Preventive stay ban

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now going to debate the proposal on preventive stay bans. The purpose of the submitted proposal, that is, the purpose of introducing a law on preventive stay bans, but also all other proposals that we are driving within the framework of the Tidö Agreement, is to strike at the criminal gangs and their activities but also to try to restore safety in the local community and safety on streets and squares. I want to assert that it is about, for the first time, seriously taking on the fight against gang crime and organized crime.

In recent years, we have been able to see a worrying trend where deadly violence has become increasingly common, this as a direct consequence of the criminal gangs' activities and their conflicts, which more and more often occur in public places. We know that shots are fired and explosions occur in squares, in stairwells, on playgrounds, in schoolyards and so on, and it has become more common for completely innocent people to be affected.

We can also see how the violence is creeping down in age. The insecurity is spreading, and more and more people are rightly asking what it actually is that is happening, what is going on and how it could have become like this. I want to assert that the failure is total.

This is no game, but it is, to say the least, bloody serious. We see how society is becoming harder, colder, and increasingly segregated and brutal. Previous governments have, consciously or unconsciously, unleashed the forces that are now spreading like a virus in Sweden. It takes strength and courage to combat these groupings and to be able to reverse the development, which I am convinced that the current government, in cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, will do.

It does not matter whether we are talking about harsher penalties for serious weapons offenses, about visitation zones, or about increased and effective methods for seizing criminal proceeds and so on, everything aims to strike at the criminal gangs, at their networks, and at the criminals. One part of this fight is to make it possible to limit criminal individuals' opportunity to stay in certain places at certain times, even if the person in question has not been convicted of any crime. This is important.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, it is pointed out very clearly that we have extensive civil and political rights in Sweden, not least freedom of movement, but it is also stated that this freedom of movement can be restricted. In order to prevent criminal behavior, to protect our citizens, and to prevent these from being subjected to crime, there is therefore a possibility to deny an individual access to a certain place.

We have, for example, restraining orders, and we know that such a prohibition can be extended and perhaps not only apply to a residence but also to an area around a residence, a workplace, and so on. One can be issued a ban of entry to sporting events but also to shops, swimming facilities, libraries, and so on. But since existing legislation is not sufficient to keep individual criminals away from the public space when so is required, we need something more, hence preventive stay bans.

The purpose of these is to try to prevent criminal activity from being carried out in a certain place, i.e., in a public place, and thereby increase safety for ordinary law-abiding citizens. This means that a certain individual can be prohibited from staying within a clearly defined area - a square, a schoolyard, or similar - if it is feared that the person in question may come to "promote a criminal network's criminal activity". The idea behind this is, naturally, to increase safety by trying to reduce the number of shootings, explosions, and other criminal activities that seriously damage safety in a certain area. We have plenty of such areas.

Madam Speaker! It is naturally not reasonable that the public, out of fear of various criminal individuals or out of fear of various criminal gangs or out of fear of being subjected to crime, choose to withdraw. It is not reasonable that ordinary law-abiding citizens choose to limit their own mobility in public places. But unfortunately, that is the case, and it is quite common. Not least women are increasingly worried about being out after dark.

It is clear that it is a problem when ordinary citizens are restricted in their daily lives, and it is definitely not reasonable that society abdicates and lets criminal individuals and gangs take control over streets, squares, schoolyards, and so on. It is time to speak out. It is time to act.

It is important to emphasize that it concerns a tool requested by the Swedish Police Authority. We can also see that it has been an important tool for the police in Denmark in their fight against gang crime and organized crime. The idea, once again, is naturally to strike against the criminal gangs and networks and against their activities and, not least, to try to counteract shootings, explosions and other criminal activities in public places and thereby increase safety for ordinary law-abiding citizens.

With this said, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Richard Jomshof and I truly share the concern over what the crime in Sweden looks like today. I have worked as a prosecutor for a long time and have therefore also seen the consequences for ordinary citizens of how organized crime can take hold of certain areas. Therefore, I also think it is good that new tools such as the stay ban are being introduced. Centerpartiet stands behind that amendment.

We have submitted a reservation, and I therefore want to go into a bit of how the legislative product has been handled, especially now towards the end. It was the previous government that took the initiative and initiated the legislative work. I note that a press conference was held on October 12 where the current government parties appeared. They said that the legislation would be accelerated and introduced as early as February, even though it was initially announced for July 1.

I also note that two days earlier an interview was conducted with the party leader of Richard Jomshof's party, Jimmie Åkesson, who stated that it was important to speed up certain legislation. Visitation zones were mentioned, and then there was some other proposal. I thought that stay bans might also have been included. I would therefore like to know how Richard Jomshof views the preparation, which has gone quickly now towards the end, in order to obtain a really good legislative product.

As a prosecutor, I am incredibly concerned that it should become an effective and easy-to-apply legislative product, because it is the prosecutors who are to apply and be able to use it. Therefore, I wonder if the Sverigedemokraterna have been driving for it to go quickly and if Richard Jomshof is satisfied with how the legislative product turned out in the end.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that in the Tidö Agreement there is a long series of issues where the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties agree, and the crime policy is perhaps the heaviest part of the agreement. The reason for this is not strange, but it is a consequence of how things look in society, that we have received an increasingly violent and insecure society and that many citizens are demanding solutions and a government that actually tackles the problems.

It is clear that there have been discussions about which parts of the various proposals can be pushed through faster and whether this is even possible. Naturally, that is the case. We have discussed many different things. I would like to assert that we have been very much in agreement on which parts we should try to push through faster, not least because the Swedish Police Authority itself has requested those types of tools.

As I mentioned, we have also been able to look at, for example, our neighboring country Denmark. It is an advantage that these are proposals that have actually been tested in other countries and that it has been possible to evaluate and investigate how they have done it there, which has facilitated our process. On the whole, I want to assert that the process has been good.

There is criticism, and I have taken note of what all the referral bodies have said and written. The government has, however, been very clear that it is a proposal that they intend to follow up and evaluate. I therefore see no major problem, but I believe that it will turn out well. I assume that the government means business when they say that they will follow up on the proposal, as this has been requested by parts of the opposition. I believe that it will turn out very well.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Richard Jomshof!

