The National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, previous governments have unfortunately created a social climate where large parts of the justice policy debate concern gang crime and organized crime. That did not have to be the case. The situation has arisen due to poor political decisions from governments on both the right and the left.

Today, however, we are debating the National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons. It is an issue that, not least, concerns many of the women and children in Sweden who are in need of restraining orders - not infrequently, it concerns a violent former partner or father. Violence in close relationships is a huge problem that primarily affects women and children, but also increasingly boys living in a culture of honor where they, like their sisters, are controlled and not allowed to choose a partner on their own.

Since 2011, the Swedish Crime Prevention Council has reported statistics on fatal violence broken down by gender. The number of women killed has annually been between 21 and 33. The perpetrator is almost always a partner, a former partner, or another person in the woman's vicinity. Violence and fatal violence against women is a societal problem that should receive at least as much attention as the violence from the criminal gangs.

The purpose of the National Audit Office's review has been to assess whether the state is working effectively to protect threatened persons. The review has focused specifically on restraining orders, on the Swedish Police Authority's crime victim and personal security activities, as well as on the protection of personal data. The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the state is not working sufficiently effectively to protect threatened persons. This is partly because the state cannot always ensure that those who need protection are granted it, and partly because the protection is not always effective.

When things and matters do not go as politicians wish, they usually exclaim: This is a failure for society. But the truth is that it is a failure for the politicians who made the decisions that put us in a situation where the state cannot ensure that the persons who need protection are granted protection.

This makes me think of last week's most debated event. Nytorgsmannen has been remanded in custody for another rape by violence.

Let me be very clear now. You politicians who say that longer sentences do not work are the last ones who should complain when yet another woman has been subjected to this sick man. It is your parties that have pursued the policy that results in a serial rapist being sentenced to five years in prison, being released after two-thirds of the sentence, and after two months with an electronic tag committing another rape. This is not a failure for society, but it is a failure of your pathetic politics.

Fortunately, Sweden has had a new leadership since 2022. It is a leadership where the Sweden Democrats play an important role. Before this mandate period ends, we have tightened the penalties for sexual offenses. We will abolish parole, and we will abolish today's form of sentence discounting. We will also introduce what is called a detention sentence. It is a non-time-limited punishment which means that persons like Nytorgsmannen will not be released until the assessment has been made that the person is healthy enough to be released.

With Sverigedemokratisk policy, people like the Nytorg man would not have been released. With Sverigedemokratisk policy, women are protected.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons is no exception. The state is not working effectively enough to protect threatened persons. The contact prohibition inquiry presented its proposals for improvements to contact prohibitions in February 2024. The proposals would, among other things, involve increased possibilities to decide on larger prohibition areas than today, which is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. In the reservations to the report, the opposition parties refer to the contact prohibition inquiry. It is currently being prepared at the ministry, where work is ongoing with a referral to the Council on Legislation in the matter.

In view of this, the Committee on Justice considers that the motions should be dismissed. The intentions of the investigation into contact prohibitions will be implemented before the end of the mandate period. The Committee also views positively the measures that the Government, the Swedish Police Authority, and the Swedish Prosecution Authority have taken and intend to take, among other things, in view of the Swedish National Audit Office's observations and recommendations. This concerns initiatives for legislative changes regarding both contact prohibitions and the Swedish Tax Agency's forwarding of mail to persons with protected personal data, as well as several agency assignments and so on.

In view of this, I move for the rejection of all motion proposals with reference to ongoing work.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind that ongoing legal proceedings are something that we do not debate in the chamber.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! This matter concerns the government's communication in connection with the National Audit Office's review of the state's protection of threatened persons. I will begin my speech by speaking generally about violence against women. In conclusion, I intend to highlight our reservation regarding restraining orders, which I already wish to move for approval of.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women is the ultimate proof of an unequal society. The violence can be physical, psychological, economic, material, and sexual, and it is so widespread that it is classified as a structural societal and public health problem. Violence against women is a violation of bodily integrity and women's fundamental freedoms and rights and is, of course, a criminal act.

In Sweden, an estimated 28,000 people live with a confidentiality marking or protected population registration. The women and children living hidden in flight from a life-threatening man are among the most vulnerable in society. When the threat is honor-related, the situation can be extra dangerous, as it may involve several people whom the woman needs protection from, and then all contact with all family members often needs to be broken.

