Secret coercive measures - effective tools to prevent and investigate serious crimes

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday was a day of celebration in the Riksdag. The opening of the Riksdag session was characterized, in the usual way, by beautiful flower arrangements, snacks, nyckelharpas and not least a considerable amount of small talk which here in Stockholm is called mingling.

Now the first debate of the Riksdag session is starting, and it is not surprising that it concerns precisely a report that the Committee on Justice has just placed on the Riksdag's table. It is pure contemporary logic, one could say. The committee has met several times during the late summer to accelerate the processes for various legislative proposals.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal but want to remind of the specific statement that we Social Democrats have in the report and which I intend to elaborate on in more detail in my speech.

That it is precisely a JuU matter debate that opens the parliamentary session is a natural consequence of the exceptional situation our society finds itself in. A decade ago, the correctional services' biggest problem was that there was a capacity surplus in the prisons. They needed to "downsize" their operations and close prisons, and they could send staff for training because there were not enough prisoners. Let us state that is not quite where we find ourselves today.

The initiative for today's report on secret coercive measures was taken by a Social Democratic minister together with the Green Party. It is in line with the uncompromising stance our party has towards the gangs' ruthlessness - a stance that resulted in historically large investments, both financially and in terms of allocation, across all parts of the justice chain, not least the police side. It also led to major changes on the criminal law side - changes that collectively have contributed to thousands of criminals having served their time for their crimes. In this sense, these efforts have been successful.

But we must simultaneously state that the efforts have not helped fully. We see how the shootings continue at an undiminished pace, not infrequently with an inherent logic of their own and a changed modus. Recently, for example, we have seen how relatives of gang criminals have been made legitimate targets for murder and attempted murder in environments where one day's friend and companion is the next day one's worst enemy.

We have seen that society's efforts to counteract segregation and inequality have been far from sufficient. No, Madam Speaker, we still have much to do. But a reminder to us all is that we must do this with support from scientific evidence and the principles of the rule of law.

As the first to speak in the debate, I will briefly outline the proposals. This should actually be the government representatives' task, but out of old habit, I take it upon myself. It is about preventive coercive measures being allowed to be used in significantly more contexts than today to prevent certain types of serious crime. For example, during a preliminary investigation, secret coercive measures should be able to be used to investigate more than one crime, provided that the penalty value lies above a certain level. The list of crimes is also expanded. Secret room bugging and secret camera surveillance should be able to be linked to a suspect person instead of a specific location. This is a major improvement for the police, which I believe will work well.

A somewhat more problematic issue, which has nevertheless been chosen to proceed with, is that surplus information that has emerged through secret coercive measures should be able to be used for other purposes. There are, however, a number of objections here. We see, in line with several referral bodies, that this type of legislation shifts the interfaces between the state's tools and powers and the individual's right to privacy. Changes to this interface must be made with great caution and weighed carefully. The principles of the rule of law must be protected.

Every change can be justified in itself, even when it comes to this report. But the overall balance over time must also exist. This means that the changes and laws enacted in recent decades must be weighed together with today's proposals, which we are making decisions on this afternoon, and upcoming, announced proposals. This balance must exist.

Since the 1940s, the state's possibilities for secret coercive measures have expanded from only telephone wiretapping to today's powerfully reinforced tools and resources. The powers regarding secret coercive measures have increased dramatically, but it also concerns other matters regarding privacy aspects. It is about camera surveillance in public spaces, DNA tools, and AI tools, the power of which we are only seeing the beginning of. The various footprints of our digital lives provide extensive tools for law enforcement authorities to be able to monitor us.

I believe that fundamentally it is good that these tools exist, but without local, peaceful, and continuous presence in areas with the greatest problems, the police will always be characterized by a poor clearance rate and low legitimacy. It is not solely through today's consideration that we solve this. The proposals can be effective, but my enumeration of powerful tools is precisely an illustration to show that it is not so simple.

Building robust support systems around children with risk factors, having a society that holds together, giving young people in underprivileged areas outlook and faith in the future, and investing in civil society and association life—these are things that take a long time and are expensive, but they are naturally the fundamental prerequisite for change. This must be put in relation to the allure of producing yet another repressive proposal or nibbling further away at privacy. We have all been there; we are all there, in a way. Herein lies the danger.

