Increased information exchange between authorities - a new secrecy-breaking provision

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report on increased information exchange between authorities – a new confidentiality-breaking provision. It can be said briefly that the legislative change means that information covered by confidentiality for the protection of individuals can be shared between authorities if it is necessary to prevent, hinder, or detect criminal activity.

Before information is disclosed, a balancing of interests must be made. Information may not be disclosed if overriding reasons indicate that the interest which the secrecy is intended to protect takes precedence over the interest in disclosing the information. Certain types of secrecy are excluded entirely from the scope of the provision.

Madam Speaker! The purpose is to generally improve the authorities' ability to exchange information about individuals in order to thereby prevent, investigate and combat various forms of fraud, regulatory violations and crime.

Overall, this represents a system shift regarding secrecy. We are moving from a starting point of not sharing information to a starting point of sharing information when it is, for example, needed to prevent and combat crime.

Removing secrecy barriers in order to be able to prevent young people from being drawn into crime, or so that different actors can make better interventions with a broader knowledge base, is something that has been requested for a very long time. I personally, during my ten years as a member of Parliament, have received extensive criticism regarding exactly these secrecy barriers, and I actually never quite understood what prevented politics from acting on this issue.

Now that we have a new government in place with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, we are delivering a crystal-clear new confidentiality-breaking provision. At the same time, the cards are showing among the political parties, and the explanation for a confidentiality-breaking opposition is now clearly visible. Vänsterpartiet demands a rejection of the government's bill in its entirety, and Miljöpartiet has very strong objections.

This clearly explains why Social Democratic governments have not been able to act earlier. The explanation is, just as with other decisive legislative proposals against crime, that there is strong opposition in the red-green camp.

I mean that the concerns raised in several reservations do not justify, for example, that social services confidentiality should be exempted from the new provisions or that the amendment would not be proportionate. On the contrary, Madam Speaker, the crime development in our society argues that more needs to be done and that more actors need to contribute to crime prevention and crime-fighting work. Now we are delivering exactly what has been demanded for so long.

In conclusion, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of the red-green parties' various reservations.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened to the previous debate on secrecy, and it was mentioned there that we had received quite a lot of emails. We have not received as many emails in this matter, but it is probably at least as important as the previous one – if not more important.

Today we are debating a very important report regarding changes to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. These are changes intended to facilitate for our authorities to prevent and detect crimes, fraud, and incorrect payments. Fundamentally, it is about tools that are necessary for trust in the public sector to be maintained and strengthened in a time when much of what we have taken for granted is being put to the test. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal, with the exception of point 3. For that point, I move for approval of reservation 4.

With the proposed amendments, a new general confidentiality-breaking provision is introduced. The provision makes it possible for authorities to disclose confidential information to other authorities, if it is necessary for certain specified purposes.

It is important to emphasize that the balancing of interests proposed by the bill shall apply in these situations. This means that it must be weighed whether the protection that confidentiality provides the individual outweighs the need to disclose the information. There is thus an element in the proposal where the profession will need to assess the information that is to be disclosed to another authority.

I know that there is a certain concern regarding this legislation, but it does not mean that the floodgates are opened completely and that sensitive information will flow freely and uncontrollably. There are, however, certain critical aspects to take into account. We Social Democrats nevertheless believe that this legislation is necessary to meet the immense threat that crime and fraud actually pose to our society.

Today, authorities are often prevented from cooperating effectively due to secrecy rules that are too narrow or difficult to interpret. I am aware that the Council on Legislation has questioned this conclusion, but the government actually emphasizes several examples of exactly this in the bill. This concerns, for example, insufficient opportunities for the Swedish Tax Agency to voluntarily share information and welfare crime enabled by the fact that individuals are protected by secrecy.

The Government also argues that there are currently several confidentiality-breaking provisions that, when applied, require complex legal considerations and which also overlap with other provisions. Even though there is a proposed balancing of interests in the bill that entails a certain risk regarding exact application, it is actually something that largely applies already today.

