Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2023

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! We shall now debate the reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2023. For everyone listening, I want to state that the legislation specifies that the government shall every year report to the Riksdag how the use of the secret coercive measures has looked, but also present the utility of them.

Briefly, it can be said that the document looks roughly as it has during previous years. One can see that there is a utility with secret coercive measures. This very toolbox has been significantly expanded during the recent parliamentary terms, both under the Social Democratic government and under the current government.

In the report, one can take note of both the government's own picture as well as the authorities' picture. In a number of instances in different cases, the utility of secret coercive measures is demonstrated. To a greater extent than before, they have been able to prevent murder, drug smuggling, and violent crimes. The changes that have been implemented in recent years have meant that they have been able to use surplus information from surveillance. It has contributed to them being able to prosecute more people and to what is perhaps the most important utility of the coercive measures, namely being able to move a preliminary investigation forward.

We Social Democrats see how serious crime has developed, but we also see how technical aids have developed in recent years. Therefore, we have stood behind many of the new tools that have been proposed and developed in recent years so that crime fighting in Sweden should become more effective.

The coercive measures we are talking about today are secret surveillance of electronic communications, secret camera surveillance, secret room bugging, and secret data interception. It is also about reinforcements in the so-called preventive law so that the tools can be used to strike before serious crime or terrorist crimes have been committed.

It is important to say that the material that is collected can also be used more broadly so that one can unravel serious crime and thus be more effective.

But the task of politics is twofold. It is not only about strengthening the capabilities of law enforcement agencies to perform effective work, but from our perspective, it is also about guarding civil rights and freedoms and, in a constitutional state, protecting personal privacy and the right to private and family life. This is an important balance for us Social Democrats – that we uphold these individual freedoms despite the developments we see regarding coarse organized crime in our country.

We have been very constructive in opposition, and in government position we have been very quick to introduce the tools that our law enforcement agencies request. But in recent years we have also noted the criticism that has come from the Council on Legislation and voices outside the chamber of the Riksdag, but also from us Social Democrats here in the chamber. These are voices that have said that a unified grip is required regarding all secret coercive measures to see how these are used and to get a unified picture of all the new tools that have been introduced and the tools that have had an effect over the last month.

The government has finally, after a great deal of pressure, returned to the chamber and appointed an inquiry to carry out this review. We Social Democrats welcome this but think it took a bit too long.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, we have seen how crime has developed and become more technically skilled. Technical possibilities have been utilized in order to commit all types of more serious crime.

We Social Democrats believe that a crime policy is required that looks at at least two sides of the coin. It is about first strengthening the toolbox and giving the law enforcement authorities tools to access the crime that occurs online or in secret – in hidden premises or out of sight. But we believe it is also about strengthening the police's local presence. A strongly locally present police force with strong networks is, I believe and we believe, among the most important tools to break the crime that we see growing stronger in Sweden.

The SD government needs to see the whole picture. During the spring, the explosions have increased. In recent weeks, the shootings have intensified, and we have followed with horror how young people have had to end their lives just north of Stockholm, in Uppsala. More and more young people are being drawn into the gangs. The recruitment tap is wide open. The government must absolutely give the police more tools so that they can also work with secret coercive measures. But take off the blindfold! It is not enough to just tinker with that toolbox while the gangs lure more and more people into serious crime.

We see how the steel bath that the government has put the country's municipalities, social services, schools, and also families in in no way facilitates the police's opportunities to break the recruitment. If we are to succeed in the task of increasing safety for everyone and ensuring that we combat crime, it requires repression with precision.

The government is currently conducting a one-sided policy. They went to the election on a promise to increase safety, reduce crime, combat shootings and explosions, and reduce the gangs' grip on society, but instead, they have delivered increased insecurity and a society that is more dangerous. The result is continued deadly violence, records in explosions, and welfare that has been starved, where gang leaders are allowed to run health centers and HVB homes.

