Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2021

Pontus Andersson (SD)

Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2021

Madam Speaker! Since 1983, the government has, in accordance with the Riksdag's wishes, reported how the rules on secret surveillance and electronic communication have been applied during the past year. To make a long story short, we can state that it works well, but that SD wants more.

Secret coercive measures include telephone interception, camera surveillance, secret data retrieval, room bugging, and secret surveillance of electronic communications. It is of fundamental importance in a constitutional state that the right to protection of private and family life is respected, but in order to effectively conduct crime-fighting activities for the benefit of all citizens, the use of just secret coercive measures is more than necessary. In other words: The privacy infringement that secret coercive measures entail can and shall be accepted if the benefit and the need are sufficiently great.

The use of secret coercive measures has great support in both the Swedish Riksdag and the population at large. The issues that are discussed often concern where the line should be drawn, and that is where we are not always in agreement. It is clear that the police and prosecutors are requesting a more generous view on secret surveillance in order to be able to convict criminals who have committed crimes and in order to prevent crimes by acting for a preventive purpose.

In the partial consideration of SOU 2022:19, which is currently being prepared within the Government Offices, it is proposed that secret coercive measures shall be allowed to be used in more cases. For example, it is proposed that the combined punitive value of several crimes should be taken into account, which would mean that law enforcement authorities can use secret coercive measures in more cases in order to thereby prevent and combat crime. In our view, this is a step in the right direction.

The Tidö Agreement consists of eleven pages of agreements between the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties on how we can make Sweden a safer country through crime policy measures and curb the increasingly more violent crime in society. In addition to well-formulated proposals such as double sentences for gang criminals, visitation zones, the possibility to testify anonymously, and deportation of significantly more criminals, we must not forget the proposals on preventive wiretapping of specifically criminal gangs and the possibility of using coercive measures against persons under 15 years of age.

The Police Commissioner said in the autumn: "I can state that much of what we see in the Tidö Agreement in the crime-fighting area is in line with what we have called for and talked about for many years." He then added that he would like to see that specifically preventive wiretapping is implemented quickly.

The assessment is that preventive surveillance may be used by the police in a hundred cases per year and by the customs in 30-40 cases per year. In many cases, it will increase the possibilities of apprehending criminals. In other cases, it will prevent crime. Sometimes it will also save lives.

During the Socialdemokraternas eight years in power, the number of fatal shootings in Sweden increased from 19 to 63 per year, an increase of 232 percent. It is this result that Sverigedemokraterna and the new government have to start from when we design the laws that shall make Sweden a safer and more secure country.

Madam Speaker! It is my opinion that Swedish legislation is out of step with the times. Our laws are designed for a Sweden that no longer exists, a Sweden that previous governments have deteriorated. Therefore, it is the task of the Sweden Democrats and the government to implement the measures required to make Sweden a safe and secure country once again.

Madam Speaker! My view is that the changes to secret coercive measures that we want to implement are a necessary evil. But when the situation looks as it does now, with fatal shootings having increased by 232 percent in eight years, six times more dead in fatal shootings than in all our Nordic neighboring countries combined, more fatal shootings than in Great Britain and more in Södertälje than in London, measures are required that are more far-reaching than now for everyone's safety and security. It is the criminals who should be afraid, Madam Speaker, not the ordinary citizens.

In the coming years, we will introduce double sentences for gang criminals, introduce visitation zones, make it possible to testify anonymously, deport more criminals, implement significant sentencing increases, make it illegal to participate in gangs, and more. But not least, we are introducing possibilities to wiretap criminal gangs for preventive purposes and use secret coercive measures against persons under 15 years of age.

The Sweden Democrats have no objections to the reporting of secret coercive measures but suggest that the letter be added to the records.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's report Account of the use of secret coercive measures during 2021. The report covers the use of coercive measures by the Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, the Police Authority, the Swedish Customs Service, and the Security Service during the mentioned year.

