Enhanced protection for certain police officers

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Strengthened protection for certain police officers. I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The Police Authority faces great challenges today in fulfilling its mission. Gang crime has embedded itself in society and can today be considered system-threatening. The police assess that 62,000 people in Sweden are members of or have connections to criminal networks, and the violence capital that organized crime possesses risks affecting the actions of police officers.

And with the increasingly offensive and intensive work that the Police Authority carries out in order to combat organized crime, the vulnerability of the police officers has increased. The boundaries of what the grossly criminal are capable of doing were passed a long time ago.

Police encounter interventions, searches, and seizures of weapons, drugs, and money from a massive amount of violence from these criminals, who do not shy away from any means to continue their criminal activities. These police officers need to receive increased protection so that they do not have to reveal their identities.

Madam Speaker! A major threat to police operations is the high level of vulnerability of police officers to attempts at influence such as unauthorized influence, mapping, and harassment. The increasingly insecure environment in which they work has led to fewer police officers wanting to work in outer service, and it has become more difficult to recruit police students.

The Swedish Police Authority conducted survey studies among police officers in 2018 and 2021, which showed that 68 percent of the officers involved in interventions had been subjected to at least one, but often several, attempts at influence during a twelve-month period. The corresponding exposure for police officers in vulnerable areas was in some cases almost 100 percent.

If one specifically looks at the vulnerability of police officers to self-censorship, that is to say when a police officer, due to fear of facing reprisals against themselves or their family, does not perform their work duties or performs them incorrectly, one can see a worryingly large increase when it concerns police officers in outer service. This is not a marginal problem.

As I previously mentioned, 68 percent of intervention officers and almost 100 percent of officers in vulnerable areas were subjected to attempts of influence during a twelve-month period. This shows that the normalization of threats and harassment, both from a work environment perspective and from a legal perspective, has reached an alarming level.

If a police officer becomes afraid and does not dare to perform their work due to fear of reprisals, we are in a bad position, and it is extremely serious. This development is very concerning, and it risks becoming system-threatening, if it is not already. According to information I have received from police officers in outer service, that is unfortunately where we stand today. As a reason for police officers falling into self-censorship, concern was stated regarding being subjected to violence or threats, understaffing in intervention situations, and the risk of escalating situations during interventions.

Subtle threats are today the most common type of influence attempts. They are difficult to prove and are often the type of threats that affect the individual the most. The threats are often very personal and go, as I usually say, through the uniform.

One way to reduce the vulnerability of police employees is to protect their identity. In cases where it is necessary, they should be able to use a different designation than their name when documenting measures and decisions. Even information that could contribute to revealing their identity should be able to be subject to confidentiality.

Madam Speaker! The police are there for the citizens and shall uphold the rule of law. A special treatment where threats and offensive acts are accepted signals to police officers, criminals, and the general public that it is okay and that the terms in police employment contracts entail an obligation to accept such.

The Swedish Police Authority has conducted in-depth interviews with police officers, where it has emerged that officers who regularly are subjected to violations become more and more sensitive to threats and other offensive behaviors. The threshold for being able to cope with being met with violence and threats and being treated in a shocking manner is worn down, violation after violation. This is a decisive reason why many police officers cannot continue working in outer service and instead seek positions in inner service, where threats and violations are not as commonly occurring.

It has even gone so far that female police officers avoid working in certain areas because they simply cannot bear to hear the insults directed at them day after day. This is, of course, something no one should have to tolerate, whether one is a police officer or not. The tough working environment for police officers also has a deterrent effect and can lead to a reduction in the number of competent applicants to the police academy.

Madam Speaker! Police have normally shown a will to fight beyond the ordinary even when they are not on duty. The citizens expect, with all right, that the police shall do their job and not avoid unpleasant situations due to fear of reprisals, for who else shall protect the citizens and apprehend the criminals?

It is dangerous when it becomes normalized to not dare to intervene and instead use self-censorship and avoid situations or places where criminals stay. In that situation, the rule of law is threatened. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse that development.