In a climate context, people speak of a so-called tipping point – when many interacting processes collectively lead to irrevocable and draconian consequences. We may also soon have to warn of a tipping point regarding how powerful tools the state should have concerning personal integrity, when the basic principles of the rule of law can no longer be upheld. We see, for example, purely grotesque proposals moving forward, such as the disclosure act. Just yesterday, one could get the impression from the Prime Minister here in the speaker's chair that all confidentiality rules should be removed, as if they had not had any function to fulfill previously. It is clear that they have.

I would here, with a heavy heart, be able to quote Civil Rights Defenders in their analysis of the Tidö Agreement: "The Tidö Agreement shows that the global trend of democratic dismantling has reached Sweden. We have worked for human rights globally for 40 years, and these experiences will now come in handy when we have to focus more of our work on defending fundamental freedoms and rights at home." Note the importance in this quote: One is forced to pivot, and it is not towards China, Hungary or Iran that one pivots. It is towards our own country that Civil Rights Defenders pivots. It undeniably calls for reflection for all of us here in the chamber.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I promise that we Social Democrats, together with the rest of the opposition, will do as well as we can to follow up on these rules – powerful tools that we stand behind in large parts. But they will place great demands on us to be vigilant and constantly balance the new proposals that are on the Riksdag's table.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of the Left Party's reservation 1. This means that from the Left Party's side, we move for the rejection of the government's proposition and the committee's proposal for a decision.

I do it because I am drawing further consequences from what was presented here in the rostrum just now. I also do it well aware that the majority position now means that the current proposal will be approved this afternoon, regardless of what I am going to say, how weighty my arguments are, and how much support there is among the referral bodies that have commented here – among them many heavy referral bodies. But I will nevertheless present the Left Party's and my objections, convinced that at least someone must stand up for the principles of the rule of law here in the chamber. It is only in this way that I can actualize what democracy should be. And it is only in this way that I can respond to my voters' trust.

The ideological divides that are now growing in our society must become visible and clear. Within the left, we want to create a completely different society than the repressive one that is unfolding now, and above all, that the state is given too large tools and that civil society has to settle and submit.

The members and delegates of the Left Party view with concern the developments that have occurred since the 2000s and which have led to us moving ever closer to a surveillance system that is very worrying. JO writes, for example, in its eight-page statement with quite stinging and worrying criticism: "It is a self-evident matter, but still deserves to be pointed out, that the legislator must always adopt a holistic view of the issue being addressed."

Stockholms universitet also writes broadly that there is a significant risk that the system will be expanded according to the principle and logic of the slippery slope, where every change in itself appears less significant in relation to the whole and is therefore seen as acceptable, while the principled counterarguments lose strength in a corresponding manner.

It is a dangerous slippery slope. The consequences for the social climate can also be reflected upon, and one should do so. What does this mean for democracy in the long term? It is difficult to oversee, but we can see that the trust between those who live in Sweden and the state apparatus is failing increasingly, and it is a very dangerous development. As a whole, two decades of sharpened laws—they apply, for example, to video surveillance, secret coercive measures, signal intelligence, immigration control, and measures aimed at preventing terrorism—appear alarming. And more is in the works.

There is also much to comment on regarding the concrete legislative proposals in the report. Many of the referral bodies reject the proposals entirely or partially. I agree with such criticism. This concerns, among other things, an imprecise basis, such as gang affiliation or organized crime, which is invoked and becomes a very vague criterion. The proposed sentencing valves can also be questioned. They partly conflict with the EU law requirement that covert measures may only be used to investigate serious crime.

The government also proposes that secret room bugging and secret camera surveillance shall be linked to dwellings and to persons instead of to a location. This means that these secret instruments will be extended to circles of persons other than those who can be suspected of crimes. It may suffice that one is in the vicinity of a person who potentially participates in gang crime. The report also contains questions regarding surplus information that can be questioned.

When it must be assessed as a whole, it is the combinations that create strong concern, as well as deficiencies in how we have analyzed legal certainty, a lack of proportionality, and an unclear effectiveness. We do not know if the reforms will lead forward.