The complexity I just mentioned regarding current secrecy legislation naturally means that teachers, case officers, counselors, and all possible public employees have a very difficult task in applying the law correctly. Admittedly, we know that employers or managers must ensure that decisions are made correctly, but we also know that in reality, it often requires an individual employee to be able to handle these difficult issues due to various factors such as lack of resources, the acute nature of the issue, or lack of leadership. It is naturally no excuse but rather an explanation, and it shows how the general secrecy-breaking provision can hopefully facilitate things for the individual employee in certain respects.

Madam Speaker! I know that some parties in the chamber are very enthusiastic about a so-called reintroduced official responsibility, but I would like to emphasize that many officials are probably already extremely cautious regarding precisely information sharing. People are, in fact, afraid of making a mistake and thereby being punished, even though they have acted with good intentions and tried to contribute to a more efficient administration or crime fighting. This change in the secrecy legislation, I believe, will remedy at least some of the practical problems in that regard, even though it naturally does not solve everything.

In light of what I have stated, we Social Democrats support the proposed legislative changes. They are necessary for us to be able to tackle crime, fraud, and inefficiency. But we also highlight, together with the Green Party, that there are certain privacy aspects that are worth considering. It should be remembered that the government itself actually mentions them quite extensively in its bill.

For that reason, we choose to highlight the need for a unified review of all measures already taken and proposed regarding confidentiality and information sharing. But, again: We stand behind the substance of the legislation and the changes that are proposed.

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

Mats Green (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal.

Today we are considering a proposal for a new confidentiality-breaking provision. It concerns increasing the exchange of information between our authorities. It may sound technical – almost bureaucratic – but in reality, it is about something significantly more central to our democracy, namely to give the state better conditions to protect citizens, safeguard welfare, and ensure that laws and regulations are actually followed.

This proposal has three clear objectives: to combat crime, to reduce incorrect payments, and to increase the efficiency of the authorities' work.

The first purpose is to fight crime. Protecting Sweden's citizens against crime is perhaps the state's most fundamental task. Today, however, our authorities are all too often hindered by secrecy rules that prevent important information from being shared, even though it could have revealed crimes or prevented new ones from being committed.

Criminal networks exploit these gaps when they move money between different systems, use false identities and abuse the welfare system, and they do so with a cynicism that harms the entire Swedish community. By enabling a more efficient exchange of information, we can prevent, detect, and above all, investigate and punish criminal activity faster and more accurately.

It is not about reducing privacy, it is about defending it. Nothing is a greater threat to people's freedom than a society where crime is allowed to spread and infiltrate our social institutions and thereby undermine our democracy.

The second purpose is to reduce fraud and rule violations. We know that every year, tragically, billions are paid out from our common systems on incorrect grounds. It is about the taxpayers' money – money that should have gone to healthcare, school, and elderly care. It is money that should go to those who truly need support, not to those who deliberately abuse the systems.

The new provision will make it easier for authorities to share information and detect incorrect payments, rule violations, and other misuse of the system. The Moderates stand for a welfare built on trust, not on naivety, Madam Speaker. Those who need help shall be met with support, but those who misuse our common resources shall be exposed, stopped, and above all, held accountable. An effective exchange of information is not a threat to legal certainty; it is, on the contrary, a way to defend and strengthen the rule of law. Justice, in fact, is not only about protection but also about every citizen being able to trust that the system is also fair.

The third objective, Madam Speaker, is to increase efficiency. We need a state that functions. Sweden needs authorities that cooperate rather than authorities that de facto work against each other. When case officers at Försäkringskassan, Skatteverket, or Polismyndigheten spend hours trying to obtain information they should already have access to, we waste both resources and capacity. By removing these unnecessary secrecy barriers, we create a more cohesive and efficient administration that provides citizens with faster and better support, which in turn leads to increased trust.

Madam Speaker! With that said, it is clear that privacy must still be at the center. Every provision breaking confidentiality must be clearly delimited, well-motivated, and designed in a legally secure manner. Our citizens must be able to trust that information is not spread arbitrarily, that decisions can be reviewed, and that transparency prevails in how information is used.