Richard Jomshof mentioned that the Sweden Democrats have been part of the process and think it is important to get the tools out quickly. It is pleasing that Richard Jomshof has taken part of what all referral bodies have said. It certainly does not surprise that I have pulled out what my employer, the Prosecution Authority, from whom I have been on leave for a couple of years now, wrote in a statement on October 16. That was, therefore, four days after the press conference where it was said that the legislation shall enter into force as early as February.

The Prosecution Authority, which is to make these decisions based on information from the Police Authority, says that it is problematic for prosecutors to receive parts of the intelligence material. And what one normally sees as necessary to be able to make such a decision is, therefore, reliable intelligence from credible sources to the police. Therefore, the Prosecution Authority says that it is not obviously most appropriate for it to be prosecutors who shall examine the issue of stay bans.

This cannot be compared with restraining orders. I have personally sat and issued many such. There, you are dealing with a completely different legal construction.

The assessment of credibility is also most securely made by the recipient of the material, namely the Swedish Police Authority.

The Prosecution Authority writes that the Police Authority could be better suited. And the Prosecution Authority explicitly states that in the ongoing legislative work, consideration should be given to whether decisions on stay bans should instead be made by the Police Authority.

I note that this referral response arrived after the government and, as I understand it, the Sverigedemokraterna have promised that this is now to proceed quickly and that there is no time to rework it.

I therefore wonder how Richard Jomshof views the fact that the Prosecution Authority's views have been taken into account in this legislative work.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that all the views that come in through various referral responses are incredibly valuable. Of course they are. It is clear that one should listen to them as far as is possible. I have no other opinion.

In many of the proposals we have put forward, it is not black or white. And it is clear that there may be individual proposals that can even be problematic. But given the seriousness of the situation, we are nevertheless forced to move forward with them to do what we can to counteract the kind of activity that we now see out in society.

Who is best suited is a very good question. But I think the final proposal that we have landed on is still good enough that it is worth getting started because it is urgent. The situation is incredibly serious out there in society, and we must do what we can to tackle this and try to fight these gangs, try to get them off the streets and squares and make society safer for ordinary citizens.

I said that since the government is clear that it will follow up and evaluate this, I can very well imagine that it is something that could be taken further down the line, if there were an opportunity to streamline this further – not least regarding who might be best suited to issue stay bans. It is clear that it is an interesting point and objection. But I still think this is good enough to be launched because the situation is as serious as it is. But of course, it is a valuable point. And as I said, this shall be followed up and evaluated, which I also assume will be done in a good way.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate concerns preventive detention. We Social Democrats have a reservation in the committee report, and I intend to briefly describe and present our view on the issue, but also the background to our reservation.

I also intend to take the opportunity to reflect a little on a concern that we Social Democrats feel regarding the government's inability to see the big picture when it comes to how we are to combat serious organized crime and, above all, which this legislation focuses on, breaking the recruitment to the gangs that spread unrest around the country and especially in our most disadvantaged residential areas.

As a previous speaker has said, this law means that a person can be issued a stay ban in a limited area in a public place. It can be schoolyards or equivalent outdoor areas as there may be a risk of firearms or explosives. Persons who promote crime and who can seriously harm public safety shall be able to be issued a stay ban.

We have become accustomed to hearing from the government side that a paradigm shift is underway, and with rarely seen speed, the legislation in our country is changing. When it comes to the way one influences referral times, shortens investigation times, or discusses fast-tracks, it is clear that we see a paradigm shift that we Social Democrats are concerned about. The legislative work must be accompanied by legal certainty, and opportunities must be given for all referral bodies and people and organizations affected by the legislation to influence the legislation.

A very large proportion of the laws we decided on here last year, and also this matter, has a Social Democratic character because this investigation was commissioned by the Social Democratic government. The reasons we cited then still apply today, namely that a large part of the serious organized crime - the gangs and their activities - is closely linked to certain physical locations in vulnerable residential areas and to drug scenes where a large part of the shootings occur and where people are hit hardest by the reckless violence that we see.

We mean that it is important to listen to the police and to give the police the tools that are effective and legally sound and that can work so that the police can be able to prosecute more, interrupt crime and ensure that the whole society can live in safety.

The tool we are discussing today has both advantages and disadvantages. This is highlighted by the referral bodies that have submitted responses to this proposal.

We Social Democrats placed special emphasis on looking out for those who are concerned about how the legislation will be practiced when it comes to the risk of discrimination, but also the risk for young offenders between 15 and 18 who are affected by these preventive stay bans. We need to see how this law is used and how it restricts young people's freedom of movement. We believe that young people can make a wrong choice, can find themselves in a gang context and can commit crimes, but not such serious crimes that they need to be locked up. They risk being groomed into, lured into, increasingly heavy crime. We shall ensure that these individuals break off this criminal path.

But we are concerned that the legislation could, in the worst case, have such negative effects that the purpose of the law is counteracted by how it is followed. The children may have problems participating in school or in leisure activities. And their freedom of movement could be restricted in other ways such that they cannot be children even if they find themselves in a very vulnerable context.

We believe this is reason for the government to provide clear and recurring evaluations. We also note that the government itself says that it is important to take into account the opinions that have been put forward by, among others, the Children's Ombudsman, Brå and others, but that one nevertheless chooses to move that the reservation should be dismissed.

Regarding the concern about one-sidedness that we Social Democrats have raised on numerous occasions, the government often and repeatedly speaks about how it is important to break organized crime, crack down on the gangs, and listen to the police when they come with a list of more tools. During our time in government, we showed that we are willing to tighten legislation, expand the police, and ensure that the tools become sharper, but we are concerned by the reality we find ourselves in.

Right now, it looks like many of the tools that have been introduced and the legislations that have been tightened actually, with a bit of luck and, above all, skill from both prosecutors and the police, lead to more and more both young offenders and offenders overall being detained. We see that we are starting to see the effect of the legislative work that has been ongoing here for several years.

When it comes to crime prevention, we do not content ourselves with words that preventive stay-away orders – keeping young offenders away from gangs – are crime prevention. We Social Democrats believe that crime prevention work is about ensuring that crimes are not committed. There should be fewer crimes at risk of being committed. That requires a functioning school, Madam Speaker. That requires a functioning leisure activity, a functioning sports activity, and a functioning association life throughout the entire society.

Is it something we worry about and now see is that more and more municipalities are cutting back on cultural and leisure activities for young people. 55 percent of the country's municipalities are cutting back on precisely that activity which concerns giving all children and young people the opportunity for an active and meaningful leisure time. Then it is not enough to say that children who end up drifting should be locked up at home.