I also want to make an additional point about something that I find somewhat remarkable regarding the rapid legislative process. There is a law on secret data interception that was introduced in April 2020. In connection with the introduction of the legislation, it was said that it should be evaluated. The evaluation has not yet been presented, and the date for the report is now in December this autumn. Why can't one wait in order to be able to assess the effectiveness of the reforms that have already been launched?

This is a sign of a very stressed government. I can understand it, because it is a serious criminal development. From the opposition, however, we have constantly pointed to alternative paths where more can be invested in civil society's resources and in preventive activities. In that way, we strengthen democracy instead of challenging boundaries.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the government's bill Secret coercive measures - effective tools to prevent and investigate serious crimes. I do not think it is possible to do so without addressing the development in society over the last week, or rather, the recent period, the recent years, or the recent decades, where gross organized crime has come to affect and take up a larger space in local communities, the last week with murders of innocent people, shootings that frighten and silence neighbors and murders that affect relatives and innocent people, and where the sorrow spreads, and the fear takes hold.

It is in this context that we are now debating a government proposition that ensures law enforcement agencies receive better tools to reach criminal individuals through secret surveillance.

I watched the news a bit yesterday, Madam Speaker, and listened to interviews with the residents in the area in Uppsala where the most recent murders and shootings have occurred. They told the reporter that the police know who they are, and they asked: Why is the police not doing anything about this? Why does the police not succeed in stopping the shootings? Why does the police not succeed in stopping the murders? It is because one does not have sufficient control over the plans that the gang criminals hatch to murder and shoot each other and relatives.

The police do not have sufficient powers and tools to have the control that the citizens demand, but now the new government is moving forward, as said, with the support of the Sweden Democrats. There is a majority in the Swedish Riksdag to give the police the tools that the police themselves have requested. There is a majority for this.

I note, Madam Speaker, that there are also reservations from the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Left Party, and the Centre Party in the same report, who wish to reject the bill and prevent the police and prosecutors from obtaining these tools.

There are reservations from, among others, Miljöpartiet regarding limiting the possibility of using secret coercive measures when it comes to surplus information, and there are limitations regarding how we should investigate and burden our authorities with control over the tools that we now want to give to the law enforcement authorities.

On the other side of the politics, there are objections, rejections, and proposals for limitations, but with the government with the support of Sverigedemokraterna, there is a crystal-clear approval to give the police these tools.

There is a fairly large difference in Swedish politics, Madam Speaker, and it pleases me that we finally have a clear majority for a paradigm shift in crime policy that allows the government to be decisive and does not need to lean on coalition partners who have objections and demands for rejection when it comes to the tools that the police themselves are requesting.

This, Madam Speaker, is no new debate for the Sweden Democrats. Already ten years ago, the Sweden Democrats proposed in the Swedish Riksdag that secret coercive measures should be expanded in order to tackle serious organized crime. At that time, the Sweden Democrats were alone in the chamber in holding that view. All other parties agreed that the legislation was well-balanced and that no changes were required to tackle organized crime.

The Sweden Democrats predicted that in the areas that are segregated through integration policy, through multicultural agendas, and through mass immigration policy, the violence will escalate. Here, we need to act from the entire society's side against the policy that previous governments have pursued, not least when it comes to the tools of the police, the prosecutors, and the law enforcement agencies to tackle the crime that otherwise risks escalating.

Now crime has escalated as a result of previous governments' failed policies. Now it is very, very late to provide the tools that are required, but it is nonetheless important that we move from words to action and actually do something about the situation.

There is always, Madam Speaker, a discussion about where the balance should lie between personal privacy and the law enforcement authorities' opportunity for effective crime investigation. The Sweden Democrats have long pointed out that the emphasis has been far too much on protecting the criminals' privacy. This applies not only to secret coercive measures but also to the possibility of parole for criminals who are incarcerated and gang criminals' opportunities for conditional release.

When it comes to the conditions of gang criminals in society at all, the focus on the left has always been on protecting their privacy, while the Sweden Democrats have highlighted that there is a problem that will cause the gang criminal environment to expand as a result of a lack of decisiveness from the government.

