Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2022

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will now handle an account of how the state has used one of its most powerful tools, the so-called secret coercive measures. As these tools are used increasingly extensively for crime prevention and crime-fighting purposes, regulations have also been established for documentation and reporting. These requirements have also been tightened. This is described in the report and is important in this context. There is, in fact, an inherent balance that must be considered.

It is fundamentally a conflict of objectives. When we move the interface between the state's tools and the powers that they entail and the individual's right to integrity and privacy, both of these perspectives must be considered. It is extremely important, even in this time when the challenges regarding a certain type of crime are difficult and complex and tear our society apart.

At the same time, we have a policy that many times leans towards the totalitarian and repressive side. Visitation zones and reporting laws are perhaps some of the more bizarre variants of legislation that are in the works or have been implemented.

When it comes to the many interacting processes for these issues, each individual decision can be completely logical. It is a small step we take. But the combined, overall effect can have consequences we have not accounted for. Hence, there is a need for just that type of reporting that we have on the chamber's table today, but also in other control functions. I know that even the police and prosecutors, who are the ones who primarily use this type of tool, are grateful for and appreciate that they are in place.

An evolution has occurred. In the 40s, it was actually only telephone wiretapping that could be used. But today there are a number of powerful tools that we call secret coercive measures: secret surveillance of electronic communication, secret data retrieval, various types of preventive coercive measures, room bugging, camera surveillance, wiretapping tasks, and surveillance tasks. There are amounts of material that in different ways are intended to provide the police with good information at the preliminary investigation stage to solve crimes.

The tools are much-awaited. And there is great political unity in the chamber that this is fundamentally good. It is important for us to clarify that there is a broad political consensus that these are important tools. We Social Democrats share the government's view that they have done significant good during the year that this report covers.

But again: Think about the balance!

Mr. Speaker! A heavy, central actor in the legislative process in our country, the Council on Legislation, has recently described this trade-off in an interesting way. It is argued that the provisions on secret coercive measures are no longer entirely easily accessible and that they are scattered across different regulations. This, it is argued, makes it difficult to obtain a unified picture of the legislation in the area and of the extent of the intrusion into personal integrity that the individual can be affected by.

The concluding remark in the Council on Legislation's opinion is quite sharp words to be written by a legal pen in the Supreme Court here on the other side of the street. It is argued, namely, that what the overall regulation implies for a democratic society must be taken into account. It does not sound particularly dramatic or harsh, but when it comes from such a pen, it must be taken most seriously.

Furthermore, it is argued that it should be noted that the data collected is stored for an extremely long time, with non-negligible possibilities of using it for purposes other than those originally intended, and that secret coercive measures can also be used against persons who are not or have not been suspected of a crime. We have raised this in the chamber earlier as an aspect of this.

The Council on Legislation argues that a review of this should be made as soon as possible, and we hope that the government listens to the Council on Legislation. We should always listen to the Council on Legislation. There, even Social Democratic governments have some transgressions in their baggage. The Council on Legislation is an institution that has served our country incredibly well through all the years. We should really give some thought to their final judgments on the legislative products presented in this chamber.

In summary, we proceed from the assumption that the government evaluates and follows up on existing as well as announced legislative products in the area and, based on the perspectives I have attempted to highlight in my speech, also handles these issues with the utmost caution. It fundamentally concerns one of the most powerful tools the state has toward its citizens.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the reservation that Miljöpartiet has in this report.

This is a communication that arrives at the Riksdag annually, and it is becoming more and more relevant for us members, especially in the Justice Committee, to contemplate and read through a bit more carefully. The reason it is becoming more and more relevant is, of course, that the use of secret coercive measures has increased and continues to increase, for various reasons.

Perhaps the most important reason is the technical development occurring in almost all areas. For example, camera surveillance is today something completely different than it was ten or twenty years ago. There are also better opportunities to eavesdrop than there have been previously, as well as to access technical equipment and the like.

