Security zones

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating security zones. I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report.

Security zones are part of the necessary package that the government and the Sweden Democrats are presenting to combat organized crime.

The situation in Sweden is so serious today that targeted offensive measures are required to give the police the capacity to strike back against serious crime. The purpose of security zones is that shootings and explosions within the criminal environments can be countered more effectively than what is possible today.

I do not understand why the opposition is making such a big deal out of this. These zones will not be established without reason, but where there is a tangible risk of explosions and shootings. We are not talking about petty crimes. We are talking about shootings and explosions occurring in residential areas where the majority of the residents are not criminals and have nothing to do with these crimes at all, but instead run the risk of being seriously injured or even killed due to gang conflicts. To suggest that it would not be proportionate to carry out searches in these areas to prevent continued shootings and explosions is, to me, incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! Gang crime has embedded itself in society and can today be considered a threat to the system. The police assess that 62,000 people in Sweden are members of or have links to criminal networks.

To have a chance to address this crime, a whole chain of measures is needed, everything from preventive efforts to more and sharper tools in the toolbox.

Some argue that it is already possible to implement these measures today. But the police who are to carry out the measures consider that today's powers are not sufficient to de-escalate conflicts and protect the public to the extent that is required.

The difference between current powers and security zones is that today there needs to be a concrete suspicion for the police to be allowed to search a person or conduct a house search in a vehicle, and many police officers feel that the regulatory framework is difficult to apply for crime prevention purposes.

And by the fact that security zones will give the police a more general opportunity for searches, increased clarity in decision-making and increased legality in the police's actions will facilitate the police's work and reduce the risk of police having to make incorrect decisions.

An example of how more tools for the police work is the bill on preventive stay bans, which entered into force in February this year. The law entails a possibility to restrict a certain person or persons who promote serious crime from staying in certain places.

Rågsved in Stockholm has been described as an open drug scene. But after five people who are part of criminal networks were prohibited from being in Rågsved's metro station, center, and nearby schools, residents in the area testify that it has become calmer. More powers for the police are demonstrably yielding results.

Despite this, there are politicians who say that these security zones are not needed and that there are already sufficiently sharp methods in place today. One might think so, but reality shows the exact opposite. If today's legislation and preventive measures had been sufficient, it would not have looked the way it does.

Some argue that people who have nothing to do with gang-related crime will arbitrarily be subjected to searches. That is one thing I do not understand about that reasoning - if I have nothing to hide and the purpose is that it should not be shot or blown up in my residential area, then I would be grateful if the police carried out these searches.

To dismiss demands for public order as threats to the rule of law or to claim that the police will be racist and discriminatory is to express a direct mistrust of the Swedish police. This identity politics is not only worrying but directly harmful.

Mr. Speaker! The police will not always be correct in their assessments, but the idea that the police would deliberately search people solely because of their skin color or ethnicity is absurd. It is not about skin color or ethnicity, but about a weighing of time, place, and the police's knowledge of the person.

Sweden has one of the world's best-educated police forces, and the Swedish police are neither racist nor discriminatory. Furthermore, the police top the category of trust in social institutions with 72 percent.

It seems that the opposition is looking for faults. The Green Party argues that there is a risk that the zone will become too large and the Social Democrats that there is a risk that it will become too small, which collectively should mean that the government's proposal is well-balanced.

When it comes to searches of children, these occur for security purposes at flights, concerts, the Riksdag, and so on. Why not in security zones? The purpose is the same, that is, to maintain a secure zone. Not being allowed to search children could also mean that even more children are exploited by older criminals.

Instead of expressing mistrust, why not show that you stand behind and believe in the Swedish police? Instead of criticizing tougher measures against the gangs, show that you understand that additional measures must be taken! It is something completely different from what has been, because it is obviously not enough.

Mr. Speaker! The security zones will not be a general solution to curb serious crime, but they will improve and simplify the police's work. It is an important piece in a puzzle that is to be placed in a larger context.

Security zones are one of many tools for the Swedish police to be able to work even more effectively against what we all want: to curb organized crime and, in the long run, be able to give the police enough breathing room in the system to be able to allocate more resources to investigating everyday crimes and be more visible out on the streets and squares.

Of course, this opportunity must not be abused, and a control must be preceded by good intelligence with transparency that can be scrutinized. The purpose of security zones is that the measures shall form the basis for investigations that lead to prosecution and judgment.

By acting now with a completely different precision and strength than previous governments, we are creating the conditions to slowly but surely make Sweden a better and safer country.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the introduction in this debate about what was launched as and until the investigation was presented were called visitation zones and are now called security zones.

This entire process has been shrouded in a mist of uncertainty and problems for everyone who had objections to understanding what it was that was going to emerge when the investigation or the letter was finally presented.

Katja Nyberg says that the opposition points out that the zones could be too large or too small. I would then like to say that perhaps that is our objection to this bill – that we are not getting any answers.

I wonder what the Sweden Democrats and the government side have to say to all the heavy referral bodies that point out what we have collectively wanted to point out – that the effectiveness of the bill is not large enough. This is not shown in the department report that forms the basis for the bill, and it is also not something that the member in their speech places particular emphasis on explaining.

Will the effects of the security zones be so great? Will we seize more weapons, and will more crime suspects be able to be arrested and serve their sentences? Or will the downside instead be that more and more people feel a great mistrust towards our law enforcement authorities and the police and that we get opposition? Will the vagueness of the legislation make it difficult for the police to see if they have the right to make an intervention or for the person being searched to see if the search took place on the correct grounds?

We are concerned that this legislation does not provide the effects required to justify such large infringements on people's privacy as it will actually involve.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to turn the question around. I wonder what the opposition means by effect. Would the effect be that more weapons and more explosives are seized? In that case, I believe the opposition has misunderstood what security zones are about.

Security zones shall be safe zones. The police will not take more weapons and more explosives or perform more searches, but the purpose is that this shall not occur in this zone. Weapons and explosives shall not be present there. The searches should therefore hopefully decrease; that is the whole point. It shall be a safe zone, and therefore this shall decrease.

I therefore do not quite understand what the opposition means by effect. If you mean that there should be more searches and seizures, I believe you have misunderstood this.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I believe that no places in Sweden should be unsafe. We need security everywhere. We see that certain areas in our society are perceived as unsafe. We see that we need to have more active police and a safer and stronger cooperation between the Police Authority, school, social services, and leisure. We need to build strong environments where children and young people can feel hope for the future.

We therefore need to have both in Swedish politics and when it comes to crime policy, not a one-sided fixation on tougher measures, lowered criminal responsibility age, and putting more children and young people in prison. We need to have a whole that works and that builds this security for people, where we also give the residents and the entire society the opportunity to contribute to crime fighting. I believe this is the absolute most important piece of the puzzle – that the police and residents in our local residential areas work together towards the goal of removing crime and breaking new recruitment.

We are concerned that this bill has been hastily drafted and that we are not receiving answers regarding the heavy referral bodies that are presenting criticism specifically regarding the fact that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. There is a concern that the police's ability to do what Katja Nyberg is talking about, increase safety, is being countered because the contradictions are growing.

Can the members give some answers regarding how the deliberations have gone? What answers do you have for the Bar Association, the Equality Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, Civil Rights Defenders, Save the Children and the Children's Ombudsman? What is the government's answer regarding the concern that exists? I have not received anything so far.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I also did not receive any answer to the question regarding the effect that is intended to be achieved. If it is more seizures of firearms and explosives, then this is not the purpose of security zones. Security zones should, as I said earlier, be safe zones. This type of seizure should therefore decrease, and hopefully, searches as well. Those who are criminals should not dare to bring this into the area in question, which makes it a safe zone for those who live there. It will also become safer for those who live there, and that is the whole point.

As I said in my speech: If I lived in such an area and experienced a risk of being shot, injured, or killed, I would, if there were police in the area who could carry out searches or just maintain safety through their presence, feel that it was good. It would then be nice to live there in a completely different way than it is now, when one runs the risk of being injured or killed if one goes out.

I don't quite understand why Mattias is trying to make it sound as if this would mean an insecurity for those who live in the area. It is rather the opposite; it will become safer for them to be in the area. People will feel safe. In Denmark, the effect has been proven. There, the areas have become safer for those who live there.

It will only get better, as I see it. I cannot see it in any other way. It will become safer zones, quite simply, safe zones.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If one is against the proposal on visitation zones, one lacks confidence in the police, says Katja Nyberg. I have a very simple question: Does Katja Nyberg believe that Svea Court of Appeal, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, Save the Children, Bris, the Chancellor of Justice, Borås Municipality, Stockholm Municipality, among others, lack confidence in the police?

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What I have said is that the opposition expresses that there is a risk that the police will be racist and discriminatory in their assessments in connection with searches. I know from my own experience that Swedish police are not racist or discriminatory, but they will conduct their searches based on well-founded decisions. This is not something one does because of skin color or ethnicity. One makes a balanced assessment based on the situation, time, place, and the person in question. Then one conducts a search.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish police are naturally not racist; I do not believe anyone has claimed that. The undersigned has at least never done so. However, police officers can, as Katja Nyberg herself said in her speech, make mistakes.

We in the Committee on Justice have received a report from the Crime Prevention Council, which reviewed what the police's searches look like and what the statistics look like regarding different ethnicities. One can clearly see that people originating from certain countries are checked by the police to a greater extent than people born in Sweden with parents who are also born in Sweden. I believe Katja Nyberg was involved in this, and I hope that she can take it to heart.

When Katja Nyberg now raises the issue of discrimination, I want to say that during the preparation in the committee, we also had the Minister responsible for discrimination issues, Paulina Brandberg, present. She said that her absolute ambition is to achieve a change of the Discrimination Act during this mandate period precisely to reduce the risks of increased discrimination, which very many referral bodies point out.

I want to ask Katja Nyberg whether the changes that have been up for discussion are something that the Sverigedemokraterna will embrace or if one will prevent the Liberals' minister Paulina Brandberg from presenting this to the Riksdag.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to touch on this matter of discrimination. Rasmus Ling points out that more searches are conducted on people of foreign origin. There is likely a reason for this. Again: It is not about skin color or ethnicity. I am so tired of people talking about this identity politics—that the police in some way would select those who are checked because they have a certain appearance. It is about a balanced assessment that is made.

Regarding your question about the Discrimination Act and whether we will support this, I actually cannot answer that right now. I do not know how we will proceed with it.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the proposal which is now called Security Zones - earlier in the debate, it has been referred to as visitation zones.

Criminal policy has been at the center of the political debate in recent years. It concerns a development with shootings and explosions that is a result of a development that has occurred over a long period. I would therefore like to begin by saying that the Social Democratic-led government implemented about eighty criminal law toughenings and a massive expansion of the Swedish police and police training, and the effects are visible today. There are fewer empty spots in arrest centers, detention centers, and prisons, and more people are arrested.

The Tidö parties' agreement is about further toughening penalties and expanding the police's toolbox. It is clear that we Social Democrats in some parts also share the view that we need to review the sentencing scales and also the toolbox in order to tackle just serious organized crime.

But our perception is, and will always be, that if we are to succeed in pushing back the development we have seen and see, it also requires decisive action when it comes to the recruitment of new members to the gangs. It requires decisive action to manage the school, social services, and children and youth's leisure time. Not least, the crime policy and the tools and laws we decide on here must be effective and legally sound in order to create a deep trust among the entire Swedish people. It requires both - a whole, something that the SD-government lacks. I will return to this later.

Mr. Speaker! In my contribution today, I will address why we demand a rejection of the proposal on security zones, why this proposal comes with greater risks than benefits, and how we Social Democrats view how legal certainty and personal privacy will be affected by the law. I will conclude with a few words on the SD government's one-sided focus in crime policy and the lack of insight regarding breaking the new recruitment, the gangs' supply chain.

The starting point for us Social Democrats is that crime policy must be effective, reduce crime, increase safety, and be legally secure. We see, in line with the government, that the police's toolbox may need to be expanded. But it is important that we do it in a way that strengthens the police's capacity and opportunities in the practical work that needs to be done out in the local community. It is about also – in addition to being able to conduct searches, which is what this proposal is about – building long-term and strong relations with the residents in our residential areas.

Already today, there are clear rules regarding searches in the Police Act. The police have the right to conduct a search if there is suspicion of a crime that can lead to imprisonment. The police have the right to carry out body searches and house searches in vehicles to search for weapons or other dangerous objects for crime prevention purposes. This is regulated in Sections 19 and 20 of the Police Act. To the extent that is necessary, one may perform body searches and search through vehicles to find weapons or other dangerous objects, and body searches shall be used when the risk is high that the objects will be used in violent crimes. The practical application must not cause the public to perceive it as unjustified harassment.