It would, however, be wrong to let an exaggerated fear of information exchange prevent the state from doing its job. Privacy and efficiency are not opposites; they are actually, on the contrary, each other's prerequisites. A constitutional state that cannot act against crime and abuse of the system risks losing the citizens' trust, and when trust disappears, the very foundation of Swedish democracy is eroded.

Madam Speaker! The way forward is clear. This legislation is an important step towards a stronger and more proactive state – a state that fights crime, reduces fraud and uses resources in a wiser way, and a state that stands on the citizen's side, not over him or her. When we give authorities the right tools, when we tear down bureaucratic hurdles and when we put order and responsibility at the center, we create both freedom and security.

Let me conclude by underlining the following, Madam Speaker: These provisions are not about the state knowing more about people. They are about the state being able to protect people better. That is why the Moderaterna and our coalition partners are now pushing through a more effective, legally secure, and coordinated exchange of information between our authorities. We believe, in fact, in a society where those who do the right thing should feel security and where those who break the rules shall be held accountable and also, honestly speaking, feel insecurity.

That is how we strengthen trust, that is how we strengthen welfare, and that is how we strengthen Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1.

I had planned to begin my speech in a certain way, but when I heard the previous speaker, I was a bit surprised and almost wondered if he had read what the government itself writes in its bill. Mats Green just said many fine words in the speaker's chair, but it is a fact that the government itself writes in its bill that this proposal could mean a diminished protection for personal privacy and that there is a risk that trust in the authorities will decrease.

I was a bit surprised when I heard the speech. It is not me and Vänsterpartiet who are saying this, but it is the government itself. I must recommend that Mats Green read the proposition a bit more.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party considers, just like the government, that it is of the utmost importance to prevent incorrect payments from our welfare systems, to stop fraud and to stop the organized crime that has eaten its way into our welfare. Due to extensive and ill-considered privatizations and sell-offs, the welfare has undergone major changes that have made it vulnerable and a target for unscrupulous entrepreneurs and economic crime.

That is exactly why we in Vänsterpartiet believe it is unfortunate that the government's proposal to introduce a confidentiality-breaking provision can lead to a completely uncontrollable exchange of information where the consequences cannot be foreseen. This is in conflict with my and Vänsterpartiet's view on privacy and with the perception of protection for confidential information and people's privacy that has applied until now. This proposal is unfortunately not as well-defined as some other parties claim.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet safeguards democratic basic values such as the rule of law and protection of personal privacy. The technical development, with ever-increasing possibilities for the collection of private data, represents a major challenge. Today, it is possible to collect a large amount of data of a sensitive nature that shows where people are located and what routines they have. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the protection of personal privacy is constantly monitored in step with the increasing digitalization.

At the same time, we in Vänsterpartiet obviously do not want to hinder the law enforcement agencies' work in investigating and prosecuting crimes. Therefore, we are keen that there is a regulatory framework that provides good protection for the security of Sweden and its inhabitants.

Madam Speaker! I am one of those affected by the personal data breach that occurred last month. I am truly not alone – over 1 million Swedes are affected. In the municipality where I was employed, all employees since 2011 are affected. For my part, this primarily led to some discomfort and to reflections on what information about me can be used and in what way. I may need to be a bit more vigilant than before. For a person with a protected identity, however, a breach like this can be life-threatening.

I believe everyone understands that the risk of sensitive information falling into the wrong hands increases the more people who are granted access to information about individuals. Precisely for that reason, we believe it is important that secrecy-breaking rules are introduced in a well-considered manner and that different values are balanced against one another. Furthermore, there are already secrecy-breaking rules in place today to facilitate cooperation between authorities.

Vänsterpartiet supports another proposal being discussed in the Riksdag today, namely that people should have a better opportunity to share information within the Swedish Police Authority. We in Vänsterpartiet are therefore not always saying no to everything, but we cannot support the proposal in this matter in its current form. Therefore, we believe that the government should produce a more proportionate and legally secure proposal that focuses on combating serious crime.

