Preventive measures to prevent and deter serious crimes

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the report Preventive coercive measures to prevent and preclude serious crimes. And with secret coercive measures, for those who do not know what it is, we are talking about telephone interception, camera surveillance, room bugging, data retrieval and so on.

Whatever we may think about secret coercive measures in principle - specifically when it comes to preventive coercive measures - they are a very valuable tool in the fight against gang crime and organized crime, which demonstrably constitutes a very serious threat to Sweden and the Swedish people.

We know that organized crime has infiltrated large parts of the societal apparatus. We know that they have also succeeded in infiltrating political parties. We know that this crime is a threat to the system. We know that it increases insecurity in Sweden. We know that innocent people are affected to an ever-increasing extent - even though the Social Democrats usually claim that is not the case. We know that it turns over up to 150 billion kronor annually. We know that there are even links between serious criminals and Muslim dictatorships. We know that they wish our country ill. We know that gang crime and organized crime are largely imported. We know that it is a consequence of a deliberate policy, and so on.

In October 2023, a law entered into force that gave the police the opportunity to use just preventive coercive measures in crime fighting. This meant that the police were granted permission to wiretap conversations, collect data, or monitor persons for preventive purposes, i.e., without suspicion of a crime. It concerns tools that previously could only be used by Säpo, for example in cases of espionage and terrorist crimes.

Through the legislative change, it became possible to use these tools even against gang criminals, i.e., against organized crime, and it was naturally a fully reasonable legislative change. Criminals have always had a need to communicate. What previously occurred, for example over the telephone, occurs today to an increasingly greater extent in encrypted apps. When we gave the police the opportunity to intercept this communication, we gave them a very important tool in the fight against these groups.

The possibility of using preventive measures in crime fighting has already made a big difference and yielded good results. In February this year, the police announced that more than 200 decisions on preventive measures had been executed since the law change last year. At that time, in February, it had resulted in more than 30 arrested persons.

The police have thus been able to prevent very serious violent crimes but also drug offenses, weapons offenses and so on by the police having been given the opportunity to direct secret coercive measures such as secret wiretapping and secret data retrieval against persons suspected of being on their way to committing serious crimes.

Johan Olsson, head of the National Operational Department, Noa, expressed it in the following way: "Through secret coercive measures for preventive purposes, we become more proactive in our work, which means that we have a greater opportunity to prevent violent crimes before they occur and prosecute those who organize and instigate the acts of violence rather than prosecuting the perpetrators after the crimes have been committed."

Madam Speaker! To combat this system-threatening crime, however, more is required. Organized crime is constantly moving its positions, and it is essential that we as legislators do what we can to keep up with this regrettable change. We must, above all, become better at striking at the criminal economy because it is the very driving force in this activity. We know, not least, that the money obtained is reinvested in the criminal activity, so this is crucial.

The referral we are debating here today proposes that the possibilities to prevent, deter, and detect serious economic crime should be expanded. Accordingly, the powers regarding preventive coercive measures are further expanded. They shall be able to be used in more crimes, while more coercive measures such as secret room surveillance and house searches, but also – I think this is important – remote searching in security-classified foreign affairs cases are permitted. This is something the Tidö parties completely agree on.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to comment on a couple of the reservations. These concern the reservations of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet.

I have full respect for the fact that one chooses to highlight the issue of privacy. It is important, and we ourselves have highlighted it many times. I have done so personally.

But even if there is a risk of infringement of personal privacy, the situation today is so serious and the system-threatening crime so grave that there are no other ways forward if we are serious about combating gang crime and organized crime. We must give the police more tools to use against these groups.

Vänsterpartiet writes in its reservation about "seemingly good intentions" and that "the consequences for the social climate and democracy in the long term are worrying" but also that the effectiveness is "unclear".

I don't quite understand this. I have just mentioned that the police themselves have stated that due to the law change last year, they have been able to arrest more than 30 people who were about to commit very serious crimes, and that already in February, so I do not think it is unclear.

That one writes about "ostensibly good intentions," I think is insinuating. I actually think it is on the edge of being impolite. As if the serious situation we find ourselves in were made up or fabricated! That is not the case. We know how dangerous gang crime is. We know how dangerous the system-threatening crime is. We know that innocent people are harmed and killed in the gang conflicts. If there is something that is "worrying," it is naturally the crime itself, not the tools we produce in order to combat it.

