Increased flow of information to law enforcement

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are to debate the proposition Ö kat informationsflöde till brottsbekämpning en. I want to begin by moving for the approval of the proposition in its entirety and the rejection of all reservations.

The law being proposed will give a number of government agencies as well as municipalities, regions and schools an obligation to provide information to the Police Authority and other law enforcement agencies both upon request and on their own initiative. The bill also involves changes to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act which give both social services and health and medical care an expanded opportunity to provide information to law enforcement.

The purpose of the new rules is to give the law enforcement authorities increased access to information regarding, for example, committed crimes, suspected criminal schemes, and individuals with links to crime, and thereby better conditions to push back crime.

The new law and the amendments are proposed to enter into force on 1 April 2025.

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with an example of how this new legislation could work in practice. Suppose a 16-year-old boy is suspected of starting to move in criminal circles, but the police lack sufficient information to be able to intervene in time. Social services may have had knowledge of the boy's relationship with other criminals, and the school may have noted a high degree of absence or other warning signs. But due to confidentiality rules, this information has not been shared with the police. It manages to go so far that the boy shoots and kills another person. A human being is murdered, and a young guy has chosen to take another person's life.

With the proposal in the bill for a new law making it mandatory for municipalities, regions and authorities to share information with law enforcement agencies on their own initiative or upon request, the police could have received early information and data regarding the boy's associations with criminals and changed behavioral patterns. A boy's future could have taken a completely different turn. Another person would not have had to be murdered.

Mr. Speaker! Politicians in this chamber often speak about how the entire society needs to step up in the fight against crime. This bill is an excellent example of when the entire society becomes more involved in the crime-fighting work to create a safer Sweden. If we want to stop the new recruitment to the gangs, it requires increased cooperation between our law enforcement agencies and those who work closest to the children who risk falling into crime.

Mr. Speaker! It sounds a bit false if, at one moment, one speaks of the whole society needing to step up in the fight against crime, but then is not prepared to implement the measures that are required.

For far too long, Sweden has allowed bureaucratic hurdles and an excessive fear of privacy issues to stand in the way of effective crime fighting. We see daily how criminal networks recruit young people both in our schools and in other places where children at risk can be found. It is then up to us politicians to implement the measures required to curb the continued growth of organized crime.

Mr. Speaker! If this is a question of privacy, let us ask ourselves: Is it really the privacy of the criminals we are to protect when gang violence continues to claim lives and young people are drawn into this grave criminality?

Safety is a prerequisite for freedom. Without this reform, one risks sacrificing just that freedom for those who actually respect our laws. It is in, for example, the school where we see the first warning signs when young people risk falling into criminal environments. By acting early, we can prevent these youths from being drawn further and further into ruin. If we want to work on crime prevention, these proposals are completely in line with what needs to be done.

In summary, what is proposed in the bill is a decisive step to take Sweden back from the criminals' grip. It gives us new tools to protect our young people from being drawn into crime, to stop the new recruitment into the gangs, and to take further steps to restore safety in society.

Mr. Speaker! Let us now move from words to action. The Sweden Democrats and the government do not only speak about how the entire society should stand united in the fight against crime. We are not afraid to make tough decisions but also implement the measures required to stop the new recruitment of young people into gangs and to create a safer and better Sweden.

I vote in favor of the bill.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I address Pontus Andersson Garpvall to discuss what it can mean for an entire society to stand up against crime and try to value and protect our norms, laws, and rules in society.

I mean that it is not solely about reporting to the police. By then, it is probably too late. I mean that we should try to have a society that more solidly monitors and notices already when a child is slightly drifting in terms of arguing or choosing the wrong company. It should apply to all of us. But it must also apply to the authorities that are relevant in this proposition.

I wonder why you Sweden Democrats want to wait until it is too late and then alarm the police. Is it not better if we have a solidary system where we care all the way, as fellow human beings?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The points that Gudrun Norberg raises are not things that stand in opposition to each other. One can actually do both, both before it is too late and also when it is too late.

Already in today's Sweden, there is a flow of information to the law enforcement agencies. If, for example, a drug addict gives birth to a child, it is reported to those concerned, and the child is taken into care already at the time of birth. If healthcare receives a child who has been injured and the parents are suspected of having injured the child, that is also reported.

But there is a difference between voluntary and mandatory. With voluntary, there is also a certain form of arbitrariness, where one is afraid to take certain types of conflicts. If we make it mandatory, we will see that it happens to a greater extent, which means that we can protect more children than today.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Pontus Andersson Garpvall!

I see the Sweden Democrat way of arguing in what you are saying. I am not prepared to agree. It surprises no one.

I mean that we can have parts of both. But the question is: Where do we place the emphasis? Should we have so many requirements on authority actors and schools that it resembles us entering a surveillance society with extensive reporting? Or should we create greater security in our interpersonal relations all the time and place weight on that? We need a little bit of both, but the question is where we place the emphasis and where it is most important to act.

In the Riksdag, our tool is legislation. I am well aware of that. But I am also well aware of the fact that it matters which values we project. Shall we signal that everything is dangerous, or shall we signal that we are in a serious situation but will work together to save it?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can agree with part of what Gudrun Nordborg says. We can do both, but if we are to do both, we also need to implement the measures contained in this bill. Vänsterpartiet argues in its reservation that the bill threatens citizens' privacy and risks undermining trust in authorities such as social services and schools by forcing them to share information with the police. But this argument falls flat when we see what reality actually looks like. Without this flow of information, the police are left powerless to stop crime in time, while the gangs' grip on our children tightens.

