is being done.

I can state that for other occupational categories, there are very many political discussions about language requirements and all sorts of requirements. But here, where we leave extensive powers to a professional group that has such a short education, the government and the parties in the government base do not want to tighten the requirements. This, Madam Speaker, I think is regrettable and worthy of criticism.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Member Rasmus Ling thinks that the government and the Riksdag should legislate on these issues. It is actually to undermine the police.

Rasmus Ling previously referred to my police experience. I want to assert that it is the police who have the responsibility to ensure that the security guards receive their authorizations and that the security guards who receive authorizations have the competence and knowledge required. It goes without saying that it is the police who have the best capacity and competence to determine what training is required to do this.

When it comes to the length of the training, at the current stage, there is nothing preventing one from falling back on the ordinance and saying that 160 hours are needed instead of 60. The Swedish Police Authority can decide this itself, and I believe we should leave that question to them. If it should turn out that more effort needs to be put behind the words, that can be done, but right now there is no obstacle.

Those who conduct this training within the Swedish Police Authority have the competence and knowledge required for it to be good. This I am completely convinced of.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! A free society requires a functioning rule of law. Legal certainty is a matter of freedom.

Children and young people should not be afraid of being subjected to crime or of being recruited into gang criminality. Everyone should be able to live with the assurance that the rule of law is there when it is truly needed. And no one should have to experience that the power over their own residential area slides into the hands of criminals who want to create zones where they can carry out their criminality undisturbed. One thing is certain: Sweden deserves better.

The State's ability to guarantee security is fundamental to every individual's freedom. It is about freedom being secured through the law and its enforcement throughout the country - a law-bound freedom. It is therefore important to use society's common resources correctly and as effectively as possible.

Madam Speaker! Other social institutions can and must contribute to creating the security and freedom that we all need and have a right to, with a particular focus on children and young people, who are our future. The preventive work is crucial.

We politicians bear a responsibility to strengthen the children's rights perspective, to do what we can so that the home shall be a safe place and not develop into a crime scene where children are exposed to violence and abuse, and to invest in the school, where all children shall be met with high expectations and be given the right conditions to develop based on their unique abilities. But it is equally important that we can all feel safe in our residential area and also when we move on streets and squares.

The police should be able to focus on presence in preventive work as well as on tackling violence against children, sexual offenses, men's violence against women, honor-related violence and oppression, and serious gang crime. These are serious crimes that are alarming in themselves and must be combated.

A very labor-intensive task that still lies with the police is to assist with the physical handling of persons who become subjects of intervention according to the law on the detention of, for example, intoxicated persons, LOB. A police officer or security guard can make a decision to detain a person who is so intoxicated or impaired that he or she cannot take care of himself or herself. Every year, more than 60,000 people are detained with the support of the law.

Today's regulations do not give a security guard the right to transport the detained person. The wait for the police can be very long, which entails a risk both for the individual and for the security guards who wait for police officers together with the detained person.

The work of transporting persons who have been taken into custody according to LOB to hospitals or police stations consumes thousands of police man-hours every day. If a drunk or intoxicated person is violent, it can naturally be necessary for the police to intervene, but in many cases, the person is cooperative or so intoxicated that the police's only task becomes to put the person in a vehicle and transport him or her to the intended address.

The government is clear that the security guards who perform transport assignments should have undergone training that is relevant to the assignment and which leads to better and more adapted knowledge among the security guards. The Liberals therefore view it positively that the new law leads to us using the resources correctly and that the police can thus be relieved, just as the law enables the process to be accelerated for the person who is subject to a detention.

Security guards constitute a valuable complement to the police's activities in creating safety. The Liberals have for some time worked for the public to use security guards to a greater extent as a secondary reinforcement of the safety-creating measures alongside the police, who retain the primary responsibility. Already today, the police appoint security guards in certain cases to be the police's extended arm and contribute to order and safety.

The legislation on security guards has been in great need of modernization. Among other things, it is necessary to give security guards an authorization that covers a larger geographical area than what is currently possible but which the new law now enables.

It is not about the security guards taking over the police's role in these areas, but rather about them contributing to increased safety through presence and patrolling in public places.