We mean that it requires an entire society, a strong society, where we together take up this fight. For this to become a reality, a new direction for politics and new approaches are required, which mean that we both break the recruitment, give the authorities the right tools, and reach the gang leaders.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! If the member's purpose with this propagandistic speech was to make the audience dumber and misinformed, he succeeded. In a political debate, there are, of course, different perceptions of reality. One has different values and makes different analyses of problems, and one can have different proposals for measures – that is completely natural. But your description of reality is completely absurd.

You say that the government's policy is one-sided. The government has a comprehensive strategy to combat both gang crime and organized crime. When it comes to organized crime, the strategy is based on three pillars: strike hard against gross violence, break the new recruitment, and crush the criminal economy.

You describe that crime, the gross violence, has never been worse and that it is increasing. I just want to inform the member that the explosions decreased last year, in total. The shootings have decreased for two years in a row. With that said, every bombing and every explosive attack is of course very serious. The goal must of course be that this continues to decrease and that we totally crush organized crime. But your description of reality is simply objectively incorrect.

You also use very many incomprehensible metaphors. You speak repeatedly about tools, but you never specify what you mean. I assume the member does not mean hammers and saws.

You are welcome to provide a more accurate description of reality and facts for the school students who are here today, and you are also welcome to explain which tools you mean.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

For the reasons stated, I would like to remind [the members] of the rules of address in the chamber. According to Swedish parliamentary custom, the speaker formally addresses their speech to the Speaker. This means that direct address between speakers, such as saying "you" or "you" (plural) to one another, should not occur.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kärrholm, for the contribution to this debate!

In my reality, it has been this far that 79 explosions have occurred in this country this year, and in January we experienced a record wave with 38 explosions. Half of them occurred in our constituency, Stockholm. I would like to say that there is much in this country that needs to be done better.

We have seen how the violence continues to claim ever younger victims, and we see how the government is one-sided in the sense that they are doing nothing about the recruitment. One thing we have been able to note during the SD government's time in power is how more and more young people are standing on corners and are being lured into serious crime by the gangs. This is not a picture that is fabricated or made up; it is enough to read the newspaper, talk to people affected by the violence, and meet families and relatives of the children and young people who are drawn into these gangs, or families who in the worst cases have lost their children. This is no invention, but it is fact and truth.

In the worst crisis we have experienced together in recent years, where the gangs and organized crime have put Sweden in this situation with all the more violent crime, we must ensure that we break the new recruitment. That requires a social service that has the right resources, a school that can give all children a chance to pass school, and not least families who can put food on the table and give their children security, warmth, leisure activities, and love.

In the worst economic crisis in decades, the government has also caused the worst school crisis. It is not I who am making this up, but it is Sveriges Lärare who has said it. What does Fredrik Kärrholm think is most important, that we give money to the school to participate in this or that we lower the tax for high-income earners?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! I apologize for the incorrect address. I blame it on the fact that I have been a father for three months. But now I will sharpen up.

The member begins their answer with "in my reality". Again: There is only one reality.

Let me correct the member when he once again resorts to direct falsehoods and inaccuracies when he says that the government is doing nothing to break the new recruitment. I can give some examples that the member is welcome to Google after this debate: expanded parental support programs, a completely new Social Services Act, a changed social worker education, and increased information exchange between school, police, and social services, as well as an ambition to place more children in need in qualified parental support homes. The list can be made much longer.

My question concerned which tools were requested. I note that I did not receive any answer to that. The member instead describes a goal of a well-functioning school and that all children should receive safety and love. It is, of course, a goal that we share. But I would have wished for a more substantive debate where we did not behave like Trump but actually behaved in an honest way towards objective circumstances. Then we could have had a proper and substantive discussion about which measures we propose and want to implement instead of falsely standing and claiming that the government is doing nothing to break the new recruitment, because that simply is not true. Instead, present criticism in substance!

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for another contribution here in this debate!

I mentioned a number of tools in the toolbox of secret coercive measures that we have absolutely stood behind. We have been involved and been constructive so that this should become a reality, both under previous governments when we ourselves put forward the proposals and under the current government when Kärrholm's party is at the helm.