Let me first remind you that the brutal gang violence, which has become increasingly worse, is primarily a symptom of gang criminality that is part of a larger organized crime. This crime is a threat to the system. This means that it ultimately threatens our democratic social order and our ability to make independent decisions here that are complied with. To combat this crime, it is necessary that the police can use secret coercive measures. This includes, among other things, being able to see who called whom and when it occurred, reading messages, and wiretapping calls.

In a constitutional state, it is simultaneously fundamental that the right to protection of private and family life is respected. A balance is required between this and the necessity of effective crime fighting. A part of effective crime fighting is secret coercive measures. It is a self-evident starting point that the provisions on coercive measures and their application shall live up to high standards of legal certainty. In the government's submission, it is also clear that this is the case.

The requirements for using coercive measures are high. They presuppose a certain level of suspicion and a certain minimum penalty, a review takes place in court, there are public representatives, notification is made to the person affected, there are strict rules regarding surplus information, and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) exercises supervision.

The starting point is that secret coercive measures can only be accepted if the need and the benefit are sufficiently great. In the balancing between an individual's right to protection of their private and family life and society's interest in effective crime fighting, it is significant to assess with sufficient precision what results the use of secret coercive measures has led to.

In a review of the authorities' reporting, the government notes in this communication that coercive measures fulfill an important function for the criminal investigation work.

The secret coercive measures have provided a real benefit. When it concerns, for example, secret interception of electronic communications, it has contributed to the fact that the suspect has been able to be indicted in 40 percent of the cases.

Secret coercive measures also contribute to combating other crimes than organized crime. For example, they can be of great importance in the investigation of aggravated violation of a woman's integrity. Call logs showing how often and when the perpetrator contacted the victimized woman can constitute important evidence.

The Government's assessment is, in summary, that the authorities' use of secret coercive measures during 2021 was a purposeful and necessary instrument in crime fighting.

Against this background, it is also positive that the government will ensure that secret coercive measures are used more often, for preventive purposes as well as against persons under 15 years of age.

Madam Speaker! Organized crime and gang violence are so extensive that many today no longer believe it can be solved. People do not believe that Sweden can again become a safe country. People believe that we cannot re-establish law and order. That is wrong. We can and we will turn the development around.

Let me remind you of the spring of 2021. At that time, the shootings suddenly decreased. This was no coincidence, but was largely due to the fact that French police cracked the encryption service Encrochat. In one sweep, 200 people were arrested.

Unfortunately, the effect was short-lived. Others with criminal ambitions took over. Detained criminals were released. Many of those who were convicted received short sentences and were soon set free. The violence continued, and it has become worse.

But here there is an important experience. We know what can be achieved. We know that with continuous pressure, with police resources and with secret coercive measures, we can break down the criminal networks. It is not about creating a surveillance society but about targeted interventions against criminal actors.

In combination with substantial penalties, it will have an effect. More will be sentenced to longer prison terms and more will be deported. It will then become clear to both adults and young people that crime does not pay. The criminal lifestyle will then become less attractive.

Repression is necessary, but it is not enough. We need minimized immigration, increased social stability, stronger social services, more people in work, and a school with more order. We need a society where young people growing up are instilled with healthy values. That is how we can break down the gangs and the gangster culture. This is the way forward. We can and we will reverse the development.

Madam Speaker! It is reassuring that the government is working towards this paradigm shift that is required in the field of criminal policy. A correct use of secret coercive measures is a central part of this. The government's communication also demonstrates this.

With that, Madam Speaker, I request to move for approval of the Committee on Justice's proposal in the report and propose that the Chamber adds the letter to the records.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There was a time when crime victims, witnesses, and others were willing to speak with the police about crimes that had occurred. There was a time when the Swedish police had a high clearance rate of serious violent crimes. There was a time when crimes could often be solved with ordinary interrogations and traditional surveillance.