Even police officers have families, children, and loved ones. We, as politicians and fellow human beings, have a moral obligation to do everything we can to protect those who are to protect us. Unfortunately, the situation in Sweden today has gone so far that that protection must be strengthened.

Protecting our police officers and police employees by ensuring they do not have to disclose their identity to violent criminals is a small but nevertheless important step so that they can feel safer and so that we can restore the rule of law.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have a reservation in this report. I move now for approval of reservation 2, concerning the evaluation of the proposal.

This question is, as so often, about a classic conflict of objectives. In this case, it is the conflict between openness and legal certainty vis-à-vis a good working environment and good protection for the staff who are on the front line with very demanding tasks. It is at that intersection that the debate finds itself, as so often.

If anything is truly Swedish - one could call it an administrative policy canon, to use an expression that is popular these days - it is transparency and openness. The principle of public access is not only for the media or for the citizens. In the long run, it is also about the authority exercising the power, who should not be made suspicious and accused. One should be able to know that the scrutiny of the exercise of public power that the media and citizens have the right to conduct is also to the benefit of the power exerciser themselves, for that is how it is.

There are many countries that have less openness than Sweden. Actually, it is all other countries on earth. But we have chosen that path, and we have done so on good grounds. Openness has served us well throughout history. But the pressures on the body of society are great today. We have stood here in the chamber many times and talked about how the criminal groups are slowly but surely moving forward their positions. They are increasing the level of violence, not least against staff, police, and prosecutors, who experience an increased threat. Then we must take it with the utmost seriousness and strike back with the utmost force. But the conflict of objectives is there, and we must take that into account. We must keep a cool head.

When the forces of society are subjected to these pressures, it perhaps should not be met with increased closedness and increased repression. It may be a matter of us being able to keep openness just open for as long as possible.

With that said, the families who are affected - who are subjected to and threatened by, in some cases with violence - must receive the rightful protection. It is here we Social Democrats land in that we accept this legislative product despite the fact that there are certain deficiencies. Those deficiencies concern, among other things, how the law comes to be, and I shall return to that a little bit.

It is somewhat this that is highlighted by the three heavy referral bodies - the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and, above all, the Council on Legislation. I will briefly state what it is about.

The Council on Legislation criticizes the lack of preparation for many reasons, but primarily it does so for two reasons which I will describe here.

One concerns the referral period. Just as it is the case with a number of other matters that the government has worked up to this chamber, the referral period has been too short. Authorities, institutions, and organizations have not been granted a real opportunity to process the matter in a proper way. For example, referral periods in important matters have fallen during Christmas holidays or Christmas periods. In this case, it is so, among other things. The Council on Legislation describes it as an unreasonably short time.

The second reason concerns SOU 2024:1, which concerns the protection of more occupational groups than police. The Council on Legislation considers that this matter should have been included in that specific product instead.

The procedural or preparatory points are so grave, the Council on Legislation considers, that one does not even enter into the merits of the matter and express an opinion. This means that we do not have those points on the table of the Chamber today. It is, of course, extremely regrettable.

The Chancellor of Justice goes even further, at least linguistically, and argues that it is confusing and concerning that these far-reaching proposals are being presented at the same time as other matters concerning essentially the same things are being referred for consultation. The Chancellor of Justice argues that this has not been explained in the manner required and says: For that reason alone, I reject that it proceeds to legislation. This is clear.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman is on the same line. Short referral times impair the quality of the legislative work. It is unsatisfactory, it is said, because it involves making concessions from important long-established principles for public activities.

The Council on Legislation, the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsman - the supporting pillars in the Swedish legislative process - thus put their foot down in a remarkably clear way in this matter.

Now one chooses to proceed with this, and we from the Social Democrats accept that. I have nevertheless placed the emphasis in this speech precisely on the constitutional issues, because when society is under attack, such things are incredibly important. It is about the intersection being balanced in the right way and that we have the strength to uphold principles, both when it comes to a good legislative process and when it comes to the principles that have formed the basis for Swedish administrative policy.