In this debate, I will move for the rejection of all reservations from the left and the opposition and move for the approval of the proposition in its entirety.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in a new situation. It is a situation where we, every day, for the most part, wake up to new deeds. I would like to take this opportunity to express a big thank you and my strong support to the police, prosecutors, and the rest of the justice system and other actors for the work they do for us citizens every day.

It is a tough situation, because it is a gross organized crime and gang criminality we are dealing with. There are repeated shootings and explosions in many places in the country. We see trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. We see extensive thefts and fraud. We see people in the line of fire who are directly affected by death and severe injuries. We see the relatives' grief, and we see that people and local communities everywhere, but also Sweden as a country, are indirectly affected by insecurity, mistrust, and a diminished confidence in the rule of law. All these losses are devastating in their own way.

The Government's bill on secret coercive measures to prevent and investigate serious crimes is therefore a welcome and, unfortunately, necessary measure. The Centre Party agrees with the need for an expansion of the police and prosecutors' toolbox in the manner proposed and realizes that it can truly make a difference for both crime fighting and prosecution. This refers, for example, to the expanded lists of crimes – being able to wiretap a specific person instead of a location, that surplus information can be used, and that preventive coercive measures can also be used in more cases than now under certain special conditions. But it is also welcome with improved opportunities for transparency and oversight for the individual – for the suspect.

The legislation that the government is now proposing is, as said, necessary and in large parts well-balanced. But it is in a case like this, which concerns legislation of particular importance for one of our contemporary greatest societal problems but which at the same time has far-reaching impact on individual freedoms and rights, that it is of considerable importance that the legislation truly becomes scrutinized and that the government is humble before the difficulties and consequences that the legislation may come to entail.

We have heard here that several referral bodies, including JO, JK, the Security and Integrity Protection Authority, the Swedish Bar Association, and the Faculty of Law at Uppsala University, are calling for a holistic view on the regulation of secret coercive measures. They consider it difficult to obtain an overview of the collective and long-term effects of the proposals. Centrum för rättvisa also requests a more in-depth analysis of the proposals' compatibility with the European Court of Human Rights' practice in the area, particularly regarding the principle of proportionality.

The responsibility therefore rests heavily on the government and its coalition partners to ensure that the authorities implement and follow up on this, and that in their daily work, they conscientiously and balancedly weigh the repressive and the rule-of-law principles against each other. It means that one shall use the tools that one now has access to, but that they shall not be used more or more extensively than what is required for the purpose of the measure, and also that the documentation of this is handled. It is important.

Then I come to my objections. It is therefore important that an evaluation of the legislation is carried out so that it can be investigated how interpretation and application relate to the principles that we have highlighted.

Centerpartiet considers, however, that the proposal for evaluation and application within five years is far too generous in relation to these aspects. We believe that an investigation should be appointed within two years from the date of entry into force.

The proposals also lead to increased costs for the police, the prosecutors, the customs, the Economic Crime Authority and the controlling authorities Säkerhets- och integritetsskyddsnämnden, JO, JK and Sveriges Domstolar.

The government must therefore ensure that the authorities and the employees have the right support, resources, tools and leadership to carry out this and that there is funding so that the new and expanded mandates can be carried out at these authorities.

The government must therefore, already within a year, evaluate and ensure that the authorities have the right resources, because if the controlling authorities cannot do this, it is a deficiency in the implementation.

Madam Speaker! We have just heard the Member of Parliament Marttinen in this chamber claim that the Center Party is against this. The Center Party stands behind these proposals. The additional proposals that we had and which we now reserve ourselves against are, therefore, a question of whether this needs to be evaluated faster and that more resources should be allocated. If that is to be against a proposal, the degree of misinterpretations has reached new heights.

I move for approval of reservation 4 from Centerpartiet, which concerns precisely the resources to be able to follow up on otherwise good legislation.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has been just over four years since a woman with her baby in her arms was murdered near Ribersborgsstranden in Malmö. It was a sunny late summer afternoon, and many of the Malmö residents who were still on holiday were enjoying swimming and sun on the beach. But a few hundred meters away, this brutal murder took place. And just a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that the investigation is being closed because they are no longer making any progress.