There was a time when the perpetrators mostly acted alone or perhaps with one accomplice. For the most part, it was solitaries who acted out. There was simply a time when organized crime and criminal networks were unknown concepts in our country. Such things existed in other countries but not here.

It was unthinkable that we would get it. I was there myself when it was being reasoned about. It seemed completely foreign to us in Sweden that we would get the type of crime that perhaps characterizes countries like the USA and Italy.

There was also a time when we believed we could prevent crime with good welfare and social safety nets. There was a time when particularly vulnerable areas were a largely unknown concept. If they existed, they were a metropolitan phenomenon, to the extent that they existed.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, that time is over. Now, organized crime is spreading like a cancerous tumor in the body of society. Now we have a severe violent crime with shootings and explosions that is constantly escalating.

Now we have extensive attacks on our welfare systems where billions disappear into the pockets of criminals. Now we have elderly people who are systematically cheated out of large amounts. The frauds are extensive.

We now have a drug trade that is moving from the street onto the internet. A large part of the street dealing that previously took place now occurs on TikTok, Snapchat and other types of platforms. Now human trafficking and crimes against children are occurring digitally.

Now we have a culture of silence in this country where neither crime victims nor witnesses want or dare to speak out, let alone point out perpetrators, something which naturally leads to a low crime clearance rate. We have a crime clearance rate for serious violent crimes in gang environments that now lies around 20-25 percent. That is clearly not acceptable at all.

It can only be stated that the gross and systematic crime is almost impossible to access without secret coercive measures. Encrypted chats such as Encrochat, Sky and Anom indicate the extent.

Swedish police received great help from foreign police when it came to the investigation, as the previous speaker was mentioning. We can state that without that help, they would not have solved as many violent crimes as they now did.

One could conclude from the decrypted chats that the drug trafficking that occurred and the drug smuggling that existed and brought drugs into the country was considerably more extensive than we previously thought. The statistics that CAN, among others, based itself on turned out to be well below the actual figures.

Madam Speaker! Against that background, it is evident that law enforcement agencies, and primarily the police, are allocating more resources to intelligence activities and online surveillance.

The report we are discussing here today shows that wiretapping and other coercive measures yield good results and that decisions and approvals are scrutinized carefully. From my own experience, I know that no one is prepared to waste time and resources on cases with a poor prognosis.

The problem Swedish police have today is almost that, from among the buffet of cases, they have chosen cases that they have the best possibility of completing and which yield the best outcome. No one wastes time on cases that are largely impossible. They want a high hit rate. The reporting shows that they handle it in a good way.

With this said, I thank the government for a good and comprehensive account. I welcome the government's initiative to now propose the possibility of using coercive measures for preventive purposes and also to give the police the opportunity to use surplus information.

Incidental information is something that is usually generated when using secret coercive measures such as wiretapping, and where one learns about other crimes that are not directly linked to the crime that was the reason for using the coercive measures. It will now become possible to use it with the proposal that is currently before us. I look forward to us getting that possibility.

Crime and the transition to an increasingly digitized world and increased requirements for evidence also require a transformation of crime-fighting work. We can therefore expect an increased need for secret coercive measures and an increased capacity to meet the need.

I believe that the law enforcement authorities, for large parts, must transition and invest more in surveillance on the internet - if we are to call it that - instead of surveillance on the street. Both things are needed, but it will require great resources.

If we are to manage the crime that we now have to deal with, I believe we must – although one might think it is unfortunate that it is so – accept that we have a society where secret coercive measures are of great value for law enforcement activities. In the long run, it is the only possibility for us to get the upper hand over serious and organized crime.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Regardless of what tools we give the police and regardless of what legislative changes we make, we always end up somewhere in that there must be physical persons who can ensure that the new laws are complied with. And then I think of the entire justice chain: police, customs, coast guard, security guards, security officers, protection guards, prosecutors, courts and correctional services.