In line with the Council on Legislation, we consider that the government's proposal is a radical departure from the principles that have hitherto applied in the area of public access and secrecy and that it entails a risk that information that should have secrecy protection is disseminated to an extent that is not justified.

We agree with the criticism that many referral bodies, including the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the Security and Integrity Protection Committee, and the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority, have put forward that this proposal could lead to an increased risk of infringements of personal privacy, a lack of trust in authorities, and that the secrecy legislation becomes even more difficult to apply than today, as it has been changed several times in a relatively short period and furthermore has not had time to be evaluated.

Madam Speaker! There are very good reasons why we have a referral process in Sweden. After the government has commissioned an investigation, the proposals in the investigation should be illuminated from all sides by the authorities we have in Sweden to get examples of what could be deficiencies in the investigation. That is why we think it is very worrying that the government has sent this investigation out for referral and received very many critical comments but, despite that, has not made any changes but has simply moved forward and presented the proposal to the Riksdag. It is worrying for the referral system. It is also worrying because it will lead to major consequences in the area of personal integrity. Therefore, I move for the rejection of the committee's proposal.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal for a new confidentiality-breaking provision in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. It is a proposal that underwent solid work before it reached the chamber.

Centerpartiet will stand behind the proposal. We do so because we see a real need in today's society, but we do so with eyes wide open and with respect for the risks that follow when the state is given ever greater opportunities to share information.

Sweden faces serious challenges. Several members have raised the issue of cheating in the chamber. We also see that organized crime has taken hold and is creeping further down into the ages.

In the background material for the solid work that has preceded this proposal, there are, among other things, reports from the Swedish Crime Prevention Council where the situation of children and young people in particular is mentioned. Children and young people are lured, pressured, or forced into criminal environments, and all too often authorities are stuck in silos and with confidentiality boundaries that prevent a holistic view. Social services see one pattern, the school sees another, and the police see a third, but no one has the whole picture. When no one sees the whole, we risk losing a person – perhaps a child – who could have been saved in time.

It is in these situations that the confidentiality provisions sometimes stand in the way of the good cause, and that is why we see the need for a more efficient and responsible information sharing between authorities.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party believes in a society where both freedom and security coexist. We see no contradiction between protecting an individual's privacy and protecting people from crime. We do, however, know that power must be enclosed within clear frameworks every time the state is granted more power. The new provisions should not be a general free pass to share information, but every disclosure must be based on a careful balancing. There must be strong reasons, and the benefit must outweigh the intrusion. Furthermore, it must occur with respect for the individual's legal certainty. The Centre Party has emphasized, and will continue to emphasize, that the balance between efficiency and privacy must be clear in both the legal text and in application.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the authorities' ability to cooperate can determine whether a child receives help in time, whether a company is stopped before it cheats its way to millions in subsidies, or whether the police manage to get ahead of a network that exploits people in positions of dependency. In these cases, the state must be able to act quickly and in a coordinated manner. That is why we support the proposal. We do not do so because we believe it is perfect, but because it is necessary. It is a step in the right direction for a society that wants to stand strong against crime and insecurity.

But, Mr. Speaker, support does not mean blind trust. The Centre Party will follow the application carefully. We expect the government to evaluate how the provision is used, that the protection of privacy does not just exist on paper but works in practice, and that any deficiencies are corrected.

Sweden is a country built on trust – trust in one another and in the state. But that trust is fragile. It rests on the certainty that the state does not know more than necessary, that our personal data does not circulate without clear protections, and that there are boundaries that protect the individual against overreach. That is why this balance is so central: We give the authorities the tools they need to act without dismantling the barriers that protect freedom.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: the Centre Party stands behind the proposal for an expanded exchange of information between authorities. We do so because we want to see a safer society, so that more children can be saved in time and so that society does not stand helpless in the face of crime and insecurity. We do it also because we believe in the Swedish model, where efficiency and legal certainty can go hand in hand.

