Response to interpellation 2023/24:573 on information sharing between authorities

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked me questions in connection with the report Increased information flow to law enforcement - A new main rule (SOU 2023:69). She has asked whether I intend to submit a bill to the Riksdag in June this year and when new legislation could be in place in such a case.

The question of improved opportunities for authorities and other actors to share information is very urgent. The development of crime in Sweden is extremely serious with high levels regarding the number of shootings and explosions, while the security situation in Sweden has seriously deteriorated. Added to this are the great challenges with economic crime. The criminal economy contributes to the fact that organized crime can operate and grow.

The development of crime also means that many young people run the risk of being involved in crime or being exploited in criminal contexts. Well-functioning cooperation between authorities is required to push back crime, and such cooperation presupposes that there is a regulatory framework that makes it possible to exchange information in an effective manner.

As Ingela Nylund Watz states, the issues regarding cooperation and information exchange are complex. Careful considerations are required regarding how the legislation on information exchange should be designed to both contribute to more effective crime fighting and simultaneously maintain a protection for individuals' personal privacy.

In the mentioned report, it is proposed, among other things, that certain state authorities, municipalities and regions, as well as schools, shall be required to provide information to the law enforcement authorities. The report has been referred, and the proposals are now being prepared within the Government Offices. The ambition is that a bill shall be submitted to the Riksdag in June this year so that legislation can be in place before the end of the year.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Justice, for the answer! I want to start by saying that I do not doubt that the Minister for Justice is at least as eager as I am to achieve legislation that enables a more efficient exchange of information between authorities and other relevant actors so that we get a more effective crime fighting. We are in complete agreement on this.

But there is a small word in the Minister's answer that concerns me and which he mentioned right at the very end. It is the word ambition. It can be used as a strong expression of will with a given goal, but it is also a word that can be used to lower expectations a little bit. I thought that this debate might perhaps be able to clarify which way it leans for the Minister.

The main proposal in the investigation is that a new main rule shall be introduced, which means that certain authorities, municipalities, and certain private operations shall be obliged, upon request, to provide information also regarding individuals' circumstances. But there is also a proposal which means that both certain authorities, municipalities, and schools, through the principals, without any request from a law enforcement agency, shall provide information when it is assumed or suspected that there are grounds for judicial authorities to act on such information.

This is very complicated material, as I say in my interpellation. When one looks at the referral responses, it is evident with all desirable clarity what a complex task it is that is likely ongoing at the Government Offices. These are very difficult trade-offs.

Let me mention some examples of how the referral bodies have reasoned. Several referral bodies reject or have serious objections to the very fact that a duty of disclosure is proposed without a request from a law enforcement agency.

Many referral bodies report that one can feel concern for the safety and security of officials. Some referral bodies raise the question of the handling – how to manage the fact that a large amount of surplus information that could become difficult to manage would likely emerge.

Some referral bodies, which are close to social services officials and school staff, point out the risks that such a duty of disclosure without a request from a law enforcement agency could lead to increased mistrust towards, for example, social services and the school. This, in turn, could lead to people, even if they have a need for contact with social services or problems in school, not daring to address them for fear that the personal consequences will be too great.

There are, therefore, many difficult trade-offs that must be made. Not least, the question of the trade-off between personal privacy and the need for information is very difficult. I believe it is a substantial task for the Government Offices and the Minister to find the balance point between the two different magnitudes – privacy versus the need for information.

The investigation continues into what is the truly big issue that many are calling for, namely the need to share information between authorities. It is to be investigated until the beginning of 2025, so we will have to wait a good while for these proposals.

My question today is: What lies behind the Minister's small word ambition? Is it a clear direction of travel, or does the Minister see difficulties in managing the referral bodies?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer and, of course, also thank Ingela Nylund Watz, who has submitted the interpellation.

I thought I would take the liberty of participating in the debate because this is an issue that I am passionate about and that I have previously debated with the Minister. I just want to emphasize the need to review the secrecy legislation and why it is so important to have opportunities for an exchange of information.

I have for many years, as I have raised in debates, worked as a social worker in different roles, as both a social secretary, school counselor and field worker. I have always seen that we have really needed an opportunity for information exchange. It is about preventing that young people and children end up in crime or other vulnerability.