The police already have extensive powers today to search suspected persons. But it is clear that we are not blind, and we see the criticism that, among others, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has directed, which shows that many police officers also today have difficulty seeing how the legislation should be interpreted.

We launched our proposal before Christmas, before we had gained insight into the department report that forms the basis for this legislation. It took a year before we saw the product. We therefore launched a proposal that the police act should be reviewed to increase the possibility for the police to conduct searches specifically in a gang context and gang environment. Parts of that are described in the matter we are debating today.

Many people experience today that they do not receive information about why they are being searched. The part of the legislation that deals with increasing legal certainty by actually documenting the searches that take place is positive. We would like to expand it with a receipt system that gives everyone that security on the spot, so that they actually receive an answer as to why they are stopped and why they are being searched.

But with this said, we still land on the fact that this product is hastily produced and does not lead to more and stronger opportunities for the police to carry out their work. We think that the bill should be rejected and will vote no to the proposal.

Firstly, the legislation risks becoming counterproductive, just as was said in the first exchange of remarks just now. The police's ability to solve crimes depends largely on cooperation with the public. Even with today's rules, people, especially many young people with a foreign background, testify that they are searched time and again without the police finding anything. We believe that the risk with the zones is that mistrust towards the police will be fueled. Therefore, the possibilities for solving crimes will decrease.

Secondly, we point out that the geographical visitation zones are somewhat misleading. We have seen a crime development over the past year, and had the government followed the development, they might also have seen that it is not only in the zones that will probably be pointed out that explosions and shootings occur. It occurs in a number of different areas in our cities. It is something that we must deal with and take decisive action to combat.

For the third, we argue that the risk is that this will come too late and that one will also get an inefficiency in the legislation. The zones will be geographically demarcated, but the enforcement actions will be linked to other places than exactly where the gangs are currently located. Even though the bill points out that several parallel zones may be introduced, we think it perhaps would have been simpler to put forward an alternative proposal, if one now wants to facilitate things for the police when it comes to searches.

For the fourth, we think the risk is great that this leads to racial profiling or discrimination. If the majority of the Riksdag chooses today to nevertheless introduce visitation possibilities and security zones, it should be accompanied by mechanisms that reduce the scope for abuse and arbitrariness.

Just as was pointed out in the exchange earlier, the government itself has in several different contexts pointed out that there is an investigation, An increased protection against discrimination, SOU 2021:94, which deals with these issues. We note that the government repeatedly points to the need to proceed with legislation in this area, but does not want to give a statement on a timetable. We are therefore getting a system with security zones, which many heavy referral bodies believe will lead to a greater risk of discrimination, but one chooses to postpone the safety legislation, i.e., strengthened anti-discrimination legislation, until the future.

Several referral bodies also point out the possibility of appealing decisions to introduce visitation zones. What formed the basis for the Council of Legislation's referral was not satisfactory. The Council of Legislation also agreed with the criticism and did not think it could serve as a basis for legislation. The Council of Legislation argued that alternatives needed to be investigated. After this, certain adjustments have been made in the product. But with that said, we still think that great uncertainties remain. When an evaluation of the law is eventually made, this must be clearly looked at.

We also mean that the visitation zones involve restrictions on personal integrity. Similar to other such laws, it should be time-limited and apply for three years. In this way, a new assessment could be made as to whether the law has given the effects that the government side claims it should give. Regardless of time limitation, however, the law should be clearly followed up and evaluated by outside researchers and looked at in its entirety after three years.

We stand here today in a reality where very heavy referral bodies have criticized the proposal, and more and more join in that criticism against the government, which we also point out in our motion. It is about how legislative proposals are prepared. Not least, it concerns the fact that such large infringements on personal integrity must be thoroughly investigated and referred. The process of how we legislate must therefore become better.

The Council on Legislation notes that the government is taking a risk with the relatively short referral period. Several of the referral bodies also return to this. Even though some have been able to take time over Christmas and New Year, it is still the case that we do not know what a longer and more deliberate correct referral period could have yielded. The Council on Legislation notes that it is conceivable that the views could have been qualified or made more in-depth if more time had been given.

Mr. Speaker! I have pointed out several of the problems that the SD-government's proposal has, and I am not alone. In the worst case, the law risks undermining confidence in the police. In the best case, it turns out that the law will be difficult to apply and thus ineffective. Just that ineffectiveness, I think it is worth stopping for a brief moment, as this is also pointed out by the law's investigators.

I quote: "Given that there are already wide preventive powers, it cannot, however, be expected that the efficiency gain is large in the sense that the increased powers to intervene will result in a large number of more shootings and explosions being prevented."

It is thus established in the investigation, on page 80, that it is already from the start very doubtful whether the legislation will lead to anything.

The Right does not see the whole picture. In conclusion, I want to point out and highlight also the crime prevention perspective.

Many of us in this chamber want to break the gangs and put an end to shootings and bombings. But if we are to succeed with that, the SD government must focus on our law enforcement authorities, on crime and punishment, and on providing the country's municipalities and regions with the support that is required. It is not enough that we tighten the legislation on crime prevention responsibility, that we point to the school's crime prevention responsibility in investigations, or that we say we will have a new social services act in place. It is not enough that we have fine strategies.

In the strategies, one is actually largely correct. One points to the school's importance, to an expanded parental responsibility, to the importance of everyone having a job to go to, to the fact that the municipalities' responsibility for crime prevention is great and - which is more relevant in this debate - to the police's opportunities to build long-term cooperation and relationships with the residents in our districts.

But then I wonder how you have thought about this on the government side. Municipality after municipality and family after family testify to the crisis and the austerity measures that these operations are currently undergoing. In what ways will fewer young people be lured into crime when fees in sports clubs shut children out? How will the resilience in society increase when schools have difficulty getting substitutes on site because they do not have the funds or extra resources? Social services cannot afford to hire. The queues in child and adolescent psychiatry are enormous, and one is forced into savings.

I do not understand how, on one hand, one speaks of our need for a stronger society and on the other hand, one forces the strong operations to undergo large savings.

Mr. Speaker! In the autumn budget, we proposed major investments to break the recruitment, to strengthen socially vulnerable neighborhoods, and for extra resources for schools to increase equality. We want to see stronger investments in children and young people, who shall be given a better opportunity for a meaningful leisure time far away from criminal groups.

Today, those who live in our most neglected neighborhoods are hit hardest by society's inequality but also by the violence that has emerged with shootings, explosions and gang crime. The security zones will most likely be an everyday reality right here.

I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 5.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Mattias Vepsä said from the rostrum that many of us here in the chamber want to break the gangs. The Social Democrats have wanted to break the gangs for quite a long time. In 2017, Morgan Johansson said that you were well on your way to breaking the gangs. The problem is not a lack of will, but a lack of ability among the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the member a few questions.

The Social Democrats' party leader said not very long ago that we need to legislate at pandemic speed against the gangs because it is urgent. What does pandemic speed mean then? Well, from the time the pandemic law was presented until it was voted through, it was a month, a little over. One can say five weeks, to round it off.

In the question regarding this proposal, the opposition complains that it has gone too fast. The referral period has been five weeks. I cannot quite make sense of this.

The united opposition, with the Social Democrats at the forefront, is therefore calling for the bill to be rejected. That is regrettable. But something that is not only regrettable but completely incomprehensible is what the Social Democrats are presenting instead as their own proposal.

On the one hand, they write in the reservation, which is common to the opposition, that there is no need to introduce special zones. On the other hand, they write in their own follow-up motion that they want to expand the possibilities for searches throughout Sweden in order to more easily be able to stop suspects. In an interview with the law enforcement spokesperson, he says that in their proposal, suspicion of a crime is required.

Here, one stops understanding what the Social Democrats actually think. Is there a need for expanded search powers, or is there not a need for expanded search powers? Should there be a requirement of suspicion of a crime, or should there not be a requirement of suspicion of a crime? Those are my questions.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions. First, I want to comment on this by saying that it is only about the referral period. The entire product was moved forward by a number of months. It is also moved forward when it comes to the implementation or the entry into force. The security zones will be in place in just a few weeks.

In several interpellation debates that I have had with Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer, I have asked questions and directed criticism. One year later, after these interpellation debates, more and more heavy referral bodies are also pointing to this. On one hand, there are possibilities for searches, and on the other hand, we have problems that have been discussed in previous exchanges of replies. There is an uncertainty about how and when one can conduct a search. This leads to the fact that in certain areas, people already today experience being stopped in a way that they wonder about.

In these debates, I heard that there would be reference groups, that there would be transparency in the processes, and that there would be an opportunity to participate in the discussions.

I have not seen any reference groups. To this department series, a number of people from, among others, the Swedish Police Authority and Brå have been linked. But I lack, according to what I have read, civil society's various experiences and opportunities for a broader circle to participate, so that one gets a breadth in the legislative work. I have, therefore, lacked opportunities for insight all the way through.

As we approached the turn of the year, we thought it was worth looking at the criticism that JO and several others—primarily JO—have directed regarding the fact that we have a problem with certain searches. We chose to respond to the issue of legal certainty in a separate proposal. This is therefore about a receipt for the person who is stopped and searched, so that they know why and on what basis they were stopped. We know that many police officers, especially newly graduated ones, can also receive support in that they must consider the legal scope and then provide a receipt.

We also said that one could look at clarifying this with gang context in the police act 19 § and 20 §.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I still find it difficult to understand what the Social Democrats think regarding the possibility of searching persons in Sweden. Is there a need to expand the possibility of searching persons in Sweden, or is there not such a need?

The Social Democrats have an alternative proposal to our delimited proposal on time and space. The Social Democrats want to see a new proposal that applies to all of Sweden. Should it require suspicion of a crime in that proposal, or should it not require suspicion of a crime? If it is to require suspicion of a crime, as your justice policy spokesperson has expressed in an interview, it is a deterioration of the possibilities for the police to conduct searches in all of Sweden. Is there a need, or is there no need? Should it require suspicion of a crime, or should it not require suspicion of a crime?

I also note that there are some parties – above all one party from the opposition – that maintain a rather stringent line in how they argue against this proposal. In accordance with their arguments, they will vote for rejection. It is – lo and behold – the Green Party (MP). Their reservation actually maintains a rather high intellectual level, I must say. Their voting, their explanation of vote, and how they will position themselves in the chamber this afternoon are in line with how they have argued. That is not the case with the Social Democrats (S).

Therefore, one begins to wonder if the opposition is no longer led by the Social Democrats. Should we actually be talking about the new MP opposition? Time will tell. But I think it is interesting to note that it currently seems to be the MP opposition and its stringent line in relation to the government's policy that has the greatest intellectual height in here.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! It seems to be a favorite pastime on the government side to have political science reasoning about who is in a governing position. Is it an SD government? Is it not an SD government? Which party is the opposition's largest party?

I think we can indulge in such speculations outside the chamber and have specific seminars in the seminar activities.

I am nevertheless glad that we are four opposition parties who collectively say: This legislation comes with greater risks than benefits, and therefore we should reject it.

It is clear that we have not had access to the Government Offices' investigative apparatus to look in detail at exactly how our legislative proposals can be designed, but we see the criticism that JO has directed. We therefore intend that changes need to be made to the Police Act so that it becomes possible to potentially look at those who are known from before, who have moved in or can be suspected of being involved in a gang context. Those building blocks shall be made clearer. In Brås report, such possibilities are pointed out, and they are also in our proposal.

Then it was the question of combating the pandemic. It would be appropriate if we here in the chamber could state that we are in agreement about breaking new recruitment, strengthening society, and ensuring that not a single child is lured into the gangs. We shall break what many Danish sociologists talk about, namely the gangs' supply chain. We must achieve both.

The government side is importing a proposal from Denmark, namely visitation zones. They are doing it in a half-hearted way, even though there is stronger legislation in Sweden. But they consistently refuse to see that in Denmark, more and more people are pointing out that one must break the chain of commerce.

Come to the chamber with proposals to strengthen welfare, schools, social services, and leisure time, and to give all young people the opportunity they need to live a good and equal life! Then we will vote for it.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! This morning, many hard-working Swedes went to work. Some have lived here for several generations, and others have come here later in life but will live here for several generations to come. For all these Swedes, the Moderaterna are now working to restore both the work principle and security.

