Response to interpellation 2022/23:151 on visitation zones and legal certainty

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Mattias Vepsä has asked me if I intend to take any initiatives to adjust the police's tools which already today allow the police to stop and search individuals. He has also asked me how I and the government will work to ensure that future legislative changes and methods of work will be both effective and legally sound.

Let me begin by agreeing that the trust between people and the state is absolutely central. In order to create trust, the security for honest people who experience a great insecurity in their residential areas must be restored.

In the 2020 report that Mattias Vepsä mentions, it appears that 45 percent of those surveyed were stopped by the police in the last twelve months. In the same report, it appears that 55 percent of those surveyed knew someone in their residential area who has lost their life through deadly violence. That figure has in the corresponding survey from 2022 increased to 65 percent. This is obviously completely unacceptable, and I believe that many - hopefully all - agree with me that deadly violence is a bigger problem than being stopped by the police.

The frightening development with shootings and explosions has continued. The events in the Stockholm area in recent weeks are such an example. My and the government's task is to do everything in our power to reverse the development. If we do as has been done until now, it will also go as it has gone until now, and that is not an option.

The recruitment of new members to gangs must be stopped, and at the same time, the police and prosecutors must be given effective tools. The possibility to decide on time-limited search zones is one example among many. Search zones shall be temporary in time and be geographically delimited. The purpose is to remove weapons and other dangerous objects from the streets. The police also need, outside of such zones, to have the possibility to stop and body-search persons under the conditions that today's regulations allow.

It is of course true that there are privacy aspects linked to this type of proposal, and a balance must always be maintained. But the serious situation with shootings and explosions requires new tools. A trade-off must then be made between different interests, and this trade-off is something I and the government always do when designing new proposals.

When it comes to visitation zones specifically, it is explicitly included in the investigator's mandate to ensure that the system becomes both effective and legally sound. I also have full confidence that our law enforcement authorities will use existing and new tools in a legally sound manner.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I reacted to one thing that was raised, but for the sake of the audience, I first want to repeat the reason why I have asked a question about the government's proposal on visitation zones.

I did it after a conversation with a man who was stopped by the police when he was on his way to work in the Järva area one day, on his way from work the other day, and on his way together with a group of friends to watch football at a restaurant inside Odenplan on the third day. The crime that one can imagine he had committed is that he is dark-skinned.

This affects very many in our society who have a skin color that is not white. I think it is important to balance this on the right side of a line. We must be able to say that racism is wrong but also that we should have a police force that has the right tools and that can build trust in all parts of our society. Everyone in Sweden should be able to feel confidence in the order police and the police.

After hearing this story and meeting the person in question, I chose to bring it to the chamber, because I think it is very important that we highlight different perspectives on the tools that the government has chosen to investigate and proceed with.

The answer shows that the Minister has looked at the investigation conducted by Folkets Husby, which I appreciate. I chose myself to go back to 2020, but as the Minister quite rightly says, another investigation was published in 2022.

I agree that it is serious that more people today know someone who has been subjected to fatal violence or are related to someone who has been murdered. It is a tragedy that so many respond that they find themselves in such a situation and that we have different parts of our city where this is more commonplace than it is for us others.

In the same survey, we also see a large difference in how people answer in different groups. 23 percent of those whose parents were born in Sweden say that they have been stopped by the police. But of those who have two parents born south of the Sahara, 62 percent say that they have been stopped in the last twelve months. I believe it is important not only to go by personal stories but also to look at the statistics and try to find patterns.

In this investigation, another problem also emerges. Now, I am not going to wander off here, but I know that there are those on the right wing who do not really like the words inequality and equality. However, we have an inequality in perceived safety in our country. One is most insecure in the most neglected neighborhoods and most secure in the most affluent neighborhoods.

We must do something about this inequality. It manifests in a quite serious way when it comes to trust. Insecurity causes trust to decrease. When there are shootings in these residential areas, 60 percent turn to family and friends or to religious communities. 40 percent say that they receive support in school or from the neighborhood. But only 20 percent turn to the police for support. Then I wonder: What does the minister believe we need to do so that more people will feel trust in the police? That is what this question is about. How can everyone be able to feel trust in the police?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! For my part, I have no fear at all of talking about racism, inequality, or any other issues. I do, however, think it is important to have great precision when speaking about those issues.

Regarding the difference that Mattias Vepsä points out between different areas concerning perceived insecurity and perceived safety, I would certainly want to argue that this in itself is not an expression of any underlying racism or a blindness to inequalities in society. It is a reality that vulnerable areas have much greater problems with insecurity, violence, and explosions than socioeconomically more advantaged parts of society.

I want to state emphatically that the most important thing we can do to increase both perceived and actual safety, as well as trust in the police, prosecutors, and other law enforcement agencies in society as a whole, is to take this insecurity most seriously and do everything we can to break the development by showing that we are not intimidated and that we do not accept a single shooting, a single explosion, or any other expression of serious organized crime just because vulnerable areas are affected to a higher degree than others. I would say that is A and O for us to have the opportunity to turn the societal development but also to create trust in the relationship with people who live in areas that are more vulnerable than others.