Miljöpartiet is a bit more cautious in its criticism and writes, among other things, that the proposal "may affect individuals who have nothing at all to do with crime." Absolutely, that risk exists. I have full respect for how they reason. But – and it is a big but – I think it is a bit worse if "individuals who have nothing at all to do with crime," that is, completely innocent people, are shot or blown up to death.

That one then reasons that individuals' safety would not be threatened by economic crime, I actually think is a bit naive. We know, once again, that the main driver for these groups is economic. It is the desire to earn quick and large sums of money that drives them and leads to this spiral of violence, not least all these shootings and explosions. That is also where we must strike if we mean business with combating their activities.

Madam Speaker! While the opposition parties are in disagreement and wavering on issues linked to gang crime and organized crime, the Tidö parties are in agreement, and I mean that our policy is making a difference. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about preventive coercive measures, stay-away orders or safety zones – it has made a difference. We are willing to do whatever is required to combat these groups. We listen to the law enforcement authorities, and we are willing to give them exactly the tools they need and request to be able to do their job.

With that said, I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

Since this is our last committee debate, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker and everyone else representing the Committee on Justice here today a very warm, long, and wonderful summer.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I wish the same.)

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We have gathered today for one of the Riksdag's final debates, which concerns preventive measures. It does not sound like a blockbuster, but it is undeniably a very interesting and powerful tool.

So, it is about the coercive measures that the state can use at an early stage to prevent crimes or obtain necessary intelligence to prosecute crimes.

We in this chamber are fundamentally in agreement on many things, in particular on one: The serious crime that plagues our country must be pushed back.

The resource supplements and the sharpened tools that the authorities have been given at their disposal, in combination with the criminal justice measures and changes that have been made, mean that the law enforcement forces in Sweden have never been more powerful and stronger than they are today, and it is clearly needed.

Perhaps we have begun to see, in small ways, the results of ten years of efforts from the political side. The investigation is moving, at least in some parts of the country, in the right direction - significantly in the right direction. We see a police presence on streets and squares, in the public space, in a significantly higher extent than before.

Assistant Police Commissioner Stefan Hector describes in the newspaper Publikt, ST's newspaper, that one actually already today – that was also described by the chairman of the Justice Committee – uses the preventive measures and that it is relatively successful even if there is no real evaluation. It is a feeling he has. One has been able to concretely prove that one has averted crimes through the preventive measures.

But society cannot rest on that. The shootings and explosions continue. New children, almost gromas, are recruited into gang environments. We see how the gangs' activities are expanding and entering the body of society in a multitude of different ways. Labor and human trafficking crime are particularly tangible problems today. Men's violence against women hits the women and children who witness and are subjected to violence incredibly hard, in a place that is supposed to be safe.

We have discussed this description of reality in this chamber fifty-one times. We paint, I want to say, largely the same picture – even if some have a penchant for showing a thorough lack of interest if the issue cannot be placed in an anti-immigrant context. But we need to see the whole picture. We are actually in agreement that what can be done should also be done.

It is not just about a situation with an increase in serious crime within criminal networks, but we have challenges that are specific to our country and that are somewhat unique. This includes the shootings and the young perpetrators. We see simultaneously that technological developments and a widespread culture of silence make it incredibly difficult for the police to enter these environments and investigate crimes.

So, regarding our reservation 9, which I move for approval – it is important to emphasize. There, we have focused on the fundamental and extensive change at the intersection between personal privacy, protected by international conventions, and the judicial authorities' need for efficiency. This is an intersection that we have touched upon many times, and with the risk of appearing repetitive, I would like to say that sometimes, when we look at the overall picture, we need to take a few deep breaths and a few steps back, squint a little bit and see the whole, to use a tired expression.

We must, in a democratic society that is still characterized by the principles of the rule of law, realize that these issues are not trivialities that lawyers and council of state members can discuss in their chambers. This is something we are tasked to manage and defend at—I was about to say—any cost. It concerns the very foundation of a rule of law, and it is thus regulated in Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government.