Another reason, Mr. Speaker, is naturally that serious crime has increased in a way that has made it more important to tackle it. We also have a culture of silence that has spread in many places, where people who have witnessed crimes do not want to or dare not testify. It is therefore important with technical evidence in order to be able to solve crimes that have been committed and convict those who have committed them in court.

Mr. Speaker! Over time, from the Riksdag, with governments of different colors, we have given more tools to the police and lowered the thresholds for when they can be considered for use. More are also in the works.

In the autumn, I debated with the Minister for Justice regarding an interpellation concerning a proposal from my side for compensatory measures when the use of coercive measures increases. The purpose would be to increase integrity or simply compensate for the lack of integrity when the state uses coercive measures. I asked, among other things, whether Strömmer, the Ministry of Justice, and the government could consider developing this proposal in the future. He did not dismiss this but said he would take it with him and consider it. I would like to remind in this context that this is a suggestion that the government is welcome to continue to ponder.

This document has developed over time, and that is good. But I believe there is reason to develop it even further in the future, given that this is something that is being used more.

In the follow-up motion that we from Miljöpartiet have submitted, we also have a concrete proposal for how this can be done, namely that the Prosecution Authority is tasked with producing statistics on how many people receive notification that they have been subject to coercive measures. There are different ways to find out this.

Perhaps the most common thing is that it becomes apparent in court. But in those cases where the coercive measures were not sufficient or - perhaps even more importantly - it turns out that the person was completely innocent, one should, in my opinion, have the right at some point afterwards to find out that coercive measures were used. The general rule is that this should happen. But there is no statistics at the Prosecution Authority on how many they notify.

In the report, there is statistics on how many cases go to the Security and Integrity Protection Authority. We can find out whether it went correctly or not regarding the persons concerned, but it could very well be the case, Mr. Speaker, that the decision itself to use coercive measures was correct, but it still turned out that the person in question was completely innocent. In such cases, one should be informed that one was subjected to this.

The time limit of one year that exists today should, in my and the Miljöpartiets opinion, be extended significantly. It is now one year from the time the preliminary investigation was discontinued. I mean, however, Mr. Speaker, that the interest of the individual to find out this is great even if a very long time needs to pass, for various reasons. It could be due to secrecy reasons or other things related to national security, police methods, or other matters. But the interest, Mr. Speaker, does not become less because a long time has passed, but this is something one should have the right to even if a very long time has passed.

With this, I urge, as I have said, approval of the reservation.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The fight against crime and the restoration of a safe Sweden is the great freedom issue of our time. To enable this, it requires not only a strongly limited migration and that more people leave the country than immigrate and a one-sided focus on harsher punishments, but also increased opportunities for our law enforcement agencies to both detect crimes and collect evidence in order to be able to convict more people.

The freedom of the great mass, we Swedes who behave correctly, is dependent on the lack of freedom for those who contribute to making Sweden a more insecure country. It is for this reason that we have prisons where we lock up people for different lengths of time depending on which crimes they have committed, some for a short time and others for life.

It is when we get dangerous people off the streets that society becomes safer. We do this through various types of preventive measures so that people do not choose a criminal life, but for our part in the Justice Committee, those crime-preventing measures are primarily about giving our authorities more tools to be able to detect crime as well as, not least, the possibility of incarceration. If you are in prison, it is difficult to commit crimes or recruit others into criminal activity.

Today we are debating the reporting of the use of secret coercive measures during 2022. This concerns our law enforcement agencies' possibilities for surveillance of electronic communication, secret camera surveillance, secret room surveillance, and secret data retrieval. It is a necessary evil that reduces the freedom of Sweden's criminals but increases the possibility for our authorities to detect crimes and collect evidence in order to be able to convict more people. These are necessary measures that make Sweden a safer and thus freer country.

Mr. Speaker! As a consequence of the increased crime in society, we see in the report that the use of secret coercive measures has increased in recent years. With more crime-active people on our streets, the consequence is that more people are being monitored, on good grounds, and more probably will be.

In the Tidö Agreement, the Sweden Democrats and the government agree on more measures that will result in secret coercive measures being used both more often and in more situations than today. Since October 1 of last year, it has been possible to wiretap persons within the gang criminal environment for preventive purposes, and the Tidö parties agree to also make it possible to wiretap persons who are under 15 years old.