We choose to submit our reservation that this legislation shall be continuously evaluated. It may seem a bit weak, but that is where we have landed. We stand behind the core issue of stronger confidentiality for personal data when it concerns police officers.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by turning to all the police officers who are currently at the front against the serious organized crime. Thank you for upholding every day the monopoly on violence that belongs to the police and no one else! Thank you for upholding our democracy and our rule of law every day! Thank you for going to work every day to ensure that other people can do the same without risking their lives! Thank you for the work you do! We see you. We appreciate you, and we will do everything we can so that you will be safe in your work of protecting Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The fight against the gangs, the violence, and the crimes must be strengthened, and safety must be restored. Several measures are being taken right now in different areas to strengthen society's resilience against the criminal gangs and the widespread crime.

Criminal legislation is an important tool for reducing the influence of criminal networks and thereby increasing safety in society. From January 1 of this year, the penalties for the more serious forms of weapons offenses, offenses against the permit requirement for explosive goods, weapons smuggling, and smuggling of explosive goods have been significantly tightened. This concerns, for example, when people have weapons on them or use explosives of various kinds. We have significantly tightened the penalties for those crimes.

On February 1, that is one month later, the law on preventive stay bans entered into force. The purpose of that law is to increase safety in the public space and to prevent criminal activity from being carried out there. For example, the police have told about how it is in Rågsved. There, several people have contributed to insecurity at the subway entrance when they have dealt drugs. The police have now been able to move these people, and it has contributed to the safety in Rågsved being much greater now than it was just three months ago.

On December 21, 2023, that is last year, the government decided on a referral to the Council for Legislation to change how one can seize gangs' belongings. It is therefore about the forfeiture legislation. We want to provide more effective tools in crime fighting and make it more difficult for criminals to reap the fruits of their criminality. They should not be able to have expensive cars and walk around with expensive watches and expensive jackets because those are funds coming from illegal activities. We are now making it easier for the police and other law enforcement agencies to take those things from the gang criminals.

On March 5 this year, the government decided on security zones, what we previously called visitation zones. The proposals mean that the Police Authority shall be able to introduce security zones, and there the police shall have special powers to search for specifically weapons or other dangerous objects. The purpose is, naturally, that we should counteract explosions and shootings.

Madam Speaker! The extremely serious and extensive crime that is currently occurring is a threat to the system. The state has a responsibility to maintain safety for every individual citizen and human being who is here in Sweden. That responsibility lies in ensuring that there is a well-functioning and effective crime fighting. It is urgent that the justice system - and especially in the first instance the police - is able to meet the threat that organized crime currently poses.

In the Swedish Crime Prevention Council's report *Threats and Violence - On vulnerability in professional groups that are important in democratic society*, it is reported that police are a vulnerable professional group. To a large extent, they have stated that they have been subjected to threats, violence, harassment, or similar during the last 18 months. When it comes to police, it is common that the perpetrators can be linked to organized crime. It was not reported to be as common when it comes to other professional groups in this study.

According to another report, Unauthorized influence against authority figures, the Swedish Police Authority was the agency where the largest proportion of people reported being subjected to violence, and there were examples of concrete threats made at police officers' residences.

They also stated that it was not uncommon, that is to say it was common, that threats were directed at the relatives of police officers. 40 percent of the police officers stated in 2020 that they had been subjected to one or more attempts of influence in the recent period. The largest proportion of these police officers were in the group working with intervention activities, but it was also common among investigators.

The analysis shows that it is common for police officers to, as a result of harassment, threats or property damage, change their behavior in their private lives, that is to say, they adapt to the threats they encounter in their work when they then come home to their family. This is, of course, very serious.

Madam Speaker! Police officers and other employees in the Police Authority operate in a very harsh social climate. In this situation, there is a risk that further boundaries will be crossed. Through the increasingly offensive and intensive work that the police perform in order to combat organized crime, the risk of them becoming the focus of violence has increased. The increased risk of being subjected to crime and influence applies particularly to those employees within the Police Authority who take measures specifically against gang criminals. During, for example, interventions, searches, seizures of weapons, drugs, and money, the police encounter very violent individuals who will use any means to be able to continue their criminal activities.