That racism occurs is a reality in all human societies. Prejudice also occurs, which is not fully developed racism but is still problematic and which we must deal with in different ways. I want to emphasize one thing that is important to say: It is not legal in Sweden to engage in what is called racial profiling in English.

There is no doubt that our police must have great opportunities and tools to, for example, conduct body searches. Engaging in internal immigration control is an eminently legitimate activity in a society, because our immigration is based on the fact that it is regulated. People who are allowed to stay in Sweden should feel that the embrace is open: We shall do everything we can so that you will become a full and complete part of our society. But it is also very important that people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden leave Sweden.

Conducting the so-called internal immigration control is therefore an important task for the police. But it must not be conducted in such a way that it is prejudiced or has starting points that lean towards what is called racial profiling. I know that the police are extremely aware of where those boundaries lie. It naturally concerns ensuring that every day and in every individual intervention, the right balance is struck and that the correct course is maintained.

The question of visitation zones, I may have the opportunity to return to in the next post. But all such intrusive measures involve another important trade-off, namely that between effective crime fighting and personal privacy. I have no doubt whatsoever that the emphasis must be shifted towards effective crime fighting. So serious is our current development. That being said, every tool must always be weighed against personal privacy and be designed in such a way that it can be applied both effectively and in accordance with the rule of law.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me emphasize that I truly appreciate that the Minister so clearly marks against racism. On that point, we are in complete agreement. On the other hand, I am concerned by the underlying tone that the entire Tidö Agreement sends out, that is to say that the edge in actually everything from crime policy to migration policy and welfare crime is directed at certain groups, who may have immigrated here illegally or legally. That there is such an underlying tone is common knowledge, and very many others have criticized it in other debates.

I believe it is important for us to take this into account when we discuss which tools the police should have moving forward. It is very important to look at the investigation directives that the government has written for this specific investigation. It is very good that there are still provisions regarding legal certainty and privacy. The question is whether this proposal can actually be implemented given the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. As stated in the investigation directives, other countries have had problems formulating stop and search policies, visitation zones, and whatever it may be.

What I reacted to in the first speech was that we have bigger problems than being stopped by the police. The problem with deadly violence is greater than the problem of people being stopped by the police. This is what I want to put my finger on. This is easy to say, and perhaps I also find it easy to feel it. But if this happens every day – on the way to work or from work, at Odenplan or wherever one finds oneself – one can feel that one is not a part of society and that one cannot participate fully. It can become so that one is always afraid of being stopped by the police and that one feels criminalized. Then I believe we create a "us-and-them" society which in itself makes it difficult for us to reach the heavy organized crime and the criminal networks, that we find it harder to break the culture of silence and that we find it harder to prevent new recruitment.

I share the minister's view that we need to work more broadly with social services and investments in schools. That being said, one can reflect on what we spoke about a bit earlier in a debate here today: that the government has an ability to see half the problem and half the solution. If we really want social services, schools, housing policy, and the entire welfare society to function, it is not sufficient to place enormous demands on welfare in the economic downturn we are now entering. We chose to double the welfare funds in our budget. We chose to invest more money in the most vulnerable schools. We wanted to see a stronger social service than what the government's budget implies. The ambitions may exist, and I appreciate that the minister speaks about a whole. The problem is that what the government delivers are parts.

An additional thread in this discussion and debate is the time aspect.

An argument we have had before when we have debated, and which emerges, is that visitation zones are important for cooling down. I note that an investigation is completed in the spring of 2024. With the consultation period, preparation, and decision-making, the decisions are not in place, and neither are the effects of the decisions and the legislative changes, until possibly the spring of 2025. That is a very long time away.

I wonder: Do you agree that we need to do more to increase trust? Do you see the problem with the entire reasoning that some do not feel trust in society?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I definitely agree that there are great challenges when it comes to trust, and we have spoken about privacy issues. It is constantly a balancing act between different interests, not least crime fighting and privacy. That balancing act, I believe, is also extraordinarily important precisely for the question of trust.

My assessment is that the major trust problem in Sweden is that a large part of our society feels that we look away or, in any case, do not do enough to ensure safety on streets and squares for all honest people, regardless of where they live in Sweden.

It is clear that crime affects vulnerable areas to a greater extent than other areas. It is absolutely crucial for being able to maintain trust in society that we succeed in breaking that development, and I am prepared to go very far to do so.

It is for the benefit of all honest people and also for all people who have come to Sweden from other countries and are now doing everything to work and behave correctly in order to enter this country. Their daily lives are being torn apart by a ruthless, serious organized crime.