There is a conflict of objectives – we cannot turn a blind eye to that. However, it often tips towards one side. Let me quote Sweden's leading columnist in the field of law; I will not say his name. He says in a column: "In our time, the police and politics have a common interest in constantly expanding the state's territory. The authority can blame lack of results on a lack of tools, the government needs to show decisiveness." This applies regardless of whether it is a Social Democratic or an SD-led government. "It is maneuvers under the galoshes in our time's legislation," the columnist describes. There is something there.

We have in this chamber a common responsibility to ensure that the decisions we push through here are actually based on responsiveness towards referral bodies but also, in different ways, on good evidence and knowledge.

We Social Democrats have stood behind and pushed through the investigations that have formed the basis for, among other things, the legislation we introduced in the autumn. We also see that these legislative changes have done real good. We have done this because we have considered it necessary, and we have also, it should be said, supported you in this in opposition. We do so even today in the fundamental issue, as you have been able to note in the documents.

But we have also, just like the Council on Legislation, repeatedly pointed out the need to conduct a fundamental mapping and to, if it turns out there is a need for review, conduct such a review. We need to see what the decisions of the last decade have de facto had for cumulative effects when it comes to privacy issues and that intersection between efficiency and privacy that I mentioned earlier.

We can say that our reservation, which we share with the opposition parties, supports team Lagrådet, if one is to speak in sporting terms. But it is not only Lagrådet, but also many other heavy referral bodies that point to the need for proportionality, privacy considerations, as well as the handling of surplus information, which is problematic, which the government is well aware of, and also the problem with many parallel legislative measures at the same time.

It is, for example, about people who have never been and will not be involved in crime risking having coercive measures directed at them. It can actually sometimes be unavoidable; there is no doubt about that. But we need to be aware of the complexity and ensure that we have a transparent and easy-to-understand system.

As late as October, we made decisions on new rules and new legislation in these matters. They have not actually rolled out in the chain of justice - we have not fully seen the procedural consequences of this. We perhaps should have had a bit more patience instead of rushing forward with new legislative processes.

Another thing we raise in our reservation is that we have a number of time-limited provisions, which are time-limited for a reason: We want to evaluate before we proceed and sharpen or limit them. In this case, that evaluation is not being made, as, for example, the Council on Legislation has pointed out. This is quite remarkable and strange - I believe fundamentally that the government also wants to evaluate and ensure that the right decision is made.

Therein lies our common criticism in the reservation that is on the table today. We hope that the government is responsive; we demand it, naturally, just like other heavy referral bodies.

In conclusion, I would like to wish you all a good summer and hope that we can see the bigger picture – that we take these steps back from the legislative process, take a few deep breaths, squint a little, and try to make society a little better.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has become a country where criminals instruct children to commit murders. So-called death lists are repeatedly being circulated. Right now, such a list of 16 people is being circulated in Gothenburg.

We, the Moderates together with the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats, are now implementing a systemic shift to prevent this type of crime - in social policy, migration policy and justice policy. In addition to reforms aimed at being long-term preventive, we are also taking measures that are immediately crime-preventing. With police intelligence work, imminent crimes can be averted and prevented.

But to effectively and successfully conduct such intelligence work, the use of secret coercive measures, such as secret wiretapping and secret data retrieval, is required. We have already made this possible through legislative changes that entered into force in October last year. Thereby, the police and prosecutors received expanded possibilities to use preventive coercive measures to prevent serious violent crimes within criminal networks - to prevent children from shooting people on assignment.

The possibility of using these preventive coercive measures has therefore been in force for a relatively short period. But we have already seen that this has had an effect. Violent crimes have been prevented, and several preliminary investigations into preparation for murder and other serious crimes have been able to be initiated. This is judged to have contributed to the fact that the shootings so far this year are 30 percent fewer compared to last year.

Madam Speaker! The fundamental purpose of the criminal procedural coercive measures is that the law enforcement authorities, in the case of a concrete suspicion that is the subject of a preliminary investigation, shall have adequate tools to investigate crimes and bring charges, which can ultimately lead to convictions. The need for coercive measures at an earlier stage, before the preliminary investigation, is however clear.