We would instead like to see an active government that actually ensures state subsidies for welfare, that does not drive the country's municipalities and regions into a welfare crisis, and that does not see that many municipalities say it is on the social side that they now risk losing staff. There is a short-sightedness in the government's policy when it comes to the whole. We absolutely see that the government has an idea of harder measures, tougher measures, and everything it is called, but the government is completely unresponsive when it comes to working long-term with crime prevention.

One is actively driving the country's municipalities into a welfare crisis. When we said that we wanted to see more money for the vulnerable schools, for vulnerable and neglected areas and for sports clubs - as well as for more social secretaries - the government side pressed the button for luxury-rot, luxury-rut and large tax cuts for the very richest.

I believe that we need to do more here. The government must abandon its naive attitude towards genuine crime prevention and preventive work.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 7.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! It is during the Social Democrats' time in power that a situation has been allowed to develop where criminal elements occupy public places such as squares and city centers, schoolyards, and subway passages. It is about gang criminals with a large amount of violence and a threatening attitude that spreads fear in people's everyday lives, day in and day out.

It is during your time in power that a situation has been allowed to grow where the presence of gang criminals signifies a barbarity in the public space, Mattias Vepsä. Drugs are sold, shops are exploited, and honest people are subjected to crimes. It is during your time in power that gang criminals have established a presence in the local community that means they attract children and young people to their criminality. It is during your time in power that the situation with gang criminals hanging out in the public space, with the risk of shootings occurring with direct danger to honest citizens, has escalated.

Listening to what the Social Democrats say from the rostrum is like listening to a pyromaniac's views on the fire department's firefighting work. Is there any self-criticism at all?

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! That was an interesting contribution from Member Kärrholm.

I wonder if Fredrik Kärrholm really believes that at the change of government in 2014/15 it was gold and green forests - that everything was in order, that inequality was eradicated, that crime was on the decline and that the police had all the conditions they requested. I know that Fredrik Kärrholm is very initiated in exactly this as he has a police background. I do not believe that was the case. I believe that there were great challenges already in 2014/15, which we were set to handle. It was a legacy from previous governments - a legacy after eight years of alliance governments led by Kärrholm's own party.

I do not know if the debate should be about who is most self-critical. So we can, of course, continue; I have participated in the debate and taken part in what is being said and can state that more and more people admit that even during the years 2006-2014 of the Alliance government, more should have been done to break the development surrounding youth gangs that has since become worse. Now we have what you describe, Fredrik Kärrholm, that is to say, heavy criminal gang structures that hold entire districts in an iron grip. It is clear that we can have that debate.

Otherwise, we can see that it requires both investments in expanding the welfare in our most neglected areas - investments in school, leisure, and more activities for children and young people - and investments in more police officers, in increased presence from the police, and in the police having the right tools. I am a bit more interested in keeping the debate around track two. I see that you are unable to keep two balls in the air, and that worries me.

This also worries all the comrades who are there – all the municipal and regional representatives who every day warn that they can no longer afford to maintain safety and welfare in our country.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I can state that I received no answer to the question. I probably received no answer to the question because the honorable member has no self-criticism to offer. The large, fine report work you have devoted yourselves to appears to be merely a media charade, Mattias Vepsä. You simply cannot, in any of our dialogues, admit that one could have done something differently or that one could have done more of something.

When we are now implementing large and many reforms in criminal policy, you have zero and nothing to contribute. You have no constructive additional proposals. The only thing you have to come with is classic Social Democratic policy in the form of more subsidies.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I think this exchange of remarks is becoming quite empty. It is becoming, in some way, contentless.

We expanded the police academy, and we got out more police officers. We ensured that the legislation was tightened regarding a number of different penalties, and there is now a possibility to prosecute more offenders and criminals. One sees daily reports that the holding cells here in Stockholm are overcrowded and that the prisons are overcrowded. This is the result of a reorganization of the crime policy, where we started with a fairly empty table in 2014.

I believe, however, that both the member and I can state that 17 of 21 propositions and communications last year had a Social Democratic sender in the form of inquiries. If the member calls Social Democratic policy content-poor or devoid of content, I must therefore ask him to back up and read through these 17 of 21 propositions to trace where they were initiated.

Today we are debating something that we are actually largely in agreement on: We want an evaluation of the new legislation and think that the government should be able to meet us and say that an evaluation will be conducted. You also say this in the text, Fredrik Kärrholm, but you are not willing to accept the reservation.

What we are requesting here is that one ensures that the country's municipalities are listened to. We tightened a law last year, and it was about the crime prevention work becoming a municipal responsibility. Why then does one see to saving on the country's municipalities in an economic crisis? Why does Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson not open the wallet and see to it that we avoid the short-sighted dismissal of, for example, social secretaries when the economy falters?

This is something Fredrik Kärrholm should take to the Moderate parliamentary group and have a small workshop about - perhaps write a report - in order to then return to the chamber with some content and a bit more politics to save the preventive activities in our country.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! A situation has been allowed to develop in Sweden where criminal elements occupy public places such as squares and city centers, schoolyards, and subway passages. Gang criminals with a large amount of violence and a threatening attitude spread fear in people's everyday lives day in and day out.

Barbarianism has taken over public spaces. It is being trashed, drugs are being sold, shops are being exploited, and people are being subjected to crime. This is unworthy of a civilized society.

This criminal presence creates conditions to attract children to gang crime. Where the criminals hang out, the risk of shootings with danger to honest people also increases.

Now we are putting a stop to this. With preventive stay bans, we will be able to ensure that the gang criminals are not allowed to stay in certain designated places. With this, we take back control and re-establish law and order in this country.

For a stay ban to take effect, the police must submit a written report to the prosecutor who makes the decision. What is required for the prosecutor's decision is that a person deliberately promotes a group committing crimes and that there is a risk that firearms or explosives are used. Even persons who promote crime in some other way shall be able to be issued a stay ban if this crime is intended to seriously harm public safety.

Whoever violates the prohibition may be subject to a fine or imprisonment. But what above all makes the stay ban effective and ensures that it will be complied with is that the police can remove or, if necessary, detain the person who violates the prohibition. If it is necessary for the prohibition to be complied with, it can also be combined with electronic surveillance.