Today we are debating proposals for safety, to take back control over law and order in the country. Sweden has very serious problems with shootings and explosions. The criminal networks have a large amount of violence capital and are completely indifferent to how the violence affects innocent people.

Over the last ten years, fatal gun violence has tripled. Last year, Sweden had nine times more fatal shootings than Norway, Denmark, and Finland combined. It is a slight decrease from 2022, but it is still the second highest recording to date. At the same time, the number of explosions in 2023 was the highest ever recorded in Sweden. Furthermore, the violence has recently become increasingly ruthless. Retaliation actions are directed at the relatives of criminals. Shootings and explosions affect neighbors and people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. People die from stray bullets and powerful bombs or have their homes blown apart.

Mr. Speaker! No single proposal will change the situation, but reform by reform we shall take back control over law and order and push back the gangs and organized crime.

An important proposal in the puzzle is the security zones, what we previously called visitation zones. Today, the police are not allowed to search persons who may have links to criminal networks simply based on a risk profile. Even if the police find themselves in a situation where, due to previous experiences and knowledge of current gang networks, they want to check certain persons and vehicles, they therefore cannot do so.

The purpose of the zones is therefore to give the police better tools to check persons and vehicles, precisely in order to cool down conflicts, break cycles of violence, and prevent retaliatory actions. In a security zone, the police shall have extended powers to body-search persons and search cars for, for example, weapons or explosives. A zone may be introduced in a certain area for a period of two weeks when there is a tangible risk of a shooting or an explosion as a result of a conflict in or between criminal networks. The measure must be necessary, and the advantages must outweigh the disadvantages. The zone may be extended in time, but for each extension, stronger reasons are required. As soon as a zone is no longer needed, the police shall lift it.

Mr. Speaker! A concrete suspicion of a crime will not be required for, for example, a body search, but that does not mean that an intervention may occur arbitrarily; rather, objective reasons are still required. It can involve time, place, associations, behavior, and so on. There must always be a need for intervention based on the circumstances in view of the purpose of the security zone. Here I want to emphasize that such a need can never be justified by ethnicity, nationality, or skin color alone. Furthermore, we are improving the protection against discrimination by ensuring that body searches are also covered by the documentation requirements in the Police Act.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has serious problems with shootings and explosions, and there is a great need to test new measures that can be effective in the fight against gangs. This is what Brå, the police, and the Police Union say. We had therefore hoped that the proposal on security zones would be voted through with a broad majority in the chamber. The legislative proposal that is now on the table has been and is well-considered, but despite this, the Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party have jointly announced that they will vote no. This is bad for Sweden, and it shows once again the opposition's lack of crisis awareness.

The Social Democrats have, for a long time, let it appear that they are indeed just as eager to combat gang crime as we Moderates are. But when things are put to the test, it turns out that it was merely an election strategy and something that political commentators and columnists usually call triangulation. The Social Democrats actually lack concrete policies in many of Sweden's most acute areas. The primary proposal that has been presented from them in the area of law and order is a weapons amnesty. I believe and hope that Sweden's largest opposition party can do better than that.

If Magdalena Andersson had been Prime Minister, there would have been no paradigm shift for crime and no paradigm shift for the policy against crime. Instead, the naive policy with absent results would have continued. But fortunately, the Swedish people voted out the Social Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! Let me address some of the objections that have been raised against the proposal on security zones. One objection is that the zones will increase mistrust towards the police. If we look at the measurements that have been made regarding support for the zones, we can state that the latest measurement from DN/Ipsos shows that a majority of voters are in favor of visitation zones. If we supplement that measurement with Järvaveckans report, it shows that residents with a foreign background in vulnerable areas are the most positive towards the introduction of visitation zones.

Another objection is that the zones are misplaced because shootings can occur anywhere. The Social Democrats write this in their reservation. But this is not correct. Research compilations by, for example, Manne Gerell and Mia-Maria Magnusson show that there is a predictability in where the next shooting will take place. If one adds the police's own intelligence to that, it can be imagined that the accuracy regarding where the next shooting will take place increases even further.

A third objection is that the proposal risks leading to discrimination. It is a justified objection as we Moderates see the matter. All policing tools, including the proposal on security zones, involve a risk of discrimination if they are applied in the wrong way. The Government takes that risk very seriously, and we have therefore designed the proposal on security zones in a way that shall minimize the risk.

Every intervention must be proportionate, and an intervention may never occur solely or primarily because of a person's actual or perceived ethnicity or nationality. The system has also been combined with control mechanisms that reduce the risk of abuse and arbitrariness. There is a possibility to appeal the decision regarding the zone to court and an obligation to document every intervention in the zone. Additionally, we have added that the regulation shall be evaluated carefully once it has been in place for some time.

With this said, I want to emphasize that I have great confidence that the police will use this tool in a responsible manner. I also know that the Police Authority itself is conducting active development work to reduce risks such as ethnic discrimination.

One can see it as that we have two alternatives here. One is to not proceed with a powerful tool in the fight against the gangs due to the risk of discrimination. The other is to do everything we can to push back the gangs and simultaneously reduce the risk of discrimination through legal safeguards and active development work.

For me, it is a very simple choice. We Moderates are now doing everything we can to push back the gangs and take back control over law and order in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates and Ulf Kristersson are currently mobilizing Sweden and society against crime. We are increasing resources to the justice system, toughening sentences, and increasing the police's powers. Reform by reform, we are pushing back the serious organized crime and restoring safety in Sweden.

Now we vote yes to the security zones.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to pay a tribute to you, Louise Meijer. You are very eloquent. You speak about how the government parties and the government power are now going to roll out reform after reform. You do that too, but the question is which reforms it is about. Here, the majority and the opposition stand on very different ideological grounds.

There are many questions I would like to ask. Louise Meijer mentioned nothing about resources to realize what is intended to be security zones. On the other hand, I heard a lot of argumentation about searches. At the same time, it is said that it is not about search zones but about security zones for the residents in the area. I cannot make it add up.

One can also reflect on the police's attitude. The majority of the police who were mentioned in Brås latest report, both employees and managers, were critical of the zones. In addition, it is still not said anything about how the anti-discrimination legislation can contribute to protection and redress if mistakes are made. We know that mistakes were made today and that mistakes will be made tomorrow.

I would be grateful for answers to these questions.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not quite grasp all the questions. I understood, in any case, that it was to some extent about discrimination, so let me start there.

Objections have been raised regarding the risk of arbitrary interventions, discrimination, and that people perceive themselves as being wrongly searched. We need to take this risk with this new tool seriously. We know that very many people out in Sweden already have that experience with the police. Therefore, I am very pleased that the police, with the new national police commissioner, are clear that there is an active development work underway to counter ethnic discrimination within the police.

This is not something that only occurs within the police, but it occurs in all parts of society. Therefore, it is important to work against it and that we in this chamber think about this risk and try to minimize it when we present legislative proposals.

That is what we mean by what we have done with the control mechanisms of this proposal. It is about ensuring that an arbitrary intervention cannot be made and that an intervention may never occur solely because of ethnicity, skin color, or nationality. It is about being able to appeal the zone as such. It is about documenting all interventions that occur. It is also about the law being evaluated after a period of time, as stated in the bill.

We mean that the legal certainty guarantees and the control mechanisms that exist in the proposal will minimize this risk in a way that makes it acceptable to vote through such a product.

This is my answer regarding the issue of discrimination.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. However, I heard nothing about the anti-discrimination legislation. If mistakes were made, there must be measures for redress for those who are subjected to discrimination.

I also heard nothing in the answer regarding resources. Should there be more police in these areas, or should more be invested in social measures to create safety, so that it truly becomes a safety zone?

I still see that Louise Meijer focuses primarily on the visits and not on what are safety-creating measures in general. That is where the dividing line lies between, on one hand, the majority and the government and, on the other hand, the opposition. Why is one so one-sided from the government's side?

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out to those listening - perhaps not primarily for those who are here in the chamber but more for those listening at home - that the dividing line between the Moderate-led government and the opposition is not what is in focus in this debate. The dividing line is that parts of the opposition do not want secret surveillance. They vote no to stay-away orders. They do not want anonymous witnesses. They do not want double penalties for gang criminals. They do not want visitation zones. They do not want eviction of gang criminals from rental apartments. They also do not want to focus on combating, opposing, and pushing back the gangs to the extent that the Moderate-led government wants. That is where the dividing line lies between the Moderate-led government and the opposition.

When it comes to the Discrimination Act, we have, as previously stated, had the Minister for Equality in the committee during the preparatory period. She has also told us that the government is preparing a proposal to expand the Discrimination Act so that it also covers police interventions. This is currently being prepared in the Government Offices, and we will have to see what the government comes back with in that area.

I cannot answer how the police will organize themselves in the areas that, at least temporarily, will constitute security zones. It is a question of how the police themselves choose to act. If a security zone is established, it is conceivable that more police officers are deployed to the site so that security can be maintained within the zone, but I am the wrong person to ask exactly how this will take place. I can instead answer questions about the legislative product itself, which Gudrun Nordborg has already posed questions about.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates, the Minister for Justice and the government have called the proposal on visitation zones groundbreaking. They have done so during this parliamentary term and during the election campaign.

The Liberals' spokesperson, who will participate later in the debate, has said something else in an interview, namely that this will have no effect at all and that the criminals will not even notice it.

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask Louise Meijer which side she is taking. Is this pattern-breaking or something that the criminals will not notice at all?

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a semantic debate that is to some extent taking place in this chamber, but let us have that debate.

The Moderate-led government argues that because of the level at which the gross organized crime currently stands, pattern-breaking reforms are required to push it back. It is not just about the explosions and the shootings, but also about infiltration in political parties, public activities and companies, about how money is laundered, and about the over one hundred billion that the organized crime turns over every year.

To push back against this, we need pattern-breaking reforms. That said, it does not mean that every single reform will be a knockout blow, the only pattern-breaking reform that makes the situation resolve itself. If it were that simple, it would have been great. But unfortunately, it is not, and our proposals must be seen as a package, as a whole. And every individual proposal must be seen as a piece of the puzzle in the big picture and in the large package in order to just push back the gangs with pattern-breaking reforms. That is why we call this a systemic shift within crime policy.

I would like to say that no, security zones will not be a silver bullet and the reform that solves Sweden's situation, and that is not what anyone has claimed. But they are an important piece of the puzzle for the police to be able to step by step take back control over law and order and ensure that Swedish law applies, not just outside this chamber but in all parts of Sweden. In all of Sweden's areas of exclusion, equal law shall apply to everyone.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it is semantics to on the one hand call something pattern-breaking and on the other hand say that it has no effect at all. I think they are completely different things.

I note that Louise Meijer stands somewhere in the middle and says that this is one piece of the puzzle among others. But the government has, nevertheless, had a rhetoric where it has been called pattern-breaking and said that it will have a very large effect.

Louise Meijer stated in her speech that the police in many cases lack the opportunity to conduct searches. I do not share that view. But if it is as Louise Meijer claims in her speech, what use are the security zones then? If one wants to check a car and believes that under existing legislation one does not have the right to do so, does Louise Meijer not think that the car will then be moved outside the zone?

If the problem really is in the way Louise Meijer says, then the legislation must be changed generally. The police and the government say that the zones will be used in exceptional cases, when one wants to cool down a wave of violence, prevent shootings, explosions etcetera. If this problem exists, it must be handled in a different way than with the visitation zones.

I do not share that view, Mr. Speaker. The Swedish regulatory framework differs significantly from the Danish one. The Swedish police have significantly greater opportunities than the Danish police to conduct searches, so I do not share that perception. But if it is as Louise Meijer says, she should not submit such a proposal. She should instead review the search rules generally.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. It was very good. Let me therefore clarify.

Today, the police cannot conduct a search solely based on a risk profile. In the upcoming security zones, it will be permitted. It will therefore be easier for the police to carry out a search in the security zones than it is with existing legislation. This in itself will have a directive effect, if one may put it that way. Hopefully, as Katja Nyberg previously explained here and just as Rasmus Ling also speaks about here, one can therefore imagine that with that knowledge, weapons will not be transported in the same way within these zones. One could also imagine that this, in a second step, leads to the fact that shootings will not occur to the same extent in these zones. Thus, the zones will become safer.