The report that we are debating here today means that the possibilities to use coercive measures in intelligence work shall be further expanded, something that both the police and prosecutors have requested.

The proposal means that even secret room surveillance and house searches shall be allowed to be used for preventive purposes, not only against organized crime but also against espionage and terrorist crimes. The right to use these powers can be expected to ensure that more serious crimes are prevented before they occur, which will save lives.

Madam Speaker! Expanded powers for the police are clearly needed to reach those individuals and groups who pose a serious and direct threat to our society. At the same time, we shall, of course, safeguard fundamental civil rights and liberties for all citizens. It is therefore welcome that the proposal also involves legislative changes to strengthen legal certainty for the individual.

It is overall a well-balanced proposal. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposition and rejection of the motions being treated in the committee report.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the Left Party's reservation number 1, which entails the rejection of the bill. We also, of course, stand behind the joint reservation from the opposition parties.

I want to emphasize that what we are discussing here today are very serious issues. Crime in the criminal environments is not limited to firearm violence and explosions. Economic crime is also spreading and is, if anything, increasingly being noticed. It is one of the most serious threats and one of the driving forces behind organized crime. We must combat it by attacking the criminal economy.

The security situation in Sweden has seriously deteriorated. I believe that everyone is well aware of this. The threat profile against Sweden has broadened, and the threat comes from several different directions. Both the threat from foreign powers and the threat from violent extremism in the country have increased.

The SD-led government is now arguing persistently that the state should give us protection against crime. That sounds good, but in my and the Vänsterpartiet's opinion, the measures are so drastic that we must also begin to discuss and demand protection against the state.

Even though the government's proposal concerns serious crimes which should of course be prevented and condemned, a comprehensive review of both the coercive measures legislation and its application should be carried out before new proposals are submitted to the Riksdag. We have put forward this requirement previously, and we repeat it.

I view with great concern that the government is pushing forward so that we are approaching a surveillance society ever more rapidly. Issues of personal privacy and human rights are repeatedly sidelined. The gradual changes are justified with good intentions, for example, more efficient crime fighting and increased protection for the inhabitants, or the citizens as many prefer to call them. But the overall picture is alarming. The use of existing secret coercive measures is increasing, and furthermore, new forms are proposed. The consequences for both the social climate and democracy are, in my opinion, worrying.

All use of coercive measures involves a risk of infringement of an individual's personal integrity. We must sometimes accept this because the purpose is stronger than that.

When it comes to preventive measures, however, a specific risk factor arises because there is a lack of a concrete suspicion of a crime. This risks resulting in the measure being used in more cases against persons who later turn out not to be involved in any criminal activity whatsoever. The use of measures outside of a preliminary investigation therefore implies an increased risk of infringement of personal integrity. This also needs to be accepted sometimes, but we believe that the government is now going too far.

It is about varying types of infringements. What is described in the so-called collection law, which means that one is allowed to collect data on mobile traffic and positionings, may not be so serious from a privacy perspective, but when it comes to expanding the application of the collection law, the high rate of legislation makes it difficult to assess the need and the benefit of being able to use the law in more cases than today. An evaluation of this could have been carried out first.

Some referral bodies also have views on how surplus information is handled, which we have discussed previously here in the chamber, as well as on the decision-making process. The Council on Legislation is one of these referral bodies, and I largely agree with their views and criticism.

Several other referral bodies also reject the government's proposal on secret room surveillance, which involves installing secret microphones, and corresponding secret data retrieval, which also involves a stronger infringement of privacy.

House searches, which may be secret, and searches in other places, for example warehouses or storage in a location other than a home, shall in the future be allowed to be used for preventive purposes. This is, of course, very intrusive.

We can pause for a moment at room bugging, which can affect not only the person one primarily wants to monitor but also people who have reason to be in the same room or premises. These are proposals that risk leading to many people who are not even suspected of any crime being exposed.

Furthermore, in some cases, the permit shall be tied to a person. Regardless of how and where one moves, the wiretapping follows. Also there, many referral bodies point out that it risks involving persons that the designated person comes into contact with and who become involved regardless of whether they have a connection to crime or not.

Among other things, the Council on Legislation marks its opposition to this and states that the third person risks being attacked in an unacceptable manner. Many referral bodies argue that this creates deficiencies regarding both legal certainty and proportionality and that it is unclear whether it is effective.