At the same time, this is legally secure. For the person for whom a residence ban applies, or is intended to apply, a public advocate shall be appointed if the person is under 18 years of age. The same applies to the person who is issued a residence ban with conditions for electronic surveillance. Before a question regarding a residence ban is decided, the person for whom the ban is intended to apply shall be notified of information that has been added to the case. The person for whom a residence ban applies also has the right to have their case reviewed by the district court. This is legislation that is legally secure.

I repeat: This can be a game changer. That areas and places are unsafe is not due to any mysterious ghosts, but it is because dangerous persons stay in these places. Now we can finally free local communities all over Sweden from the center tyrants who spread insecurity and fear and who have been allowed to roam free for far too long. Now we take back control and re-establish safety and security.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm used big words. I noted in particular that he said that barbarity has taken over and that with this proposal, one puts a stop to it and restores law and order.

I am a prosecutor by profession, as Fredrik Kärrholm knows, and as I mentioned in my reply to Richard Jomshofs speech, I truly see the problems with the serious crime that we have. I have worked here in Stockholm and think it is important that the justice system receives tools that can be effective and strike against this crime. Therefore, Centerpartiet thinks it is a good idea to introduce stay bans.

As I mentioned, there is however a part connected to the legislative product itself that is problematic to say the least. I specifically noted Fredrik Kärrholm's words about that this regulation puts a stop to this. In that regard, I hear police officers – Fredrik Kärrholm is a police officer himself – thinking that they, with a written basis to the prosecutor, will receive a decision and be able to issue a stay-away order.

I do not know if Fredrik Kärrholm has read the referral response from the Prosecution Authority. I just recounted this to Richard Jomshof and do not need to do it again. Intelligence information, which often forms the basis for a legally secure assessment of this, is information that is sensitive. One cannot leak it just however, because in that case, one compromises one's intelligence work. That is why the Prosecution Authority considers this to be very problematic.

What information is the decision to be based on in order to ensure quality without the sources being exposed? I would like an answer to that.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat symptomatic of the left side of Swedish politics, which the Center Party now belongs to, that greater weight is attached to word choice than to the substantive content of the policy. I have been a police officer and seen this in reality, and I stand in the highest degree for the fact that we have a problem with precisely barbarism. Malin Björk's existence behind a desk in the comfortable offices of the Prosecution Authority perhaps has not given the same impression.

Malin Björk asked how this is to work in practice. It places great demands on the Swedish Police Authority to convey sufficient information in the report to the prosecutor so that the prosecutor can make a decision. How the report is to look will soon be revealed. It is entirely correct that intelligence information of a more concrete nature will not be able to be conveyed. On the other hand, there are conditions to convey certain information that is not only linked to preliminary investigations.

In the thorough preparatory work that this legislation has been preceded by, the conclusion from the Ministry of Justice is that this will work in practice. If it is the case that it does not work sufficiently well in practice, there are all the possibilities in the world to further sharpen the legislation.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Kärrholm for the answer.

I find it a bit fascinating that Fredrik Kärrholm said that I focused on words instead of on substantive politics. I hope that Fredrik Kärrholm is still here when I give my speech, because I am going to focus very much on substantive content.

I am very focused on this having an effect. That is why I take note of what the Prosecution Authority says about this. Between the lines in its referral statement, the Prosecution Authority says that this will not be able to lead to the authority and prosecutors who want to act in a legally secure manner being able to make the decisions that the politics promises. I think that is quite serious.

Fredrik Kärrholm is just a police officer and not a prosecutor. I know how it goes sometimes if one does not get their decision through as a police officer. Prosecutors work under the responsibility of official misconduct when they make decisions - that is why they need solid grounds to be able to make these decisions. Oral arguments with somewhat meager information are not enough; instead, written grounds are required here.

What I think is important is quite simply that the Prosecution Authority says that it will become very problematic to make decisions. I am afraid that this will not lead to particularly many decisions. Then one promises something from politics that one cannot keep. I am in politics to implement things that I believe have an effect. That is the objection we have against this.

I am just as aware of how it looks on our streets in certain areas as Fredrik Kärrholm is. I promise - I have also been out there. I think it is important that we do things that have an effect. I still wonder in what way prosecutors will receive solid grounds that make it possible to make such decisions.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased to hear from the member that it was an exception that the reply began by remarking on word choices and that the upcoming speech will focus on the substance. We need a more substantive debate on concrete problems and solutions in Swedish politics and less meta-debate about word choices.

This is an immensely important piece of legislation. Now we are rolling out a long series of reforms in the criminal policy area to combat the gang crime that has been allowed to grow under the Social Democratic government that the Center Party supported for eight years.

I also note that the Center Party only has a technical objection that this may in some cases lead to an insufficient basis for making enough such decisions. Everyone in here who is in favor of this legislation agrees that it should be effective, so let us see how it works in practice. I am confident that it will be effective legislation, but I am also open to it becoming even more effective. If the Prosecution Authority judges that the system may need to be changed so that we can obtain even more decisions on preventive stay bans in a legally secure manner, I would gladly receive such a motion from the authority.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 1 from Vänsterpartiet, which means the rejection of the proposal for a law on preventive stay bans.

At the same time, I want to mark that I agree with the government's and others' strong concern and the conclusion that powerful measures are needed to increase safety in society and reduce shootings and explosions, which are terrifyingly distressing. I do not, however, share the government's assessment of how it should be done.

Several have praised the legislative proposal. I do not belong to them and am surprised by the confidence. Instead, I feel a strong concern that the government, in obvious stress, is proposing a truly bad law in a nearly desperate manner. The bill was submitted just before Christmas, the preparation in the committee started last week, now we have the debate, this afternoon the Riksdag will make a decision and the law is to enter into force on February 1, i.e., next week. Already this is outrageous and a frantic fast-track. The Tidö parties' government behaves in a power-perfect manner based on the fact that it has a three-mandate majority in the chamber. It is a contempt for democracy.

Furthermore, the Prosecution Authority has indicated in its consultation response that there is concern that a reasonable basis for the decision will not be available by the date of entry into force.

Neither I nor the Left Party are principled opponents to banning dangerous persons from being in certain places. We have, for example, long acted, sometimes against strong headwinds, so that women and children who have been subjected to violence by men shall receive safety through effective restraining orders that limit violent men. Using bans in conditional release or youth supervision are other important opportunities to limit crime and increase safety.