What I wanted to point out is that we had 79 explosions during the first four to five months of this year. There were 60 shootings with 14 injured and 25 killed, many of them children. It is a reality described in, among other things, the Swedish Police Authority's statistics and documentation. It is absolutely possible to google it, but it is also possible to read about it in the newspaper or to meet the people who are affected by the reckless violence.

We also see how more and more children and young people are queuing into this deadly everyday life, and we receive alarm reports from, for example, Sveriges Lärare, which say that it is the worst school crisis since the 1990s. Fredrik Kärrholm's party, Moderaterna, has – together with Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna – instead of investing money in strengthening the school and social services and in expanding preventive measures, chosen to lower taxes for high-income earners.

That the Finance Minister could not say what she wanted to do with 3,000 kronor extra per month says quite a lot when there are children standing in line to join the gangs to commit violent crimes. Had we been allowed to decide, that tax cut would not have gone to high-income earners but instead to strengthening the school's, social services', youth centers' and families' ability to resist the gangs. This is what I have pointed out. It requires a policy that both has the right tools in the toolbox and ensures that no children are subjects of the gangs' short-sighted ideas about quick money.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that this debate is about the use of secret coercive measures during 2023.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 3.

Generally, it can be said that the communication from the government aims to describe as objectively as possible the utility of the various coercive measures. The relevant authorities have reported, among other things, on whether such information has led to strengthened suspicions against the suspect, to another coercive measure, to whether more effective surveillance has been able to be carried out, to situations where suspects have been able to be removed from the investigation, or to whether the suspect has been able to be indicted. Furthermore, an attempt has been made to describe how the coercive measures have constituted a basis in interrogation situations or have been used as surplus information, and whether the information has contributed to the investigation of proceeds of crime, i.e., economic gains.

There are a lot of figures in the reports, and they are of course reproduced in what the government has summarized in its communication. But the question is really: What type of crime has one been able to prevent? And what type of suspicions has one been able to dismiss? We get no actual measures of this, and I do not know if I should wish for them either.

Detailed reports also create new questions. But I want to point out that this is a very blunt report. It does not say everything about the reality that we obviously experience in very different ways.

It is also interesting that we from the Committee on Justice have been invited both to the Prosecution Authority and actually just now this morning to the Police Authority to receive an account of how they view the use of secret coercive measures and coercive measures in general. We should not be too surprised that different professional groups love their tools and would like to have more. But there we, as politicians, must also dare to evaluate which tools at least seem to be effective. Are they in proportion to the encroachments they entail on personal integrity? Do they have other risks? I mean that we do not have full control over this. I will return to the evaluation.

I also want to mention the Swedish Security Service's Integrity Protection Board. The Board has the task of exercising extra control and can also receive reports. We from Vänsterpartiet consider this an important function, and it needs to be strengthened. It is therefore why we move for approval of reservation 3, which entails exactly this.

When one reads the committee's annual report, one can see that there has been reason for intervention. Inaccuracies have been discovered. In some cases, they have been so serious that they have been reported to the Chancellor of Justice, because it is argued that they entail a liability for damages for the state. It is not many cases involved, but it is a number.

I also want to bring up some of the oversight cases that arise on an individual's initiative. A person can, for example, report and question whether he or she is being monitored or not. The Committee considers that a very extensive amount of work is required to be able to ensure whether it has occurred or not. This also shows that it is not so simple to assess these interventions. The Committee reports that in many cases it can even take months for the Office to review and analyze data, even if it only concerns a single person.

Many times we discuss investigations that are to affect large groups where one might have to proceed successively. A decision regarding the surveillance of one person can lead further to a multitude. In that case, it is important that the police and prosecutors, in the best case with a court order behind them, make correct assessments. Personal surveillance with, for example, room bugging involves very strong intrusions.

I belong to those who, on behalf of the Left Party, have many times in this speaker's chair called for a summary: What do the amount of reforms that have been delivered during the recent decades mean when it comes to limitations of personal privacy? One comes closer and closer to us as individuals. One can have listening microphones in our homes and so on. What does this mean all told?