With this said, there is still a possibility for Swedish police to conduct searches without suspicion of a crime in all places throughout Sweden. It is an important complement to the security zones. We retain the existing legislation and the existing rules for how searches can be conducted throughout the country and simultaneously special security zones in a delimited area for a limited time. This, together with control mechanisms for how this is to take place, lowers the threshold further for the police to intervene so that one can imagine that just that zone will be able to be the subject of revenge actions in an ongoing gang conflict, which one wants to curb. With the lower threshold for searches, one can also imagine that the effect is achieved, either by the persons moving out of the zone or by the police picking up and searching them. That is roughly the idea.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a rapid legislative process with a rather advanced and complicated legal framework with several new requirements that must be met. Visitation zones will be able to be used as early as in 14 days. By then, the police service and the judiciary must be ready for decisions on and the handling of these. The urgency is justified by the fact that they are expected to be used quickly.

My questions are: What are the member's concerns regarding the rapid implementation of the security zones? What does the member see as the greatest risk with the use that we will see in the near future?

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! The greatest risk I see with this is that we are a bit too slow on the ball, that we have arrived a bit too late.

The Moderates have pushed the issues of visitation zones for a long time. We have pushed other pattern-breaking reforms for a long time during previous mandates. At that time, the majority of the Justice Committee also directed a number of motions to the then Social Democratic-led government to introduce, for example, anonymous witnesses and double penalties for gang criminals, abolish today's bulk discount, and scrap the sentencing discount for minors.

My greatest fear is that many of the measures we are presenting now are coming far too late. That being said, I do not share the member's perception, which I understand to contain a judgment, that it has gone far too fast. I do not think it has gone far too fast. I share the Council on Legislation's assessment when it comes to the fact that the relatively short referral period of five weeks over the Christmas and New Year holidays in itself does not justify that the legislative product is not submitted at all.

My greatest fear is perhaps that the previous Social Democratic government did not do enough, fast enough, to break the spiral of violence that we are now seeing. This, in turn, has led to the level and the dignity of organized crime not stopping at shootings and explosions, but continuing into infiltration, money laundering, extortion, and so on in a system-threatening way. It is a very great fear of mine.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member has difficulty seeing any concerns with this. Nevertheless, we must be aware that it is not an instrument for, for example, checking someone's driver's license or the like. We must be aware that it concerns fundamental civil and political rights protected in the Instrument of Government, a protection against body searches.

I have noted what has been stated both in the speech and in the responses here that this must be carefully evaluated, that the police are working intensively to counter ethnic discrimination and that one must work to ensure that this is not used arbitrarily. At the same time, one cannot specify any risks with the rapid implementation here. We are talking about two weeks, so these laws can therefore be used in the weekend in two and a half weeks.

I turn a bit against the image of a united opposition that has been against almost everything. The Center Party was for the stay ban, the preventive measures that are now being used successfully, and the increased resources. We are for much of this, but we think the line is drawn here. I just want to check again that the member does not have any concerns that the rapid implementation could lead to this being used in a way that is not intended.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me emphasize that the Moderates have over the years had a very good cooperation with the Centre Party when it comes to forming committee majorities for various types of pattern-breaking reforms.

So, regarding the rapid implementation and potential concerns! When it comes to covert surveillance and stay bans, we also had a short implementation period, and both of these tools have enabled the police to carry out their work in a better and more efficient way to stop shootings and, to some extent, also explosions, and to remove persons who create great insecurity in public places around the country. We also heard that in a previous speech. When it comes to the tool security zones, I hope that the police will be ready to use it from day one, just as they were ready to use covert preventive surveillance and stay bans from day one. They turned out to be very good and powerful tools, and I hope for the same now.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Louise Meijer for an interesting speech and interesting exchanges of remarks.

I caught on the phrase "We do everything we can." Sverigedemokraterna and the governing parties are therefore doing everything they can to combat gang crime. There is a reform program in the Tidö Agreement, a number of legislative proposals have been presented, some investigations have been commissioned, and we have been able to enact a number of laws since the change of government. But "everything we can" must involve both breaking the new recruitment and the gangs' supply of goods and, at the other end, giving the law enforcement authorities all the tools required so that they can do their jobs effectively and arrest those who commit serious crimes.

Let me turn to the fact that the government is doing everything it can to accomplish this task. In the budgets that have been passed, they have cut back on crime prevention work and lowered the appropriation for likvärdig skola—an appropriation that truly did good in the most vulnerable and neglected areas and schools. At the same time, they have pressed a button that gave the very richest the opportunity for doubled rut and rot. In a Stockholm context, one could summarize it by saying that they take from Järva and give to Danderyd. I do not think that is doing everything one can.

We share the view that it is extremely important to break the gangs' power. Järvaveckan has listed the safety zones in place seven of eight. In place one, two, and three, there is increased police presence, much more preventive work, and reduced economic disparities. When will the government present these reform proposals and start listening to those who live in the most disadvantaged areas in our country?

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are debating the proposal on security zones. But Mattias Vepsä wants to broaden the debate, so let us do that.

The Moderates, with the help of the Riksdag's investigation service, have reviewed the social-preventive reforms that the Social Democratic-led government implemented during its last eight years in power. The results turned out to be very meager. You focused to a greater extent on implementing the announcements regarding increased penalties that the Moderates pushed through with majority support in the chamber. The Member of Parliament said themselves that you implemented 80 of them. But it was not 80 social-preventive reforms that were implemented.

I am therefore somewhat questioning as to why the Social Democrats time and again have such high self-confidence in the issue of how to break the new recruitment. We Moderates are prepared to take that debate every hour of the day, every day of the week, because we can have good self-confidence regarding that side of the coin as well.

Of course, it is as the member pointed out: The punitive and crime-fighting reforms are one side of the coin, and the other side of the coin is a Sweden that holds together and ensures that children and young people do not choose gang criminality but instead choose school and then work, and to groan and moan in the morning, drop off and pick up children, pay tax and contribute to our common good. Here we are doing a lot. We are restoring the work line, strengthening social services with a new preventive social services act, expanding youth supervision, investing in parental support programs, reducing secrecy, and investing in better schools. We therefore have many reforms even in this area.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Louise Meijer for a fiery contribution.

Based on individual headings in a budget, they may be able to make the investments Louise Meijer points out appear to be more than those of the Social Democratic-led government. But one must also look at what the appropriations to the country's municipalities and regions have looked like. Historically, we invested enormous resources so that they could manage healthcare, school, and care, that is to say our welfare. It was about more people getting into work and that these operations would not have to save and go to their knees in a difficult time.

I do not know what reality the SD-led government lives in. More and more people testify that welfare services are on their knees. It is tough to get staff to the school, and it is tough for social services. Child and adolescent psychiatry has enormous queues. We see how more and more parts of Sweden are falling behind because priorities were made in this chamber. We submitted a proposal for a bank tax so that the banks' excess profits could be used to strengthen the country's municipalities and regions and help to break the recruitment of new members to the gangs. The government has not done everything and has not tested all paths.

My broader approach in the debate also concerns the experiences from Denmark. In my speech and in previous exchanges, I pointed out that the possibilities of the judicial authorities, for example visitation, are one thing, but that in Denmark they have also worked on breaking the gangs' supply chain. A new report shows that a large part of Sweden's families with children have difficulty putting nutritious food on the table and that many single parents cannot afford leisure activities for their children. But the government postpones the leisure card year after year. There are no fast tracks. When will the reforms to break the new recruitment come?

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not that the S-MP opposition's targeted state grants will break the new recruitment to the gangs. The recruitment of children is a symptom of the exclusion we have had in our vulnerable areas as a result of a very large migration and a requirement-free integration policy. What will solve this and make Sweden a country that holds together again and feels community is that people become self-sufficient, can the Swedish language, and share our Swedish and Western values. Two of these you in the Social Democrats do not seem to comply with, and as for the third, that which concerns the language, you in the party do not seem to have fully decided whether you fully think so or not.

For the Moderates and for the Moderate-led government, it is one hundred percent clear and distinct what applies when it comes to breaking the new recruitment. It is a consequence of high migration over a long period together with a requirement-free integration policy where one has not dared to speak openly about many of the problems, but has instead swept them under the rug.

This must be met with demands for full employment, and thus a contribution ceiling, and by steering towards more people working. The opposition does not agree to that.

It must also be about language requirements and upgrading Swedish citizenship in order to maintain a sense of community here in Sweden. It is unclear whether the opposition, with Miljöpartiet at the forefront, agrees to this.

When it comes to Swedish and Western values, it is also unclear whether the opposition thinks it is racist to speak about this and wants a semantic discussion about what Swedish and Western values actually are and whether one can really say so or if it implies saying "us and them."

There are, therefore, many outstanding questions regarding the recipe that the Moderate-led government has for breaking the recruitment of young people into gang crime.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet moves for the rejection of the government's proposition and for the approval of reservations 1 and 8.

It is easy to agree with the government's conclusion that powerful measures are needed to increase safety in society. Vänsterpartiet opposes, however, the government's assessment of how that goal should be achieved. We have other and more effective alternatives.

The government's proposal is a false copy of the Danish visitation zones, but not even the Danish original on visitations is worth following. It has not been evaluated, despite having been in effect since 2004.

Danish law lacks every other legal basis for carrying out searches. There, the zone is exclusive. That is not the case in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet considers that Sweden's existing legislation is sufficient to be able to search persons and conduct house searches for the purpose of, among other things, searching for weapons and explosives.

To strengthen safety in society, completely different measures are required, not visitation zones, or security zones as the government has chosen to call them – a cosmetic difference from the Danish original. Danish police emphasize that a decision on a zone must be combined with extra resources both for the police and for various social interventions. Sufficient resources are highlighted as absolutely central for a visitation zone to be able to function. Similar initiatives on breadth and cooperation are conspicuously absent in the bill.

The right-wing government's proposal is based on the Sweden Democrats' repressive policy that permeates the Tidö Agreement. The paradigm shift that the right-wing praises is ineffective and risks having opposite effects such that crime increases.

What then does the Left Party's alternative look like? Our proposal to seriously strengthen safety in society and in politically neglected areas is to create safety zones - it is to extract the best of the Danish alternative. In a safety zone, schools, social services, police, and other authorities, as well as social and civil organizations, shall receive extra resources over a longer period. The purpose shall be to strengthen crime prevention work through increased presence and increased social engagement to build trust and confidence, and it shall take place together with and for the people in the area.

This is, therefore, the central part of the Danish example. We can take further dimensions from Denmark. They have implemented youth housing, youth centers, and mentoring programs that are intended to be extra support for young people.

The Swedish zones will primarily be established in socially disadvantaged areas. The investigation is based on the assumption that security zones would lead to increased safety for those staying there. Several referral bodies point out that the security zones risk having the opposite effect. This applies in particular to those born abroad, who will likely be subjected to repeated body searches.

I recently visited Skärholmen and heard a mother describe how her twelve-year-old son has already been subjected to searches on repeated occasions, without it having yielded any results – he has been released and nothing has been found. But she claimed, therefore, that this with search zones is basically already introduced by the Swedish police, even though the legislation is not in place.

This will risk trust. In many places, municipalities in cooperation with the police and others have over time built up local forms of cooperation to work effectively with early crime prevention work. Several municipalities, including Gothenburg and the municipality I myself come from, Umeå, are now stating that that work will be harmed if the project with zones is implemented. Then the trust that has been built up will break, and it undermines the trust and confidence that has been extremely important.

Who is it that is to be subject to search? It is said in the bill that it should have connections to the rival networks and that one "should" do this on the basis of made observations, intelligence, police experience, or similar. And it should - thank goodness, as a single positive point - be possible to state in retrospect which circumstances were the basis for the intervention.

But there are concerns with this. It is specified that searches shall not be carried out solely or primarily on the basis of actual or perceived ethnicity or nationality. Here we already have major problems today with ethnic profiling and discrimination from the police side as well as in society at large. This is a structural problem.

The proposal that is now being presented means that the police will be allowed to search people based on subjective assessments of clothing and appearance, and it risks worsening the situation and undermining people's trust in the police in general. The Equality Ombudsman has pointed out that if one unilaterally expands the police's powers to intervene without simultaneously ensuring that innocent people who are affected can obtain redress afterwards, it is absolutely not compatible with what characterizes a rule of law. I truly agree.

There has been a proposal for legislation since 2021, and the responsible minister has been called to the Committee on Justice by the opposition to explain why nothing has happened. They speak vaguely about the fact that preparation is ongoing.

I want to say that the majority of the police officers who were surveyed in Brås latest report do not perceive search zones as an important tool. This applies to both officers on the ground and managers.