Post-violence also needs to be mentioned in this context. That term denotes the violence the perpetrator continues to exert against the victim after she has left the relationship. It is therefore, despite the word, a highly ongoing violence that often escalates and becomes most dangerous precisely when the woman flees and is about to leave the man. Examples of post-violence are threats, stalking, economic extortion, and other types of harassment. What perhaps upsets and affects us most is when the man uses the children as a weapon to harm the victim, for example in custody disputes.

The starting shot for violence is often psychological violence. Many testify to this, and unfortunately, it is not yet criminalized in Sweden and is therefore difficult to address.

Many women living in hiding testify to a very lonely and difficult existence where society's support fails on several levels. It is, for example, about children's rights to safe schooling and adequate trauma treatment not being met. It can also be about repeated custody disputes or prolonged division of property processes that make it completely impossible to start a new life in safety.

Investigations also report that important summons to healthcare are missed due to protected personal data, and that what absolutely must not happen still happens to an excessively large extent, namely that the data is disclosed to the perpetrator.

Madam Speaker! I do not know if it is a coincidence that this debate is being held today, in the middle of "A week free from violence". The initiative comes from Unizon and the organization Män and has spread across the entire country. Knowledge-seeking seminars are held, debate articles are written, and demonstrations are organized.

I really want to advocate for civil society. Their work is invaluable when it comes to being a strong voice in the public debate, preventing destructive norms of masculinity, and providing support and protection to those affected by violence.

Fleeing from one's home can have serious consequences, especially for children. Women and children seeking protection from violence must have the right to safe housing of high quality and professional support.

The Riksdag has recently tightened the rules for protected housing, which is a step towards improving conditions, especially for children. However, there are serious concerns that these changes threaten the operations of women's shelters. They have extensive experience and high competence when it comes to meeting women and children fleeing from life-threatening men. The Social Democrats want all outsourced operation of protected housing to be reserved for non-profit organizations to ensure quality and protection.

The organizations that work to prevent violence and protect women who leave a violent relationship must be given reasonable opportunities to carry out their important work. Therefore, the funding of these activities must be long-term and comprehensive.

Madam Speaker! The police are a crucial actor when it comes to stopping these ruthless perpetrators. Unfortunately, the work is far from sufficient. The police authority's annual report for 2023 paints a grim picture. Despite increased resources over a long period and despite the authority's clear visions for improvements, we see that men's violence against women has not decreased. Several police regions even describe that violence as more deadly than that of the gangs. No decline is seen in the number of reports or the number of cases handed over to prosecutors. It shows that the police are still working reactively rather than preventatively; it is a criticism that the police themselves have highlighted.

The initiative on the police and their specialist expertise and cooperation with other actors must be developed, not dismantled. The police must handle violence against women by men in the same way as all other serious crimes. The methods used by, for example, Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs or those used by Stockholmspolisens verksamhet Igor shall not be discontinued. They shall be spread throughout the country. We also want a variant of Sluta skjut to be spread in Sweden regarding these crimes.

Combating violence against women must be a collective responsibility where each of us contributes. Preschool, school, community life, health and medical care, social services and the police must cooperate in an effective manner to prevent, detect and prosecute the violence.

Women's organizations have for several years warned that society's institutions all too often lack knowledge or application even where there is clear and good legislation and clear guidelines. There is a lack of comprehensive legislation, cooperation, sufficient knowledge, and sufficient support for implementation.

The National Audit Office confirms the picture that there are deficiencies in several parts. Taken together, this leads to poorer protection for persons living under threats. The National Audit Office has audited the Prosecution Authority, the Police Authority, and the Swedish Tax Agency, which have important roles in the state's work to protect threatened persons. The overall conclusion is that the state does not work sufficiently effectively, partly because the state cannot ensure that persons who need protection are granted it, and partly because the protection is not always effective.

Regarding the issue of restraining orders, the Swedish National Audit Office states, among other things, that the prosecutors' decisions are primarily influenced by previous crimes and all too little by the risk of crime, persecution, or harassment. The Swedish National Audit Office also notes that there are large, persistent differences in the proportion of granted restraining orders across the country and that restraining orders with ankle bracelets do not function as an effective protection in the current situation.

We Social Democrats repeatedly see these problems in conversations with those subjected to violence, and we also saw them while in government. That is why we commissioned the inquiry into more effective contact prohibition legislation, which has been on the government's desk since February. The referral bodies are predominantly positive, and it is very urgent that the Tidö parties produce a government bill for the Riksdag to take a position on.