The government has now appointed a so-called investigation. Here I become critical. It is a one-person investigation. Why are we parliamentarians not allowed to be involved? It would be a way to guarantee that we get a broader illumination of the issues that we have often discussed in the chamber.

This investigation is really not solely about assessing what concerns personal integrity and potential violations of human rights. What is raised before all else is that a review is desired so that one can become more efficient and clear in the regulations and so that one can improve the possibilities of using coercive measures in crime fighting. In that case, the message is twofold. I can agree that we should have the two purposes. But when one has many "that" clauses focusing on crime prevention and a small line about personal integrity, it is not as impressive and pleasing as we would wish.

We have many times here in the chamber discussed the development that has been ongoing throughout the 2000s. We mean that we risk ending up in a surveillance society at an ever faster pace. The question of human rights is repeatedly sidelined. It creates concern in the current social climate and regarding what may come further. The ultimate threat is directed against democracy.

I would really wish, like the previous speaker, that we would invest much more in preventive activities. The government is not at all as ready to invest in strengthening that, especially not when it comes to financial support.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2023. In accordance with the Riksdag's request, the government has since 1983 reported how the rules on secret interception of electronic communication have been applied during the past year. In this spring's debate – this debate – it is therefore about the use during 2023.

Secret coercive measures are, therefore, what we in everyday speech call secret interception and surveillance of electronic communications, secret camera surveillance, secret room surveillance, and postal control.

What makes this specific report extra interesting is that the Sweden Democrats and the government, on October 1, 2023, enabled the use of preventive coercive measures in significantly more cases than before. One can now, in significantly more cases, wiretap gang criminals for preventive purposes, i.e., already before a crime has been committed. These measures were used during the last three months of the year in 106 cases, and they concerned 67 people.

Already in February 2024, less than half a year after the new law entered into force, the police could announce that they had seized money, weapons and drugs and arrested over 30 people thanks to the new legislation. Today, when the law has been in force for over a year and a half, the police can state that our changes regarding specifically secret coercive measures have been some of the most important changes of the legislation in order to be able to prevent serious crimes and push back serious crime.

The changes to the legislation on secret coercive measures are however only a small part of the battery of measures that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have delivered – and will deliver – during the course of the mandate period.

Let me give an example of what our new laws can mean in practice when this battery of measures is fully implemented:

The police establish a search zone where they can search persons without suspicion. They do this in a location where, with the help of preventive coercive measures, they have received information that a serious crime may be committed. During a search, a loaded weapon is discovered.

Thanks to the fact that we have doubled the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses and that the legislation gives gang criminals double the punishment, a person can spend at least eight years in prison. He is allowed to do so despite being 18 years old, because the youth discount has now been abolished for serious crimes. This takes place at an institution in a country in the Baltics with which we have entered into an agreement to receive our prison-sentenced individuals.

The person is not released on parole after two-thirds of the sentence. After the sentence is served, the person is deported from Sweden, because the question of deportation must always be examined in court and because ties to Sweden shall now play a lesser role. Finally, the person's car is seized, because the car's value is not in proportion to the person's income.

There you have ten concrete measures from the Sweden Democrats and the government that have either been implemented or will be implemented during the course of this mandate period.

Without the new legislation, the person, if he had even been discovered at all, would have been a free man in Sweden after less than a year in detention. The police would not have been able to establish a visitation zone. They would not have been able to discover that the crime was going to be committed with the help of preventive measures. He had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment due to the youth discount and released after two-thirds of the sentence. He would not have received double punishment because he is a gang criminal. He would also not have been deported from Sweden, as the deportation issue does not necessarily have to be examined in court. And if it had been examined, one would have taken his connection to Sweden into account. His car would still have been his.

That, my friends, is the difference between the politics of the Tidö parties and the politics of the divided opposition. This is the choice that awaits the voters in September 2026. Do you want a policy that remains offensive against the gangs? Or do you want a divided left-wing policy where you don't know what you're getting – but you know that they say no to most things?