Our common mission is to defend both security and freedom, for only in that balance can trust in the state endure.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Our Swedish language is a rich language. We have many opportunities to express what we want to say, whether it concerns emotions or facts – or for that matter, when it comes to legislation. In the latter case, the great linguistic challenge is usually precision, i.e., to state as accurately as possible what is actually meant. This also makes it possible to put a proposed piece of legislation in relation to existing rules and, furthermore, to experiences and research in the field.

Without being an expert on language and even less on law, I think it is reasonable to expect accurate language in a legislative proposal. Especially when it concerns areas where there are good reasons to pay attention, not least criminal activity directed against our welfare systems. In the proposed legislation, four purposes are listed, of which the fourth is to prevent, deter, detect, or investigate fraud and different types of violations. Investigating different types of violations is thus a purpose of the legislative proposal. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker: Can we not do better than that?

It can be mentioned in parentheses that the term "gummiparagraf" (rubber paragraph) does not exist in the Swedish Academy's dictionary – but it is in the word list. In the dictionary, however, its predecessor "kautschukparagraf" (rubber paragraph) exists, which was used as early as 1890 in the sense of exactly elastic legislation.

Mr. Speaker! The Council on Legislation, this beacon on the government jurists' anxious voyage, has not been discovered or chosen to be taken into account. The Council on Legislation points out that there is already primarily legislation within the area and that it is assumed to cover the needs in the now proposed law to a significant extent. The existing legislation is furthermore quite precise regarding occasions when secrecy can be broken. This, the Council on Legislation argues, now risks being set aside due to a vague text that trumps other provisions. The Council on Legislation writes that the proposal could therefore be described as an Alexander strike with difficult-to-overlook effects and that the proposal therefore gives cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker! It is obviously important that there are clear provisions regarding the exchange of information between authorities. It is also extremely important that authorities can cooperate effectively to fulfill their mandates. This applies, moreover, not only to counter crime but also to a large extent to protect us ordinary people and perhaps especially the children. All children are our children. Several investigations show that there is a need for improved information exchange to counter, among other things, welfare crimes and incorrect payments. But an expanded information exchange must be proportionate and not involve excessively large interventions in legal certainty and individuals' personal privacy.

A general secrecy-breaking provision such as the one in the government's proposal is very far-reaching and raises serious concerns. This has been pointed out not only by the Council on Legislation but also by other referral bodies. The Council on Legislation considers that the proposal implies a relatively radical departure from current principles in the area of secrecy and entails a non-negligible risk that information will be disseminated routinely.

I and Miljöpartiet therefore mean, as I hinted earlier, that the new provision must be clear, accurate, and proportionate. The Government should have reworked the provision in accordance with what the Council on Legislation stated and clearly delimited its scope of application.

Mr. Speaker! A question that has been raised by several referral bodies is how an increased exchange of information would affect the public's trust in the authorities. Particularly serious risks arise within operations such as social services, where the work is largely based on relationships of trust. This is pointed out by, among others, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, SKR, and the Financial Supervisory Authority.

We believe that school should be a safe place for students and school staff. The government has not taken into account what serious consequences can arise if students who need support do not dare to ask for it for fear that the information may be spread. I therefore mean that even the confidentiality on school grounds should be exempted from the scope of the new provision.

Mr. Speaker! During the current parliamentary term, several proposals have been submitted concerning secrecy, information sharing, and surveillance. Even though each measure individually can be argued for, the whole has become difficult to oversee. We must ensure that they together do not lead to an infringement of privacy that goes beyond what can be considered reasonable and proportionate in a constitutional state. The total effect of several simultaneous reforms must be assessed in its entirety.

I think that the government should rather clarify the current regulations. The government should also work towards increased cooperation between agencies and better knowledge among the officials at the agencies.

We naturally note that the government has tasked a special investigator with conducting a legal and systematic review of the rules on secret and preventive coercive measures. I think it would have been even better with a review of all regulations that affect personal privacy, not just secret and preventive coercive measures.