My perception based on the government's communication is that there is largely political consensus regarding the need for stronger contact ban legislation. That is very good. But my greatest concern concerns the risk of a displacement effect and that the protection of women and children exposed to violence is simply not prioritized highly enough by the government for time and resources to be allocated to legislative work.

When it comes to certain bills, the pace is so high that the referral bodies do not even have time to familiarize themselves with the matters, but I do not see the same speed or determination from the government regarding the issue of men's violence against women. I hope that the government does not waste a single day more regarding the bill on reinforced restraining orders, because today's regulatory framework is not sufficient. The protection for the person subjected to violence must weigh heavier than the perpetrator's freedom.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! The state's most important task is to protect its citizens and guarantee freedom and security. Every year, so many people are subjected to violence, threats, and harassment. Their lives are restricted and their existence is destroyed. There, the state must be able to intervene and guarantee safety. Whether it concerns victims of gang violence or honor violence, or men's violence against women, it must be fought with the same force and determination. Violence and insecurity are a poison that breaks down people and societies.

The National Audit Office's review is limited to a few areas and indicates major deficiencies in the state's work with protected persons. Far too much of the state's protection has been linked to restrictions for the victims, and far too little has been linked to restrictions for the perpetrators.

The government is now carrying out a historic reorganization of crime policy which fundamentally concerns a shift in perspective, from having an all-too one-sided focus on the perpetrator in the view of crime and punishment to putting crime victims, threatened persons, and society's need for protection at the center. Several of the shortcomings raised in the Swedish National Audit Office's report confirm this picture - the need for a shift in perspective and for reforms. We now have a government that, reform by reform, is making Sweden safer again.

The investigation report "More effective contact prohibition legislation" is completed. The investigation was carried out some months before the election following great pressure from the united opposition during the previous parliamentary term. An investigation with complementary proposals on contact prohibition legislation has also been produced, where the consultation period expired as recently as last week, November 11. Based on the investigation directives and the investigations, a government bill is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.

The need for the restraining order to have a more preventive function is great. That the restraining order needs to play an increasingly preventive role becomes particularly clear when it concerns violence in close relationships. It must become easier to sentence restraining orders even when there is no prior criminality. This becomes particularly clear when it concerns men's violence against women, where there are often no prior judgments despite years of systematic violence. It must be the risk that guides, not solely the history. It must therefore become easier to sentence restraining orders, which must also be able to apply to significantly larger areas, so that the restrictions are for the perpetrators, not the victims of violence.

More restraining orders must also be able to be managed with ankle bracelets to ensure and be able to make faster interventions. If larger areas are combined with a better ankle bracelet, the police can have time to intervene before devastating violence occurs. In that way, it can take on a more preventive role.

Madam Speaker! We also need to have increased penalties for those who violate a restraining order. The National Audit Office clearly points out that the consequences for those who do not follow a restraining order are not sufficient. It undermines the credibility, it undermines the protection, and it undermines the preventive effect. If a restraining order is to be effective, there must also be clear consequences for those who violate it. The starting point must be to protect the freedom and safety of the victims.

In the government's budget proposal for 2025, funds have been allocated to implement a change in the contact prohibition legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the referral period for the supplementary proposals expired as recently as last week. Referral bodies are important and must be given the opportunity to respond, and I feel confident that a bill to be deliberated upon can soon be placed on the Riksdag's table.

Given the reservations that exist in this matter, there seems to be strong support for the government's policy. That is good. Strong support for the government's policy can make Sweden safer again.

Madam Speaker! The National Audit Office also points out a number of points linked to protected personal data. In that regard, the government has given a mandate to the Gender Equality Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency, and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection to take measures, develop cooperation models, conduct analyses, and support other authorities in the work with protected personal data. The government has given these mandates in regulatory letters, and they are to be reported back. The conclusions will serve as the basis for further measures.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, the National Audit Office's report confirms the need for reforms and also the deficiencies we have seen. There, the government is taking powerful measures. Both the deficiencies according to the National Audit Office's report and the proposed measures are completely in line with the government's extensive work. By making necessary reforms, we can, reform by reform, build Sweden safely again.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the Committee on Justice's proposal.

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 number 1. The purpose is, of course, to expedite a very urgent reform of the contact prohibition.