To strengthen safety in society as a whole, it is not such a stay ban that is required, but entirely other crime-preventive measures. Vänsterpartiet is here in complete agreement with the Socialdemokraterna that other broad initiatives are needed in areas such as social policy, school, leisure, and culture.

The construction of the stay ban is legally insecure and conflicts with several fundamental principles in a rule of law. It also risks being counterproductive and creating new tensions. I am a lawyer and have worked with this since the end of the 60s. The reading of the proposal and the criticism in the referral responses makes me shudder. The law is, frankly, really bad.

The proposed law targets persons who are neither convicted, accused, nor even suspected of a crime. This is not the only example. The possibility of preventive surveillance and the ongoing investigation into visitation zones have similar constructions. In the case of stay bans, it concerns a prosecutor's assessment of how an individual might potentially act in the future. These are vague criteria and requirements that allow for arbitrary assessments by both the police and prosecutors if they lead to decisions. It is also a complicated risk assessment in several stages, which I will not devote further attention to. But it is difficult, which several referral bodies have also pointed out.

There is also an imminent risk that completely law-abiding persons will receive restraining orders because they, for example, associate with or are related to the wrong people. The legal text is not clearly formulated, so there is a risk that the law will be used arbitrarily and even discriminatorily against certain groups. There is also a risk of ethnic discrimination.

If one is issued a restraining order, one is also placed in the criminal records register, for ten years for adults and for five years for children. These long-term registrations can mean obstacles in the labor market for both of these groups.

Many referral bodies point out that the residency ban carries a risk that crime will spread and move so that we get new locations and more children under the age of 15 who are recruited into criminal networks. A residency ban can also cause young people to seek out other and perhaps even more unsuitable places and environments. An increased sense of exclusion and stigmatization also lies in the direction of danger and can create increased mistrust towards conventional society - instead of increased trust, which is what we need.

There may also be a risk that the residency ban fuels conflicts surrounding, for example, drug trafficking in an area. Some gangs may even be able to benefit from others being affected by residency bans.

This makes one question whether this can be effective. If members of a criminal gang are given a stay-away order from certain places, there is a high probability that the entire gang will move to another location. Regarding serious crime involving firearms and explosives, it is already very mobile today, and the places where the crimes are committed are often impossible to predict. Many also point out that this will be incredibly difficult to implement. Södertälje Municipality even considers that the conditions for a stay-away order mean that the legislation will not be able to be applied at all in practice.

This legislation challenges both our constitution and our conventions. We should be extra careful with the principles of the rule of law and the foundations of our democracy when it comes to crises. In such cases, it is particularly important that we handle challenges in a wise manner.

I want to conclude by relating to the Gender Equality Authority's referral response - one of many instances that reject this bill. The Gender Equality Authority points out that we would need a completely different approach to crime prevention work. An approach would be needed where a total grip is taken on violence and where one can cooperate and coordinate with violence prevention work against men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking. We must prevent the echo of violence and the spread of violence and change its direction. We do that with strong social interventions generally, but also with support for young people who risk ending up in the wrong environments.

I move for the rejection of the government's proposal on this legislation and thereby the rejection of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! A large part of serious crime and its preliminary stages are today linked to certain geographical areas. It is about criminals who instill fear in entire residential areas and who consider a certain district to be their territory, where they believe they have the right to roam freely and recruit young people into gang criminality. It is also about criminals who travel to an adjacent district to rob, fight, and harass. The result is insecurity among the residents.

In my previous professional role as a police officer, I have seen this in far too many places and far too many times. I know that the situation in many of these residential areas is acute and that we must urgently implement both preventive and repressive tools to curb the development.

A large part of Sweden's problems are unfortunately linked to the fact that we have not been quick enough, and at times governing politicians have turned a blind eye to the reality out in our residential areas. I am therefore glad to belong to a party that acknowledges that the situation is acute, which is not naive and which ensures that legislation is now promptly put in place.

Mr. Speaker! In order to make it harder for crime to gain a foothold in certain areas and to combat the insecurity and the shootings, we in the Christian Democrats have for several years pushed for the introduction of stay bans. With the bill that has now been submitted to the Riksdag, we ensure that this proposal becomes a reality as early as February 1, 2024.

As you know, the development of crime in Sweden is unparalleled. Repeatedly, we hear reports in international media that speak of "the Swedish situation." Nowhere else in Europe are more people killed by gun violence.

The Christian Democrats, together with the rest of the government and the Sweden Democrats, have started a large reform machinery to break this development. We have initiated a paradigm shift in criminal policy where we focus on justice and redress and where we do not prioritize the perpetrators but the crime victims – all those crime victims who have been defrauded, shot, and had their homes destroyed. For the crime victims, their relatives, and entire families, the terror is there every day. It is a deplorable development, and here society must respond.

A tool to stop criminals' ability to instill fear in residential areas are preventive stay bans, which we are debating here today. It is a measure that has been shown to be effective. The police have for a long time requested preventive stay bans, and in our neighboring country Denmark, it has been used with success to cool down conflicts and thereby increase the public's safety and security. We also see the results in Denmark where they push back and push back the Danish gangs that have decreased in scope and significance.

It should also be pointed out that we already today in Sweden have stay bans that can be decided by the correctional services. It has shown to have good results. Stay bans are an important tool that has helped the police to keep criminals away, among other places in Biskopsgården in Gothenburg. The police there say that they see a weakening of criminal activity when the criminals need to move. It also gives criminals an excuse not to stay in the area. They can say that they are not allowed to be there, and thus have a good excuse for not having to take responsibility for it.

Mr. Speaker! The legislation is designed so that a person who is suspected of promoting the criminality of a criminal network can be prohibited from staying in a delimited area, even if the person has not been convicted of a crime. It could, for example, involve a gang criminal engaged in drug trafficking in a local square, harassment, or gang recruitment at a specific location. The area shall be determined based on where the risk of criminality exists. It could involve a public place, schoolyards, and corresponding outdoor areas at preschools and after-school centers. It can be used against all punishable persons, including young people from the age of 15. We are, however, not talking about children under 15, it is worth noting.

The legislation also contains several legal certainty guarantees, and the government has made a careful balancing between goals and means. Prosecutors will examine and make decisions. Prohibitions may only be issued when it is proportionate, and they are limited in both time and space by requiring that it concerns a limited location and that the prohibition shall apply for a maximum of six months at a time. Those under 18 years of age shall have access to a public counsel in the process, and all decisions on stay prohibitions shall be appealable to a general court.