The tightening is criticized by a few more instances. I want to mention Civil Rights Defenders, who absolutely reject and warn against the major paradigm shift that is occurring in the area of the use of coercive measures.

The Institute for Human Rights advises against it and also considers that the high rate of legislation in the area entails risks.

JO and JK are critical. JK notes that proposals to expand the state's powers in relation to individuals require more careful balancing.

Journalistförbundet advises against it and argues that major democratic values are at stake.

The Committee on Security and Integrity Protection argues that the government's endeavor to promptly investigate and act regarding the law enforcement agencies' new tools involves an obvious risk that the need for evaluation and analyses is sidelined and takes a backseat. As has been stated previously, it is also noted that the time to respond to referrals is noticeably shorter than what is normal, which provides an insufficient basis for the investigation.

The newspaper publishers object and argue that the pace of legislation and these measures mean that we must warn that it is not always the case that the end justifies the means.

Vänsterpartiet will, of course, continue to argue even more strongly for investments in preventive activities.

With this, I wish everyone who is watching and listening a pleasant summer, as this is our concluding debate.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In crime-fighting activities and the use of coercive measures, it is often said that there are three criteria for legality.

The first is the principle of purpose, which means that coercion may only be used if there is support in law.

Number two is the principle of necessity, which means that coercive measures may only be used if other means are insufficient.

The third is the principle of proportionality, which means that there must be a connection between the severity of the crime and the coercion used. The more serious the crime, the more coercion may be used, if one looks at it somewhat simplified.

The coercive measures we are debating today must be weighed against people's right to respect for their private life, personal integrity. It is undeniable that secret coercive measures in the form of telephone interception, data retrieval, camera surveillance, and room bugging involve a significant intrusion into people's private lives for those who are subjected to such measures.

To ensure that the use of coercive measures meets the requirements of purpose, proportionality, and necessity, the matter shall be examined by a court in the presence of a legal representative. There is also supervision and parliamentary control to ensure legality and correct use.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, there must always be a balance between needs and privacy infringements. The question is therefore whether there is a need for an additional expanded regulatory framework for secret coercive measures. We Christian Democrats believe that is the case.

Let us first state that we live in an increasingly digitized world where the personal meeting has largely been replaced by contacts via the internet. The crime investigation and information gathering that were previously largely conducted in the field now face significant limitations. This development requires new adaptations as a large part of intelligence and information gathering today must take place in the digital world.

The contacts in the gangs and organized crime have largely moved online and been replaced by encrypted chats and other technology. Crimes are initiated and planned largely without physical contact between the involved criminals. In many cases, the brains behind the crime are furthermore in other countries, which further complicates the picture and is, to some extent, a new challenge for the law enforcement authorities.

Looking in the rearview mirror, we know that it is largely thanks to foreign police succeeding in cracking Encrochat and other encrypted chats that Swedish police have been able to solve several serious crimes that otherwise would have remained unsolved.

Mr. Speaker! We have seen a development where crime has become increasingly sophisticated, systematic, grave, and organized. At the present time, we have an extremely serious situation with gang crime and organized crime, with grave violent crimes in the form of shootings and explosions that largely have no parallel in Europe. The Customs, on its part, reports record-breaking narcotics seizures, and we see an increase in cross-border crime - this at the same time as we have an elevated threat level with an increased risk of attacks.

The development of crime and technology means that the police and other law enforcement agencies need to work in a partially different way than before to tackle crime. The authorities need to act early in significantly more situations to prevent serious crimes. Against the background of the serious situation we find ourselves in, the measures now proposed are both necessary and well-motivated and strengthen the conditions for detecting, preventing, and deterring serious crimes.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats also welcome the opportunity to use so-called surplus information about other crimes to an increased extent. The current limitations feel strange, to say the least, because crimes that come to the police's attention in normal cases should be reported and investigated. Using the information to combat or investigate crimes is judged to only marginally increase the intrusion that the collection itself may have entailed.