Who shall become a security guard is closely linked to the suitability assessment and the educational requirements for the profession. Regarding the requirement for law-abidingness, the government notes that the Swedish Police Authority has access to information from both the criminal record and the suspicion register. This information is relevant and important when assessing a person's law-abidingness but can also be significant for whether a person is judged as suitable in other respects for the assignment.

The Government emphasizes that such register searches can be made not only before the order itself but also during the period that the order remains in force.

It is therefore important to emphasize that the proposals in the bill include, among other things, that security guards shall continue to be under the leadership of the Swedish Police Authority, that the training is quality-assured and relevant in light of the security guard's powers, and that a security guard's appointment can be revoked if he or she, for example, neglects his or her duties.

The Government notes that it is more relevant for the detailed design of certain provisions concerning security guards, for example training, to be issued at a lower regulatory level than in the form of law.

It is the Swedish Police Authority that decides on the appointment of security guards, and an appointment shall be issued for a certain period of time.

A security guard shall be under the direction of the Swedish Police Authority and shall be obliged to follow an instruction issued by a police officer in the line of duty.

A security guard shall keep the Swedish Police Authority informed about conditions concerning the operations which are of such a nature that they should come to the authority's knowledge.

Madam Speaker! Life shrinks for those who do not feel safe. Knowing that the police will come when it is truly needed, feeling safe in one's residential area, and not feeling forced to forgo an evening walk is about freedom in everyday life.

In this situation, security guards are important and can complement the police's work with visibility, preventive measures, and intervention if it should be needed to increase safety and freedom for all of us.

I therefore move for approval of the bill and rejection of the reservations.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! In recent years, the insecurity in society has become ever greater. That shootings and explosions occur in more places and that more and more people wake up at night to the sound of shootings, explosions, or police helicopters is only the tip of the iceberg of what the insecurity entails.

The Swedish situation is serious. The police density is among the lowest in the EU, and the fatal shootings are among the highest. Hiring more police officers is important to increase safety and to prevent and solve more crimes. Therefore, the Moderate-led government wants the police density to be at the EU average and is now working intensively towards this.

But educating and getting more police to our streets and squares does not happen overnight. Due to a lack of enough visible police, many municipalities hire security guards as a safety-creating measure. But the process for this is not entirely uncomplicated. The security guards are regulated by an old piece of legislation from the 1980s that there is a great need to change.

Many municipalities apply for authorizations for security guards for so-called paragraph 3 areas where their intended security guards shall patrol. To obtain an authorization, it is required that there is a specific need and that it is of essential importance from a public point of view. Furthermore, an authorization shall specify for which activity and within which area it applies, and the authorization shall contain information regarding the place of service.

Today's application procedure is bureaucratic and can also lead to the municipality and the police making different assessments of whether a decree is required or not based on general considerations. This can, in the long run, cause conflict between the municipality and the police and also lead to fewer security guards on our streets, despite there being a high demand for them.

Today, we will take a position in the chamber on a new law regarding security guards. With the new law, security guards will be allowed to work to maintain public order and safety and to promote security. This means that more areas will be able to be approved for security guards to work there. Many municipalities today receive rejections on applications to use security guards, despite public order disturbances and a perceived insecurity at the location. With the new law, the municipalities will have greater opportunities to use security guards in places that are perceived as insecure.

A new law on security guards

We hope that this will solve the problems for municipalities that today are not granted authorizations, and we will follow the developments closely to ensure that the municipalities have the opportunity to utilize security guards to the extent needed to contribute to increased safety.

To clarify the police's mandate, it is also proposed that security guards should be given new powers, where the task of transporting those taken into custody is the most important. This will free up police hours that the police can use to combat organized crime and maintain safety in society. At the same time, the waiting time for the individual is also reduced.

In the work to promote safety in society, several different tools need to be used. The government is now making many good investments in the justice system and the police. Even though the police have and will continue to have the primary responsibility for maintaining public order, it is very positive that the new law's proposal implies that the use of security guards will be able to be expanded and that we will therefore be able to see security guards in more places as a good complement to the police.

I am therefore pleased that I can today vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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