That is why I am so focused on that task and am also prepared to do things that we have not done before. If we do as we have done until now, it will continue to go as it has gone until now. It is, as I said earlier, not an option.

When it comes to the issues of trust that Mattias Vepsä raises in the relationship between the police and the citizens, the problems that Mattias Vepsä is now highlighting are based on the tools that the police already have today.

What we want to add are the search zones. It is one tool among many. In many of the aspects that Mattias Vepsä raises, the search zones will be exemplary in the sense that they are predictable.

They are decided either by a prosecutor or perhaps even through a court review. They are geographically delimited and apply for a certain period of time. This means that everyone who is in that zone during that time will be aware. It will create a predictability. In that lies, in itself, a very great rule of law value.

The second thing is that it is a misunderstanding that it would only be zones that are targeted at vulnerable areas. If one looks at how it is used in practice, not least in Denmark, it is a very established tool since several decades ago and very appreciated by the police.

In Denmark, it is used in a much broader way. For example, during the New Year's weekend, parts of central Copenhagen were made into a visitation zone in order to preemptively prevent, deter, and cool down crime that one otherwise envisioned would take place around New Year's. I mean that the model would contribute a great deal from a legal certainty perspective.

When it comes to the whole, it is clear that it takes time to investigate new matters. The major shift in Sweden now is not that we are moving from proper investigations to sloppy and haphazard ones, on the contrary.

When taking new measures, it is very important to do it properly and in depth. This applies in particular to handling, in a judicious and balanced manner, the conflicts of interest that Mattias Vepsä raises.

I want to firmly disagree with Mattias Vepsä on the point that we would only see half the problem. It is clear that resources are an important issue. But I still want to emphasize that state grants are a small part of the funding that occurs through social services, schools, and other welfare. It is primarily a municipal responsibility.

On the other hand, we have a long catalog of measures aimed at strengthening social services and strengthening the interaction between social services, school, and police. It is about changing the interface between social interventions and the Prison and Probation Service's interventions.

I would say that there is no government, in any case not for the last eight, ten years, that has had as ambitious a grip on the whole as this government.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! That is how we can absolutely see it. Each level should generate its own tax revenues and manage on its own. It is a somewhat remarkable approach considering that we are in a very difficult situation.

We have a world that is uncertain. We have an economic situation that is linked to the war in Ukraine and rising energy prices. We have inflation. We have an economic pressure in Sweden that hits, above all, ordinary people and the core activities in the country's municipalities. SKR and several municipal representatives testify to how difficult the situation is. To then hear here in the chamber that they have to manage on their own is quite remarkable.

We have just gone through a pandemic. We have just made it through one of our toughest challenges perhaps ever during my and our lifetime. We did that by saying that we would save both the jobs and the welfare and ensure that people can manage their lives.

I think that the state has a responsibility to inject more resources in this situation. It is a matter of seeing that if there are deficiencies in the welfare system and in the school and social services do not receive resources, it hits directly against the vulnerable areas that we already have.

One alternative, if we now want a paradigm shift, would be to say that all children in these neighborhoods should have summer jobs. There is both research and proven experience showing that summer jobs and keys and pathways into our society and labor market make it possible for people to avoid ending up in crime.

I have not heard such proposals being placed side by side with the visitation zones. That is exactly what I am trying to say. The repressive tools reduce trust. We already have an inequality in safety today.

It is obviously real. If we are to break down inequality, we must also have a policy to both break down economic inequality and ensure that people feel safe. It is about having a cooperation between the police, the school, and social services and the residents in these areas.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! This was perhaps the second time during our exchange that I mean that Mattias Vepsä listened somewhat selectively. I have never at all claimed that the state should abandon the municipalities.

I also want to emphasize that the government's budget provides more state grants to the municipalities than before. Furthermore, it says something that is also very important. We shall ensure that municipalities have the opportunity to use their resources in a better way. This concerns, for example, as I was mentioning, ensuring that social services, schools, and the police can cooperate in a much better way than until now.

I have no problem at all with municipalities arranging summer jobs. Now, we must nevertheless look eight years back and consider what the previous government did in that regard. I do not think that one perhaps praised the market in those parts.

I promise to encourage every municipality in this country to arrange summer jobs for young people. I completely agree that a job, regardless of when it enters one's life, is by far the most important tool for entering society, becoming independent, and creating relationships and good future prospects.

I say nothing against that at all. What I, however, want to emphasize is that everything else is indispensable if we are to have a real opportunity to break the crime trend.

If we do not break the development of the shootings and explosions, and are not prepared to do so with tools that we have not tried until now, I feel an enormous fear that the lack of trust that Mattias Vepsä speaks about will develop into a crisis of trust where people never dare to speak with the police and prosecutors. It is already a major problem today. People experience that the surrounding society turns its back and does not care about the insecurity when it affects someone else.

I see all of this as the great task for the Ministry of Justice. That the rule of law and the social state must do it together, I am the first to sign on to that.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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