Privacy is important, but should it really weigh more heavily than the safety of the children who are drawn into crime and become victims of gang violence? The bill has safety valves to protect sensitive information. It is not about mass surveillance, but about providing the right tools to be able to protect society. The Left Party's fear of reduced trust pales in comparison to the trust we lose when citizens see crime flourish without any action whatsoever.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report Increased information flow to law enforcement. We do so against the background that Sweden over the last decade has been torn apart by serious organized crime, a serious organized crime that has eaten its way into all different parts of our social apparatus.

Both in government and now in opposition, we Social Democrats have in every way taken this most seriously. During the eight years when we led the government, we presented countless proposals for measures to strengthen the justice system. Even now in opposition, we Social Democrats stand behind a great deal of the policy being implemented through initiatives that we took during the time in government.

We share the government's ambition to strengthen crime fighting through improved information sharing between authorities. At the same time, we need to safeguard our fundamental freedoms and rights with great care. Public access and secrecy need to be handled carefully. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to adjust parts of this proposal to ensure a balance between effective crime fighting and protection of individual privacy, and naturally, to maintain trust in our various social institutions.

Part of this proposal is to impose an obligation on principals to voluntarily provide information to the police upon suspicion of a crime without a request from the police being present. This mandatory wording has met with criticism from many different sides, including from representatives of the profession. Concern has been expressed that such an obligation could damage the trust between students and school staff as well as lead to uncertainty regarding which pieces of information are to be shared.

In addition to the concern expressed by professional representatives, the Council on Legislation has rejected this part of the proposal on the grounds that it is unclear which tasks are intended and how far the principals are expected to go. An ambiguity in this part risks leading to both legal uncertainty and inconsistent application, which in turn can de facto undermine the legitimacy of the legal system.

Furthermore, the Chancellor of Justice has pointed out that the proposed duty to provide information is too extensive and could lead to the unnecessary sharing of insignificant information. It is naturally crucial that we ensure that only relevant information is shared and that we respect the individual's privacy.

In another part, we instead perceive that a possibility is lacking. The police should, for example, naturally be able to share information with the municipalities that procure HVB homes. We have been faced with examples where HVB homes are run by grossly criminal individuals. It is precisely that type of example that we wish to prevent. We would therefore like to see the government return to that part and ensure that even such a possibility is granted.

It is naturally important to emphasize that the school plays a central role in society, not only as a place for learning but also as a point of safety for many young people. If the school is perceived as an extension of law enforcement authorities, we risk losing the students' trust, which can have serious consequences for their willingness to seek help and support. We therefore believe that principals should be given an opportunity but not an obligation to share information with the police on their own initiative. With such a change, the proposal would better balance the need for effective crime fighting with the maintenance of trust in the school as a safe environment for our students.

Legislation of this kind, which in such a fundamental way risks changing the balance between publicity and secrecy, naturally also needs to be followed up. We therefore propose in our reservation that a collective review or evaluation of the legislation shall be carried out during 2027, that is, approximately one and a half years after it has entered into force. I believe we would all benefit from that.

In summary, we Social Democrats support the intention to improve the flow of information in crime fighting but wish for the proposal to be adjusted in the parts I have just touched upon. I move for the approval of reservations 2, 6 and 7.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! At its core, there is a broad consensus on this bill. A great consensus is shown between both the government parties and the opposition regarding the necessity of expanding the flow of information.

It was as Annika Strandhäll also expressed regarding the previous government which appointed this investigation, and the current one made some additional directives to produce the bill.

A clear need has been shown that we need to expand the flow of information between authorities but also between municipalities and regions to authorities and law enforcement, and also from schools to law enforcement. The investigation is very clear. If we are to have any effect at all, it is important that the duty to report accompanies it.

The proposition is also clear that it is the police who shall continue to lead and be responsible for the dialogue regarding what types of tasks are needed, for the guidance, and for making it easy for the school to submit tasks. Schools also have no obligation to investigate or proactively seek information, but information sharing shall occur in a simple manner where the police have the primary overarching responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Member Strandhäll made a point of that it was the previous S-government that commissioned the investigation. In the investigation directives that formed the basis for it, there was a clear need to ensure the information sharing from the school to law enforcement authorities. It was in the directives, but now it has been chosen to depart from that. I wonder why.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Ceimertz, for your question!

Our investigative process works in such a way that directives are issued, and then an investigation is carried out. After that, we have a referral process. There, as I pointed out in my speech, criticism has been voiced from various sides.

It is extremely important, I think in any case, that one takes referral bodies seriously. This applies in particular to the Council on Legislation, which in this case has expressed its doubts. That is what we Social Democrats have taken to heart.

That is exactly how our investigative process should function. One weighs different parts in a final result and arrives at a position from the legislator's side. We Social Democrats have landed as follows.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I noted that I did not quite get an answer as to why it was decided that way, but only that it had been decided that way. That can be okay.

The referral bodies have pointed out the necessity of precisely this change on several points. Not least the law enforcement authorities have been very clear that this need is very great in order to ensure relevant information sharing from schools, other authorities, municipalities, and regions. It is about addressing and making early interventions to prevent children from being drawn into crime.