For me and Vänsterpartiet, it is unusual to react against a slowness from the government's side. From Vänsterpartiet, we have most often had reason to criticize that things are moving too fast, in a way that is legally insecure. In those cases, it concerns a reform with a focus on tougher measures against gangs and organized crime, but when it comes to reforms to protect women and children who are exposed to violence and oppression, it is delayed.

It may seem as though these problem areas differ, which they partly do, but this is a superficial difference. Both areas contain risks of evil, sudden death, and there are furthermore connections between the two areas of violence that I will soon want to return to.

It is serious. With recurring security, unfortunately, a woman is killed almost every third week, and a child is killed every other month in Sweden. The background in the cases and information I mention is violence from a former or current partner in a relationship.

It is, in itself, as was mentioned just now, that the government has not been totally passive since the investigation on contact prohibitions was presented at the beginning of the year. A supplementary investigation was commissioned, where the consultation period expired last week, but this too could have been done with greater promptness.

I suspect that it is the problem areas it is about and that the government wants to delay or is not particularly engaged in them, but also that one is not so eager to deliver on directives and an investigation that the previous government appointed. I hope, however, that we can get over this and realize the seriousness. Not least in the Riksrevisionen's report, serious criticism is repeated regarding how the state's protection works, or does not work, for threatened persons.

The prohibition of visits, which was called a contact prohibition at the beginning, was a reform from 1988 that was very welcomed in connection with the women's peace reforms. There was great hope, and since then the criticism has returned. New reforms have been made, but the criticism remains.

It is very much about the underlying problem that the National Audit Office points out, namely that there is a lack of competence. There is not sufficient competence regarding violence within the police, nor among prosecutors. There is also not sufficient competence in the courts, it can be added. Risk assessments are made far too rarely and sometimes not at all, and when it concerns children, there is not even a manual to follow to conduct the risk assessments. It also says something about how poor priorities we make when it comes to protecting those who need it most.

It is also the case that current restraining orders are generally not applicable until someone has been convicted of a crime. However, there may be many warning signs that should - and hopefully will - be taken into account. In addition to that, we have technically substandard ankle bracelets for those who are provided with them, which means that they provide no protection. Many referral bodies say that this is unworthy and that it must be replaced with a completely new set of such. Reactions are also not sufficient in the event of violations and sometimes, partly due to the poor ankle bracelets, there is insufficient evidence.

Vänsterpartiet has pointed this out in several motions over the years, and the women's shelters complement this with serious observations. They see that restraining orders are granted for far too short a period. Six months is common, but it is possible to decide on a restraining order for one year and then repeat the decision. Sometimes one also thinks it is possible to refrain entirely if nothing has happened during the ongoing restraining order period, instead of thinking that in some cases it may have been precisely because of the restraining order that nothing serious has happened.

The judges also have plenty of examples where the judiciary trivializes what the women describe. There are examples where one has been charmed by a man and tells the woman that he has promised not to contact her. It is also an example of not having understood the normalization process and not having understood that even very pleasant and charming people can commit violence in their close relationships.

I have had experience for decades of contact with both women and children who have been frightened and scared. Women can call, terrified, and say: "Now I recognize his footsteps on the stairs - what should I do? Will the police make it here in time?" A woman can receive a message from Kriminalvården that the man will be released shortly, and she then becomes desperate: "How am I going to protect myself? How will we manage to set up what might be needed to protect me and the children?"

Of course there are frightened children, but there are also children who are very competent – who fully realize what is about to happen and who are strategic in protecting themselves and their mother. There is plenty of research where the researchers may be the very first to have found out what the children have thought and felt because they have not been interviewed previously. There are plenty of theses from 1997 onwards, and there are information films where children have also been interviewed. One has also been able to produce short films with drawings from children.

I would particularly like to mention an interview where a boy tells that he used to say he had had a nightmare. When there was turmoil in the family and he heard that there was a serious fight and that mom was screaming, he called out from inside his bedroom. Then mom came, and he said that he had had a nightmare. In that way, he saved her from the violence. Unfortunately, it was not just a nightmare but reality, but it could lead to a breakthrough.

It is also the case that a displacement occurs due to the serious organized crime. It naturally upsets us all, but men's violence against women is also dangerous - in several ways. Children, and especially boys, learn violence as a means of power by fathers and men in the family using violence as a means of power. This has long been asserted within research as a risk with repeated violence, and now there is also research from Great Britain that points out that a large proportion of the boys in criminal gangs have lived with violence in the home during their upbringing. Violence gives an echo, and that echo we must brake.