There is another report that Civil Rights Defenders has prepared in collaboration with Stockholm University, which is titled *Slumpvis utvald* (Randomly Selected), which is apt. There, it is pointed out that much occurs in people's everyday lives and that mistakes and individual shortcomings in some cases can be explained by individual individuals, so-called "bad apples," but then we remove the structural risk that discrimination occurs in ways that are not always clear but that nevertheless become very tangible for those who are affected.

What is positive is that both police officers and others who have been interviewed and who have been subjected to what they perceive as discrimination have a fair administration of justice as a common goal. In that regard, the police themselves have taken the initiative to give a mandate to Brå, whose report Police work with profiling and equal treatment was published in October. That contains some positive things about what is happening within the police force, but it is part of the package.

What is highlighted in Brå's report is that it is particularly important for the police to have a sense of tact when it comes to children and young people, not least because they are vulnerable to falling into the hands of network criminals, who are skilled at using bad experiences of the police's work for their own purposes.

Save the Children also highlights the risks for children, who are already subject to a great deal of surveillance today. It concerns surveillance cameras, many types of guards, drones, and so-called drug deterrents. Children are already used to being monitored, suspected, and scrutinized. Save the Children argues that introducing yet another surveillance mechanism is dangerous, and they ask what kind of society we want to offer children.

The Left Party is, therefore, a strong opponent of the government's zones. To mark our seriousness in this, I want to mention in conclusion that we have acted for the possibility of declaring the proposal dormant for one year, which the Instrument of Government allows for. Our contacts with other parties within the opposition have, however, not led to a dormant declaration becoming possible. Therefore, we remain today at demanding a rejection of the bill and approval of reservations 1 and 8.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are all affected by the exceptional violent crime that has hit Sweden in recent years. Organized crime and gang criminality have gained a foothold in our country, and there are also links to violent extremism, which collectively means that we have an increased threat level.

Crime is characterized by ongoing conflicts between different constellations that have their roots in power struggles and battles over a lucrative drug trade and other forms of crime that generate billions, but many times it is also about disagreements and personal conflicts that result in a bloody and deadly spiral of violence which in many cases affects completely innocent people.

Previously, there was a thought that the violence was a settlement between criminals and that for this reason there was no reason for the common man to worry. This thought has now been replaced by an insight that completely innocent people are affected when criminals do not shy away from any means to achieve their goals.

A number of innocent people have been killed or injured as they happened to be in a place where a shooting was taking place, or have been murdered because the perpetrator mistook the person or because the victim is a relative of a criminal.

Blasts have caused death and destruction with great suffering and extensive material and economic damage for those affected - collateral damage, to use the terminology of war.

Mr. Speaker! The current government has since taking office worked hard to push back crime and increase safety in general, but especially for residents in areas that are particularly exposed to serious violence. New legislation has been put in place, and more is on the way. The police have received new tools that are now yielding results. The clearance rate of serious crimes has increased from barely 20 percent to over 70 percent in Stockholm and from 15 percent to 85 percent in Uppsala, and there are good results also in other police regions.

Despite the good results, violent crime involving shootings and explosions remains at a continued high and unacceptable level. The current bill on security zones should be seen in this light. The police need a tool to prevent and deter crime in cases where, on good grounds, it can be expected that there is a tangible risk of criminal activity involving shooting or explosions in a certain area.

If there is such a risk, the police, with the support of the aforementioned law on security zones, shall be given the opportunity to search a vehicle or body-search a person without a concrete suspicion of a crime.

Decisions on security zones are made by the Swedish Police Authority and are time-limited, and the measure shall be documented. The requirement of proportionality shall be met.

Overall, we assess that a possibility to combine the Police Authority's current safety-creating measures with expanded powers in specific zones can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the crime prevention and safety-creating work and reduce the number of weapons on the street.

Mr. Speaker! Criticism has been voiced regarding the bill. Among other things, it has been argued that there is a lack of research confirming that this type of zones has any effect on crime. This may be correct, but on the other hand, there is also no research suggesting the opposite. What has been shown, however, is that the Danish police have used the method since 2004 with, according to their own account, good results.

If one looks at the work of the Danish police, which has been mentioned here during the debate on a number of occasions, one sees that over 200 inspection zones have been introduced since 2004, of which 14 were in 2022.

Danish police believe that the search zones have contributed to preventing the escalation of gang conflicts and spontaneous shootings. Above all, the zones are considered to increase safety for the public. The Danish police have experienced a clear improvement in the relationship with residents in the areas covered by search zones since they began working more intensively with information initiatives. It is an important message to convey to the Swedish police that search zones or security zones in themselves are not enough, but they must be combined with other things. This is also not forgotten.

Other concerns that have been put forward are the risk of stigmatization and discrimination in vulnerable areas. The risks of discrimination should not be downplayed, but similar risks also exist when using current powers. I believe that this risk neither increases nor decreases by the legislation coming into place.

The Swedish Police Authority is actively working on these issues. An intervention must be proportionate in every individual case and may not occur solely or primarily due to the person's actual or assumed ethnicity or nationality. The bill also contains, as mentioned, requirements for documentation of a completed house search or body search, which is a requirement that does not exist in the current Police Act.

I can also mention that opinion polls conducted in areas affected by violence indicate that security zones are something seen as positive by a majority of the residents. That is something to take to heart.

Mr. Speaker! Overall, a house search or body search is an intrusion into an individual's personal integrity and private life. But this must be weighed against the violation of people's safety, security, and human dignity that violent crimes entail.

As has been mentioned here, the Council on Legislation has in its opinion criticized the short referral period. However, it has also shown understanding for the proposal and stated the following: "Against the background of the seriousness of the problem, new safety-creating methods may need to be tested as complements to existing measures, even if it is unclear whether they will have the intended effect." In summary, it writes: "The Council on Legislation considers that the time offered to the referral bodies has been far too short but considers that this circumstance does not constitute sufficient reason to block the proposal in this case."

Mr. Speaker! The security zones are in themselves crime-preventive, but they must be balanced with other crime-preventive measures in order to strengthen the trust between the police and the local community. Ultimately, violence is a result of an eroded morality. When good values have been dismantled, the vacuum has been quickly filled by a destructive gangster culture.

As a party, we Christian Democrats have, among other things, put forward proposals to assign a police officer to every school. In the government, we also ensure that the social services are significantly expanded and parental support is strengthened so that parents can receive support at an earlier stage. The government has also presented a social preventive strategy against criminal networks and other crime, called Barriers against Crime, which is a coordinated approach across the boundaries of policy areas to develop the preventive work against crime throughout the country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Security zones are another tool in the police toolbox that can be used when there is danger at hand. It is therefore an emergency instrument that should be used restrictively, and the measure must be proportionate. If the tool is used correctly, it prevents violent crime and provides increased safety for residents in the affected security zones.

With this, I vote in favor of the government's proposition on security zones.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I wanted to ask Torsten Elofsson a bit about the possibility of appeal that exists in the bill. There is, in fact, such a possibility, not regarding individual inspections in themselves but regarding the zones themselves and their establishment.

Everyone who has ever appealed an administrative decision knows that one does not receive an answer to the appeal the same afternoon, and that it can take quite a long time. The Government has written in the bill that it shall be handled expeditiously, but the Council on Legislation's criticism in this part is actually as harsh as it can be: "In the Council on Legislation's opinion, the proposed procedure for appealing zone decisions is flawed to such an extent that the proposal in this part should not be used as a basis for legislation in its current form."

The administrative courts in Gothenburg and Stockholm say that this will likely lead to cost increases as they expect many will appeal when such zones are established. The government, however, writes that they will not be allocating any funds to the administrative courts for this. The implication of that, Mr. Speaker, is that one can expect the appeal times to be extended in other cases that do not have a particular urgency, but also that it will take its time in these cases.

I would like to ask Torsten Elofsson how one actually views the criticism that the Council on Legislation has put forward in this part, Mr. Speaker. Why have funds not been added for the judges regarding the cost increases concerning this?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Many concerns are raised, one after another, regarding this. It is as with all legislation that we implement, that is to say, it must be tested and evaluated once it is in force.

When it comes to appeals to the Administrative Court, it is a problem that also exists in other matters, that is, the requirement of expediency that one must take into account. When it comes to the appropriations to the Administrative Court, it is something that the Ministry of Finance handles; it is not handled by the committees or the Ministry of Justice at all. The question of how one has reasoned regarding the financing of the Administrative Court, I therefore actually cannot answer. I leave that to someone who is more knowledgeable in that part.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think it is sufficient to say that one refers the problem of the funding of the judiciary to someone else. The Ministry of Justice must be responsible for its agencies, and we, as the Committee on Justice, must ensure that the judges have reasonable conditions to carry out their work.

It is two large and important administrative courts - Gothenburg and Stockholm, that is, the two largest - that say that this will cost more and request more funds for the increased activity. Torsten Elofsson should be aware that in propositions where proposals are presented that involve increased costs, it is common for the government's departments to have spoken with each other so that the reforms being presented are financed.

I think it is remarkable that one shrugs off the fact that this will make an already pressured situation with long processing times even worse, Mr. Speaker, and does not ensure that the courts are actually funded more when there are fears that there will be very many appeals regarding these zone decisions.

Mr. Speaker! It can also be noted that the zones will be established for two weeks at a time. It is stated clearly both in the investigation and the government memorandum that form the basis for this, and in the Council on Legislation it is written that under all circumstances it will take longer than two weeks, that is, as long as the zone decision remains in force, to have an appeal reviewed. The matter will therefore be moot in those cases where the appellant is awarded the right. The zone decision will have applied even in those cases where the police made an incorrect decision.

This could have been changed by having a court proceeding already at the establishment of visitation zones, but the government very actively chose not to have it. I think it is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the courts and the appropriations for them, it is the case that the appropriations for the courts have increased. Now Rasmus Ling is talking about feared cost increases that we actually know nothing about. The fact is that one receives an appropriation and it is to be distributed and prioritized based on the conditions that one has.

Rasmus Ling assumes that there will be a hail of appeals, which we actually do not know if it will do. Instead, it is a more academic discussion regarding this right now, because we do not know if it will occur. But if it does, one must prioritize and discuss with the government to what extent increased appropriations are needed. It is then in a budget process that that question is handled.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Torsten Elofsson spoke warmly about the Danish search zones. In my speech, I highlighted the major differences between Denmark and Sweden when it comes to the zones. Denmark has no other legal grounds than search zones to be able to carry out a search at all. In Sweden, we have several alternatives. When the Danish police emphasize the importance of zones, they also simultaneously emphasize very clearly the need for resources both for the police and for various social interventions.

We do not know what it is that has borne fruit in Denmark – is it the visits themselves or the interventions in the social arena? One carries out strong crime-preventive measures and cooperates broadly in society when one establishes such a zone. Much other research shows that it is this second leg, strong crime-preventive measures in the social arena regarding school, leisure activities and support for young people, that is what saves us from a serious situation with crime.

I wonder how Torsten Elofsson views these two legs today. Why has one not argued in the Swedish government bill for also the other leg, which seems to be the strongest?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe there are two different parts to this. Today we are debating security zones and the legislation surrounding them. The crime prevention work that must be linked to the vulnerable areas is another issue. I touched upon in my speech that Danish police have concluded that if one introduces these types of security zones, they must be combined with increased efforts in the area of crime prevention. I also mentioned that the government has developed a strategy that will be applied for the crime prevention work. It is very much about how one works both purely operationally and in terms of crime prevention in these areas.

The security zones are an emergency measure that is decided upon when there is a tangible acute risk of shootings or explosions occurring in a certain area. In that case, it is a matter of securing and safeguarding that area in an acute phase. That is why the decisions are also time-limited to two weeks, obviously with the possibility of extension. It is not the case that one introduces security zones just like that in a general sense because one thinks one should have them, but there is a basis that one bases their decision on. The crime prevention work with school, social services, police and so on in the area is an issue that is linked to this but which does not directly concern the legislation on security zones as it is designed now.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, but I think it creates a great imbalance. The Danish system is invoked and the most uncertain part is taken to be implemented in Sweden. One does not see the connections with how incredibly important the general crime prevention work is. It is of course also possible to intervene more individually.