Madam Speaker! The proposals in the bill mean that employees at the Police Authority who work against organized crime shall, in certain cases, be able to use something other than their name, that is to say, when they make decisions on interventions, they can use an identity designation other than just their name. This means that they can be anonymous and, to a lesser extent, will be exposed to threats of violence or reprisals.

The Moderate-led government also proposes that secrecy should apply to information that can contribute to revealing the employee's identity, that is to say that it should not be possible to request information about who it is that has made the decision. Since it is an odd bird, we can say, in Swedish law to impose secrecy on public employees' names and identities, the government says that the law shall be time-limited to five years and that one shall thereafter see how well it has functioned.

With this said, I move for approval of the proposal in the report that in certain cases, the protection for certain police officers shall be maintained by making their identity and information subject to secrecy.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I move for the rejection of the bill and for the approval of reservation 1.

The government's proposal means that employees at the Police Authority who work against organized crime shall, in certain cases, be able to use a different designation than their name in decisions and other documents documenting a measure they have been involved in. The government also proposes that information that could contribute to revealing the identity of the employee shall be subject to secrecy. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on April 30, i.e., next Tuesday. The legislative changes concerning the possibility of using a designation other than a name shall apply for a period of five years.

I share the government's assessment that violence, threats, and harassment against public employees risk involving serious consequences for the person who is targeted and is also a serious attack on our democratic system. Therefore, I also believe that the protection for public employees, including the police who have perhaps the most vulnerable position, should be considered. I also want to point out that it is obvious that those who are subjected to this react as crime victims in general. They suffer psychological damage. They suffer particular damage if it is repeated attacks against the person, whether it be threats, physical violence, or harassment.

Why does the Left Party nevertheless move for the rejection of the present proposal? The principle of public access cannot be dismantled as easily as that. As someone has said here in the rostrum, the proposal is a strange bird in the Swedish legal context and in our thoughts on the justice system. We must be able to uphold legal certainty, transparency, and the possibility of accountability also in order to protect the one who may, in their public function, be wrongly accused of certain things. This is particularly important, because the exercise of public power simultaneously often involves heavily intrusive measures for individuals.

I have also taken note of what the Council on Legislation has written in its opinion, and they advise against the proposal. They mean that this is being implemented in an incorrect order. They prescribe that the proposal should interact with SOU 2024:1, which arrived at the beginning of the year and which concerns how additional groups, including the police, can be protected and how exposure can be reduced. The report is now subject to referral process. It is not finished but will be finished in June, i.e., within a fairly short time. Therefore, I share the Council on Legislation's view that it would be reasonable to handle the proposals in the same legislative matter.

I also want to relate to the fact that even the government hesitates a bit regarding the introduction of this legislation. They argue that there are reasons to introduce it permanently, but that there are also strong reasons to make it temporary. Therefore, it is argued that the deviation from the tradition in the Swedish legal system justifies, for the sake of legal certainty, deciding to test this for a period of five years. It is not a short time, but it is argued that by doing this, we would obtain a basis for an evaluation. They are thus flagging that it is not certain that this will work well.

Then one can once again point out what several referral bodies have highlighted. The Courts Administration considers that the consequences the proposal may have have not been sufficiently illuminated. It has not been analyzed. The Chancellor of Justice strongly rejects the proposal and also wants this to be handled concurrently with SOU 2024:1. What they have also caught up - I have read up on it - is that that investigation actually proposes that one should not primarily proceed with this regarding the name issue. The investigation nevertheless submits such a proposal because it is forced to do so by the directive to the investigation.

Here we also have a system that is somewhat remarkable, namely that the government, through directives, almost orders which product should be developed. This investigation did, however, note that this is not the best alternative.

The proposal is, according to JK, too far-reaching for us to be able to handle in a legally secure manner. JO largely agrees with the Justitiekanslern. Svea hovrätt argues that the vulnerability that police encounter does not primarily arise when they put a signature on a decision, but rather arises in the concrete encounter with individuals, out in the patrolling operations. The question is therefore whether the focus is correct in the handling of protection for police.

The Bar Association, which we usually rely on, does not rule it out but notes that confidentiality will be breached if the police are called to court to testify. It is not only the Bar Association that notes this, and it is also an important aspect: We cannot protect it all the way.