We need each other when we are to help and support children and young people. This also applies to others, of course, but it is mostly children and young people I have dedicated my life to. When one, for example, sees that a child is heading towards crime, one needs to help each other. It is not enough to just have a good school health service, one must also be able to cooperate with the police or other authorities. That is why it is so incredibly important that the review of enabling information exchange is actually carried out and that this is put in place.

I have seen it as that it must always be about the child's best interests, and the child's best interests is that we prevent them from ending up in crime or other vulnerable situations. We can do that if we can help each other.

The problem has become extra clear because crime and criminality have increased in recent years. Even though there has been a small pause, the increase has now gained momentum again. This is not over, but we need to continue working very hard to fight the crime and criminality that not only threatens individuals but threatens the entire society. It has also become clear that we really need this cooperation. Criminals have no secrecy, but authorities do. It simply means that criminals have a head start.

During the pandemic, it also became clear that there is confidentiality even within authorities. For example, we had to make a decision so that people could speak with each other within Skatteverket.

There is, therefore, a large number of concerns with the legislation we have today. It is clear that we need to address this and enable the sharing of information.

Another example is work-related crime and such. There, we really need to be able to share information.

I do not doubt the Minister's will, especially considering the answer he gave me last time when I asked the question. This is not about being obstructive, but it is a serious attempt at discussion and debate on how we should move forward. We can still see that there is a possibility to resolve this and make changes.

What Ingela Nylund Watz highlights in the debate is, however, important: Once we get past this of needing to do something, how is it then to be done? Therefore, I am very interested in how the Minister and the Government believe that the input received from the referral bodies should be utilized, and also what timetable we have for handling this issue.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank both the interpellor and the co-debater for the opportunity to discuss these important issues tonight.

Let me start with the word ambition, which you have highlighted. It is literally what it is: We have a timetable based on the fact that we should be able to present a bill this summer so that it can then be in place by the autumn. It has not been changed. Then, it is in the nature of the matter that it is a bit of show, don't tell: It is when one actually arrives at the Riksdag with the bill that it is truly serious. This is, however, the timetable we are working towards, and I think it is realistic.

However, it does not mean that the considerations and trade-offs that are now being made are in any way simple. Just as the interpellor points out, there is extensive referral material to work through, and we are doing so in a very serious manner. The views that emerge in the referral responses may not be surprising, but they very well highlight precisely those trade-offs that the investigator has devoted themselves to during the investigation period.

There is a strong interest in being able to share information in a different way than today. If I am to point to a very strong demand from the field that I believe has been heard louder than almost any other demand during the time I have been able to oversee in this role, not least when it concerns the possibility of taking measures and making interventions to prevent children and young people from being drawn into criminal networks, it is precisely about information sharing – that school, social services, and the police should be able to sit around one and the same table and share information, talk to each other, and mobilize joint forces to be able to break, for example, a destructive development in a concrete case.

The investigation we are now discussing takes many important steps in that direction, even though it—which has also been highlighted here—is primarily a question of an obligation for authorities, municipalities, and regions in different capacities to share information with law enforcement. This must, of course, be weighed against the interest of personal privacy. The question of trust that was raised in the discussion is also, of course, significant. Given Eva Lindh's professional background, she is also, of course, aware of the strong interest within social services in being able to have and maintain trusting relationships with both children and young people and families who turn to them.

I perceive that the investigator has made that trade-off in a very serious manner and found a model that is balanced. It is, however, clear that it is a conflict of objectives, and if we want to move the positions regarding the possibility of sharing information, it will naturally mean that other interests will have to give way somewhat. This, however, I mean is necessary. It is also the investigator's assessment, and it is also the direction we now have in our work before we present the bill to the Riksdag.

Let me then just broaden the perspective somewhat. The investigation, as stated, aims at several important aspects of information sharing but does not cover all relevant aspects at all, which are indeed addressed in other legislative processes. I will gladly return in my next post to which these are and how I envision the whole should look when different legislative products have been completed, so to speak, and we have a whole legislation.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the clarification that it is a plan that the Government Offices are working on and hope to be able to implement. We shall have to see how it goes with that matter.