Mr. Speaker! Given how it has looked previously and how the reservation is formulated, I can draw a conclusion. If we move to approve the Social Democrats' reservation, I expect that within a maximum of one year, a press conference will be called where the Social Democrats demand more measures to ensure relevant information sharing to the law enforcement authorities. I look forward to that, in that case. But at the same time, we do not have time to wait for it.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that in my speech and also here I answered very clearly regarding the motive for our reservation in that part.

It is about being able to maintain trust, not least between students and school leaders in our schools. In our reservation, we propose that it should be a possibility for principals to hand over such information.

It is precisely in accordance with the criticism that has been put forward by many referral bodies and not least from representatives from the professions in the school. It is what we have listened to.

We also propose that we should conduct an evaluation in 2027 of the legislation that will now be put in place. It is very urgent, not least against the background of the issue that we are standing and discussing here today.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The reservation from the Social Democrats that information sharing should be voluntary instead of mandatory in some way means to trip up the very core of the bill.

If we leave it to the discretion of individual officials to act, we risk creating an uneven and toothless effort against crime. The gangs are not sitting and waiting for us to feel comfortable. They recruit our young people with cold precision.

Forcing schools and social services to proactively share warning signs with the police is not a burden. It is a necessity to stop the serious crime that is penetrating ever deeper into the body of society.

Voluntarism sounds nice. But in practice, it becomes an excuse for passivity when we need decisive action most of all. Why are the Social Democrats not prepared to implement the measures that we believe are required?

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, member!

It is incredibly important that the school is a trustworthy and safe environment for the students. Already today, a reporting obligation to the social services exists for the school, and it remains.

To also introduce an obligation for the principals, which we are specifically discussing here, to provide information to law enforcement authorities and specifically to the Swedish Police Authority is a completely different matter.

It is a major shift in the Swedish view on secrecy that we are carrying out today with this report that we have prepared in the Committee on Justice, where we are in large parts in complete agreement. It was we Social Democrats who appointed the investigation that forms the basis for the proposal.

But just as I stated in my previous contribution in the exchange with the Moderate member, we have an investigative process. One should, of course, listen to the referral criticism. In this case, we have landed in this way. We believe that it should be a possibility and not an obligation for principals to hand over this type of information to the police.

It is the trade-off that we have made. We also propose, as Pontus Andersson Garpvall knows, that the legislation being introduced shall be followed up in 2027 to see how the implementation works and what adjustments may eventually need to be made.

The Social Democrats are perhaps the party that has primarily stood for the shift in Swedish crime policy. If there is no doubt about that.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A safe environment in school is what we all want to create. I am thinking much more about the young people who are forced to go to school with other children and adolescents who are drawn into crime and what insecurity that entails for them.

The Social Democrats urge approval of their reservation regarding a mutual flow of information from the law enforcement authorities and point out that HVB homes are run by criminals. There is no one in this chamber, whether from our side, your side, Vänsterpartiet or Miljöpartiet, who wants HVB homes to be run by criminals. But what the Social Democrats propose misses the target completely. The purpose of the bill is to equip the police with information to fight crime, not to burden them with unnecessary bureaucracy.

We need more visible police and more police who can do their job in Sweden. Schools and social services should not act as police analysts. Their role is to alert, not to obtain sensitive investigation details that could jeopardize ongoing operations or be spread incorrectly. That type of preventive work is important, but it must not dilute the sharp crime-fighting that we urgently need.

I agree with what Ludvig Ceimertz said about the Social Democrats: You said no to visitation zones, and then you wanted to make all of southern Stockholm a visitation zone. You say no to anonymous witnesses, and then you say yes. You say no to gang criminals losing their citizenship. In the future, perhaps you will say yes.

Now you say no to this; in the future, you might say yes.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! None of us think that HVB homes should be run by gang criminals. But over time it has become apparent that this government completely lacks the ability to put a stop to just this. We are still waiting for the government to handle the situation that has revealed itself in that part.

Regarding crime fighting, it is a fact that it is the Social Democratic-led government that has been responsible for the shift in Swedish criminal policy. It was we who laid the foundation for new facilities, expanded the police, and toughened the penalties. The fact is that an overwhelming majority of the bills that have been implemented during this mandate period originate from initiatives taken by the Social Democratic-led government.

Instead of arguing with each other, I was about to say, it is probably for the best that we have a broad parliamentary wall when it comes to tackling serious organized crime. That is not to say that one should not listen to wise views from referral bodies or, for that matter, that the policy should not be able to change and produce the measures required in the situation that arises, depending on what happens in society.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! We face one of our time's most acute challenges: to combat and prevent the serious crime that is tearing our society apart. Organized crime has become a threat to the system and must be met with the society's combined strength and combined ability.

We sought a mandate from the Swedish people to get Sweden in order, and reform by reform, we are doing just that. By striking against gross violence, strangling the criminal economy and breaking the recruitment of children and young people into criminal gangs, we can build a safe Sweden again. Today's bill should be seen as part of that whole and that work.

The Government's bill Increased information flow to law enforcement is not only an important part of this work but a necessary reform for our law enforcement agencies to be able to do their jobs.

Organized crime, Mr. Speaker, has become increasingly complex and advanced. Criminal networks take advantage of the obstacles that exist for authorities, municipalities, and regions to cooperate, and the lack of information exchange creates loopholes that are exploited ruthlessly.