There is a fantastic approach in the proposals for reforms that are now being discussed, and that is to make the protection zones for restraining orders so large that the police will have time to rush out and arrest the person who enters a prohibited area before they reach the protected person. The proposal is unfortunately controversial, but it is one of the things we hope most will be implemented.

The same applies to letting women and children remain in their own home. A child's right to their home should weigh heavier than a violent father's right. Children shall have the right to maintain contact with their peers, their school, and so on. It would also align well with the international conventions that Sweden has committed to follow.

With that said - and I would like to say much more - I can state that there is an urgency regarding this reform. I hope that it comes quickly, that it becomes effective, and that it dares to challenge the hitherto all-too-prevailing male norm.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I jumped a little in my seat when Member Nordborg expressed the thought that it might be the government's reluctance to act on the previous government's commissioned investigation that leads to a proposition not being in place yet. That is something I would like to turn to.

The previous government appointed an inquiry into more effective restraining order legislation on July 7, 2022. This occurred after a number of announcements from the united opposition, namely Moderaterna, Vänsterpartiet, Liberalerna, Centerpartiet, and Sverigedemokraterna. The united opposition demanded that the then sitting government appoint this inquiry, and the government did so on July 7, 2022 - shortly before the election.

All good forces that combat men's violence against women are good, and the investigation that was commissioned then proposes many good things that we will utilize. Given the reservations in this matter, I also believe there is a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag to take action regarding the contact prohibition legislation. We are going to make it significantly more effective, and in that regard, the investigation on a more effective contact prohibition legislation is very important.

All good forces are therefore good, and everyone is welcome to join us as we build a safe Sweden again.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Ludvig Ceimertz! I hope that there is no political reluctance at the bottom of this. And I hope that we can be very much in agreement across the board on how we handle issues of men's violence against women and children, with the competence that the field requires. I still think that I see gaps and differing views when it comes to what is perceived as structural problems in our society and what is seen as an individual responsibility.

The issue of men's violence against women and children is rooted in a gender power structure that we must process in very many different ways. It is not enough with point interventions; we must proceed very broadly - the entire civil society. One is better equipped today than before, but there is a risk that it will become a watering down.

This with protected housing, for example, risks becoming catastrophic. It is about how one should provide protection, and there one should much more utilize the expertise of civil society and women's shelters in the area instead of investing in the privatization of protected housing.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! At the end of Member Nordborg's speech in the rostrum, she emphasized very clearly the importance of the second investigation the government has commissioned, with the supplementary proposals on a contact ban legislation. Nordborg herself emphasized the importance also of these proposals, regarding a larger geographical area and more effective electronic surveillance – two of the points included in the supplementary investigation, where the consultation period, Madam Speaker, expired last week.

I completely share Nordborg's view that these points are important. That is why the investigation into supplementary proposals was so important, and that is why they must be part of a whole - so that we can handle a contact prohibition legislation on a broad level, not make point interventions but have a broad approach. In that case, it is important that we gather the investigations that exist, take a holistic approach, and move forward with a government bill.

I promise that this will not be neglected, but it is being prepared in the Government Offices. A bill will be submitted with a view towards more effective contact prohibition legislation, with larger areas and better electronic surveillance that becomes easier to impose, where the focus shall be on the person who is being subjected to it. I look forward, Madam Speaker, to being able to vote for such a bill when it arrives.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Ceimertz, for your promise at the end – I appreciate that very much!

I do not mind that cases are processed seriously, but I see that this supplement could have been initiated earlier. The referral outcome for the original investigation was indeed consistently very positive, which could have made it possible to act faster.

Now I hope that the pace is maintained and that it does not stop here, and that even more reforms will come that contribute to our ability to protect women and children and, ultimately, that we get a policy that limits the criminal gangs' access to and opportunities to recruit young boys, especially those who are already raised into violence as a means of power. This is very dangerous for our society.

I am therefore hoping for a continued rapid pace in the reform work.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The need for protection for threatened persons has grown significantly in recent years. Society, both state and municipality, has also successively developed methods to support those who, for various reasons, need protection. Despite this, a number of women who have lived or live in close relationships with violent men are murdered every year.