Against this, the positive effects that the proposals can be assumed to have shall be weighed. A widened scope of application is not only of importance for the state's interest in combating and investigating crimes but also for the crime victim's interest in the redress that prosecution and the right to damages entail, as well as the significance for the crime victim that crime-fighting authorities have good opportunities to interrupt ongoing crimes.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: As has been said, there are control functions as a guarantee that the use of the now proposed coercive measures is used in accordance with the aforementioned principles. Furthermore, I want to assert that the law enforcement authorities do not abuse the possibility of use. The use of secret coercive measures is both resource- and time-consuming, which means that every decision is based on a forecast that is built on success. Neither customs, the police, nor the security police can afford to spend precious time on cases based on insufficient grounds that do not lead to results.

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

Like previous speakers, I would like to wish the Speaker, the secretariat and other listeners a happy summer. We will see each other again in the autumn!

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is no sane person in this long country who does not want to put a stop to the gangs that spread fear, anger, and anxiety among people.

The serious violent crime, with shootings and explosions within the criminal environment and many killed and injured, is still a part of our everyday life in Sweden despite that the current government promised on honor and conscience to put a stop to this immediately. The gross violence committed by the criminal networks has spread across the country and is no longer a metropolitan phenomenon.

Increased availability of weapons and explosives, together with the increased propensity within criminal environments to use these, means that gross violence constitutes a more serious threat than ever before.

The police, the prosecutors and the judicial authorities therefore need new and expanded tools that were not previously relevant, especially as it has been revealed that foreign powers use criminals to threaten and murder, among others, Iranian dissidents, journalists and Swedish Jews.

Centerpartiet has for a long time stood behind increased penalties, expanded coercive measures, and other necessary legislation that is now in place to meet the criminal gangs with necessary force. Much has been done, but there is still a need to strengthen the possibilities to combat serious organized crime.

Centerpartiet therefore sees preventive measures as a necessary tool in this work. We agree on the need for an expansion of the police and prosecutors' toolbox in ways that can make a difference in both crime fighting and prosecution. We have therefore stood behind expanded possibilities to use preventive measures when it comes to serious organized crime. But – and there is a big "but" – this does not mean that the state has the right, using crime fighting as a pretext, to make severe restrictions on the values that have built Sweden strong, including the principles of the rule of law.

The use of preventive measures is a far-reaching interference with personal integrity. They may be used without a crime having been committed and without there being a concrete suspicion of a crime or a suspect person. They may therefore be used before a preliminary investigation has been initiated. This in itself is an interference with personal integrity.

According to Chapter 2, Section 6, first paragraph of the Instrument of Government, every individual is protected against the public against secret eavesdropping or recording of telephone conversations and is protected against significant infringements of personal integrity if it occurs without consent and involves surveillance or mapping of the individual's personal circumstances. This protection may, according to Chapter 2, Sections 20 and 21 of the Instrument of Government, only be limited by law and solely to satisfy purposes that are acceptable in a democratic society. The limitation may never exceed what is necessary in view of the purpose that has prompted it. This is, therefore, about the principle of proportionality.

The purpose of the proposal on preventive coercive measures is to prevent crime. This is necessary in itself, which is why the Center Party has considered an expansion to be justified regarding serious organized crime.

We also consider the proposals regarding the acquisition law to be justified when it concerns gross tax crime, gross smuggling, gross customs crime, gross illegal handling of smuggled goods, gross money laundering crime, gross commercial money laundering crime, and gross market manipulation. In other parts, however, we consider that the proposals involve excessively far-reaching restrictions on the constitutionally protected civil liberties and rights. We also consider that the new powers should only apply to criminal activity that can be assumed to be carried out in an organized form, not such that it only occurs systematically.

The new legislation means that the expanded catalogue of crimes is largely handled by the Economic Crime Authority. To ensure efficient handling, prosecutors at the Economic Crime Authority should also be given the authority to make decisions according to the new legislation, which is not the case today.

Mr. Speaker! Today's regulation of secret coercive measures is found in many different laws and regulations. Several referral bodies, including JO, JK, the Security and Integrity Protection Authority, the Swedish Bar Association, and the Faculty of Law at Uppsala University, call for a holistic view of the regulation of secret coercive measures. They consider it difficult to obtain an overview of the combined and long-term effects of the proposals.