The government's stated objective is to create a new order in the secrecy legislation which means that authorities and other actors shall, as a starting point, share information with law enforcement agencies without secrecy barriers. Let me highlight why this proposal is both important and necessary.

An effective exchange of information is crucial for combating crime. To stop crime, we must understand the structure and occurrence of crimes. The Police, the Prosecution Authority, and other law enforcement agencies need to have fast and accurate information in order to be able to prevent crime and strike against criminal activity.

The current legislation limits this work.

Today, it is often difficult for authorities, municipalities, regions, and schools to share information with law enforcement agencies, even when there are clear indications of criminal activity. Confidentiality rules intended to protect the individual have, in practice, the opposite effect – they protect the criminals and prevent early interventions aimed at children. By facilitating the exchange of information, we can close these gaps.

With this proposal, it will be possible for authorities to share relevant information with the Swedish Police Authority and other law enforcement actors, both upon request and on their own initiative. It is about giving them the right conditions to combat crimes before they are committed.

Mr. Speaker! An example that shows why this is important is the Swedish Tax Agency, whose law enforcement part and other parts have difficulty sharing tasks within the agency. That one even within the same agency has difficulty exchanging information between different departments clearly demonstrates the need for a change.

Within the school, there are many tasks requested by the law enforcement authorities. Many of these tasks are not covered by secrecy or confidentiality and could therefore be disclosed if they are requested.

Today, schools with a public head of school are obliged to provide such information upon request, while schools with a private head of school lack a corresponding obligation. This shall now function in the same way for municipal and private schools.

The mapping that the investigation has conducted shows that this is applied very differently across Sweden. In schools with a well-developed cooperation with the police, this works very well. In schools with a less developed cooperation with the police, this does not work well at all. The investigation clearly points out that if we are to be able to achieve a consistent handling of this and ensure good cooperation between the school and the police, the duty to report is an important part for the police to be able to know which tasks exist.

It is the police who shall be responsible for this. It is the police who shall make it easy for the schools; it shall not become any administrative burden for the schools.

Mr. Speaker! A crime-fighting society requires cooperation. The bill is not only about strengthening our authorities but also about creating a culture of cooperation and information sharing between different social actors, where we talk to each other to jointly tackle this important effort.

Crime fighting is not an isolated task. It is a collective effort for our entire society. Serious crime is, in fact, a threat to our entire society. Organized crime is no longer something that only affects certain vulnerable areas. It is a societal problem that undermines trust in the rule of law and safety in our entire country.

People should not have to be afraid to step outside the door or worry about their children's safety and security. By strengthening the flow of information, we give our law enforcement authorities the tools they need to prevent violence, protect the most vulnerable, and regain control over society.

Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, not a universal solution to strengthen information sharing, but it is a necessary step in the right direction. It is a necessary reform among several others so that we can together combat crime and regain control over the system-threatening crime that we have seen emerge for far too long.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report. Let us now adopt this proposition and show that Sweden stands strong together against crime!

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! On behalf of the Left Party, I move to reject the committee's proposal and thus also the bill.

I am convinced that the vast majority of us truly want to do as much as possible to combat crime. At the same time, it is quite obvious that we choose different strategies. Ultimately, it is about what kind of society we want to live in, besides the fact that we are to combat crime. Should it be about control from those in power from the top down, with a focus on the residents? Or do we want more cooperation, solidarity, and trust, both among us residents and between us and society's institutions? It might not be about either or, but about parts of both. But what becomes most important? How do we draw the lines?

The serious matter we now face is actually a paradigm shift in public Sweden and what rules of the game shall apply there in relation to the citizens. It is also a shift in how we use the legislation. Now, it is not solely about certain changes in the secrecy act, but the government is also introducing a completely new law stating that one shall, both upon request and on one's own initiative, deliver information to the police and other law enforcement agencies. This will become vague and insecure on a broad front.

It also conflicts with many legal principles, not least the European Convention and the European Union's treaties – besides our own Instrument of Government, according to which we shall safeguard the individual's privacy, private life and family life. This matter of protecting privacy seems it will soon be only Vänsterpartiet that focuses on.

Then I am well aware that it is called democracy, and it is democracy, when the majority makes decisions. The decisions we make here in the Riksdag become law, and the law is thus frozen politics. It is those decisions that will apply, and there a minority must yield. I do not, however, want to do so without marking a strong opposition from us.

One thing is interesting. In the texts that serve as the basis for the decisions we now have to make, the focus is, of course, on organized crime, which upsets everyone. That is not strange. That is how it should be. Then, in one passage, it is mentioned that it is serious when it concerns violence against women and children. There, the level of violence is unacceptably high, it is said. I want to add that that violence is also unacceptably frequent.

But what is the elephant in the room? We almost never talk about that it is men who are responsible for this violence. It is men who assault women and children and subject them to abuse. It is men in groups acting within organized crime. We must also do other things to change values and structures.

Perhaps the most serious matter, which has also been touched upon here, is that in the legal rules that will probably soon be passed, it is expected that the authorities will voluntarily provide information. We have no idea how this will be perceived. The Council on Legislation is one of the strong bodies that truly takes a stand against this principled novelty in our Swedish administrative tradition. They argue that the consequences are impossible to oversee.

It may be a bit unusual that I, here in the speaker's chair, invoke the Swedish Public Employment Service, the Companies Registration Office and the Financial Supervisory Authority as support for my views, but they have also been very critical of the reform in that part.