The fight against gang crime and organized crime is not won. There is a long way to go. There is much more to be done. But many curves are nevertheless pointing in the right direction. The shootings have decreased by a third over the last two years after having increased by over 300 percent during the Socialdemokraternas government's time. The explosions decreased during last year.

But why do we still not see clearer results of the policy that has actually been implemented? One of the answers could actually be about the deficiencies that have existed in the crime prevention work. The guys who are recruited into the gangs today attended preschool when the Social Democrats last had the chance to govern this country. Then they attended a primary school and high school governed by Social Democrats. They received help from a Social Democratic social service. Perhaps they are recruited at a Social Democratic youth center.

The opposition's track record regarding preventive work is under all criticism. It is the fruits of that which we see today when people are shot and stairwells are blown up.

Fortunately, new legislation is now coming on a rolling basis. The Sweden Democrats and the government are going head-to-head against the gangs and organized crime. Crime victims are in focus, and gang criminals can expect both longer sentences and harder batons.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The powers of the Police Authority and the Prosecution Authority to use secret coercive measures have increased. This is something that the parties in the Riksdag have largely agreed on. During the autumn of 2023, a law was introduced to allow the preventive use of coercive measures in certain cases, when it concerns serious crime. Miljöpartiet has in all material respects stood behind these reforms. I would, however, like to point out today that it is very important to maintain a focus on legal certainty.

The communication that the government sends annually to the Riksdag regarding the use of secret coercive measures – which is what we are talking about here today – therefore becomes all the more important, we believe.

We believe there are reasons to develop the report and improve the statistics. There are statistics on how many people, due to confidentiality, have not been notified that they have been subject to secret coercive measures. These are figures provided to the Security and Integrity Protection Authority. One task that is not included in the government's report is how many notifications the Prosecution Authority gives to persons who have been subject to secret coercive measures. This should also be included, not least so that it can be seen how common it is that persons are not notified due to confidentiality.

The government should also consider a regulation regarding the use of surplus information, so that the reporting of how this surplus information is used is clarified. It is also important, we believe, that the supervision of how secret coercive measures are used is strengthened.

As a consequence of the thresholds being lowered for the use of secret coercive measures, and that it now also occurs for preventive purposes, the workload for the supervisory authority, the Security and Integrity Protection Board, has increased significantly in recent years. This board needs to be strengthened both in terms of resources and powers so that the use of coercive measures does not occur on incorrect grounds.

Madam Speaker! In February, the Government tasked a special investigator with conducting a review of the rules regarding secret and preventive coercive measures. We in Miljöpartiet naturally welcome this, but we have not withdrawn our reservation concerning precisely the importance of conducting a comprehensive review. This is, of course, because the investigator has just begun their assignment and at this point it is difficult to assess whether the result will correspond to what Miljöpartiet is seeking.

The review shall be carried out with the aim of achieving a more efficient and clear regulation and to improve the possibilities of using coercive measures in crime fighting. The investigator shall, among other things, conduct an analysis of the consequences of the collective regulation for personal integrity – something that Miljöpartiet has repeatedly requested. The investigator shall also, among other things, evaluate the application of the expanded possibilities to use secret and preventive coercive measures and map out the benefit these have brought for crime fighting in general and – I am now reading from the assignment to the investigator – analyze the need and benefit of and propose a possibility to disrupt and interrupt ongoing crimes or criminal activities in a cyber environment, or take other comparable measures in such an environment, with the aim of improving the crime-fighting authorities' collective ability to intervene against such crime.

As a former speaker was in, it is difficult to judge exactly what this investigation will come to. It will be a review that looks at consequences for privacy, but there may also be further proposals regarding more secret preventive measures, which makes it even more necessary that this review is detailed and correct.

We in Miljöpartiet look forward to taking part in the review when it arrives in May next year, and we naturally hope that it leads to a legally sound and clear regulation and that the investigation makes a thorough analysis of the consequences of the use of coercive measures for the protection of personal integrity.