Shootings and murders are now occurring frequently in Sweden. I do not think that we who are here in the chamber remember all of them since then. But there are some that sink in deeper than others when boundaries are crossed. This was such a boundary when it was not just a question of settlements between rival gangs, but where relatives also became victims and had to give their lives.

In recent times, boundaries have been crossed further, where parents of gang members have become targets and have been actively sought out.

After the murder four years ago, the then S-MP government took the initiative for cross-bloc negotiations. And even though it did not become a cross-bloc agreement, the result was a 34-point program which has since been followed up and, for the vast majority, has been implemented.

Two of the parts that were included in the 34-point program in the first points were the possibility of secret data interception and increased use of secret coercive measures. It is therefore that which we have to make decisions on in the chamber today.

Madam Speaker! What is stated in the bill regarding these increased powers to use coercive measures for the police are far-reaching powers, and it is nothing that we do lightly. One will have to do this significantly more than before. One example is that permits for secret room bugging and secret camera surveillance shall be linked to a suspect person instead of to a specific location, which means that very many more people who are very far from a criminal lifestyle will be monitored. This will also occur in places where it is not expected because the persons naturally move around.

These are privacy aspects that we and others, I hope, have considered. But it is, Madam Speaker, a price that we are prepared to pay because we have a development in Sweden that must be broken. And that is why we give these powers to the authorities.

The possibility of using coercive measures in this way can, in fact, solve more crimes than today, and it is particularly important to do so when it concerns people who know things but do not want to or do not dare to testify and say what they know to the police and prosecutors. But this can also prevent crimes from actually occurring. It can, therefore, save lives, and it can save the lives of people who have nothing at all to do with crime, criminal gangs, or settlements.

Miljöpartiet is therefore saying yes to almost everything in this proposition. We have one objection regarding how so-called surplus information is used. The change will be very large compared to how it looks today. And we mean that if the police gain knowledge of significantly less serious crime through these coercive measures when monitoring a gang criminal—if, for example, one interrogates a person walking in town who says that they built out their balcony without a building permit, which one would not have been allowed to use coercive measures and camera surveillance for from the police side—should one not be allowed to proceed with this type of information without further hesitation if the information was obtained in this manner.

This is something that is criticized, that is to say that the use is not regulated. It has received criticism from referral bodies - for example from JO but also from others. Therefore, we believe that it would need to be regulated, and I therefore move for approval of reservation 2.

We also stand behind reservation 3 that this is legislation that must be evaluated. It concerns major changes. We see, as said, that they need to be made, but when such large reorganizations of powers to the most important authorities are carried out, one must also follow up on what the outcome becomes.

I therefore move for approval of reservations 2 and 3.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I believe there is reason to highlight which criteria govern the legality of the secret coercive measures that law enforcement agencies use, so that those who may be listening to the debate have a background.

The criteria are actually composed of three principles. The first criterion is the principle of purpose, which means that coercion may only be used if there is support in law. The second is the principle of necessity, which means that coercive measures may only be used if other means are insufficient. The third and final criterion is the principle of proportionality, which means that there must be a connection between the severity of the crime and the coercion used. Simplified, we can therefore say: The more serious the crime, the more coercion can be used.

The coercive measures we are debating today must be weighed against people's right to respect for private life, i.e., personal integrity, which previous speakers have touched upon. Undoubtedly, it is the case that secret coercive measures in the form of telephone interception, data retrieval, camera surveillance, and room bugging involve a significant intrusion into people's private lives for those who become the subject of such measures.

To ensure that the use of such coercive measures meets the requirements of purpose, proportionality, and necessity, the matter shall be examined by a court in the presence of a legal representative. There is also supervision and a parliamentary control that shall ensure legality and correct use. It is therefore not the police and customs who themselves decide when they shall use the secret coercive measures.

Madam Speaker! There must always be a balance between needs and privacy infringements. The question, therefore, is whether there is a need for an expanded regulatory framework for secret coercive measures, and we Christian Democrats believe that is the case.

As a former police officer with some 40 years of experience, I have seen how the conditions for police work have changed over the years. It was mentioned earlier that in the 40s, telephone tapping was what was relevant – yes, there wasn't really much other technology to contend with. We can, however, state that today we find ourselves in an increasingly digitized world where the personal meeting has largely been replaced by contacts in the form of digital meetings.