I see great risks with this. As the police, many municipalities with several [members] undermine the trust in the police and the opportunities for cooperation that are needed to solve crimes, to obtain information from the public, and for people to dare to testify, by proceeding with this proposal. If one has destroyed part of the foundation, it is extremely difficult to build up such trust again. I see very serious risks that the police could lose respect and trust. My next question to Torsten Elofsson will be whether he also sees such risks, especially given that we also know that discrimination occurs.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One must always take these factors into account. I believe that we should take note of the experiences made by the Danish police, who have used this tool for 20 years. It is noted that safety has increased in the areas and that they have achieved a better relationship with the residents, who are grateful that it has become safe and secure. They have also in Denmark succeeded in pushing back gang crime in a completely different way than we have been able to here. The safety zones, or visitation zones as they are called there, constitute an instrument and a tool in the total toolbox. It is not a universal tool that solves everything.

If we handle this in a good and correct way, I do not believe there are reasons for concerns about increased discrimination, increased insecurity, and increased polarization. It is about building relationships between the police officers who work in the area and the residents in the area. As I said, one can conclude from this opinion poll that a majority of the residents in the vulnerable areas support this.

It is also interesting to see that the municipalities that de facto have approved the bill are those that have been particularly affected by serious violent crimes for a long time, for example Eskilstuna, Helsingborg, Norrköping and Linköping. They think this is a good proposal, and there is reason for that - if one is particularly affected, one wants this measure.

I believe and hope that the concerns expressed by Gudrun Nordborg lack foundation. As was said here earlier, the police are actively working to counter discrimination. I defend against the idea that there would be any structural xenophobia or racism within the police leadership - that is not the case according to my experience.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the rejection of the government's proposition to introduce visitation zones, or security zones as they are now called. I also move for the approval of reservation 1.

There is no doubt that we have a serious situation with organized crime, shootings and explosions in our country and that there is a need for sharp measures. But the measures need to be both effective and legally sound. The proposed visitation zones, security zones, are neither effective, legally sound, nor for that matter reasonable or proportionate.

Centerpartiet is not against body searches or house searches in themselves. They are coercive measures that already exist and which are important when they are used in a reasonable and proportionate manner in cases of suspected crime or prevention. But none of that is the case with today's proposal.

One of our main arguments against the proposal is that there is a lack of evidence that the visitation zones would be effective and have a preventive effect. Instead, we see that they risk leading to increased discrimination and reduced trust in the police.

The Government primarily refers to Denmark. In Denmark, as we have heard, there have been search zones since 2004. There, the police did not have the possibilities for body searches that the Swedish police have and have long had. The Danish search zones have, according to information, not been evaluated. But both in the bill and by a Danish researcher who wrote in DN Debatt the other day, and by others, it is emphasized that the decisive factor for the Danish progress was most likely not the possibility of body searches, but a large and constant police presence with sufficient resources as well as the presence of other resources from the rest of society, both from the public sector in the form of other authorities, municipalities and housing companies, and from civil society in the form of the business sector and voluntary organizations.

In the proposition, reference is also made to a Brå report from 2010, which states that it is important that the police's work is directed towards crime-intensive locations, which is the case in this proposal. But the report says nothing about visitation zones or the like, and even there the focus is on a strong police presence.

It also states: "If the public simultaneously distances itself from the police, it becomes difficult to consider a location-based policing as successful." It has therefore not been shown that the proposed security zones are effective. Instead, they create a large risk of discrimination and arbitrariness. Furthermore, one must be extremely careful about introducing legislation that allows for such a restriction of fundamental civil rights as body searches are.

What do we then see as the solution to the problem we agree exists? Already today, the police have, according to the Police Act, the right to body-search persons at a low level of suspicion and in some cases even preventively, precisely for the purpose of removing weapons and explosives from criminals. The current legislation together with a strong police public presence, where preschools, schools, housing companies and authorities together with the police cooperate with local business and community life, is what we see as the effective way.

Are the security zones really crime-preventing? During the debate, I have heard the majority describe them as crime-preventing, crime-fighting, and sometimes crime-investigating. But what is stated in the committee report is that they are crime-preventing. Let us then talk about crime prevention!

We also often talk about the children. There, we need to have crime-preventing leisure activities. We need to have adults and sometimes even the much-maligned juice and buns. An evil force needs to be met by a good force and not by a vacuum or, for that matter, by a visitation zone.

We see great risks that the zones will lead to increased stigmatization of certain areas. The work of prevention and trust-building by the police, the municipalities, and other actors risks being undermined without us seeing any crime-preventing effect at the other end.

Despite the government's image that the zones in themselves create safety, it is difficult to see the positive side of an area having a security zone established. It is difficult to see that it would attract businesses and entrepreneurs in the form of shops, offices and services when one knows that there is a risk for employees, visitors and residents of being randomly subjected to body searches and having vehicles searched. And what these areas need is jobs, services and trust in society.

I also want to say something about the preparation of the bill. The preparatory process has received extensive and serious criticism from the referral bodies regarding both its content and the forms under which the proposal was developed. We need to reiterate here that the proposal concerns fundamental rights to privacy and integrity. The proposal deals with questions regarding the limits of the exercise of state power and the core of the rule of law.

From the directives to the investigation that forms the basis for today's proposal, it appears that the assignment was to produce a proposal on how a system of visitation zones can be introduced, not to investigate whether a system with zones can be considered an effective solution to the problems that exist. With such a setup, there is an obvious risk that the problem will be insufficiently highlighted and analyzed. This has also been pointed out by, among others, JO, Stockholm University, and Svea Court of Appeal in their referral responses.

An important factor when it comes to coercive measures is that they must be surrounded by effective control mechanisms. The Council on Legislation states in its opinion that the proposal, insofar as it concerns the possibility of appeal, cannot be used as a basis for legislation. Due process guarantees are lacking.

We consider, in accordance with the Council on Legislation, that a system with the subordination of the police's decisions would have been better, and we will carefully follow up on individuals' and the judiciary's opportunities and ability to monitor and review decisions regarding these zones. We will also review and closely follow the government's work with a new discrimination law which also needs to cover the police's exercise of authority.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that we have a serious situation in Sweden now with grave organized crime on the rise. It is important that the state acts. I have said it before, and I say it again: Centerpartiet has stood behind the increased penalties that have been introduced. We have stood behind stay-away orders. We have stood behind the expanded powers for the police when it comes to secret preventive measures that are now in place, and we have stood behind the major resource reinforcements to the entire justice system. We believe that the state needs to act powerfully, effectively, and in a legally secure manner. But the visitation zones are none of these.

We can observe that the proposal has met criticism on a rarely seen scale regarding purpose, effect, preparation, protection of constitutionally protected freedoms and rights, proportionality, risk of discrimination, and lack of legal certainty guarantees. That in that situation, laws are introduced in public places that restrict fundamental freedoms and rights with the arguments that we must check everything, that those who have clean hands do not need to worry, or, as I have heard today, that it has not been shown to be bad, I do not think is worthy. There is a reason why there is a protection against body searches in the constitution.

We are in favor of body searches in cases of suspected crime or if there are grounds to assume that the person in question has weapons or explosives. Those laws already exist.

I have realized that this with coercive measures is a bit like with antibiotics. When penicillin arrived, it was revolutionary - it cured the sick and made people survive. In the same way, it is with coercive measures. We absolutely need to be able to eavesdrop, conduct body searches, and perform house searches in order to be able to prevent and investigate crimes. But, we know now that when antibiotics are overused, a resistance arises, and it no longer works on either simple or severe medical conditions. The risk is the same if coercive measures are overused.

The trust that the police and the rest of the justice system have from the public is crucial, both for preventive and for investigative work. But if the general public assumes that one can be searched or wiretapped even if innocent, there is a risk that they will no longer see the police as a source of security but as a threat. At the same time, serious crime has both the resources and the drivers to find new ways to bypass the current coercive measures. Then we have gone too far.

It is a balancing act with coercive measures, just as it is with antibiotics. When used correctly, it is immensely positive and life-saving, but when overused, it eventually becomes ineffective. Therefore, the Center Party draws the line here.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is not really about inspections – it is about something else, and I will return to that.

The upcoming Section 22 of the Police Act, also known in popular parlance as the law on security zones, is actually only a small tightening of the existing legislation, namely Section 19 second paragraph of the Police Act. I believe the new law on security zones has received far too much attention and far too much criticism. It is a law that will be a small piece in the large puzzle we call crime-fighting work or why not crime-prevention work. Security zones are a crime-prevention tool, and it is a tool that the Police Authority has requested, especially as the other legislation, Section 19 second paragraph of the Police Act, has been unclear.

When I have followed the debate both here and in the media, I have noticed that there is a great lack of knowledge about how the law on security zones is intended to be used. Let me therefore, Mr. Speaker, give an example of how this law is intended to be used. It is, therefore, an example:

The police receive indications through surveillance and intelligence that a group is going to shoot, explode, or commit an attack in a certain area. It could, for example, be about seeking revenge for a person or wanting to take over a drug market. The police then deploy resources in the relevant area where the target person or persons live or stay. One evening, the police suddenly spot a car, and several people are traveling in that car. One of them the police recognize as a person linked to a criminal network and convicted of a serious crime.

It is the prerequisites.

There are two schools of thought here regarding what one wants the police to do. We can call one of them the opposition's school. The opposition does not think the police should do anything. They should wait and watch until reasonable suspicion has been built up so that they can perform a house search in the car and search and check the individuals with the support of the Code of Judicial Procedure. In principle, the opposition wants the police to wait until the individuals have rolled down the car window and fired straight into a residence with an automatic weapon. Only then should the police step forward and perform searches.

In the second school, which we can call the Tidö parties' school, one thinks that when there is a concrete threat and indications that an attack will take place in a certain area – then the police decide on a security zone.

With the new law, the police in this example get the right to intervene before anything happens. When the police have identified a person and, through surveillance, intelligence, personal contacts, and personal knowledge, have received grounds to stop and check the car and search for the weapons that are present, they can do this and hopefully prevent an attack from occurring. This is how the security zones are intended to be used. It is up to each individual to decide whether they think it should be as the opposition wants or as the Tidö parties want.

In the bill on the Act on Security Zones, it is clearly and explicitly stated how the intention is for the law to be used: within a limited area and for a limited time. The police shall work with intelligence, tips, and their own experiences. It is time and place that decide. In this way, the police will be able to work more offensively, more effectively, and more preventatively. The hope is that it will have the effect that those who plan to commit an act of violence will refrain from doing so. With this law, the police will be able to act before anything happens.

It has been put forward here, primarily by the opposition, which I think is good, that all of this shall be documented. It is important that it is documented who has carried out the inspection and why the inspection has been carried out. Time, place, and reason shall be documented. All of this is important, and it is something that the law will entail. One can thus, in retrospect, check who has done what.

Mr. Speaker! Back to the debate and what it is really about, namely the trust in the Swedish police, or rather the lack of trust in the Swedish police.

We have today four parties in the Swedish Riksdag that do not trust the Swedish police. It is four parties that are clear about being concerned that the Swedish police will begin to harass and discriminate against innocent people and that the Swedish police will begin to racially profile people. The opposition does not say that the Swedish police do this today, but it is said that they harbor great fears that it will begin to happen if the laws become reality. The opposition believes that the Swedish police will then begin to harass, discriminate, and racially profile; they have been clear about this in both the media and the debate.

In the year 2024, we are thus standing here talking about racial profiling, and we have high-ranking political representatives in Sweden's Riksdag who seriously believe that the Swedish police will select whom they will search based on how a person looks or where a person comes from. It is a very dark picture of the Swedish police that the opposition paints. As a police officer, I am both upset and saddened that political representatives in Sweden's Riksdag have this image. I actually have a bit of difficulty putting into words what I think about this.

Mr. Speaker! Many police officers work today under very difficult conditions. They are understaffed, they are underpaid, and they have to endure threats and violence. They are spat at and jumped on, and their interventions are filmed. They are mapped out, and their personal information is posted online. In some areas, there are strong forces that oppose a present police force. These are forces that do not want police nearby. I wonder why the police are also to be opposed by leading politicians in Sweden's Riksdag. What do we gain from that? Does it get better?

It is about the police who work daily in the vulnerable areas. These are areas that exist because of us politicians. We cannot blame the police; rather, it is bad politics that has led to us having these areas and that we still have them today. The police in these areas try to mediate, build relationships, and create trust. They try to become a part of everyday life for the law-abiding residents, the majority, who live there. These people do not want to live with threats and violence, shootings and explosions, and criminal gangs taking over streets and squares.

Do you seriously believe that you are helping when you point out the police and say that they cannot be trusted? Do you believe that you are helping the police in their work against the criminal networks? Do you believe that you are making it easier for them?