Every day, a large number of people in our country are subjected to threats, violence, and harassment, and some of these need protection from the state. One example is, as mentioned, women who are subjected to violence in close relationships, who may be forced to live with a constant threat. They are persecuted and sometimes forced to flee with their children. This is a personal tragedy for all these women and children and something that undermines the entire society's safety if we let it continue. A strengthened protection is therefore of the utmost importance.

As mentioned, the Swedish National Audit Office has now audited the state's protection of threatened persons and has primarily focused on restraining orders and the authorities that are most affected by and responsible for ensuring that crime victims' needs for protection are met. The report points out a number of deficiencies within both the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Prosecution Authority and the Swedish Tax Agency.

It must also be said that the avalanche-like development of gang crime and organized crime, with the serious violent crimes that have followed in its wake, has had a major impact on the Police Authority and particularly on the unit for crime victim and personal safety operations, Bops, which has been burdened with a high workload. The protection of persons threatened by gangs has taken up large resources, which unfortunately, we must admit, has occurred at the expense of cases concerning restraining orders and crimes in close relationships.

The government as well as the Police Authority are well aware of the need for improvements and reinforcements and have now made specific efforts to improve the protection for persons exposed to crimes in close relationships. For some time now, work has been ongoing to classify the perpetrators - we all know that they are mostly men - based on propensity for violence and danger, which constitutes the basis for the protection needs of the victim. In parallel, relevant protective measures shall be taken to prevent repeated crime and stop violence at an early stage. Men's violence against women, crimes against children and honor-related violence are prioritized specifically.

The Swedish Police Authority has also taken measures to achieve more effective management of the flow of cases to Bops. Police employees shall now receive better support for risk assessments regarding threats and violence in individual cases, which leads to better conditions for threatened persons to receive the necessary support.

There is also a proposal that the Police Authority, in accordance with the contact prohibition investigation's report, shall appoint a contact person for both the protected person and the prohibited person. This is a good proposal, which, according to us Kristdemokrater, should be realized as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! In matters concerning restraining orders, prosecutors have previously held a restrictive view on the underlying requirements for positive decisions. The application has also not been uniform across the country. Generally, it can be said that the prosecutors have set the bar very high regarding both the requirements for proven criminality and the geographical boundaries; it has been unusual for the prohibition to cover larger areas. There have actually been no major obstacles, but it is more about the view on the application of the legislation.

Even in this case, the government has taken the initiative. In the report on contact prohibition legislation presented earlier this year, there is a comprehensive review of the current legislation. The proposals aim for more contact prohibitions and for the legislation to have a crime-preventing perspective to a greater extent and constitute an effective protection. It shall become easier to issue contact prohibitions where there are risk assessments that cover, for example, persecution, improper surveillance, or other serious harassment. It shall also become easier to make decisions on electronic surveillance, and increased penalties for violations of contact prohibitions are to be expected.

Madam Speaker! Last but not least: All too often it has happened that authorities, through carelessness and lack of judgment, have leaked protected personal data. Here, a general tightening is necessary. It is up to everyone who handles protected personal data to truly ensure that they do not leak out. In many cases, it is life-saving that the data is and remains confidential. One should not underestimate the ingenuity and persistence of motivated perpetrators when it comes to tracking and seeking out their potential victims.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and apologize for exceeding my speaking time by a minute.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Some time ago, Dagens Eko presented figures showing that the number of people living with some form of protected identity has increased drastically. I believe that Dagens Eko reported that it was over 31,000 people. Those who account for the increase are women and children who have left violent relationships. This is, of course, unacceptable. It is unacceptable for a country like Sweden when we as a nation cannot protect people from perpetrators in any other way than by severely restricting their daily lives. What is happening is that the victims' daily lives are being restricted. To use an expression that one of the hidden women herself uses, it is such that they live in a prison without walls.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review establishes that the state is not working sufficiently effectively to protect threatened persons. Many who need protection do not have it granted. For those who are granted protection, it is not always effective. The protection measures, namely the restraining orders, involve, as I mentioned, significant restrictions, even though these persons have not committed any crime. For the most part, they have simply happened to fall in love with the wrong person.

I am somewhat skeptical as to whether the measures the government mentions are actually sufficient. I am not so sure that they lead to either more restraining orders or stricter penalties regarding the restraining orders.