The crime investigation that was previously largely conducted in the field now has major limitations. Contacts in gangs and organized crime have largely moved online and been replaced by encrypted chats and other technology. Looking back, it is very much thanks to foreign police succeeding in cracking Encrochat and other encrypted chats that Swedish police have managed to solve several serious crimes that otherwise would have remained unsolved.

Madam Speaker! We have seen a development where crimes have become increasingly sophisticated, systematic, grave, and organized. As also mentioned by previous speakers, we currently have a very serious situation regarding gang crime and organized crime, with grave violent crimes in the form of shootings and explosions that actually, for the most part, lack parallel in the rest of Europe. The Minister for Justice has previously described it as a form of domestic terrorism, and we are well prepared to agree with him in that regard.

At the same time as this is ongoing, we can see that Customs is reporting record-breaking drug seizures, and we see an increase in cross-border crime. This we see at the same time as we have an elevated threat level with an increased risk of attacks. Against that background, it is urgent that we strengthen our ability to prevent and solve crimes.

High police presence in the local community and effective customs operations are important components, but if we are truly to attack and combat serious and organized crime and reach the main actors – those who are the background men in this – more sophisticated methods are required. Seen from that perspective and with that objective, there is therefore a great need for the use of covert coercive measures. Traditional police work in the field must to a greater extent be supplemented with competence, resources, and technology in order to be able to take down the criminal networks.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also contains so-called sentencing value valves in the case of serial crimes. This refers to crimes which individually may not have a high sentencing value but which receive a high cumulative sentencing value if they occur systematically. The report contains a list of crimes that may be relevant – examples of such crimes are frauds, and then perhaps elderly fraud, as well as certain sexual offenses – and where secret coercive measures can be used if the sentencing value is at least two years. For secret room bugging, a sentencing value of at least four years is required.

We think this is justified. When it comes to organized crime, both children and the elderly are affected by it, and it would be strange if we were not able to use this type of coercive measure to tackle this type of crime.

We also welcome the opportunity to use so-called surplus information about other crimes to a greater extent. The current limitations feel strange, to say the least, because crimes that come to the police's attention in normal cases should be reported and investigated. When it concerns information about crimes that come to the police's attention through the secret surveillance, however, an exception has been made, and it becomes very contradictory that it should not be reported.

Using the information to combat or investigate crimes is judged to provide only marginal effects and increase the intrusion that the collection itself may have entailed. Against this, the positive effects that the proposals are assumed to have must be weighed. A widened scope of use is important not only for the state's interest in combating and investigating crimes but also for the crime victim's interest in obtaining the redress that prosecution and the right to damages entail - as well as the importance for the crime victim that crime-fighting authorities have good opportunities to interrupt ongoing crimes. In that sense, it can also be stated that crime-prevention activities are improved by being able to use secret coercive measures, because we can prevent crimes from being committed.

Madam Speaker! The proposal also means that covert surveillance can take place in real-time. There is a tangible need to be able to retrieve information on messages in real-time, which, for example, the work with Encrochat shows. This applies in particular when it comes to accessing more complex cybercrimes. Equivalent possibilities exist today in several other countries, and the lack of effective investigative possibilities in Sweden is a weakness that we believe should be addressed.

Overall, we from the Christian Democrats consider that the proposals in the report are well-motivated and involve a significantly increased possibility for effective crime fighting of more serious and systematic crime. We therefore move for approval of the bill and rejection of all reservations.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to move for approval of both reservation 2 and reservation 3.

While I have the floor, I can also take the opportunity to ask a question.

Before the summer break, a debate was held here in the chamber in which Torsten Elofsson and I debated security guards. I thought the training period was too short and asked Elofsson about it. He replied that this is something that the police are best suited to decide themselves. A political decision from the Riksdag or the government would, according to Elofsson, be to undermine the police. The week after we debated this, the government made the decision that I requested. The conclusion, Madam Speaker, was then that the government undermines the police, according to Torsten Elofsson.

