The National Board of Forensic Medicine's handling of human biological material
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
Vänsterpartiet is largely satisfied with the legislative proposal as it finally introduces rules in an area that was previously completely open 1. The party is, however, critical of certain passages in the legal text to safeguard personal integrity 1. Vänsterpartiet wants to delete parts that suggest that the police and security police should be able to hand over human biological material, as they believe that judicial review in court is required 1. The party also opposes that disclosure can be permitted for exceptional reasons as the wording is too open 1. Vänsterpartiet considers that the government has added these parts without sufficient basis in the investigation 1.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gudrun Nordborg (V)
Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying that we in Vänsterpartiet in general are satisfied with this legislative proposal, and I can also add: Finally, there will be regulations in this area, which has been completely open and where those who act practically have been allowed to do their best!
We are, however, not completely satisfied with the bill and have three reservations in the report. I move for approval of reservation 1, even though we, of course, stand behind all three.
Reservation 1 concerns the fact that we are critical of some passages in the legislative text. What we have criticized corresponds to what the Council on Legislation has raised and been critical of. We fully agree in those parts. It is about our desire to protect personal integrity beyond what is done in the proposal.
It is also the case that these parts have not been sufficiently prepared. There is a lack of basis for the two passages that I will soon mention. There has been no basis in the investigation and, consequently, no reactions from the referral bodies, which could have led to us accepting this. The requirement for preparation is a democratic principle that we want to safeguard while simultaneously safeguarding personal integrity.
Which passages are it that we in Vänsterpartiet oppose? Well, besides that prosecutors and the court should be able to decide on the surrender of certain material that has been worked on within Rättsmedicinalverket – it is therefore about sample material that comes from the human body – the government proposes that police and security police should also be able to surrender such material. We do not want that, but we believe that a judicial review should take place in court. Furthermore, a point is added to the paragraph, namely that surrender can be permitted if there are exceptional reasons. It is a wording we think is far too open and which we want to oppose.
We therefore want to delete these two passages in the legal text.
I have, of course, looked into why the government has proposed this at the last minute after the referral bodies have already given their input and how the government responds to the Council on Legislation's comments. The government claims that what we criticize already occurs. They also claim that it should have been described in the report and that neither the investigation itself nor the referral bodies have questioned the appropriateness of this.
I have looked for examples of what the government says already exists. I have started from words that are in the description of what it could be about. It states, among other things, that human biological material could be used for the training of service dogs. This gave me the words "handing over", "service dog" and "dog" to search for, but I found nothing in the SOU regarding this. It is therefore the government that has added it. This makes me even more concerned.
The government defends this by saying that it appears almost as an oversight that these types of disclosures are not covered by the commission's proposal. It is only a couple of minor additions, which the government thinks we should accept. As a legislator, however, I am not prepared to go along with such loose guidelines. We have repeatedly seen comments from the Council on Legislation that the government ignores, and I think this is another such flagrant example.
There may be room to do additional things, but in that case, we mean in a different reservation that one needs to consider returning with further scrutiny so that we get clarity on what it would involve. In any case, this bill has not succeeded in providing that.
The National Board of Forensic Medicine's handling of human biological material
I therefore move for approval of reservation number 1.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.