The Council on Legislation might also ask: Who knows what information is important in the activities of a law enforcement agency? Perhaps it is primarily the law enforcement agencies that know, and they cannot really control what others will spontaneously provide to them. The risk is that it becomes a large flow of information that we perhaps do not quite know how to handle.

The risks are even greater when it comes to this matter of trust and confidence. We can now tear down the strong trust that Swedish authorities nevertheless enjoy. Also from that aspect, it is somewhat remarkable that the government is presenting this proposal because it is so incredibly difficult to oversee.

We can also make various comparisons with existing legislation regarding what would be possible and what would not. I mean that the legislation that exists is not used sufficiently. We might complicate it even a little more. Someone might say that the secrecy law is difficult, and it is if we were to read the rules on publicity and secrecy straight through. But it is not difficult to find out: What do I need to consider in my profession? Where are my warning bells? What applies to my secrecy? How can I cooperate with others? Among other things, there are general clauses that allow for information to be shared even between authorities.

Something I would also like to say a little extra about, in addition to the wise words already spoken here, is the school. There, it is the trust in the operations that risks becoming extra vulnerable. In addition to perhaps disturbing the trust between staff and students and parents, this will affect many employees' work environment and workload. The risk is that it will become counterproductive – that students do not dare to confide, that parents do not dare to confide, and that one closes instead of opening for important creative interventions early on when a child might be drifting away.

The requirement that principals must report is a kind of reporting system that is incredibly broadly laid out and which threatens democracy and trust in society in general. On the other hand, it is desirable that forms of cooperation can be developed across the country between social services, the police, and schools – and sometimes also with healthcare. That is where we need to focus our strength. We must provide the agencies with additional resources instead of cutting back on both schools and social services as well as health and medical care. It is a matter of operations that are built on trust, and we should strengthen those operations so that they can act with full confidence.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the adoption of our reservation 1, which entails a rejection of the bill.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate concerns increased information flow to law enforcement. Fundamentally, it is about those working within state agencies, regions, and municipalities being required, under certain conditions, to have a reporting obligation to the police and other law enforcement agencies. The Government, on its part, argues that the agencies' ability to perform their tasks in an efficient and successful manner is entirely dependent on assistance from other parts of the state as well as from other parts of society. One of the most important contributions is information about committed crimes, about suspected criminal schemes, and about individuals with links to criminality.

It must be said that this is complex material which has naturally raised many questions and reactions. I mean that the report should be seen against the background of the crime development that we have seen in our country. In almost every debate on the justice system and crime fighting that has been held in the chamber recently, there has been, for the most part, political agreement that we are in a serious situation.

Organized crime has taken hold. Shootings and explosions continue and have a strong connection to organized crime. This also applies to crimes such as drug offenses, fraud, extortion, and smuggling. Even violent extremism and terrorist offenses have, in some cases, been able to be linked to organized crime.

Organized crime affects the entire society, is one of the rule of law's greatest challenges, and is seen as a threat to the system. But it is not only organized crime that poses great challenges. It has been mentioned by previous speakers that the occurrence of violence against women and children is unacceptably high, which we absolutely agree with. Burglaries, traffic offenses, crimes of sexual assault, smuggling offenses, and other commonly occurring so-called volume crimes cause insecurity and significant damage to individuals, companies, and society as a whole.

I want to point out here that the National Police Commissioner has on several occasions conveyed the problems that we have to work with today, namely that the police receive knowledge and information about what is happening at an all-too-late stage. If that information had been provided to the police earlier, in the National Police Commissioner's view, they could have averted significantly more crimes than they do today. This should be included in the calculations when talking about increased information flow.

Mr. Speaker! Today's crime is complex and affects both individuals and large parts of society's sectors of activity. A good deal of legislation that has provided the police and others with new tools for more effective crime fighting is now in place, but if we are to achieve real success, more is required and we must all help each other.

Better cooperation and increased information exchange are necessary to achieve the desired effect. If we are to succeed and become truly effective, active assistance from other parts of society is required. This may involve other state agencies, regions, municipalities, the business sector, or individuals. Simply put, the law enforcement authorities need access to more information where there is data on suspected ongoing or planned criminal activities.

Concerns have been raised that it is difficult for the individual to determine when or if information should be provided, and if so, which information. My opinion is that there is no exact answer. In some cases, it is almost obvious, while in other cases it can be a bit more uncertain. I can understand that, but fundamentally it is about commitment and care and caring. All good forces and initiatives are needed if we are to reduce crime and increase safety.

Mr. Speaker! A little gut feeling and common sense is not wrong. If there is a concern or if something feels wrong, there is often a reason for it. If one experiences, for example, signs of radicalization in a school student – report it and leave it to the police to determine whether the information is relevant or not! As mentioned here, the principal lacks knowledge about this, and in that case, it is appropriate to hand over the assessment of whether the information is relevant or not to the police. I can say from my own experience that if the information lacks value, the police will not put any effort into that information at all.

To this, it should also be added that we already today have the collaborative form SSPF, i.e., school, social services, police, and youth activities, where there are interpretations of rules that differ. But with the new proposal, increased opportunities are given to share information. I wonder what we are to have the groups for if they are not to share information. Are they just to sit and have coffee and be cute to each other, or what is it they are actually supposed to do at the SSPF group meetings? This is a reflection in light of the previous statements.