Stockholms universitet abstains from commenting without justifying why. Umeå University considers it would be wrong to respond to the referral now and wants to wait for the larger investigation, that is, the SOU. Uppsala University disapproves. Several other referral bodies do so as well.

I belong to those who think that this is becoming ad hoc. We have a process that was soon to get started and take a larger, collective grip on various public employees' security and the possibility of confidentiality protection, which could soon become legislation. But instead, something is being rushed through here.

I also want to say that the government has a very different view of what is urgent and what is not - we are still waiting, for example, for supplementary legislation regarding discrimination. We have also been waiting for a long time for legislation regarding psychological violence, which actually also is included in what we have talked about and are talking about here today.

I therefore move for the rejection of the bill and await a comprehensive picture that gives us a more serious opportunity to take a position.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet has voted no to most of the recent proposals on crime fighting that the Moderate-led government has presented and put forward. One wonders how a government basis with Socialdemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet and not least Vänsterpartiet would handle crime fighting issues given that certain parties in that constellation constantly oppose the new crime-fighting tools that the Moderate-led government presents, but it remains to be seen whether that would become relevant.

I would like to address what the Left Party says is the reason they are calling for the rejection of the bill, namely that there is another investigation – an SOU – that deals with similar issues. But the fact is that that investigation does not propose a protection for police officers so that their names cannot be requested at a later stage. That investigation has no proposals that, after another identity detail has been used in a decision, it should not be possible to obtain the identification detail for the police officer. This is, therefore, a different legislative product.

My questions to Vänsterpartiet are therefore, firstly, whether Vänsterpartiet thinks that the names of police officers who are in need of protection can be requested at a later stage. Secondly, I wonder, in light of what Vänsterpartiet states regarding the timing, whether Vänsterpartiet thinks we can wait with the protection for those of our police officers who currently constitute the first line in the fight against serious organized crime. Does Vänsterpartiet think it is not particularly urgent? Those are my two questions to Vänsterpartiet.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Louise Meijer! When it comes to the first thing you raised, namely how such a government constellation could function, I believe that the parties you mention could make a greater investment in what would really make a difference, namely the preventive work. That work is neglected today. From the government parties' side, no extra resources at all are being invested in welfare in general and, above all, not in the school, which would have been extremely important to counter the new recruitment that we must handle with great seriousness.

The answer to the question of whether we can wait is: yes, perhaps for a short time. I do not mean that one should wait for long, but the referral process for the larger SOU is soon completed. After that, the Government Offices could work so that we have a bill perhaps already at the beginning of the autumn.

I agree that we need to review the protection for public employees. The police's actions in these extremely dangerous situations are absolutely very honorable, but there are also other professional groups that take similar risks. They are within social services, at the enforcement authority (Kronofogden) - yes, we can list many. The police should, however, absolutely have increased protection, and they will probably receive that on Tuesday. Then we have to wait five years for an evaluation before we can see if this has worked or if there are aspects that have not been considered in the limited department memorandum but have been handled in a different way in the SOU.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! What I hear is the following: If the Left Party, the Social Democrats, the Centre Party and the Green Party had formed a government instead of the one we have now, that is to say the Moderate-led government, new anti-discrimination legislation would have been prioritized over the acute protection needed for the police officers who currently constitute the first line in the fight against serious organized crime. I believe that is a very good clarification for the voters.

I did not get a clear answer to the question of whether Vänsterpartiet thinks that police officers' names should be able to be requested in retrospect by seriously criminal individuals or not. Because that is what this legislative product is about: Should police officers' names, beyond those written in the investigation that Gudrun refers to, be able to be protected even after such a decision has been made? Should criminals, therefore, not be able to request identity information for police officers?

That is what we think, and that is why we move for approval of this legislative product. The Left Party, however, votes no. I am therefore a bit curious whether the Left Party thinks that grossly criminal individuals should be able to request the identity of police officers in retrospect. That is my first question, which I ask again and would like to have answered.