Mr. Speaker! Crime fighting must be sharpened with more tools if we are to be able to reclaim safety and prevent young people from being recruited into gangs. The Christian Democrats have already been involved in getting new legislation in place, such as preventive wiretapping. Now we are also ensuring the introduction of preventive stay bans. Other things are also in the works, for example cameras, search zones, and anonymous witnesses.

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

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I request the floor because I wonder about some points in the speech just delivered.

I have made the comparison with the correctional services myself. However, there is a decisive difference, because when it comes to parole or juvenile supervision, this is a part of the penalties for a crime if one combines it with a stay ban. In this legislation, it is not a penalty, or not intended to be one. In the referral responses, there are also questions: Is this a penalty or an administrative measure? This uncertainty also means that it might not even hold up in proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights.

What differs is that here, suspicion is sufficient. One does not actually need to have any concrete basis.

I also wonder about the comparison with Denmark and Norway. Many criticize in the referral responses that there is no research showing what the effects have been in Denmark and Norway. In Norway, this is applied very rarely. In Denmark, it is not known whether it is this or something else, for example the large social interventions they have made, that has had an effect.

I would also like to follow up on a third thing, namely this matter regarding public legal counsel. Why should not everyone be entitled to it?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Of course, when the correctional services use stay bans, it concerns persons who have served a sentence for a crime they have committed. What I wanted to point out is that the method of stay bans itself has a good and cooling effect on the persons affected. There is no reason to believe that it could not have an effect even in the other cases.

Then it is also a preventive issue. There is obviously some form of suspicion of a crime, that persons are engaging in criminal activities. It is not that one strikes indiscriminately at any persons whatsoever, but the police must have good grounds to go to the prosecutor and demand a residency ban. The prosecutor, in turn, shall obviously examine the police's submission and see if there is a basis that is sufficiently good to be able to make a decision in the matter. I do not actually see any danger in that.

When it comes to the residence ban in Denmark, the police testify that it has had a good and intended effect. Certainly, one can say that there is insufficient research, but at the same time, one must listen to those who work in the profession and rely on the fact that they have a good understanding of what works and what does not.

The last question was about public counsel. Yes, it can always be discussed how one has landed there. I cannot give any straight answer to that.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, which however does not leave me satisfied or content.

How the preventive stay-away orders are decided is fundamentally different from when the prohibition is included as a penalty for a crime already committed, sentenced in court. There, we have legal certainty and can conduct a review. These prohibitions can admittedly be appealed to court, but it is a very loose basis, something that many strong referral bodies point out. Those who have highlighted this concern are not only legal experts but also many municipalities: How are we to approach this? Will it even be able to work?

Here, it is only risks that create new risks, I mean. I cannot have confidence that such loosely constructed legislation creates legal certainty and legal security.

I would also really wish that one had a public counsel not only for young people. They will be given the opportunity for a public counsel, likewise if it is in combination with an ankle bracelet. Here, I think there is almost a contempt in the government's approach when one says: Please, you can have your own counsel, but pay for it yourself! It is class contempt to me.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Gudrun Nordborg previously referred to restraining orders when it comes to threats against women and so on. There are great similarities with this, in the sense that it is also a preventive measure. In that respect, we are probably quite in agreement. From a legal certainty perspective, they probably weigh quite equally when the assessment is made. Those who are ordered to have a restraining order are perhaps not also convicted of any crime, but they still have a restraining order based on a report and application from the person who is exposed.

I think a restraining order is an absolutely excellent example. This has great similarities to that. I think Gudrun Nordborg is exaggerating it, but I understand that we do not agree on this issue. I can only state that there is a majority in the Riksdag to pass the stay ban.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the Center Party's reservation 3.

47 knife wounds - that is what the mother of four was attacked with on a sunny May day in her apartment, where she should have felt safe. She was found dead on the kitchen floor, with clear defensive wounds on her arms because she had tried to protect herself from the insane attack from her husband. She was sentenced by Solna District Court to life imprisonment but did not accept the sentence and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed with the District Court that this was a murder but set the sentence to 16 years of imprisonment.

This was the autumn of 2015. I, who was the prosecutor in the case, refused to accept the outcome. The Riksdag had, the year before, on July 1, 2014, changed the sentencing provision for murder so that more such horrific crimes would result in life imprisonment, and I truly believed that the Supreme Court would set this right - but unfortunately.

Already in the legislative process, the Council on Legislation had told the government to design the penal provision in a different way if they wanted to achieve the purpose of the new legislation, namely to get more life sentences for such serious murders. The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, namely that the legislation could not be used in this case in the way the government had promised. It became a lesson learned, quite simply, and it took a number of years before those of us working within law enforcement were able to achieve what the politicians had promised.

Mr. Speaker! Why am I telling this story now? Well, because I still carry it with me, as an experience from my time as a prosecutor when I was actually sacredly furious at, as I thought then, clumsy legislators. To push through legislation and not listen to a solid analysis from heavy-weight lawyers, I thought, was poster politics.

When I am where I am now, in the legislative assembly, it is important for me, in fact a matter of honor, to do my utmost to contribute to legislation that is as good as possible. And by good, I mean legislation that can be used in the way that politicians indicate it should be used, that achieves the purposes one says one wants to achieve, that becomes effective and, not least, that can be applied.

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Council on Legislation, in its opinion on the bill regarding preventive stay bans that we are discussing today, states that the construction chosen by the government is difficult to apply as it contains double risk assessments - first a risk assessment regarding a certain type of crime, then another risk assessment with a not clearly specified evidentiary requirement regarding how the person who is to receive a stay ban is considered to promote the crime.

As I have said earlier in my remarks, the Center Party supports the introduction of a residency ban. But again: It must be a residency ban that can be applied.

There is actually a hint in the Council on Legislation's opinion to look at the construction in the contact prohibition act. There, there are guidelines for the application of the law and what should be considered in the risk assessment. Such a construction would clearly provide better guidance for the prosecutors who are to intervene and make decisions based on the legislation.

It is actually prosecutors that this legislation is primarily directed towards. Have prosecutors with experience from just such activities been consulted in this legislative process? As a substitute in the Committee on Justice, I looked at the bill before we in Centerpartiet submitted our follow-up motion. It was interesting, Mr. Speaker. It stated several times that the Swedish Prosecution Authority had no recollection and that it was supported together with a number of other referral bodies.

Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to look at the referral response until now, before this debate, rather than before the follow-up motion itself. It is somewhat remarkable that nothing is mentioned in the bill, as I had read, regarding what the Prosecution Authority says anyway.

The Prosecution Authority simply says between the lines – a lawyer reads and hears quite a lot between the lines – that it is problematic for prosecutors to receive intelligence material. It is said that the decision-making basis in such an investigation will primarily be prepared by the Police Authority. It could be surveillance information or reliable intelligence from credible sources to the police, and in that case, it is not self-evident that it is most appropriate for it to be the prosecutor who shall examine the issue of a residency ban. The assessment of credibility – i.e., the credibility of the source providing the information that is to form the basis for an assessment of whether a person should be granted a residency ban or not – is also most securely made by the recipient of the material.

A prosecutor is therefore to receive a written basis, which may not contain sensitive information that, to put it simply, spoils the police's intelligence activities. But at the same time, under the responsibility for official misconduct, one must feel sufficiently secure in an assessment that is to be made in two steps. Great demands are already placed on a prosecutor today.

This is what the Prosecution Authority says in a referral response on October 16, four days after the current government held a press conference and said that this legislation would indeed enter into force on February 1 this year. This means that there is no possibility to rework the legislation in the way that the Prosecution Authority suggests would be a more effective way to go. I think it is a failing grade for our legislative process.

I am a member of the Committee on the Constitution by day and sometimes make visits here to the Committee on Justice for a debate. I have heard many of you other speakers here say that we have a huge problem out on the streets and squares with violent crime and gang crime. I agree. I have seen it and I have experienced it. I promise that I really want to tackle it. But I think it is problematic when politicians stand and promise very much but have not even listened. One has not taken the time to listen to the authority that is supposed to sit and make the assessments.

It may be noticeable that I am becoming a bit upset by this. Prosecutors work quite hard, and I have many prosecutor colleagues out there who would gladly like to have effective tools. But now the Council on Legislation says that this is difficult to apply and that one could look at the contact prohibition act so that it becomes safer for a prosecutor to make this decision. Furthermore, the legislation has now been rushed so that it, which was actually supposed to enter into force on July 1 this year, shall enter into force next week.

I do not know how I should respond to Fredrik Kärrholm's words about how I, as a prosecutor, sat behind a desk. I do not believe that Fredrik Kärrholm has a particularly good insight into what it is like to work at a general prosecutor's office. One is running most of the time.

Next week, prosecutors will therefore have this tool in their hands. There are no decision support systems. The Prosecution Authority naturally does not have time to provide a basis for them, which is done centrally. There is also no possibility to introduce any digital aids. It is to be done manually, according to the bill.

We have serious problems out on our streets and squares with gang crime that is taking hold in certain areas. In that case, it is a shame that this government repeatedly rushes through legislation that does not turn out well. It still makes me a bit angry that it doesn't turn out well when there is an opportunity for it to.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the proposal for a law on preventive stay bans. I think that the word preventive is what we should focus on. A synonym for the word preventive is precautionary. Is it something we liberals like, it is to be able to prevent accidents, injustices and other things that affect people, including being subjected to crimes.

Now, many of us want to see more of the preventive work and that authorities work more preventively, more proactively and more preventively. We in the government want, as I have said before, to shift the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim. We want to create better conditions so that fewer people fall victim to crime. We want to work more proactively.

Everyone knows that the police are on their knees and that investigations are piling up. Last autumn, we received the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the poor investigation results regarding everyday crime. The courts have more cases than there are judges who can deliver judgments, the queue for trials is long, and our detention centers are full.

In other words, it is important that we now, with full force and in every way, put effort into the preventive work. We must begin to work increasingly on developing reforms and laws that give the law enforcement authorities tools to be able to work preventively.

Mr. Speaker! The preventive restraining orders are such a tool. And it is a long-awaited one, not least if you ask the police on the street. Now they have support in the law to forbid an individual from being in a certain place, in order to thereby prevent crimes from being committed at the location or that crimes are promoted - remember that: that crimes are promoted - at the location.

What has been particularly kept in mind when the bill was drafted is the enormous problem we have today with gang crime and the criminal networks that not infrequently recruit young people into the gangs. Such things must not be allowed to happen. Our children shall be protected, not least in school and at the youth center. Gang members do not belong there. They shall not be there.

Are there risks with preventive laws like this? Of course there are if the law is abused, if people working with the exercise of authority do not understand how the law should be used or disregard the individual who is subjected to the law and if proportionality is ignored. That risk certainly exists. But I am not worried about it. The law is legally secure, because the decision on preventive stay-away orders must first be examined by a prosecutor who then decides. After that, it can be appealed to a court.

I heard Member Malin Björk speak earlier. I know Malin Björk as a skilled and competent prosecutor. I do not quite recognize that the prosecutors will have difficulty making decisions because there will be a lack of underlying material.

I worked for a while as a narcotics investigator. We were often out and needed to conduct house searches. The reason we wanted to enter certain apartments was that we had received tips. Then we called a prosecutor and told them that we had received tips from reliable informants. On that basis, decisions were made regarding the house search. I hope that a working method will be reached that means the prosecutors can trust the police, that the information the prosecutors receive is legally secure, just as when the police today request, for example, decisions on house searches from a prosecutor.

I was a bit surprised when I heard that prosecutors in the consultation process have expressed a concern that they will not be able to make decisions because they will not have the correct decision-making basis. I hope that a working method is found. I am actually not worried about it.

Regarding the other concerns that some members have presented about not quite trusting the law enforcement authorities, for example the police, one must not forget that the Swedish police today have a monopoly on violence - and not just that. They also have the authority to search, refuse entry, remove and arrest people, stop cars and check ID. Is it abused? Yes, it has absolutely happened. But it is very rare, I would like to say.

I have said this before, and I may be colored by my background as a police officer, but we actually have one of the world's best police forces. Corruption, crime, and abuse of official authority are extremely uncommon. We can trust the Swedish police. Feel free to tell me if any country has a better police force that one can trust more! I am open to discussion.

Criticism has been voiced that this law lacks a geographical limitation. But we must trust the authorities and that they take into account both the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality. The residency ban shall apply to a smaller, delimited place, and I do not think that can be misinterpreted.