In this context, I can mention that there are ongoing investigations to review the possibility of a mutual exchange of information so that the police can also provide information to schools and social services in certain situations. This is something that can be very important. Investigations are ongoing, as mentioned, and hopefully, new proposals will emerge.

It should also be pointed out that the proposal is not breach of confidentiality in all parts. A disclosing municipality or region shall be able to refrain from disclosing information if it is clear that the interest that the confidentiality is to protect takes precedence over the interest of the information being disclosed. Social services as well as health and medical care are also largely exempt from the proposal. But even in that part, an investigation and review of the confidentiality legislation is underway.

Mr. Speaker! I cannot free myself from the thought, when I listen to the opposition parties, that there is some form of lack of trust and mistrust towards the police that they would misuse the information. It is not my experience that is the case. Furthermore, the police enjoy the greatest trust in the trust surveys that are conducted. No other agency or activity has greater trust than the police, and that is what we must protect and nurture.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a serious situation with grave organized crime on the rise. Powerful measures are needed to combat this.

We Center Party members stand behind the historically large resource reinforcements to the justice system that have been made. These increased resources go towards being able to combat serious organized crime but also towards combating violence against women and children and the large number of crimes, quantity crimes, and everyday crimes, where small business owners are often the most vulnerable.

At the same time as we are to investigate and prosecute crimes, the most important thing is to prevent and deter them. This requires, among other things, effective measures to prevent the new recruitment of children and young people.

What has come to be an increasingly crucial part of breaking the development is cooperation, collaboration and information exchange between authorities, both within the justice system and with the rest of the public sector. For this, tightenings of current legislation and sometimes also new legislation are needed. This must, however, be done while basic civil and political rights, public access and secrecy are handled in a careful manner. To manage this, clear, predictable and robust legislation is required.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore welcome that law enforcement agencies are clearly given the opportunity to request information from other agencies. It is absolutely necessary for them to be able to carry out their tasks in an effective manner. To this can be added the need for an increased opportunity to share certain pieces of information within agencies. Today we see how different branches of activity within one and the same agency are sometimes prevented from sharing information with each other, even though it could potentially mean valuable opportunities to counter crime.

With this said, it is, as the Council on Legislation points out, problematic that certain state authorities, municipalities and regions, as well as principals within the school system, shall be required ex officio, that is, without a prior request, to provide information to the law enforcement authorities if the law enforcement authorities judge that the information is needed in the law enforcement authority. Just because the requirement itself to do this is low – "may be needed" – does not mean that qualified assessments do not need to be made. These shall now be placed on operations that often lack both the knowledge and experience to do this.

We are of the opinion that state authorities have the capacity and resources to handle the proposed legislation in a way that the country's 290 municipalities, 21 regions and a large number of school providers do not have.

We are therefore in favor of law enforcement authorities being allowed to request information and more authorities being given the opportunity to provide information. It should also be remembered that schools already have a reporting obligation to social services in case of suspicion. Furthermore, a new Social Services Act with a greater crime prevention focus is on the horizon.

We consider, however, that it is unsustainable at this time to introduce an obligation that rests on an authority having to provide information after having assessed what assessment another authority within a completely different area of activity makes of the importance of a piece of information. We are back in the situation where the government and SD put, as they say, sharp tools into the hands of public employees that are however so difficult and complicated that they risk being used incorrectly, not at all, or too much, and then it is not effective.

We are for robust and effective legislation, and therefore we are also for large parts of the report. But we do not see the effective in that which we have motioned for rejection, and therefore I motion for approval of reservation 3.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Liljeberg for her contribution.

It is very positive that we essentially have a broad consensus on the need to share information and counter secrecy barriers so that we can stand together and united to prevent, combat, and deter crime.

What I caught on was the statement that we would force employees in municipalities, regions, and schools to perform advanced analytical evaluations of whether a task was needed or not. It states explicitly in the bill that the police and the law enforcement authorities shall be the driving force in this. It is they who shall present which task is needed. No investigation duty or duty to perform qualified analyses for anyone else is being introduced.

It could be about the police telling a school that they see activities in a certain criminal network and that if someone from there appears near the school and talks to students, they would like to be informed. In that case, the school does not need to perform any advanced analysis. It could also be about perhaps seeing significant changes in a student's behavior. In that case, one can also provide information about it.

It is therefore the police and the law enforcement authorities who are to be driving this and who are to convey what kinds of tasks are needed.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! As the member points out, we agree on much. What we are looking for is to have effective tools.

The member describes that the police want information. We think that is positive and good. But as it has been presented in the debate, what is currently on the table is that principals shall contact the police when there are warning signs. One must, therefore, have made an assessment that the police in their crime-investigating activities may potentially have use of this information.

We think that the system that exists now is good, that is to say that schools and principals report to the social services, which has a completely different mandate to ensure the young person's well-being and so on and make reports to the police. If we talk about mistrust towards certain authorities, I still think we should have high trust in the social services, especially considering the new Social Services Act that is on the way. They can make a holistic assessment. We think that it is an effective way. They have channels.

We are, as said, entirely in agreement regarding the example the member gives. It is good that the member thinks it concerns simple assessments, but I remind that even the Council on Legislation says that complicated assessments need to be made. In that case, perhaps one should question the Council on Legislation's competence to assess the bill. But even they say that they are not entirely easy assessments to make.