The second question was answered, and I think that was also a pleasing clarification. Instead of this becoming applicable legislation, that is, that we strengthen the protection for the police officers' identities already this Tuesday, this would wait until this autumn if Vänsterpartiet were to decide. That decision would also mean a weaker protection, one might assume since Gudrun Nordborg refers to the second investigation's proposal, than the legislative product that we are now voting through.

It was also a gratifying clarification: It would take until this autumn, and it would mean weaker protection for police officers. I think that is bad. The police officers who are currently working at the front line need their protection right now. They make invaluable contributions to safety in Sweden.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I note that we consider, as other strong referral bodies also indicate, that the two proposals should be handled together. This would mean that we should consider the need for confidentiality protection for police names. It was not included in the mandate for the SOU, but it is included in this investigation. But it would have a different scope and be more serious if we handle the two investigations together.

I know that the government is launching one repressive proposal after another, and I am not at all sure that this is the right way to handle the ongoing serious criminal crime, with gangs and other organizations that constitute serious threats, every time.

I believe that we need stricter punishments in some respects, but I am not sure that the repressive measures work. The risk is that they become counterproductive, that they create a contempt and a mistrust towards society instead of showing that we should help each other across different boundaries. It is not only the police and repression that should stand in the front line, but the entire society must act strongly together against crime, from the small to the larger things. We can see the connections between much of the violence occurring in society. For that reason, I mentioned discrimination, which constitutes serious violations, and I mentioned psychological violence, which constitutes immense violations both in the private sphere and for the professional groups we are discussing now—including police.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! There is a grave organized crime in our country that we need to prevent, combat, investigate, and prosecute. Many different tools are needed to do this; for example, new legislation, expanded cooperation, and more resources. But the employees within the police and the rest of the justice system will always be absolutely crucial in the work. We therefore need to safeguard and protect the police officers and police employees who work against grave organized crime, for their and their relatives' personal safety, so that we can conduct an effective operation and to ensure that we can recruit more and carry out the much-needed expansion of the Swedish police that is currently underway.

But at the same time, we need to safeguard the openness and transparency in public decision-making that makes our society robust and legally secure. Knowing who makes a certain agency decision is important both for the person affected by the decision and also for, for example, scrutinizing media. It is important in order to be able to exclude and avoid conflict of interest or other improper considerations. But the Center Party nevertheless considers it reasonable, in this situation with current crime, to make an exception and introduce a special solution for police employees in the manner proposed in the bill.

It would, however, have been preferable to treat the protection of police employees collectively and jointly with other groups of public employees, as there are many other professional groups that perform important and decisive actions for society and against serious organized crime where threats and harassment also occur. In addition to within the police, this is obvious within the judiciary with prosecutors and judges, within the correctional services and also the customs and the enforcement authority. We must also not forget the vulnerability that many experience within social services, healthcare, and the school system.

In our special statement, we state that we will therefore work to ensure that police officers are also included in the upcoming legislative work by reason of report SOU 2024:1 from the Commission on measures to reduce the vulnerability of public employees.

With this, Madam Speaker, I vote in favor of the bill, but I refer to the Center Party's specific statement.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The police's task is to maintain order and security and to ensure the public protection and assistance. The police have the right to use coercion and violence to the extent required to fulfill their task. The police shall arrest or detain persons who commit crimes or pose a danger to order and security. The police can never back down even if an intervention entails great risks.

An intervention means that in many cases, police must confront individuals who are known to be dangerous and possess a high capacity for violence. Everyone realizes that police work is risky and involves danger for the individual police officer, even in the case that the police themselves have both the education and training as well as the equipment to handle dangerous situations.

Police work has always been associated with risks, but as we have seen gang crime and organized crime grow stronger in our country, the vulnerability and risk for individual police officers who intervene has also increased significantly. Aggressive behavior, filming, and veiled threats with insinuations toward police officers about what can happen to them and their relatives is now commonplace. Given the development of violence and the ruthlessness with fatal shootings and explosions that now characterize many police officers' daily lives, and given the violence capital possessed by gang criminals, there is reason to take the threats seriously and listen to the police on the front line who express concern for their own and their family's safety.