I want to comment on this with the strong desire from the school regarding information sharing to prevent students from being lured into criminal networks. I am well aware of this, but the referral bodies that have points of contact with the school – school leaders and those who work in the school world – are extremely critical, as are the municipalities. Many referral bodies argue that this is very far-reaching and that it does not align with the school's core mission. It will be very exciting to see how the Minister in his proposition formulates this balance and meets that criticism and concern.

Let me also take up another aspect. In the investigation, the investigator also proposes that certain financial companies should be required to provide information, not least to contribute to combating the economic crime that the Minister mentions in his response. This is an increasingly concerning and heavy part of organized crime, and we know that the ingenuity is very great when it comes to different criminal schemes through companies, associations, and foundations.

I believe the Minister is well aware that in the latest joint situation report from the law enforcement agencies for 2023, the issue of how organized crime, through various types of corporate structures and group formations, sometimes based abroad, inflates their companies' annual reports, for example, to give the appearance of good creditworthiness, was raised. They create money to ensure that the money one has once obtained through illegal means enters the white economy. It creates a gray-zone society that is very uncomfortable.

I think it is a very interesting proposal that the investigation comes up with, that is to say that certain financial companies shall have a clearer obligation to inform some of the authorities that are closest here - the Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Security Service and a few others. I think it is a very good proposal.

What is a bit unfortunate in this context is that when one looks at how the referral bodies respond, one can, perhaps by chance, note that several of the referral bodies that are very close to the companies in the financial sector, for example Bankföreningen and Fondbolagens förening, are extremely critical of this. They think that these are, in principle, irresponsible proposals from the investigator that mean one goes beyond banking secrecy and hinders the possibility of maintaining good relations with customers. There is, therefore, a very strong conflict of interest here.

I would therefore like to hear how the Minister views this. I believe we agree that what the police say about the need to intensify the work against economic crime is incredibly important. And we must be able to go after the money. I believe we are completely in agreement on that.

There is now a proposal that could contribute to us getting a little closer and obtaining a good tool for this. Unfortunately, it meets very strong criticism. How does the Minister view this?

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be brief and emphasize what Ingela Nylund Watz was touching upon, namely this issue of welfare crime. We know that it is truly something that we need to address. There are several parts to it. We cannot have systems that facilitate welfare crime. But secrecy and that which makes it impossible to share information is important in order to address this.

Throughout all the years I have worked, one of the most common questions I have received from children and young people, even when they have become adults and return, has been: Why did you do nothing when you saw this?

The biggest reason is perhaps that we cannot cooperate. When the possibilities for support run out in one place and one perhaps needs to cooperate – that is when it fails, and that is when many children and young people are drawn into crime and other things. There is a paragraph stating that one can break confidentiality if there is a risk that someone will enter into crime. I do not believe that it is used as much as we think and hope.

This is, of course, about preventing welfare crime and crime in the working life, but also about us doing everything we can so that every child in Sweden actually receives the support they need and are entitled to. In that regard, this is an important part.

Then it is obvious so - that is where the balancing act comes in, which Ingela Nylund Watz also clearly pointed out and which the Minister has also raised - that we must manage the privacy and manage this so that people feel trust that things will not get out in the village. What we are talking about is that this shall be shared between those who are affected, so that they can help and support in the best way. But it is a tricky question.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will first say something about the trade-offs when it concerns specifically school and social services in relation to the police and the views that emerge in some of the referral responses. I think they reflect the genuine conflict of objectives that actually already exists with today's rules. It is just a matter of where to place the balance point between these different interests. There is already today a trade-off between, on one hand, the interest in sharing information and on the other hand, the interest in protecting information, protecting personal privacy, and safeguarding, so to speak, the trust between, for example, social services and children and young people or their parents.

What these proposals express is that societal development gives us reason to review this balance point, where precisely the interest in being able to share information between different actors in society has grown so much stronger because the social price and the human price for not being able to do so has become unbearably high in very many cases.

Organized crime must be attacked from several different angles simultaneously, and we have highlighted several of these perspectives in this discussion. Naturally, no decent society can live over time with a situation where we in Sweden have nine times more fatal shootings on an annual basis than the Nordic neighboring countries have combined, or acts of explosion of the kind we have seen in recent years. Striking against gross violence is, of course, a completely central part of such a strategy. But strangling the criminal economy and breaking the new recruitment of children and young people into the criminal networks is also a central part, but none of this can be done – at least not with the efficiency that is necessary – if we are not prepared to reconsider today's regulatory framework regarding information sharing. This investigation is an expression of that.