We think that reports should be submitted, but it should go through the social services, which have a completely different mandate and different competence and can see the whole picture.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are, as said, largely in agreement, but the member also points out that the whole thing can be resolved within today's regulatory framework. We are, however, not satisfied with how it looks today, and therefore we want to achieve a clear change.

I SOU: it is clearly pointed out that if we do not make this change, the effect risks being lost. This is because it looks so different across our country in terms of how well this is built out and functions.

The government also emphasizes in its bill that it is the police who shall be leading in this. It is the law enforcement authorities who shall state which tasks are needed, and they shall provide guidance, appoint a contact person, perform the analytical work, and be responsible for the whole. It is not municipalities, regions, schools, or the like that shall do this. They shall only hand over a task and have no obligation to investigate or to proactively seek out information. Tasks they have received, if they see changes, experience a concern or a gut feeling, or think that something might be relevant, are what is emphasized in the bill.

I think it is a pity that we have not reached an agreement on this, but at the same time it is positive that we have essentially found a broad agreement on the bill, Mr. Speaker. This is because this is an important change.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want, as I have said, to emphasize that there is a great consensus on both the purpose and the goal of this legislation and much of the Riksdag's work right now. But I also want to remind that laws and the budget, as I have stated earlier, have an important role, but so do leadership, resources, and knowledge.

We had, on account of the tragic mass murder in Örebro some time ago, visits to the Committee on Justice from expert agencies to discuss how we can prevent such serious crime from occurring. I asked them a direct question about what changes in the secrecy legislation are needed to prevent what happened. I assume they say this even outside the committee's doors, so I dare to repeat the answer we received, namely that secrecy's greatest enemy – even though I do not believe they expressed it that way – is cultures and ignorance regarding secrecy.

It is good that the government and its representatives have also pointed out that a greater effort is needed. Training in confidentiality, forms of cooperation, and clarity regarding this are needed. To now add legislation which even the Council on Legislation says is a bit too complicated and will be difficult to use is not, we believe, the right way to go.

We support what is clear and effective, and there may be other tools, such as increased resources to social services and schools to increase knowledge about this. But just today, we do not see that this is the sharp tool that our public employees – who work for both the children's and society's best and to combat crime – need.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Much has been said here today about the government's bill Increased information flow to law enforcement, so I feel that I perhaps do not need to stand here and repeat everything that has been said.

We have talked about referral bodies, and I note when I read the responses from different sources that there is a certain concern within some groups in society, including among the teaching profession. There is a concern that the law will increase the occurrence of threats and violence against teachers and other school staff.

I do not quite see it that way. Already today, the school is allowed to hand over information to the police in connection with criminal investigations. Both students and parents know this. The new law will state that the school must assist the police in criminal investigations. In my book, it will then become much clearer. It could also mean that a student cannot in the same way intimidate a teacher into silence. One cannot threaten teachers or other school staff to get them not to go to the police or talk to the police, because now the school must do it.

Now I suddenly remembered threats and violence against school staff, and I will, Mr. Speaker, return to this; I think it is important.

I have, in fact, experience of violence in schools as both a police officer, a guardian, and a parent. As a police officer, I have not actually experienced a single time where the school has not been helpful when a crime has been committed in the school or by any of the school's students or by staff. There is a kind of built-in social responsibility among school staff. If a crime has been committed and the police need to investigate it, they help. This has occurred without the trust in the school staff being damaged in any way.

But of course, there have been times when this has not worked and the school has not cooperated, and that is when I believe this law will make a difference. One will not be able to sweep crimes committed in a school environment under the carpet or, for various reasons, obstruct police investigations.

Then I, as a parenthesis, am a bit surprised by how one of the referral bodies reasons regarding the bill. It concerns the city of Gothenburg, which took a negative stance on the bill. They argue that assistance to the police in criminal investigations "does not fall within the school's mandate." In fact, very few activities have as their primary mandate to assist the police in criminal investigations. In my world, it is a matter of social responsibility.

The City of Gothenburg further expresses in its referral response that if a teacher were to assist the police in crime fighting, this would risk taking time away from other things. If one student stabs another student, the City of Gothenburg therefore thinks that the school should not assist the police in the criminal investigation to find out who did this and how it happened, because it could take time away from other things – such as grading a math test? Where is the social responsibility we talk about all the time? It concerns everyone, at least I think.

Mr. Speaker! Back to the violence against teachers and school staff and the anxiety they feel today. We must take that seriously. The protection for teachers and other school staff must be strengthened. If a student threatens a teacher, the law enforcement authorities, in this case the police, must come to the school, take the youth in question by the ear – figuratively speaking, I mean – and tell him how to behave. If he does not understand – I say "he", for it is often a he – how to behave, he must be placed in another location until he has understood how to behave.

The safety of teachers and students inside a school is priority one. The school must be the absolutely safest place in society for our children. No child should go to school and be afraid of being subjected to a crime, for example, that which some call bullying. Strike that word from the word list, Mr. Speaker! Stop saying bullying! It is called harassment, unlawful threats, sexual harassment, insult; it is what it is. It is about crimes. I want to repeat it: No children shall feel unsafe in school. I cannot say it too many times.

That is why I am glad that I belong to a party, Liberalerna, which has this at the very top of its agenda: that school should be a safe place for our children. Huge resources should be allocated there. That bag of money would have no bottom if I were the one to decide.