Madam Speaker! It is we in the Riksdag and the government who give the police the mission and mandate to safeguard our safety. We expect the police to constitute society's spearhead against criminals and perpetrators of violence. With that follows also a responsibility where we, as the commissioning body, stand up for those who are tasked with carrying out the risky mission. In our open society, it is relatively easy to find addresses and information about both police officers and their relatives, which naturally creates concern and, ultimately, can mean that one hesitates to confront documented dangerous persons.

There is a possibility to provide police officers and their relatives with protected identities, but it is a rather cumbersome procedure and also involves major practical problems in everyday life. In this case, such a measure is judged to be less appropriate.

The proposal that is now before us to strengthen the protection for certain police officers means, in short, that the name and identity of the individual police officer in certain cases is replaced by a service number in reports, seizure protocols, and other documents drawn up in connection with an intervention. But it also deserves to be pointed out that a drawn-up document will also in the future constitute a public document and can be disclosed after a standard confidentiality review or constitute an appendix in a preliminary investigation protocol. The content of the case can thus still be examined, and the only thing that is subject to confidentiality is the name.

I also want to mention that as recently as today, the Security Service issued a request: "It is high time to anonymize public decisions and replace names with job titles."

Säpo points out in a letter to the government that anonymous decisions protect state and municipalities against undue influence, self-censorship, corruption, and gang crime.

That we are now proceeding with the police is due to the Police Authority having pointed out that this is an acute problem in the current situation in society.

With this said, Madam Speaker, I believe that the report shows that the government takes the risks for the police officers very seriously, and the proposal contributes to strengthening the protection. I move for approval of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Imagine having your car blown to pieces while it is parked on the driveway to your house, or that someone fires with automatic weapons through the front door to the home where you and your family live and where your children sleep. The bullets whiz through the house, just a few meters from where you are sitting, and disappear out through the window at the back. Imagine having stones thrown through the pane and glass shards falling down over the living room, just centimeters from where your children are sitting and playing, or having swastikas painted on your door or your house facade spray-painted with the words "Kill all police."

Imagine having the tires on your car punctured, receiving threatening emails, being subjected to blows and spit when you go shopping, receiving handwritten letters with threats that you will be stabbed to death, or receiving pictures to your phone from an unknown number of your child when she is playing at preschool with the text "What a lovely daughter you have." Imagine that is your everyday life, just because you have chosen to become a police officer.

I could continue for a long time and explain what it is like to work as a police officer against organized crime. What I just mentioned is only a tip of the iceberg of what police officers in Sweden today have to experience because they have chosen to be police officers and work against organized crime. I could continue talking about how Swedish police officers are mapped out, how home addresses and registration numbers are shared online, how passport photos circulate on different forums and in groups, and how relatives are included in the same way.

But I unfortunately do not believe that it makes any difference for what certain people think about the police and the police's working situation. If one truly cared, we would not even need to debate this law. Then one would understand that it would make a difference.

Becoming a police officer today involves being subjected to threats and violence in the line of duty. It is something that one is prepared for and that one trains for. That is something one learns during the police training. All police officers know that threats and violence are part of the job, but it is not the same as accepting it. But one knows that it is a part of the profession.

What is not taught in the police training, however, is what it feels like to receive a death threat outside of work, what it feels like in the stomach to know that there is someone out there who wants to kill you or your family and who is so mentally ill that he or she is actually capable of carrying out the threat. It is nothing that one can be trained for.

Police are not afraid of themselves. Police know that they have the majority of the population behind them and the support of most Swedes. They know that the vast majority have an understanding of the profession's mission and how difficult it can be, that decisions that you as a police officer make, perhaps in just a few seconds, can be decisive for whether you are alive or dead at the end of the day.

Being a police officer is not just about going to squares and talking to the traders, playing table tennis with the youth at the youth center, reprimanding speeders, or grabbing shoplifters by the ear. Being a police officer also means wrestling with fueled addicts in dirty quarters, running after armed robbers in the forest, standing eye to eye with psychotic, anabolic-heavy two-meter-tall individuals, and having to stand against demonstrators who throw stones and bottles, kick you in the back, and try to pull you down to the ground to then, in some form of mass psychosis, jump on you and your head to try to harm you, completely without understanding the consequences.