I believe that one should take all the referral points concerning the protection of these fundamental privacy and trust interests very seriously, because they are real and important interests. These interests will, so to speak, not go away. It would also be false to pretend that we can both increase the scope for information sharing and do so in such a way that it does not affect the privacy interest at all. It is clear that it will.

It is, however, about making this trade-off in a serious way and then designing rules that still take care of these interests as well as possible. What I mean is that this investigation does this fundamentally. But I respect that we in our process at the Ministry of Justice must now, of course, carefully analyze the views that have been received to see if there is reason to make any changes in light of these views. This work is currently underway.

When it comes specifically to choking the criminal economy, there is the same need. There is a need to be able to access information from various private actors, for example financial institutions, in relation to crime fighting. Even there, I think that critical views should be taken seriously. Banking secrecy is something incredibly important and not something that only protects people with very much money. It is something that protects us all against improper privacy intrusions. Nevertheless, I believe that the direction indicated in the investigation is important even when it comes to information sharing in order to be able to choke the criminal economy.

Overall, I mean that the investigation is well-balanced. We are, of course, analyzing the referral comments that have been submitted. I am also convinced that, according to the plan we have presented, we will be able to return with a very well-balanced proposition during the spring.

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

Ingela Nylund Watz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for further comments.

I would like to conclude this discussion by emphasizing that we are, of course, very aware that we must achieve new legislation in this area and are eager for it to happen. We truly look forward to the trade-offs that will be made in the Government Offices and the bill that is to come.

I will also raise some concerns that I hope are not realized. But before I get to that, I would like to say that there are very many investigations ongoing in this area. The previous government, in the name of honesty, began such work with various investigations. The new government has taken over and in some cases given additional directives and in some cases discontinued investigations and appointed new, roughly similar, investigations. This concerns, for example, an investigation into companies and crime which is extremely exciting and interesting.

It is also about the continuation of the investigation that we are now discussing, which concerns the exchange of information between authorities, which is something that, among others, many municipalities are requesting. They feel that they want to be a clearer part of this and want clearer legal support to be able to be a real part of the information exchange with authorities.

I, who have my background in Södertälje, have lived with this demand for a long time because we have been affected in very specific ways for various reasons. There is, therefore, much work remaining, and some of it will unfortunately come a bit late during the mandate period. This concerns, for example, the large investigation into cooperation between authorities.

I will conclude by saying that I will be very careful when the bill arrives. For example, the fight against economic crime and the proposals that exist and which demand that the financial sector provide information in a clearer way is at least as important as the fact that one should prevent young people from being drawn into crime. I hope that the Minister also thinks that both things are equally important. We will see that in the bill. I will monitor this very closely.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I very much look forward to the rigorous scrutiny from the House.

I am convinced that we will meet the very justified demand for new legislation that enables information sharing in a completely different way than today. This applies both to accessing the gross violence, strangling the criminal economy, and breaking the new recruitment within the criminal networks of children and young people.

Just as Ingela Nylund Watz says in her concluding remarks, several legislative processes are ongoing in parallel. What we have talked about tonight concerns primarily the obligation for different actors to share information with law enforcement, i.e., the police. If I am not completely out of line, the Riksdag took a position the other day on a government proposition regarding expanded possibilities to share information to prevent incorrect payments and work-life crime, which is extremely important.

Then we have the broader follow-up regarding precisely the possibility of sharing information between authorities. Our analysis has been that what is on the table is not sufficient all the way, but that we also need to ensure the possibility of exchanging information between authorities in a different way than today. This is particularly significant when it comes to being able to effectively combat economic crime. There is also a school safety investigation that also looks at certain aspects of this.

My summary point is that all of this consists of well-balanced directives that address important and real societal problems. It is being handled in a very serious manner according to a very Swedish, traditional investigation model. That makes me convinced that we will find a well-balanced balance, even if it may be different than today, between on the one hand, expanded opportunities to share information, and on the other hand, regulatory frameworks that also respect personal privacy and safeguard trust in important activities.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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