Centerpartiet considers, in light of this, that the proposal for an evaluation within five years is all too generous. Centerpartiet considers instead that what is needed instead is a broad investigation that reviews and submits proposals on how existing coercive measures can be regulated and used in an effective, legally secure, and unified manner, both preventively and to increase prosecutions.

The proposals also lead to increased costs for the Security and Integrity Protection Authority, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the Chancellor of Justice. The Government needs to ensure that these authorities are given sufficient resources and continuously evaluate that the authorities have the resources required for them to be able to perform their tasks in an efficient, legally secure, and predictable manner.

In accordance with the Council on Legislation, we conclude that the proposals should enter into force on 1 January 2025 instead of 1 September 2024. That the government is now, in certain respects, forcing through legislation should concern more than just us in the Centre Party. Affected authorities should be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare to apply these new rules in a legally secure manner.

I support all of the Center Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 5. Happy summer!

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I actually hadn't intended to request the floor, but I am a bit curious. I am completely convinced that Akhondi and I agree on quite a lot when it comes to crime fighting and how we view these gangs. What I wonder about is which words are used.

In the Left Party's reservation, one speaks of ostensibly good intentions. I want to assert that it is quite problematic to use a term like "ostensibly," because it is an insinuating statement. I do not remember exactly how Member Akhondi expressed himself, but he said that crime fighting should not be used as a pretext. When I heard the word pretext, I almost got the impression that Akhondi meant that the government is doing things with a hidden purpose. Synonyms for pretext are words such as excuse, fabricated reason, cover, and explanation. Akhondi perhaps did not mean that, but it was a rather gross accusation if I interpreted the Member correctly.

When someone uses the term "as a pretext," I interpret it as that the person means that the government is proposing and pushing through legislative changes with other – hidden – purposes. I am just curious: Is this what Akhondi means, or have I misunderstood it?

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Richard Jomshof, for the question!

One can stand here indefinitely and discuss the meanings of words in different contexts. There is a profound concern, not just among me and the Center Party but among many people, regarding the societal development for which the government bears responsibility. It is not we who sit in government. It is you who sit in the back seat and steer how the government acts.

To speak plainly: There is no doubt that the Sweden Democrats have a parallel agenda with the proposals and ideas that are currently being implemented. The word pretext was actually used correctly in this context. I cannot comment on the Left Party's or others' choice of words.

Let me also inform Richard Jomshof that I am not a regular member of the committee but am stepping in for a colleague who has other important commitments, which means that I cannot comment on all its parts.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have full respect for covering for a colleague; I have done it myself, even times when I have not been up to speed on the question. It is no strange thing. But in this case, it is not about the question itself, but about which words one uses.

First, the member wants to make it seem as if the societal development is the fault of the Sweden Democrats. That is not the case. We have not pushed through the policy that lies at the basis of the problems we see in society. Previous governments have done that, where even the Center Party has been involved and decided on multiculturalism and mass immigration. The Islamization and serious crime we now see are a consequence of conscious decisions. But we are completely innocent of that. Now we are doing what we can to try to push through a change.

We can of course argue about who bears the primary responsibility. But that is not what this is about; here, it is about the choice of words, saying "as a pretext". I interpret Akhondi as meaning that the sitting government, with the help of the Sverigedemokraterna, conducts politics and pushes through legislative proposals with hidden motives. I think everyone should take that to heart, because it is a very serious accusation.

What we do regarding preventive measures is to try to combat the gang crime and organized crime that is a consequence of the politics previous governments have pursued in Sweden. That is why we are here; that is the purpose.

I would never dream of accusing the Center Party or any other party in this way. It is directly unfair to suggest that there would be a hidden agenda behind the government's policy. I hope that the governing parties take this to heart, because it means that the Center Party makes itself totally impossible as a coalition partner to the governing parties in the future. That matter is clear.

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

Alireza Akhondi (C)

Mr. Speaker! I remember the autumn of 2018. I fought with teeth and claws to ensure that the Sweden Democrats would not gain an influence over Swedish politics, and I am very proud of that. The Sweden Democrats stand as far from where I and my party stand as one can come. To believe that the Sweden Democrats do not do this with values other than the values I have when I drive these issues is naive.