I am, however, very pleased that the report from the contact prohibition investigation has been submitted to the government. The unfortunate thing is that there is no bill on this on the list of bills for the current year. But we have heard here that the consultation period expired just recently and that work will be done on this.

It is important that this legislative change is implemented. I would have liked more, however. I am somewhat doubtful whether criteria such as previous persecution and undue surveillance are actually sufficient for our justice system to sentence more, longer, or stricter restraining orders. My plea to the government is to be extremely clear in the dialogue with our authorities and in regulatory letters and agency instructions. I believe that one must be.

I take the liberty of quoting the Swedish Tax Agency, even though they are not here to be able to defend themselves. The Swedish Tax Agency says that its task is to ensure that people with protected identities can live as normal. But that is an impossibility. I hope that I will avoid reading more such quotes from the Swedish Tax Agency. The Swedish Tax Agency's task is not to ensure that people with protected identities can live as normal, but rather the Swedish Tax Agency shall, together with other authorities as well as the government and the Riksdag, ensure that protected identity is not needed. I hope this will appear in a regulatory letter to the Swedish Tax Agency.

With today's construction of the restraining order legislation, the protected persons are covered by the state's protection but not their relatives. This means a real restriction in the protected persons' everyday lives. When one travels and visits relatives, for example at Christmas or Easter, the prohibited person can stand there and wait. It is a major flaw in today's system.

It is good that the protection area can be expanded, perhaps to an entire municipality. We ourselves have voted for such things here in the chamber. But in the long run, the contact prohibition legislation must be changed fundamentally, just as we write in our follow-up motion. Today, it is the case that the protection person has an area around the place where she lives - yes, I say "she" - and perhaps the children's school. The perpetrator is not allowed to enter that area. Instead, it should be the opposite: The perpetrator lives in one place and has his job somewhere else, and an area around these places is one he is not allowed to leave. If the perpetrator wants to go outside that area, that person must contact the police and the crime victim. I know that it causes a bit of a stir among many lawyers when they hear this, but I think that is the direction we must move towards. That is when we will truly address the problem. It is the perpetrator's everyday life that should be restricted, not the crime victim's.

With that, I move for approval of the Center Party's reservation, which is number 2.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons was not a pleasant read this year. It is quite clear that there is work to be done. But a small light in the tunnel – we have heard several say it – is that something is actually being done. The government is not sitting with its arms crossed watching. One sees what is going wrong, one sees what is missing, and one does what can be done to change it. I can reassure those who do not believe that is the case. I can warmly recommend that those who wish to take part in what the government is doing read what the Liberal and Equality Minister Paulina Brandberg has to say on the matter.

If we are to have a functioning protection of threatened persons - I will primarily speak about women who are being threatened - it will cost money. Laws and reforms are one thing. The resources to be able to intervene when the worst happens, prevent the worst from happening, or help afterwards, when the worst has happened, we do not quite have today.

In the Swedish National Audit Office's report, the justice system receives criticism. It is a matter of reporting officers who do not understand, prosecutors who do not make the right decisions, and police officers who do not prioritize correctly. The Swedish Tax Agency also gets its share. That is certain. But is it really the Prosecution Authority's or the Police Authority's fault that we today cannot protect the women who are being threatened? I think we politicians should be a bit careful when we criticize authorities that we actually have the mandate to influence, not least financially. We actually get the police authority and the prosecution authority that we pay for, and we get results from interventions and judgments according to the laws that we enact.

Therefore, I want to say again that I am happy to be part of the government base. The government is now investing a record amount in the justice system and explicitly states that the number of police must increase, so that we get resources to be able to intervene before, during, and after an incident. I was also pleased when I read - yesterday, I believe it was - that the Prime Minister explicitly stated that violence in close relationships is prioritized.

Madam Speaker! Let me be a little personal for a minute. A couple of years ago, I worked as a police officer in a patrol car when the alarm went out that a woman had been stabbed in her apartment. My colleague and I were in a good position; we were very close and arrived first at the scene.

I think it is difficult to imagine this if one has not experienced it. We enter the apartment and into the small kitchen. There is quite a lot of blood on the floor. There is blood on the refrigerator and on the kitchen cupboards. There is blood on the kitchen counter, where there also lies a bloody knife. Chairs are overturned, and a table is pushed into a wall. It is perfectly clear that there has been a struggle - probably a life-and-death struggle.