As a police officer, you also have to handle unpredictable individuals who have zero trust in the police, zero respect for the police, and who in some cases hate the police. It is about young men with illusions that the gangster life is something good, young men who pop Tramadol and pose with automatic weapons on social media, young men who murder for small change and to gain respect. It is young men who do not understand that they are being exploited by individuals sitting a thousand miles away, young men who are without inhibitions or consideration for consequences, young men who want respect and a position in the criminal network.

I know how it feels to be threatened with a gun and a knife, to receive kicks and punches and feel cornered, so cornered that it even requires weapons to be fired so that I or another police officer do not get injured. But it is not always those situations that you as a police officer lie and worry about before you go to sleep. It is instead the unknown, that which you cannot control or do anything about: the veiled threats, the anonymous threats. You do not know if these threats will be carried out in reality. It is those threats that are the terrifying ones. It is those threats that make you as a police officer unable to sleep. It is those threats that can create passive police officers.

I know this from personal experience. My name was on a list at the home of a person who was known as a fraudster, a police-dodger, and who suffered from mental illness. It was not particularly fun.

For a police officer to stop a car with criminal young individuals in it, those who lack a sense of consequence and possess a high capacity for violence, is always associated with some danger. When you as a police officer choose to press the button to make the car in front stop, you do not know what will happen. You often do not know who is sitting in the car. Are they desperate, agitated, or fleeing? What is in the car? Are there weapons? You know nothing about the persons in the car in front of you.

The only thing you know when you approach the car is that anything can happen. That is what you are mentally prepared for. You have, in fact, trained for it in various scenarios. But then it happens; there are drugs and weapons worth millions in the car. And it is you, as a police officer, who must make the decision that it should be seized, that it should be taken from these individuals.

Then the people in the car change. They become aggressive, perhaps passive-aggressive. One of them might whisper: "If you touch the money, it's the last thing you'll do in your life. If you take that money, you are the one who will owe it to me." He says it as if he means it. Perhaps he hints at former police officers who have met a bad end. Perhaps you as a police officer have known the person from before and know that he usually hires younger talents to remove people and that he does not hesitate to do so. Perhaps he is one of those who are marked as dangerous by the police. Perhaps he is one of those individuals that many police officers find uncomfortable to handle. Perhaps he is exactly that person who lacks a sense of consequence, and perhaps he is known for having targeted police officers before.

You see him being led away, he turns around and meets your gaze, runs his finger over his neck and points at you. That is when you are to go into the police station and report. That is when you are to enter the seizure, the money and the drugs. And in the field for the person who has decided on the measure, you shall write your name. You know that your name will thereby become public, and you know that the detained person will be able to take note of your name and find out who you are.

This situation is not unusual. It happens almost every day that Swedish police seize both goods and money and arrest people. In the vast majority of cases, nothing happens afterwards. Most criminals know that if they take revenge or mess with the police on the street, it often leads to them being even more controlled and having their criminal activities disrupted. That is not what they are interested in. But as a police officer, you never know when you are taking on the wrong person. And when you do, you do not want to show off your name.

The criticism of the law is that police will now become anonymous and that in cases where a person who is the subject of an intervention wants to report the police, they will not be able to do so, because one does not have a name for the police officer one wants to report but only a number. That is incorrect. I believe those who think it is incorrect are misinformed or have not read up on it.

No police officer who carries out or decides on a measure will be anonymous. The only difference is that instead of a name, a number will be stated, which can easily be linked to a physical person, for the police officer who has carried out or decided on a measure. It will also appear in a separate document why the name has been replaced by a number, and that document will be available to anyone who needs to know it.

Madam Speaker! Society is changing, and we legislators must keep up with the developments. We cannot, in five years' time, have politicians standing here in the chamber saying that they have been naive and that they did not see things coming. We cannot have it that way again; we must learn.

The gross violence and threats against Swedish police are increasing. We therefore, I believe, have a duty to ensure that police officers today receive the protection they need. Just the possibility of replacing a name with a number is such a measure that the Police Authority itself has requested. I believe that it should also be so.

Strengthened protection for certain police officers

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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