Mr. Speaker! 232 percent. That was the increase in the number of fatal shootings during the red-green government, from 19 fatal shootings in 2014 to 63 in 2022. The previous government gave us the most fatal shootings per capita in the entire EU, six times more than in our Nordic neighboring countries combined, more than in the United Kingdom, and more in Södertälje alone than in all of London.

Mr. Speaker! It is this disorder that the Sweden Democrats and the new government have to sort out, and with the help of the Tidö Agreement, we are taking the first steps towards a safer Sweden.

Many of the issues that are now becoming reality are such as those that the Sweden Democrats have long championed in the Swedish Riksdag, issues that actually should have been in place a long time ago.

In January, we doubled the penalty for aggravated weapons offenses. Now, those who carry weapons in public will receive at least four years in prison. When the doubled penalties for gang criminals are in place, they will have to serve at least eight years. A few years ago, the minimum sentence was only one year in prison.

In February, preventive stay bans were introduced. In March, we introduce the possibility of establishing visitation zones. In April, we introduce strengthened protection for certain police officers. In May, we introduce increased opportunities to evict criminals. In June, we get new forfeiture legislation so that the police will be able to seize even more belongings from criminals. In July, we will have even more secret coercive measures in place.

Mr. Speaker! Much is in motion. The Sweden Democrats and the government are well on the way to creating a Sweden that is both safer and freer.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since 1983, members have stood in this rostrum and delivered speeches after having taken part in the presentation of how the rules on secret interception of electronic communications have been applied during the past year.

Since then, since 1983, a long series of coercive measures have been added: secret surveillance of electronic communications, secret camera surveillance, secret room bugging, secret data retrieval, coercive measures according to the Act on Measures to Prevent Certain Particularly Serious Crimes - the so-called preventive law - and measures according to the Act on the Retrieval of Data on Electronic Communications in the Intelligence Activities of Law Enforcement Authorities, the so-called retrieval law. The account now also includes the use of secret coercive measures in the Security Service's activities.

That these coercive measures have been added is due to the fact that crime has evolved. They have been necessary to combat crime.

That the powers of the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority to use secret coercive measures have increased is something that the parties in the Riksdag have largely agreed on, which is good and important. But it is essential that legal certainty is maintained and that the legislation is applied in the manner that was the Riksdag's intention. The report that the government submits annually to the Riksdag regarding the use of secret coercive measures is therefore important.

In a constitutional state, the right to protection of private and family life is central. For effective crime fighting, it is simultaneously necessary that there are sufficient powers for the law enforcement authorities to use covert coercive measures in certain cases.

I want to emphasize here the word "necessary". It is necessary partly against the background of the development of crime with more advanced criminal networks and partly because we have developed a widespread culture of silence. There is, among many, a justified fear of testifying. There is, among others, an unwillingness to do so.

In order for secret coercive measures to continue to be accepted in our free and democratic society, however, both the need and the utility must be sufficiently great. That is the case, I can state when I review this document.

In the individual case, there is a fundamental requirement for permission that the measure must be of particular importance for the investigation. That expression contains a quality requirement. Furthermore, the information that can be accessed must, in principle, not be accessible through other, less intrusive methods.

In a holistic perspective, the authorities' reporting shows that the secret coercive measures fulfill an important function for the crime investigation work. They have provided a real benefit.

Mr. Speaker! The use of secret coercive measures can be put into relation to the extent of the serious and organized crime. Approximately 30,000 individuals are linked to this crime, according to the Police Authority. We can see, for example, that 365 people were subject to secret data interception - 365 people out of 30,000 people. I therefore think the previous speaker's big words about extensive surveillance echo somewhat hollow.

I personally see it as a positive development that the use of secret coercive measures is increasing and that we will soon give the police additional opportunities in the form of powers but also expanded resources so that they get better opportunities to use the powers they already have.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the Committee on Justice's proposal in the report that the communication be added to the records.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is serious issues that we are discussing now.