I see that the blood trails continue into a small bedroom. In there, the woman lies on the bed in a pair of short shorts and a liner. She is stabbed with several stabs, specifically eight. It bleeds from the open wounds. Her gaze is a mixture of fear, terror, and resignation. She screams and cries both from pain and from resignation.

The woman survived the assault, and we were able to arrest the perpetrator a couple of hours later. But do you know what made me really damn angry, irritated, and a bit resigned? It was when I sat inside the police station a few hours later and was about to report the incident.

It turned out that the man who had done this had a restraining order against the woman. He had violated the restraining order on eight occasions before the day he broke into the apartment and stabbed her eight times. On eight occasions, he had violated the restraining order.

In what way do you think society would have reacted? Would he have received a fine, prison, or some form of punishment? No! Not in a single one of the eight instances had it led to a prosecution and to him receiving any punishment.

It also concerned that time when the police arrived in time when he sought out the woman at her workplace and he was apprehended. Not even then was he detained, but he was released immediately. Eight occasions, eight violations of the restraining order, led to zero reactions from society.

Madam Speaker! We cannot have it this way. It does not send the signals that I and the Liberals want to send. We want society to react when a woman is threatened. She should feel that she has society behind her, that she has support, that we all stand behind her and that she can get the help she needs.

All murders of women where the perpetrator is a relative have been preceded by a threat. That is why it is so important that we take threats against women seriously at an early stage.

Madam Speaker! Finally: If we are to succeed in protecting threatened women, we must have a functioning system of restraining orders in various forms. It can be electronic surveillance and prohibitions on staying in areas, large as well as small. But there must also be resources from the authorities to be able to intervene when the worst happens.

Madam Speaker! Then society must react. We must utilize the penalties that exist in the legislation. No man who threatens a woman should feel that he can get away with this, in any case not in my world.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons. As the audience can hear, there is a strong commitment and a broad consensus on many of the issues, which is very good.

It was a strong contribution by the Liberal MP Martin Melin, who described what it can look like in those situations where the state has failed fatally in the basic task of protecting its citizens.

The overall conclusion in the report is that the state's work is not sufficiently effective, as it is stated in somewhat dry official prose. But it is an extremely serious meaning. By persons, women are, of course, primarily meant.

Men's violence against women is a gigantic societal problem. The number of women murdered by a man they have or have had a relationship with has been relatively constant for a long time. It is over 20 women a year. The number who are assaulted, controlled, mistreated in various ways in relationships and need to live with protection orders are many thousands every year.

The report from the Swedish National Audit Office points out the need for changed working methods from responsible authorities. It is a dry way of expressing a sharp criticism. That contact bans are applied restrictively in relation to the law's purpose of preventing violence is one example. Violations of contact bans also do not have sufficient consequences, as we have also heard. The protection that contact bans are intended to be is therefore all too rarely an effective protection for these persons.

The authorities clearly need to change in a number of different ways, according to the Swedish National Audit Office. There is also, Madam Speaker, a need for reform in the form of political changes, legislative changes. The investigation into contact prohibitions and the supplements that have been made have been referred, and there must be new legislation. The areas where the contact prohibitions apply must become larger geographically. The possibilities to actually keep the person who has a contact prohibition away from the person, most often the woman, must be improved.

Madam Speaker! Other reforms and other changes are also required. One such example is the crime of gross violation of a woman's peace and how the sentences are measured for it. In this regard, Miljöpartiet is the only party that has wanted to establish a minimum level, a minimum sentence, for gross violation of a woman's peace of two years.

Both the Social Democrats and the Moderates have held back and thought that the current one and a half years is sufficient. That is with reservation regarding the Sweden Democrats' view. As far as I know, they have not said anything, but I leave it open if I have missed it.

It would be a change that would point to how serious the crime is. Those who are convicted of aggravated violation of a woman's integrity often receive a restraining order and often imprisonment, but unfortunately, it is often for too short a sentence.

We often have the discussion about whether harsher punishments help. I do not believe that it helps in the sense that harsher punishments deter anyone from committing crimes. For some types of crimes, it can harm society to have punishments that are too harsh. But when it comes to serious crimes, violent crimes and sexual crimes, society must take a strict stance on that. Those who commit these crimes must be imprisoned for a long time.

The National Audit Office's report on the state's protection of threatened persons

Madam Speaker! I will not be too long-winded. I move for the approval of reservation number 1 and thank you for the debate we have had.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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