Against this background, we mean that the government should appoint a broad inquiry to map all recently completed and ongoing legislative measures within this area in order to assess the cumulative impact on personal privacy and legal certainty and propose how the protection of individuals' rights can be ensured. Experts from the Chancellor of Justice, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, researchers and representatives from civil society may be included in such a review.

With this said, I thank you for the floor and move for approval of reservation 3 under point 2.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Welfare crime is estimated to embezzle gigantic amounts of our common, public funds every year. Ekonomistyrningsverket estimated in 2021 that incorrect payments from state agencies amounted to 13–16 billion kronor. SKR assesses that at least as much money is drained from municipalities and regions. In a segment on SVT Nyheter in August last year, it was stated that the police estimated that the criminal economy generated 100–150 billion kronor per year, of which welfare crime was estimated to turn over up to 75 billion kronor annually.

These tens and hundreds of billions of kronor, we would have better needed to hire more nurses and midwives and to improve accessibility in healthcare, raise the quality in preschool and school, and educate and hire more committed people for elderly care. But instead, unscrupulous individuals, companies, and associations deceive society to obtain incorrect payments from the welfare systems. It can involve benefit fraud from sickness or unemployment insurance, or that companies invoice municipalities or authorities for services that have never been performed.

It is in order to have the opportunity to stop this that the government is now proposing a legislative change. It means that information covered by confidentiality to protect individuals shall be able to be shared between authorities, if it is necessary to prevent, deter or detect criminal activity, to investigate crimes, or to prevent, deter, detect or investigate incorrect payments, fraud and various types of violations.

The basic premise for Swedish secrecy legislation is that information may not be disclosed between authorities, nor between different units within an authority, if they can be perceived as independent of one another.

The fundamental protection against violations of personal privacy is constitutionally protected in the Instrument of Government, in the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms, and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The protection against violations of personal privacy is also found in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act and in regulations governing the processing of personal data.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, authorities need to cooperate to stop the leakage of public funds to criminal networks. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce possibilities to share certain pieces of information, in order to, for example, prevent someone from collecting compensation from the cash fund and Försäkringskassan simultaneously.

Different forms of fraud, violations, and crime must be able to be countered, detected, prevented, and investigated. A well-functioning exchange of information not only contributes to reducing society's costs and vulnerability but also strengthens society's resilience against fraud, violations of rules, and crime. To meet the challenges that society faces in the form of increasingly system-threatening crime, it is necessary that authorities have good opportunities to exchange information.

The government's investigation points out several situations where today's regulations do not allow for a sufficient exchange of information. Different actors, such as the Central Student Aid Board, the Swedish Police Authority, and the Swedish Tax Agency, emphasize that both a simplification of the regulatory framework and better opportunities for information exchange are needed. Otherwise, there is, for example, a risk of double financing of EU funds.

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, points out that welfare crime is many times enabled by the fact that information regarding individuals is protected by secrecy and that the authorities are prevented from exchanging information with one another. It should be particularly noted that social services secrecy is stricter and the exceptions from several of the currently existing possibilities to exchange information.

Mr. Speaker! In light of the Council on Legislation's views, it should be pointed out that there is a need for improved opportunities for information exchange between authorities in the public sector. Due to organized crime, the existing patterns need to be broken while powerful reinforcements are made to the tools that exist. The authorities need to be given significantly greater opportunities to share relevant information with one another.

I do not want to underestimate the risk that exists – that the inquiry's proposal could result in a diminished protection for personal privacy and thus also a risk that trust may decrease for the authorities that disclose information. The proposal does not, however, mean that authorities can exchange any information whatsoever, in any way, but an assessment of interests must be made. Information may not be disclosed if overriding reasons indicate that the interest that the secrecy is to protect carries more weight than the interest in the information being disclosed. Such an assessment of interests is needed for the regulation to be proportionate.

It must be assumed that authorities do not request other data than that for which they have a legitimate need. Against that background, the authority that provides the data should therefore be able to assume that an assessment is made that the receiving authority needs the data it is requesting.

With this bill, new opportunities are now opened to identify cases where welfare systems are misused for criminal purposes.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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