It is without doubt that very many feel concern regarding organized crime and the extensive violent activities it has managed to carry out, both with weapons and with explosives.

But it is also the case that we must take it very seriously how we intervene so that we do it in the best possible way. In that regard, Vänsterpartiet is more critical than the government parties and the Tidö parties are.

The reporting we have before us now has developed over the years. Vänsterpartiet has, by demanding tightenings, been able to contribute to this continuously. It is now somewhat clearer how these coercive measures are used than it was previously.

Something that is also problematic and that previous speakers have pointed out, not least the Council on Legislation, is that one can question how many steps one can take regarding secret coercive measures before it has reached an unacceptable limit.

The benefit of each individual reform has been quite clear, but we still know very little about what the cumulative effect will be. What can be questioned, and which are the main arguments, is that there are risks of lack of legal certainty and flaws in proportionality. The question is also whether we even know anything about the effectiveness. These arguments have been relevant and remain so.

It is very clear that it is a complex and difficult task to describe the utility of coercive measures. The Government says that it is very difficult and that it is also not possible to describe a target for, for example, how the clearance rate should change or how collected material should be weighed in the balance when it comes to legal certainty and efficiency. That is understandable. It is not possible to weigh this in advance.

What has also been reported among the gathered information is that suspicions against suspects have been strengthened, that a number of additional coercive measures may have been taken so that one has become more confident in its assessments and has been able to conduct more effective surveillance. One has also, which I would like to emphasize, been able to rule out suspects from being part of a group. A person has thus been able to be a suspect, but it has been seen that there is no longer a reason for it. It has also become possible to prosecute.

It is however only with these words that the government reflects and tries to convey what the authorities have reported. We get no figures. It is very difficult to say to what extent suspicions have been sharpened or diminished. Some things could lead to further interrogations and perhaps even new persons. But it is again about quite vague information.

It is said that this has fulfilled a very important function. That is not something we are certain about. But I can very well understand that the professionals long to have tools to resort to and sometimes act a little desperately.

Another task in the government's communication concerns instances where a rejection was received and not in court. There is a very low frequency of rejections. The government interprets this as the courts having made correct assessments, but the question is whether one can draw that conclusion. Can we even know if the court had relevant underlying material or if they had to work under great time pressure?

As a Left Party member, I question how far we should go in this development. Some have listed measures to continue with. I do not repeat the reforms that are about to be rolled out, but I raise the question of where the limit lies. How close are we to a surveillance society? This risks taking us away from democracy.

What has been happening for decades is that we have taken steps in a dangerous direction, I want to say. We take risks both for the social climate as a whole and for democracy in the long term. It is difficult to oversee. The question is whether some of these things create a false sense of security. We might think we are doing more than we actually do when it comes to efficiency.

We as a society have invested an enormous amount and provided great economic resources, not least to the police, so that they can sharpen their efforts. In recent days, we have been able to rejoice at media reports that, for example, Stockholm has been quite free from shootings for several months. It has been somewhat unique. It is naturally a positive development. But what is the cause of that? Is it that more money has been invested and that one has had the secret coercive measures, or is it as some also say, that the police have finally started to work more effectively in their internal organization, been able to link several crimes and act on a sharper front? There are researchers who argue that this has made it so that we have come further with crime fighting today.

Vänsterpartiet argues that more and other crime-preventive measures are needed. If the government – perhaps somewhat desperately – proceeds with these controls and introduces more and more measures that threaten safety and trust in the police, it may become counterproductive. It may cause harm while some believe it is doing good. It may risk making the work against criminalization more difficult and creating trust gaps in the relationship with the police and society at large. This would, in that case, mean that fewer people contact the police to provide information and other support. It would therefore become harder to combat crime.

It would naturally be desirable if we could see cause and effect more clearly. It is very difficult to do, but what we know from research is that early crime-preventive measures, also for small children in risk environments and even more so if they are individual, have an effect. This means that we all must carefully follow the developments both regarding secret coercive measures and regarding how we can act with other crime-preventive tasks.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 February.)

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