Yesterday was the opening of the Riksdag. The party leader for Torsten Elofsson's party Kristdemokraterna, Ebba Busch, said that she wants to withdraw the aid to Turkey if they do not extradite the Kurdish Fox to Sweden. Now this morning, she took it back.

My question, Madam Speaker, is: How long is the half-life of a Christian Democratic announcement?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the questions.

Regarding the first question, I referred to the ordinance that governs the training for security guards. It states, as I recall, that it shall be at least 30 hours. There is therefore, according to the ordinance, no obstacle to building upon the training with additional hours. As far as I know, this ordinance still applies.

I actually do not know at all what my party leader Ebba Busch has said or has not said. I think Rasmus Ling should ask that question to Ebba Busch personally.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have all the understanding that it is not easy to know what line Ebba Busch has for the day, so I will not blame Torsten Elofsson for this. It was more of a statement – this is surely just as difficult for all of us to keep track of.

Regarding the first example about the Public Order Act, a government decision was de facto made, and it was precisely this that Torsten Elofsson said was to override the police. Either he thinks the government did just that, or he changed his line less than a week after we had this debate.

My question was of a more general nature, and one can certainly go into more examples. Why do Christian Democratic announcements not apply for longer than a day or maximum a week?

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like, in all humility, to remind [you] of the subject of the debate.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree - for some reason, we are not really sticking to the topic today.

I maintain that there is a regulation governing the training for security guards and that it is that one which continues to apply. I do not quite know what Rasmus Ling is referring to through his statement. I will content myself with stating this.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating secret coercive measures, which are necessary to tackle the system-threatening crime that leaves crime victims with traumas for the rest of their lives, shatters families to pieces, and strikes fear into residents in entire neighborhoods in certain cases.

Criminal gangs get their claws into children and get children to commit serious crimes, which leads to children even being executed. It is a painful reality and a reality that we politicians are obligated to act upon.

It is obvious that more tools are needed in the fight against serious organized crime. The justice system must be given better conditions to be able to prevent and stop the serious development of violence, as well as to manage to prosecute those responsible for the crimes.

Expanded possibilities to use secret coercive measures are an important part of the preventive work. This is important so that the justice system can act before the serious crimes occur and important so that one can obtain the supporting evidence required to obtain convictions. Supporting evidence is very difficult to obtain when there is a culture of silence in the criminal gangs.

Criminals have to a very high degree moved into the digital world. They communicate, plan and act much more digitally today. This applies to a very high degree to sex offenders who look for children to exploit and force to send nude images or commit sexual acts against their will.

The children who are subjected to sexual abuse are rarely heard about in the debate on secret coercive measures. A 17-year-old girl says this to Ecpat: I remember my first unwanted nude when I was ten. I became scared and nauseous and deleted the app but was soon back again. Since then, it has probably happened once a month, but frighteningly much more when I was 11-15 years old than now when I am 17.

We in this chamber have a responsibility to listen to the children. Some who listen to the children – and the most vulnerable children – every day is the children's rights organization Ecpat. Ecpat asked 1,435 children about their vulnerability to sexual abuse online. 88 percent of the girls stated that they had had nude images sent to them, and 46 percent of the girls between 10 and 13 years of age had been offered money to send images.

I have met vulnerable children all too many times. These are children who are subjected to, for example, sexual abuse. These are children that no one sees - young adults who every day are forced to live with memories of abuse and who know that their perpetrators go free.

Madam Speaker! Child pornography is a crime that nowadays is primarily committed via the internet. The same applies to sexual exploitation of children and sexual abuse against children, for example when the perpetrator forces the child into sexual acts via a webcam.

We have today a report before us that closes important gaps in the legislation that both prosecutors and police, as well as Ecpat, have warned about. These are reforms that they have requested. I am immensely grateful for the work that the justice system puts in. The important thing we can do from the legislator's side is to provide the right conditions.

There are far too many perpetrators who are not identified. There are far too many cases where the evidence against a suspected perpetrator is insufficient for a conviction and where the use of secret coercive measures could have secured evidence.

Sexual crimes against children constitute both serious crime and extensive violations of the child's privacy and right to personal integrity. Today, it is not uncommon that the sexual abuses are documented and spread to others. This leads to the violations being repeated again and again.