I stand clearly and firmly for the fact that there are parts of what the government is doing that violate the principles of the rule of law, and the government and the government base have received harsh criticism in a number of respects, including from the Council on Legislation. It is about that the legislation has been rushed, the views of the referral bodies have not been taken into account, and they have stepped too close to the rule of law principles, i.e., those principles that have built our society strong.

Let me be crystal clear regarding whether we are an interesting coalition partner: As long as I am in this house and this chamber, there will be no cooperation whatsoever with the Sweden Democrats. You are not a party like others, because you do things that one should not engage in in a liberal democracy. This I stand for, with pride.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was crucial for me when the whole of Sweden got to hear about the press conferences where Swedish police told that French police, in cooperation with Swedish police and police in many other European countries, had cracked the code to Encrochat, which was used by criminals all over Europe to plan and order crimes. Barely a year ago, it was reported that the decryption of Encrochat had led to 6,500 people in Europe being arrested, of whom almost 200 were criminals who were considered by the police to be of particularly great value, that is to say, figures of leadership, who are often difficult to convict.

In light of a societal development where organized criminal networks in Sweden have recruited children to commit all kinds of serious crimes, even murder, I and my party concluded that we also needed to give the Swedish police expanded opportunities to act to prevent crime. That the chats were decrypted did not only lead to criminals who had committed crimes being caught. It also led to the fact that new crimes could be prevented.

Therefore, it was good that new possibilities were introduced last year. But only a few weeks after the law entered into force, the government presents new and more far-reaching proposals in the same area. More measures shall be able to be taken by the police to monitor or conduct house searches of persons who are not yet suspected of a crime. The government does this without having conducted a proper evaluation of the recently introduced rules on preventive coercive measures. These proposals also receive extensive criticism from bodies tasked with monitoring human and democratic civil liberties.

The criminals violate people's integrity, and the state has a responsibility to protect citizens against such violations. Therefore, it can be justified and reasonable for the state, in order to prevent crime, to use measures that also violate people's integrity and freedom.

Our personal integrity and our private lives are, however, protected in both the constitution and international conventions, and specific requirements are placed on the state if it wishes to monitor our letters, wiretap our conversations, and search our homes. This may only occur to satisfy purposes that are acceptable in a democratic society, and a limitation may never exceed what is necessary with regard to the purpose that prompted it. This means that it must be established that the state's intrusion is in proportion to the acceptable interest, that is, to prevent crime.

Miljöpartiet argues that the government has in fact not been able to show this, and that is why we demand a parliamentary inquiry that shall look broadly at the issue of preventive measures.

We agree with what the MR Institute writes in its annual report from this year that the legislator, that is, we and the government, should as soon as possible and carefully consider the overall rights consequences of the measures that have been implemented, prepared, and planned to combat crime, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

Since we simply cannot state that the new, expanded preventive measures, for example house searches, meet these requirements, we have demanded a rejection in our reservations and in our motion.

We are not entirely in disagreement on everything. We think it is good that preventive measures should not only be able to be used against those who, so to speak, have fake Gucci caps, but also against those who engage in economic crime and can afford perfectly real Gucci caps. We agree with that part.

I also want to raise some other objections that are very important if we now want to stay on the right side of international conventions.

It is about who should make decisions in cases according to the procurement law. The Government proposes here that the Prosecution Authority should make these decisions, even now for the extended scope of application. We do not agree with that. We believe it would be more appropriate if these cases were instead handled by the court. This is because the Prosecution Authority does not meet the requirements for independence that the Court of Justice of the EU sets. The proposal has also been criticized by both the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice, both of whom demand an in-depth analysis of whether the proposal is even compatible with EU law.

Particularly now that the scope of application is being expanded, the requirements for independence in decisions and the importance of Sweden actually fulfilling its international commitments increase. Therefore, it should be the case that it is the court that makes decisions in these matters according to the procurement law.

Mr. Speaker! Already during the previous consideration of the issue of surplus information, the Green Party raised that we are critical of the expanded authorization to use such information. Especially now, when we know that a very large number of people can become subjects of - again - new, not fully evaluated preventive coercive measures, we oppose this.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the reservations from the Miljöpartiets side, but for the sake of time, I choose to only move for approval of reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 June.)

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