I am convinced that legal certainty is taken into account when it comes to this law. It is a good tool for the police to ensure that children, young people, adults, and retirees can have a safer everyday life. I am primarily thinking of the young people who risk being drawn into or affected by crime. We in society and we politicians must do everything we can to prevent it. It is our damn duty. I believe that we all here in the chamber agree on this and therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Kärrholm (M) agreed.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Melin, for the commitment to this issue! I cannot let it pass now when I, as a prosecutor, get the opportunity to speak with a police officer about this subject, because it is engaging and important.

I agree with Martin Melin that it is important to introduce tools like this, and that is why I think it is problematic how this legislative product has been handled. I wish for it to be effective.

I know Martin Melin as a very sympathetic police officer with experience in working with narcotics investigations and having to conduct house searches. It is a common procedure that the police provide information of a certain level of specificity and that the prosecutor, on more or less equal footing, on the move with a phone in hand, makes decisions and the police then carry out the house search.

I have very good experience of working with many good police officers. I really want to emphasize that. But this is about a different type of measure than a house search. A restraining order restricts in a completely different way. It is not a temporary measure but something that is intended to run for a longer period. Written documentation was also needed. Just as Martin Melin described it, it is often over the phone that a task is conveyed which leads to a concrete decision regarding a house search.

I wonder how Martin Melin believes the basis should look. What information can be submitted to the prosecutor without sources being exposed and so that the decision basis still becomes sufficient?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Björk for the question and for the commitment she shows.

It is important when we enact laws in this chamber that they are sustainable and functional. As a prosecutor, the member feels that things must hold up even in a court proceeding, where the details matter and every word choice is important. I therefore understand the interest in how this is to be handled.

I was down in Gothenburg a couple of weeks ago and spoke with the police. Then I asked a bit about how this would be used. Their concerns were not that they would have to keep secret information they would need to give to the prosecutor so that it can make a decision. Not infrequently, it will involve people who are convicted or are in the criminal record or the suspicion register, such as network criminals.

There will be a basis. A residence ban will not be requested for a person whom the police know is engaged in criminal activity but who has not been convicted. It is not such persons that residence bans will be requested for. That is what the police told me. There will be a good basis which the prosecutor will, of course, receive in writing and can base a decision on. That is how I have been told, and I also believe that is how it will be used.

If problems arise, one will have to review the working method. I am concerned that this is handled in a legally secure manner and that things will hold up even for review in court.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Martin Melin!

It is an interesting case that the member mentions. It concerns persons who are already convicted and who could be affected by such a prohibition here. I find that particularly interesting because the Council on Legislation writes that one could have a contact prohibition construction. Prosecutors often work with contact prohibitions. It becomes much easier.

Decisions on restraining orders are also made based on suspicion. I have made such decisions every minute, I can almost say. One makes an assessment of ongoing crime and what the person has been convicted of previously.

Centerpartiets reservation is that it would have been desirable to have had a little more time to internalize these points so that it would have resulted in better legislation. That is my message from Centerpartiets side. I have no further questions for Martin Melin but appreciate the discussion.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can only attest that I also think it is important that new laws are well-elaborated and will function all the way through to a judgment. I am not as worried as the member, but I take note of what she says. I believe the others do as well.

I also believe that when the law begins to be used, we will see if there are any flaws, and in that case, it can be brought back and revised. There are other laws that have been enacted which have had to be brought back, improved, changed, and had things added to them. It has been done before. There is nothing preventing it from being done again, but as the law stands today, I am not worried.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has chosen to stand behind the main features of the bill on the stay ban, even though we also have a follow-up motion and some comments and proposed amendments. These are not entirely obvious considerations in this product, but let me justify our position regarding this.

I can start with the main objection that we and many others have regarding preventive residence bans. It is that they can be issued against persons who have not been convicted of any crime. It is fundamentally questionable. I do not think one should deny that, and therefore the legislation should be monitored continuously and also evaluated after a period of time. It should be clearer, and that is something we have also proposed in our follow-up motion.

Mr. Speaker! As said, we in Miljöpartiet still see that there are things that outweigh this principle and this objection. The reason for that is, of course, that we have an enormous problem that we need to handle with full force, even with unconventional measures. Tools are needed to ensure that young boys are not recruited into gang environments to the extent that is currently happening.

Mr. Speaker! We also note that the regulatory framework has been improved in the bill compared to what was proposed in the investigation. Stay bans can be issued for a maximum of six months according to the bill; in the investigation's proposal, it was one year. We still think, Mr. Speaker, however, that the maximum geographical area for the stay ban zone should be limited. We also think that the children's rights perspective should be further strengthened.

Perhaps the most important point we have is that the scope of the Discrimination Act should be expanded. This is something that several referral bodies also point out, not least DO, the Equality Ombudsman. Such a proposal was also presented in the investigation report *An expanded protection against discrimination*, SOU 2021:94.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also say something about the preparation, which the Center Party member previously reasoned about very wisely. I truly think we should take to heart what was said about how badly things can go when legislators do not prepare matters in a sufficiently good way. Perhaps the clearest example is when the Riksdag previously tried to tighten the penalty for murder. It was purely counterproductive, because the result was the exact opposite. Instead of more being sentenced to life imprisonment, as the legislative assembly wanted, fewer were. That was because the preparation was sloppy.

Preventive ban on contact

Now we have a matter regarding a stay ban. We handled it in the committee last week. Yesterday, Tuesday, it was adjusted by the committee. We are debating it now this morning, and in a few hours we will make a decision at the vote at 16:00. Next Thursday, in barely eight days, the law enters into force.

The Prosecution Authority has pointed out in its referral response that they do not have time to deploy decision support systems, that they will have to work with this manually, and that the workload will therefore increase. They have stated that they want a later date of entry into force. But the government doesn't care.

Mr. Speaker! I usually point out that we as politicians should be attentive to the requests of the judicial authorities. We should not buy into them outright, but we must listen to what tools and mandates are needed to be able to tackle crime. This must reasonably also apply in cases like these, where authorities plead for a slightly later date of entry into force. But the government, full of prestige, ignores what the Prosecution Authority thinks.

Mr. Speaker! Gunnar Strömmer is rushing and being careless. It is something that recurs in multiple cases, such as those regarding anonymous witnesses and visitation zones. I mean that this is serious. The government must sharpen up, because this is not a good path. The risk is that the legislation cannot be applied in the way that the government and the Riksdag intended.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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