In the assignment to the investigator, the government also emphasizes that there may be reasons to map out how today's system of notifying individuals about secret and preventive coercive measures works in practice and consider whether that regulation should be changed, for example in such a way that only the Security and Integrity Protection Board shall be notified of the use of coercive measures. The investigator shall also take a position on how the annual reporting of the use of secret and preventive coercive measures shall be carried out. This is also something that we in Miljöpartiet have requested.

A couple of weeks ago, I submitted a written question to Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer regarding the reporting of how many times the law enforcement tool secret data extraction has been used. The difference between the reports from the Prosecution Authority and the Security and Integrity Protection Board differed drastically. This could be read about in various media reports.

The Bar Association pointed out in this regard that it is important that the reporting is correct, because "secret coercive measures involve a violation of human civil and political rights and one must be vigilant that they are not used disproportionately, both at the societal and individual level." We in Miljöpartiet agree with this.

I received an answer from the Minister for Justice, who stated that the reported numbers refer to different things – there is a rather complicated explanation of in what way – and for that reason, the reported figures do not match. The Minister further stated, however, that it is "important that the reporting is done in the best possible way and that there is no room for misinterpretations." We truly agree with this. The investigation that we have mentioned earlier today was also commissioned for that reason, the Minister stated.

The design of the annual report we are debating here today shall be reviewed. We in Miljöpartiet naturally welcome this. We will follow how this work proceeds, and we look forward to receiving the proposals. We also, of course, look forward to receiving future reports to the Riksdag and ensuring that they function in the best possible way.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the rules on how secret interception of electronic communications and such has been applied in preliminary investigations and for preventive purposes during the past year.

In recent years, the possibilities for this have been expanded, which is justified by the criminal developments that have unfortunately affected Sweden. That the police's powers to use secret coercive measures have increased is significant, partly against the background of the number of serious crimes, and partly because we have received a widespread culture of silence. Among many, there is both a fear and an unwillingness to cooperate with the police and to testify. Therefore, these secret coercive measures are immensely important in the crime investigation work.

They have provided a real benefit for identifying suspects, providing a basis for interrogations, enabling house searches and seizures, and finally as evidence for prosecution and to contribute to convictions.

When we now give the police greater and better opportunities to investigate crimes – we ensure that more criminals are prosecuted and that more criminals are sentenced to longer prison terms – it does not only mean that we prevent the crimes of high-activity criminals. It also hinders their opportunities to recruit new members.

We have talked a lot about new recruitment in the debate here today. The Crime Prevention Council points out very clearly that a prerequisite for this recruitment to occur is that older criminals are active in the children's residential areas. When we lock up the criminals, we prevent recruitment and provide better conditions for good forces – parents, teachers, leisure leaders, sports coaches and so on – to ensure that the children stay on the right course in life.

There is no contradiction between secret coercive measures, severe punishments and increased prosecution on one hand and social crime prevention work on the other. On the contrary, the former contributes to the latter.

Madam Speaker! Our well-meaning friends on the left have expressed a skepticism towards the police having these extended powers. They are concerned about an all-too extensive surveillance of the citizens. This is neither justified nor rational.

The use of secret coercive measures can be put into relation to the extent of serious and organized crime. For example, secret data retrieval covered 331 people during the year 2023 – 331 people. This can be put into relation to the fact that the Swedish Police Authority assesses that there are 14,000 individuals who are active in criminal networks and additionally 48,000 people who have connections to these criminal networks.

Reporting on the use of secret coercive measures during 2023

If any problem is to be debated here, it is not that too many are being wiretapped, but that too few are being wiretapped. The use of secret coercive measures needs to increase, and now that the police are receiving expanded resources, the conditions are being created for exactly this.

Madam Speaker! The use of covert measures is not only significant for investigating crimes but also for preventing crimes. Last year, we ensured that the police received increased opportunities to use covert measures for preventive purposes. We are now ensuring that covert measures can also be used in a reasonable manner when children under the age of 15 are involved in and suspected of crimes. I look forward to upcoming reports that can show what results these legislative changes have achieved.

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

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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