I know several of these police officers. They are passionate about working to protect those who live in these areas. They want the children to be able to play on the playgrounds without risking being shot. They want the hardworking and honest families not to risk having their apartments blown to pieces. They want business owners to be able to stay open without risking that criminal gangs take over the shop, extort them, or ensure they have an open drug market right outside the shop so that customers do not dare to come there.

These police officers want to [do the right thing]. They gain nothing from hanging around and harassing or discriminating against the residents or, for that matter, engaging in racial profiling. Please explain to me why they would do that and what you base your claims on! Tell me that!

I think it is sad, Mr. Speaker, that we even need to discuss this, and I think it is tragic that some use the Swedish police as a punching bag in the debate.

Swedish police defend democracy. Swedish police defend freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate and the free word. Swedish police are professional. Swedish police do not take sides. Swedish police defend anyone who wants to make their voice heard; it does not matter who you are or where you come from. Swedish police do not discriminate based on person.

Swedish police deserve better. Swedish police deserve that Sweden's Riksdag and its representatives stand up for them.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that Martin Melin's colleague in the cooperation, Louise Meijer, had a higher intellectual height in her speech regarding the description of the matter.

I intended to speak with Martin Melin regarding the matter of discrimination. Martin Melin clearly expresses in his statement that he does not see this as something important, but I still want to ask a number of questions.

There is an investigation proposal that was referred and completed several years ago, from 2021, which can be presented to the Riksdag if the government so wishes. It would mean that the police, the customs, and other authorities would be fully covered by the Discrimination Act. Responsible for the legislation in the government is Minister Paulina Brandberg, who was in the Committee on Justice during the preparation. The government is in a hurry in certain issues, but in this issue, they obviously have not been. The issue is being prepared within the Government Offices, and the government has not been able to give any notice as to when a bill can be presented to the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! I previously asked the Sverigedemokraternas representative if they would oppose this. They could not answer the question of whether they would let it through. I would very much like to hear Martin Melin's statement on the matter. Will the government submit a proposal to the Riksdag regarding a change in the Discrimination Act?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Rasmus Ling!

I think this is an important issue, even if Rasmus Ling says that I do not. I think it is very serious when police officers at an individual level discriminate, harass, or otherwise behave inappropriately. This is very important.

Now Rasmus Ling does not know me, but during all my years at the police, I have worked against this through the union. I think it is very important. But to lump the police together as a group and say that all police officers will start with harassment, discrimination, and racial profiling, I think is wrong. On an individual level, I have no problem with it, but do not lump the police together as a group! I think one should be careful with that, regardless of which context it concerns.

Regarding the Discrimination Act, I am glad that this is being looked at within the government. I did not know it was like this until I was made aware of it in the committee a couple of weeks ago. I think the Minister for Equality gave a good answer, so I refer to that and hope that Rasmus Ling is satisfied with it.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! No, I am really not satisfied with the message that there is a hope to present this. While in other matters the motion time is shortened to a few days, and a referral process is conducted over the Christmas and New Year holidays to force through legislation that is to be permanent, this is an issue that has been lying for three years, and one cannot even say with certainty that anything will be presented during the mandate period. It is not an answer that I am satisfied with.

Martin Melin says that discrimination is an important issue, while at the same time he has stood and mocked racial profiling and said that it does not occur. No one has claimed that this is something that the Swedish Police Authority as an agency engages in. However, it is a large number of referral bodies that warn that this will increase and that trust in the Swedish Police Authority as an agency is at risk. Martin Melin waves this away.

Mr. Speaker! That Martin Melin says that one should not go by appearance, clothes or the like becomes a bit strange when Martin Melin himself stood at the press conference and explicitly said that people should be able to be chosen precisely because of their clothing.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now, unfortunately, Rasmus Ling cannot be held accountable for this, but he will have to do so later. I have never, ever said that a person should be able to be searched solely based on appearance or clothing. If Rasmus Ling claims that I said that during the press conference, I want Rasmus Ling to produce exactly that clip and tell me where I say it. I have never said it – never, ever!

On the contrary, I explained very clearly in an interview on P1 an hour after the press conference that only clothing or appearance should not be a reason for a search. The same evening, I said the same thing on TV4. I do not understand where Rasmus Ling has gotten this from. I will actually demand that Rasmus Ling produces the clip and tells me where I say this.

I have a very hard time with lies. I can take anything but not when people claim that I have done things that I have not done. Then I actually get really angry.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Martin Melin!

I requested the floor because I am very curious as to how it can be that the Liberals have allowed this legislation through, which so obviously risks increasing discrimination in society. The Liberals are a party that usually stands up against discrimination in all situations, but now they are allowing this legislation through where there is an overriding risk that the visitation zones will be perceived as discriminatory and stigmatizing.

The proposal gives the police an unlimited possibility to body-search people without a concrete suspicion of a crime. Already today, there are problems with ethnic profiling and discrimination within the police. That does not mean that all police officers are discriminatory, but there are such elements within the police and it is a problem. This is also stated in Brås report, which shows that the police's work is associated with a risk of discriminatory ethnic profiling.

So this exists, and when it exists, I think it is very strange that one allows this legislation through which risks increasing discrimination, worsening the situation, and undermining the trust in both the authority itself and the police in particular.

These areas will not become safer by the knowledge that children and other relatives can be searched at any time on unclear grounds. This is also something that a number of heavy referral bodies have commented on, for example the Equality Ombudsman and Save the Children.

How can you pass this legislation that so obviously risks discriminating?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions and for the assertions.

Let me start with the claims. There is a lot of "if", "risk of", and so on. The ball is very large. We do not know how the law will turn out, and I think we should wait with judging it until it has been used. In three years it will be investigated, and if we are lucky, we stand here in three years, then we can talk about it.

When it comes to the referral bodies, it is the heavy-weight referral bodies that have had many "ifs" and "in case ofs". It is also many heavy-weight referral bodies that are positive towards the law, which somewhere seems to be forgotten. I think it is important to listen to the referral bodies and to take in what they say - then there can be different perspectives, different agendas and so on.

I have heard in the debate that there is already legislation in place. In that case, we are talking about Section 19, second paragraph of the Police Act, which states that the police can check a person without there being reasonable suspicion of a crime. The problem is that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has struck down several of these checks and argued that they were not substantiated. There has not been a right to perform the searches with the support of that law.

Last autumn, JO conducted an investigation where they looked at just over 650 such controls and concluded that there were some, in fact the majority, that were not okay. On the other hand, there was no basis for that any harassment or any discrimination had occurred. JO found no basis to criticize the police for anything of that sort.

This is one of the reasons why the new law has been enacted. Here, the police receive clear directives: in these areas, people may be searched - time and place. This is missing in the other law, which JO has struck down.

It is the answer to why we stand behind the law. We want the police to be able to work preventatively and prevent crime before anything happens. We also think – and this is important – of those who live there. Nothing is being said about them here today.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

If you really want to invest in those who live in these politically neglected areas, you should invest in preventive measures that mean something – invest in welfare, invest in schools, invest in leisure activities – and not on increasing insecurity and reducing trust in the police and authorities. That is exactly what is being done with this system.

Heavy and important referral bodies, for example the Equality Ombudsman, reject the bill. According to DO, the possibility of introducing safety zones will inevitably entail clear and unacceptable risks of discrimination related to ethnic origin, religion, or other belief. Also the Riksdag's ombudsmen, the Chancellor of Justice, Civil Rights Defenders, the Children's Ombudsman, and Save the Children reject the government's proposal. These are heavy bodies that have masses of knowledge and experience in the area, and they are being rejected. Why is that being done?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! No, the government does not reject this. The government takes their concerns to heart - for it is still concerns we are talking about and nothing concrete. The referral bodies cannot point concretely to that this will happen when the law is introduced, but one has concerns.

The government has taken this to heart. Above all, clear directives have been given to the Swedish Police Authority - for it is the Swedish Police Authority that is to carry out the measures, not the government - regarding what applies. No search may take place solely on the basis of ethnicity, clothing, and so on. They have been very clear about that.

What the member and others are doing now is expressing a lack of trust in the police's ability to handle this. That is my criticism of certain leading politicians. It is said: No, we do not trust that the Swedish police can handle this.

In other respects, I still think that the residents are being forgotten. 63 percent of the residents in those areas are positive towards security zones. They are positive that the police will finally see the problems that exist in their areas. They are positive that the police will finally be on site before anything happens. That is what they are seeking.

I meet residents who say: "You ignore us." But when the police are present in the vulnerable areas for a longer period, relationships are created and trust is built. My experience, admittedly only from 33 years as a police officer, shows that as long as the police are present, trust in the police increases – not the other way around, as the member said rather nicely here.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Melin and I have quite a lot in common. We both belong to liberal parties, and we are both on leave of absence from different agencies within the justice system in order to work as elected representatives here in the Riksdag. I believe we are both proud of all the roles we have.

But rather sharp words came from the member regarding my and the Center Party's view, that we would not have respect for, trust in, or have confidence in the police. I really want to take this opportunity to say that I defend myself against that description. I have the greatest respect for the police.

I am not naive, however. We have in previous exchanges heard that there are no concerns regarding this legislation, but then we heard another member say that we do not know how this law will turn out.

I therefore wonder why, according to the member and the Liberals, a possibility to appeal these decisions was even needed.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! By appealing the decision, it is therefore meant to appeal the introduction of a security zone in a certain area. That possibility will exist. But we have heard others say here that it will probably take time, that the court may not be able to handle it on the day, and that it could mean that the security zone is implemented and used before the appeal has been handled in court.

I do not really know how it has been planned to take place. But in my world, an appeal can be handled on the day; we see that people are being detained and so on. My hope is therefore that an appeal should be able to be made on the same day that the decision comes that a security zone shall be established. That is what I hope and believe shall happen. I have no other opinions on that.

The answer to the question is therefore that I think it is good that it can be appealed. I think that all decisions that authorities make in one way or another should be able to be controlled, investigated, and in some cases also appealed.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! What I want to emphasize is that I do not like when the member presents it as something that can be reviewed. It is still about a fundamental freedom and right that is enshrined in the constitution. Legal certainty guarantees were needed. The possibility to control and appeal was needed. There are fears when it comes to this decision.

To conclude from that that we should not trust the Swedish police and the Swedish justice system is to go much too far. Therefore, I argue that it is a greater danger to make it appear as if we have systems that are infallible, in the way the member has said. That we must trust blindly in everything, I believe, is a greater danger than the legislation itself.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! My criticism concerns the fact that some politicians do not trust the Swedish police. I have read a debate article, which the member, among others, has stood behind, stating that there are overriding fears that the Swedish police will begin to discriminate, harass, and engage in racial profiling if the law is introduced. I think those were strong words. They could have expressed it as that they hope the Police Authority takes on board what the referral bodies write, that it is discussed within the Police Authority, and that the police officers discuss it.

The police officers I know who work in the vulnerable areas are good people. They are very humane. Some of them come from other cultures. They have an understanding of the issues and actually work more in crime prevention than repressively.

I become concerned when I hear that there is such a negative image of the police. I hope that the police can prove that what was written in, for example, a debate article the other day is not true, that those fears will not be realized. I really hope so.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the member's prepared remarks are about obtaining some material, content, for social media. Of course, it fits perfectly to paint all the questions and objections against the bill here as if we dislike the Swedish police. It is presented as if we do not want the police there or as if there were something malicious and evil behind our questions. They are deeply relevant, and as I perceive it, member Martin Melin says between the lines that he nevertheless agrees.

I could not help but react and press the button to request a reply, despite the opportunity to get a nice clip for social media. Member Martin Melin took up an example. It becomes a bit difficult, because one has to recapitulate what he said. But I looked at a statement from the JO that actually concerned a bit what Martin Melin points out.

A person who was in a criminal circle had been repeatedly stopped in a car; I believe it was eight times. There was a risk of a gang criminal conflict and for the police to be able to find weapons or explosives, i.e., link the individuals to the serious violent crimes. But there was also a dimension regarding the geographical location.

This is one of all the JO reports. But here, JO found that according to the Police Act, there were grounds to make an intervention, stop and search the car, and carry out a house search. I therefore do not quite perceive that Martin Melin's example is correct.

There are also other problems that we want to plug through the proposals that I have presented in the debate.

I have three short questions. Does the member think it is wrong to talk about discrimination, to carry out a follow-up, and to take action against police officers who have behaved badly?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by answering the last point. No, I think it is good. Police officers shall be scrutinized. All interventions that police officers make shall be scrutinized. It is important. It is also important that those police officers who make mistakes are punished and, in some cases, actually dismissed. It is good, and it is important. We must have a police force that one can trust and have confidence in. It is very important. There should be no doubt about that.