I am driven to distraction when I hear how it works in some schools – how threats and violence are perpetrated against other students and against teachers.

Mr. Speaker! Over the last five years, the reports of violence in Swedish primary and lower secondary schools – we are talking about eight, nine, and ten-year-olds – have increased by 60 percent. Last year, 360 cases of violence against teachers were reported.

I have many teachers in my circle of acquaintances, and I grew up with a father who is a teacher. I have therefore heard many horror stories about how things can go in the school world and about the violence that exists there. It is quite clear that it differs quite a bit between schools. There are schools that do not have any problems at all and schools where the problems are gigantic – where teachers are threatened and students do as they please, completely without consequences.

So we cannot have that. For the school to become a safe place, we need order and clarity, and there must be consequences if a student does not follow the rules that exist. The school shall be a safe place for both students, teachers, and other school staff.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As we have heard, the government has presented a new law that gives authorities, municipalities, regions, and schools an obligation to provide information to law enforcement agencies both upon request and on their own initiative. The proposal also implies an expanded possibility for social services and healthcare to, despite confidentiality, provide information needed in law enforcement. The government justifies the proposal by stating that serious crime requires more public actors to contribute to the law enforcement work and that today's confidentiality rules prevent public employees from providing information to law enforcement agencies.

For Miljöpartiet, it is important that authorities, municipalities, and other actors can share information with each other in an efficient way in order to be able to fulfill their mandates. It does not, however, appear, in our opinion, to be expedient or efficient that authorities, municipalities, and regions are proposed to submit information to law enforcement agencies on their own initiative. This was also pointed out by the Council on Legislation together with several important referral bodies, for example the Institute for Human Rights, Save the Children, and the Parliamentary Ombudsperson.

Mr. Speaker! There are today several secrecy-breaking provisions that allow public actors to exchange information and in this way contribute to preventing and combating crime. Recurring reviews have, however, shown that despite this, the exchange of information does not occur to the desired extent. This applies in particular to the secrecy-breaking provision that enables social services to provide information on persons under 21 years of age for crime prevention purposes. A contributing cause to this is that employees within, among others, the police, social services, and school experience that the regulatory framework is complicated and difficult to apply. There are also knowledge gaps when it comes to how the legislation should be applied.

To address these problems, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council (Brå) stated in a 2021 report that, as a first step, it should be clarified how the legislation should be interpreted and applied in practice. Educational initiatives should also be directed at the actors involved to obtain clearer guidance and guidelines on how secrecy-breaking provisions can be applied. Brå argues that the problems would not necessarily be solved through new legislation.

That authorities, municipalities, and regions should provide information on their own initiative is problematic for several reasons. To begin with, we in Miljöpartiet are critical of that the obligation to provide information is combined with such a low threshold for disclosure. That a piece of information "can be assumed to be needed in crime-fighting activities" not only complicates the provider's assessment but can also mean that crime-fighting receives a large amount of information that lacks significance. There is thus a significant risk that the government's proposal rather leads to increased workload for both the school and crime-fighting.

An excessively far-reaching obligation to disclose information can also damage trust in, among other things, the school and social services, which would hinder opportunities to catch children and young people who are entering into crime. All of this combined can result in that the purpose of the provisions, namely to streamline crime fighting, is not achieved.

The Council on Legislation sees, as we have heard earlier, several significant risks with the proposal. Among others, it points out that the obligation to provide information risks leading to unnecessary privacy infringements and thus cannot be said to be proportionate in accordance with the Instrument of Government. Miljöpartiet considers that the proposal should rather be formulated as a voluntary opportunity, so that the relevant actors are given greater room to themselves assess which pieces of information may potentially be of interest for crime fighting.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet sees it as particularly problematic that the school is not exempted from the duty to provide information. That the school should provide information to law enforcement authorities without a prior request risks seriously damaging the school's main mission, which is to educate. Successful schooling is also a protective factor that prevents children and young people from being drawn into crime. The school therefore already works crime-preventively when it carries out its main mission – to educate. This has also been pointed out by, among others, Sveriges Lärare, who argue that the proposal is likely neither an effective nor a legally secure model for crime fighting. Sveriges Skolledare emphasizes that the best crime fighting is to invest in early interventions for students in the risk groups.

Mr. Speaker! It is obviously important that crimes can be prevented and solved and that law enforcement authorities have good tools. At the same time, it is also important that individuals' personal privacy is protected and that the degree of privacy infringement does not exceed what is acceptable in a free and democratic society.

In recent years, several parallel legislative projects have been initiated and carried out concerning the increase of information flow in various respects. In addition to the difficulties in overseeing the collective consequences of the proposals for individuals, the volume of proposals means that the Council on Legislation and relevant referral bodies do not have time or can not analyze the proposals in the manner required for a satisfactory preparation. This risks leading to poorer quality of both opinions and legislation.

We in Miljöpartiet were therefore pleased when the government announced last week the appointment of an inquiry that will look into this. In the assignment to the investigator, it is specifically mentioned that it includes making an analysis of the consequences of the collective regulation for personal privacy. Since the inquiry has until May next year to do this, we assume that they will also have the opportunity to analyze any additional regulations that occur during the time the inquiry is working.

Miljöpartiet has three reservations in this matter. I support all three but move for approval only of reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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