But what is the purpose of tightening laws, of giving the police new tools, with harsher penalties and with more preventive work? Why was it needed? I believe it is about wanting a safer society, a more secure society - a society where streets and squares, schools, workplaces, youth centers and sports venues and even homes are places where we can feel safe.

When we tighten laws and enact new laws, we do so because society develops and because society changes. Crime also changes. If crime fighting is to be effective, it must also be given new tools and keep pace with the change.

What is crime fighting then? Many might think it is when the police investigate crimes, when the police surveil and intervene against crimes, or when the police respond to crimes in progress. And that is it. That is crime fighting.

But crime fighting is also the preventive work. I often hear political representatives talk about how the police must work more preventively. Not as often do I hear how the preventive work is to be carried out. Let us therefore try to break that down.

I have said this before in this chamber. The police work in three ways: preventive, intervention, and investigative. The more the police can work preventively, the less they need to work interventionally and investigatively. In that way, we can shift more resources to the preventive work.

Madam Speaker! I believe that most will agree on this and think it sounds good that we should work more preventatively. But again: What then is the preventative work, and how is it to be carried out?

For the police, the preventive work is about preventing crimes before they are committed, and preferably before they are even planned. This crime prevention work can also be said to begin in school. But in that case, it is other authorities that should have the responsibility, and I ask to be allowed to elaborate on that at another occasion.

One way to work preventatively for the police, which we also know is effective, is to be present in areas and at places where crimes are often committed. It can, for example, involve the police being on site outside pubs and entertainment venues in connection with closing time. It often has a deterrent effect on public order offenses, and it frequently takes away the desire to fight among intoxicated combatants who might otherwise have ended up in a fight with each other.

We have seen how that type of crime actually even decreases over the years. We can therefore conclude that police presence, the risk of detection and perhaps a reluctance to be arrested by the police contribute to people refraining from committing crimes.

But if the police are to work on crime prevention against serious crime, such as drug smuggling, which is often cross-border, extortion, and also the deadly violence, it must also be allowed to use methods that some may perceive as infringing on privacy. Examples of this can be secret wiretapping of rooms, of telephones, or of computers.

The police must be online. The police must be allowed to work digitally, where crimes are often planned and discussed. If we cannot intercept, we also cannot prevent. I know that these are sensitive methods, and it is important that they are used correctly.

When I read the Prosecution Authority's annual report on how the different types of secret surveillance have been carried out, I note that the number of permits during the years of the 2010s increased, only to actually decrease in later years. Investigators at the police, the Security Service, and the Economic Crime Authority testify that the secret telephone surveillance is necessary in order to be able to conduct effective crime fighting and to be able to work preventatively and preventively.

Madam Speaker! I want to point out and emphasize that I believe it is important that these working methods shall also in the future be subject to oversight and control. It also feels in some way that the political reluctance towards secret surveillance no longer really exists. It is an infringement on personal integrity to collect information about a person, but it is also an infringement on personal integrity to be subjected to a crime. There, we must start thinking much more about the crime victims, and I get a feeling that we are now also doing that.

Not many were directly critical when the police and prosecutors in Sweden were given access to the information that primarily French police had obtained when they succeeded a couple of years ago in decrypting, infiltrating, and reading Encrochat. We have also heard members speak about this previously. The information that came from Encrochat led not only to murders being solved but also to murders being prevented.

Madam Speaker! Criminals have, to the highest degree, moved into the digital world. People communicate, plan, and act much more digitally today. Therefore, the law enforcement authorities must also be given tools so that they can conduct surveillance digitally.

Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2021

The police are already often one or two steps behind the criminals today because new laws and new tools take time to produce. But to be against secret wiretapping or secret data surveillance is the same as closing the door and letting the criminals run wild. And that is not how we shall have it.

Secret coercive measures are crime-preventive work in digital crime-fighting police work. It is good that our authorities have these tools.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

2022 report on the application of the Act on Special Foreigner Control

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