That is why the proposal for expanded lists of offenses is extremely important. It means that covert interception of electronic communications, covert camera surveillance, and covert data retrieval that does not concern room interception data may be used in a preliminary investigation concerning, among other things, serious sexual assault, sexual exploitation of children, sexual assault against children, serious sexual assault against children, exploitation of children for sexual posing, serious exploitation of children for sexual posing, exploitation of children through the purchase of a sexual act, sexual harassment of children, serious sexual harassment of children, and contact to meet a child for a sexual purpose. This applies if it can be assumed that the offense does not lead to only a fine.

Ecpat emphasizes in its referral response that the evidence that can be obtained through secret coercive measures often has decisive importance during investigations of sexual offenses against children committed online. It is also common that, in connection with an investigation of a sexual offense against a child, several other sexual offenses against children are uncovered.

Madam Speaker! It is therefore important that law enforcement authorities have access to these secret coercive measures in this type of serious crime against children in order to be able to detect the abuses and be able to stop ongoing crime.

Personal integrity must be protected. If we are in agreement on that. All provisions on secret coercive measures must live up to the high legal certainty requirements that exist. This applies to both the rules themselves and their application. Every restriction from the public of the individual's right to respect for private life and protection of personal integrity must, naturally, have good reasons and grounds.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about privacy, we must simultaneously dare to weigh different individuals' privacy against each other. Expanding the list of crimes to include sexual abuse of children is extremely important.

It is about the small child's privacy, the girl and the boy who are constantly subjected to abuse. Their right to privacy must carry great weight. Their vulnerability, lack of freedom, and powerlessness must be before our eyes.

Today, there are far too many perpetrators who are not identified or where the evidence against a suspected perpetrator is insufficient for a conviction. In those cases, the use of secret coercive measures could have secured decisive evidence. Today, we are changing that order. Today, we take a stand for the vulnerable children. We should be proud of that.

Madam Speaker! The Liberals support the report in its entirety.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! Every day, very many people with foreign origins go to work here in Sweden. Many of them behave correctly. They set their alarm clocks. They take their children to preschool, get into the car and drive to their work. It is not uncommon for it to be a very strenuous job. They can work as a nursing assistant, as a taxi driver, or in other types of occupations that require mental but also physical effort during many of the hours of the day. We also have many with foreign origins in our country who are now start-up millionaires. They run various tech companies that exist on the international scene.

We have many people who have come to our country. They are either born abroad or born here and are second or third generation immigrants, and they do very much good for our country. Sometimes we lose that perspective. In the wake of integration and migration, we have very large problems here in Sweden. But that perspective must always be complemented. The Moderaterna will always be careful with that. It must always be complemented by showing, understanding, and knowing how important contributions very many people with just foreign ancestry make for our country.

That is why the policy pursued by the government together with the coalition partners becomes very important. It is not uncommon that those who are victims of the poor integration are the hard-working immigrants in marginalized areas. Most recently, we have an example from Rosengård where they burned cars and behaved like hell, we might say from this rostrum. Some of the cars that were burned belonged to an entrepreneur who has fought to keep the company running and who now has three burnt cars and staff who are on sick leave.

It is also businesses that are set on fire, looted, and destroyed. They get increased insurance costs because the risk of their operations being subjected to crime is so high. Their marketing also suffers if a shooting occurs outside or if a body suddenly lies outside the door. That is not quite the case at the Ica store where I shop. There are no shootings there, but there are meat thefts.

Along with this, we have a development where gang-related crime is now targeting relatives. It is naturally a development that causes concern because it strikes fear into very large parts of our society. But we have also for a long time had a development where the gang criminals shoot the wrong person. Not infrequently, these are also people with foreign origins and a foreign background. I particularly want to mention Ahmed, who in 2017 was shot at a bus stop in Malmö. He was the wrong person. He had nothing to do with gang crime. He came here a few years earlier from Iraq and was supposed to become a doctor. So we cannot have that.

Secret coercive measures - effective tools to prevent and investigate serious crimes

That is why the Moderates, the government, and the coalition partners will repeatedly continue to present proposals to increase the efficiency of crime fighting. Today, it is about expanding the possibility of using secret coercive measures and preventive wiretapping.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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