When it comes to discrimination and harassment, it is very important that it is talked about within the police, which is also being done. It should not occur. And in the event that it does occur, it must be addressed immediately. For me, it is very important.

The Chairman refers to the JO's statement regarding a case from 2019. I believe it was down in Malmö where a person had been stopped several times. JO had no problem with the fact that they had stopped and checked. But he also writes in the statement that it must not occur in a larger geographical area just because there is a conflict in the area, but rather he means that it must be more linked to the person in the car and to a direct incident. If there has been a shooting an hour earlier, a description has been issued, and a tip has come in to the police that this person may have committed it, then it is okay to stop the car, as in this case.

But the security zones are intended to be used for a broader purpose, so that the police can work much more preventatively, before anything has happened. That is the problem. In the Police Act 19 § second paragraph, it is actually more linked to something having happened in the last few hours. The security zones broaden it much more. The police get tools to be able to work more effectively. That is actually the difference between these paragraphs.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer! I am pleased that the member and I are nevertheless in complete agreement on a yes to the three points regarding talking about discrimination, carrying out follow-up, and acting against police officers who have behaved badly, as that was also the result that the Brå report initiated by the police pointed out. I was, therefore, a bit surprised by the comparison and that all criticism, all objections, and all work to address the problems that exist were portrayed as if one does not have confidence in the Swedish police. So that is not the case! I am pleased that the attack was turned into that one can step up to make an effort to help the police. It is a profession that maintains law and order and safety in society - I can sign off on that every day of the week - but we point out that it needs to be mobilized so that the entire society can do this work.

The Speaker said in a previous exchange of remarks that much points to the fact that if one is to succeed, it has very little to do with the repressive side and very much to do with local anchoring. That is why the Social Democrats expanded the police training and ensured that there were more police officers. We completely agree that they should be locally anchored and present at the neighborhood level. There should be opportunities to reach the police at all hours of the day. The police, above all, must be out and moving in the entire society. One should not have a feeling, as I read in an editorial from Skärholmen, that despite shootings having occurred there, one never sees a police officer on the street. One only sees the helicopter or the blue-painted car driving by.

What is wanted is exactly what Martin Melin says: More police officers whom you know by name on the street. This debate has probably been about the fact that we see a one-sided focus from the SD government on the repressive. We want the police to have a strong anchoring in the entire society.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, more police were needed, and more so-called area police who work with local anchoring and become a natural part of the street scene were needed. That is what was needed – that is, police who are on site before anything happens. But as the situation looks today, these police also need tools to intervene against those who attempt to take over areas with the help of violence, shootings, and explosions. Therefore, security zones were needed, and therefore we are talking about it.

In the best of worlds, security zones would not be needed. There, police would not need to frisk and check people. That world is not real. I am sorry. It does not look like that today. There is much work to be done out there, and I know that our police also do that.

I do not like to say this, especially not to a Social Democrat who says that they have made it so that there are more police and so on. But that is not true. In Stockholm, there are fewer police today than there were in 2015. But we do not need to enter into that debate now. There are also other governments that actually cannot look themselves in the mirror when it comes to that.

I think it is good that the member says that we should support our police, but the fact is that when one writes a debate article like the one that came out this week, it creates problems for the police. There were many police officers who contacted me and asked: "What do they mean?" Suddenly, residents in these areas get water on their mill when they say that the politicians say that you cannot trust the police and that they will start to harass and discriminate against the residents now. That is not a good way to support the Swedish police! Feel free to point out when something has gone wrong, but do not say that something will happen. That is when it goes wrong. At least that is what I think.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has presented a proposal to the Riksdag to introduce visitation zones. Miljöpartiet will vote against the bill this afternoon together with the other opposition parties. This is a proposal that should be thrown in the trash. We should invest in real solutions that can handle the serious crime we see today and that do not risk lowering the confidence in the police and other law enforcement agencies.

Search zones are not needed in Sweden. The possibilities for the police to search someone are great with today's regulatory framework. It does not look like that in all other countries. Several that have search zones have a different regulatory framework at the core. During the morning, Denmark has been highlighted as an example. The Danish police's possibilities to search are much more limited. It must take place within the framework of a preliminary investigation. In Sweden, the current order is good when it comes to the search part itself.

Many have also highlighted the importance of the police presence. It is naturally very important but has nothing to do with this legislation. We have patrolling police and would need even more. It requires that the expansion of the Police Authority continues. It has been ongoing for a number of years and needs to continue. More police are required, both as investigators and in outer service out on streets and squares, but it has nothing to do with search zones. Police are needed who have the opportunity to act according to the current legislation regarding searches. The police have received extensive new tools just recently regarding the use of coercive measures and other things. We in the Riksdag have, in very broad agreement, given the police the mandate to use them.

Mr. Speaker! Why is this then a bad proposal? Yes, because it involves great risks. It is not only Miljöpartiet and the other opposition parties who have highlighted it, but also a number of referral bodies that, in the very short time they were given, actually said the same thing. The risk that discrimination increases and trust in the police decreases further in areas where it should instead increase is palpable. That is what discrimination agencies, the Chancellor of Justice, a number of municipalities, Save the Children, and Civil Rights Defenders say. That, Mr. Speaker, cannot simply be brushed aside in the way the Tidö parties have done in this debate.

The Council on Legislation directs sharp criticism towards the proposal. It advocates that the legislation should be made time-limited. The Council on Legislation argues that the possibility to appeal zoning decisions cannot form the basis for the legislation in its current form. But the government overrides the Council on Legislation once again.

Regarding the possibility of appeal, there is such a possibility, but it is noted that it is mostly a shot in the dark. A visitation zone will be able to be established by the Swedish Police Authority immediately. An appeal that is submitted shall be handled promptly, but everyone expects that it will not be during the time that the zone actually applies. That review will take place when the period of validity for the visitation zone has expired. It is, of course, extremely problematic.

I mentioned earlier in an exchange of remarks that the government has also not accounted for cost increases for the administrative courts. This will create even longer queues and longer processing times, not just for this but for everything that the administrative courts have to decide on.

Mr. Speaker! The preparation of this matter leaves, similar to several other proposals from the Ministry of Justice, much to be desired. It is poorly handled. Not even a regular SOU was produced, and the referral period was set to five weeks over the Christmas and New Year holidays. This meant that a number of referral bodies did not have the opportunity to respond, which is naturally very serious. We have a requirement for preparation in the constitution, and it is very doubtful whether that has been achieved through this handling. The Government also wanted a shortened motion period in the matter, which was not granted. The Ministry of Justice's chief's sloppy handling leaves, as said, much to be desired.

This has been called pattern-breaking but has been modified during this morning's debate to be a small piece of the puzzle among others. It is worth noting that the risks are being neglected and one cannot provide answers to the question of when a modified anti-discrimination legislation will be presented.

The Liberals wave it away and choose to get angry instead of answering questions. I think one is answerable. When will a changed discrimination act come that also includes the police, the customs, and other authorities?

The department memorandum that formed the basis for the bill points out that this needs to be addressed. But in this matter, the government has no urgency whatsoever, but rather says that they have a hope of presenting something during the mandate period. We shall have to see how it turns out. The Sweden Democrats can stop even this. One could not also answer that today.

Mr. Speaker! There are also several who say that one does not have confidence in the police if one is against such legislation. I strongly object to that reasoning. I and Miljöpartiet have confidence in all of Sweden's authorities. That there is criticism of a piece of legislation does not mean that one lacks confidence.

We have a police act - I assume that everyone stands behind it - that we are to have a regulation of what the police's mandate looks like.

We have a school law that applies to how things should look in school, and it is not because we distrust any teachers, but because we as a society and state have regulations on how it should look.

To say that one lacks confidence if one is against a piece of legislation is actually unworthy, Mr. Speaker.

Visitation zones are signal politics that divide society and symbolic politics that the government is rushing through in an ill-considered manner. The concerns and risks that exist are not being taken into account. This will do more harm than good.

I therefore move for approval of reservations 1 and 8, which consequently means a rejection of this proposition.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, we must do everything to significantly reduce crime in our society and stop the new recruitment of young people into the gangs. We shall not give up until we have removed the violence from our streets and squares and from our homes. But instead of doing what is needed, the government presents proposal after proposal that will not seriously tackle the problems.

Such a proposal is what we are now debating regarding security zones – or visitation zones, as I think is a more appropriate designation.

Despite the large resource additions to the police in recent years, increases in several penalties and increased use of secret coercive measures, the number of gang-related crimes and shootings have not decreased significantly. This shows that other measures are needed. At the same time, there is a crisis in large parts of the criminal justice system with overcrowded detention centers and prisons, partly because prison sentences have generally become longer.

To truly reduce serious crime and strengthen safety in politically neglected areas, instead of longer and harsher sentences, stay-away orders, and wiretapping without suspicion of a crime, a common political will to reduce the economic gaps in society is required. A major investment in crime prevention work that actually works is required, and it begins with a well-developed welfare system. If schools, leisure activities, and society in general function well, the opportunities to recruit children and young people into crime decrease.

The government often refers to Denmark when it comes to crime fighting but forgets to look at what has actually had an effect in Denmark. It is becoming increasingly clear and obvious that it is not the extended prison sentences or the search zones that have had the greatest effect in Denmark. It is becoming increasingly clear and obvious that what has had the greatest effect in our neighboring country instead is the preventive work and the preventive measures – that local representatives have joined forces and, in cooperation with the police and authorities, built up trust among children and young people and shown a different path.

What we should learn from Denmark is that for the preventive work to function well, it is required that we build up a trust between citizens and society. The risk is imminent that the security zones instead will restrict and increase the mistrust towards authorities in general and the police in particular. In the worst case, it can lead to more young people turning away from society, with devastating consequences.

There is also an imminent risk that the search zones will be perceived as discriminatory and stigmatizing. The proposal gives the police unlimited opportunity to body-search people without concrete suspicion of a crime. Already today, there are problems with ethnic profiling and discrimination within the police. That does not mean that we do not see that the majority of the police do a very good job, but these problems exist.

The proposal on security zones means that the police will search people based on subjective assessments of, for example, their clothing and appearance. It risks worsening situations and undermining people's trust in the police. The residents in politically neglected areas who need the police the most will not become safer by the knowledge that their children and other relatives can be searched at any time on unclear grounds.

Already today, there are great opportunities for the police to search persons and conduct house searches for crime prevention purposes. According to the Police Act, a police officer may conduct body searches of persons and search vehicles and boats to the extent necessary to search for weapons or other dangerous objects intended to be used in crimes against life or health.

We in Vänsterpartiet consider that the existing legislation is sufficient for the police to be able to search persons and conduct house searches for the purpose of, among other things, searching for weapons. To strengthen safety in society, other measures are required and not search zones or, as the government has chosen to call them, security zones.

Several heavy referral bodies have, as we have heard, rejected the proposal or are strongly critical.

The Council on Legislation questions whether the referral period has been sufficient to meet the requirements for preparation, particularly given that it concerns a legislative amendment of a complex nature affecting fundamental freedoms and rights and legal certainty.

The Swedish Bar Association rejects the proposal. A system with visitation zones cannot, according to the Association, be considered useful or necessary.

The Equality Ombudsman, DO, also opposes the bill. According to DO, the possibility of introducing safety zones will inevitably entail clear and unacceptable risks of discrimination related to ethnic origin or religion or other belief.

The Parliamentary Ombudsmen, JO, as well as the Chancellor of Justice, JK, and Civil Rights Defenders, the Children's Ombudsman, and Save the Children reject the government's proposal.

Save the Children particularly emphasizes the proposal's impact on children and young people. Children in politically neglected areas are already used to being monitored and scrutinized, and this significantly affects their living conditions and their right to development. Introducing an additional monitoring mechanism such as security zones will further complicate matters for children and negatively affect their mental well-being. Fundamentally, according to Save the Children, it is about what kind of society we want our children to grow up in.

Security zones

Vänsterpartiet agrees with the referral bodies' criticism. The government's proposal is deeply insecure regarding the rule of law and disproportionate, and it lacks a basis in research. It is extremely regrettable that the government has not taken the referral bodies' justified concerns seriously.

We are also deeply concerned about the repressive surveillance society and the paradigm shift that violates the principles of the rule of law, which the government, together with SD, is now pushing forward.

With that, I move for the rejection of the bill and for the approval of reservations 1 and 8.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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