Response to interpellation 2023/24:828 regarding the management of the Swedish Police Authority concerning the number of cameras
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that camera surveillance is an important tool for crime prevention work and crime investigations 1. I want the management to be purposeful and effective through a holistic approach where legislation, objectives, and resource allocation are interconnected 2 3. The Government wants to use quantified goals to make expectations concrete and clear 1. I want to implement expanded possibilities for automatic facial recognition and recognition of license plates through ambitious goals and resource allocation 3. I want to build up a critical mass of police cameras to be able to link these with other actors' cameras in real-time 4. I believe it is responsible to do this in dialogue with the authority 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me what reasons underlie the decision to set detailed numerical targets for the number of cameras that the police shall install. Furthermore, Rasmus Ling has asked whether the Ministry of Justice, in authority dialogues with the Police Authority, will have opinions on how and where the cameras shall be installed or whether the police shall have discretion over that matter.
I want to first establish that camera surveillance can be used as a tool in the authorities' crime prevention work, while the material from cameras can be of decisive importance in criminal investigations. This applies in particular to investigations with links to organized crime, which are often characterized by a culture of silence and fear of testifying. We are all also familiar with the clear example following the horrific terrorist attack on Drottninggatan in 2017. Thanks to cameras, the perpetrator could be found, arrested, and punished.
It is the societal development that requires us to move the positions significantly in this area. It could, for example, involve facilitating the use of camera surveillance for crime-fighting and crime-prevention purposes through legislation or other measures that ensure that legislative changes achieve maximum impact.
The Swedish Police Authority has also pointed out on several occasions that camera surveillance is an important technical aid that significantly increases the authority's capabilities to successfully prevent and investigate serious crimes. This was done, for example, in the report on the government mandate to strengthen the operational capacity to investigate serious crimes linked to criminal networks, as well as in the authority's annual report for 2023.
The management of the authorities is a core task for the government. Through a clear direction in the Police Authority's regulatory letter with a clear camera goal, the government signals that the police's camera capacity needs to be further strengthened. A quantified goal has made the government's expectations concrete and clear. The Police Authority is well on its way to reaching the goal for 2024. This shows that the management is yielding results. The goal has thus resulted in significantly more cameras for increased safety on our streets and squares.
The Government and the Ministry of Justice will not have opinions on where and how the police cameras shall be placed. How the technical resource shall be used to provide the greatest possible benefit at each specific occasion is, of course, decided by the Swedish Police Authority. Operational assessments of that nature may and shall not be undertaken by the Government.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister!
The interpellation concerns the government's management of the Police Authority regarding cameras and what can be called micro-management, when one looks at very specific figures of this kind. The question does not concern cameras in themselves as a tool in crime fighting. The undersigned and the Minister for Justice have had the privilege of debating this previously.
Mr. Speaker! I am aware that when Gunnar Strömmer took office as Minister for Justice, the Police Authority's regulatory letter was revised. From having been very extensive, perhaps 25 pages or something like that, it was scaled down to approximately half. Many of the assignments to the Police Authority disappeared. There certainly may have been one or two among those that were removed that I and the Miljöpartiet considered important, but I believe that the basic direction at that time was correct. You scale down, set overarching goals, but do not have too many detailed goals.
We both and many who are listening probably know that when one governs over time and different parties included in the constellation have different interests, it is easier to add mandates than to withdraw them. This is an example of something that should not have been added.
When it comes to the issue at hand, cameras, it is indisputable that in many contexts they are important for combating and preventing crime. The Minister for Justice mentioned a specific incident, the terror attack in 2017. There are many other examples where the police have had decisive help from cameras to be able to solve crimes. But the question here is why the government has decided to determine exactly how many cameras the police shall have.
The police have many other tools that are completely crucial for the authority to be able to carry out its mission. Without service weapons, the Police Authority would not be able to maintain its monopoly on violence. But there are no quantified targets from the government for how many service weapons they should have, which is good. It is the same thing when it comes to police cars. It is not possible to imagine how the authority would function without being able to get around with the help of cars or motorcycles. But not there either is it decided how many there should be.
DNA technology is another example of something that in many cases is completely decisive for solving serious crimes such as sexual offenses and murder. But there is no order or request from the government that it should be used in a certain number of instances. The police do it in the cases they consider it necessary.
I would like to ask, since the Minister for Justice says in the answer that this is something that the police are requesting, why one should decide exactly how many there should be.
A question that is perhaps easy to answer is what the goal actually is. In the relevant regulatory letter, it states 2,500. The Prime Minister stated at the beginning of the summer that it would be 5,000. Is it then 5,000 that will apply for the end of 2024?
My last question in this round, Mr. Speaker: Will the police be able to utilize the cameras that other authorities use and which are included in this figure, or is it about the cameras that one installs oneself?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I shall return to the importance of cameras, fully aware that the issue primarily concerns the government's governance in the area. I just want to say that it is no coincidence that we are focusing so much on cameras. We do so because it is strongly demanded by the law enforcement authorities. It is largely about legislative changes that are to enable an increased use of cameras in different ways.
We are doing this in a situation where a paralyzing culture of silence makes it almost impossible to obtain any evidence other than technical evidence. We know that surveillance cameras, in particular, have a very strong preventive effect and a great value as transmitters of technical evidence that can be completely decisive for the possibility of solving the crimes that are nevertheless committed.
Let me first say something more general about how I view the governance regarding the Swedish Police Authority and - it is quite true - the change we made when we entered the Government Offices in the autumn of 2022. The governance that existed then can to a large extent be said to have been a patchwork that had grown organically over time and also somewhat lost the connection to the core provisions of the Police Act regarding what is the Swedish Police Authority's purpose and tasks.
What we did in a regulatory letter, which in some ways became half as long, was to clarify the governance and link it to the purposes and tasks that appear in the Police Act in order to get a straight line between legislation and the regulatory letter, and for that part, other governance in the form of agency mandates that can be attached and so on. Those were the grounds for the movement.
When it comes to the precision regarding the cameras, it is due to the fact that this is one of the most prioritized tasks in the area of crime fighting during this parliamentary term. One must see it as a whole: partly the extensive legislative changes taking place, and partly the mutual interest from the legislator's, the government's, and the agency's side to ensure the legislation gains traction. It was also significant to obtain an allocation of resources in economic terms that allows one to match that level of ambition.
It is in that totality that one should see the relatively precise goals regarding the cameras. They are also present in a couple of other areas which are also prioritized given the situation.
When it comes to the amount, or what one should say, the Prime Minister expressed an ambition from the Moderaternas side. Now, this is something that is to be processed in a formalized order between the government's parties and the government base in budget processes and regulatory letters going forward. When it comes down to the actual figures, the exact figure will naturally be something that is produced in such a process in close dialogue with the Police Authority, because legislative changes, objectives of this kind, and resource allocation, as said, must hang together.
This is important because now many new opportunities and tools are coming in this area. I will ask to use the next post to account for this, because it is, after all, very important to take with you. These figures do not hang in the air; they are linked to large, important changes in the legislative area that will enable the use of camera surveillance in the future in a completely different way than until now.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Changing legislation so that authorities are given tools and opportunities is one thing. In the question of cameras, we have also had a broad consensus that this is important in very many cases and have welcomed that the police and others are given greater opportunities. But to decide exactly how, where, and when it should take place is actually something else. Now, the government has not expressed opinions on when and where, but the number has been established very precisely. That, I mean, Mr. Speaker, is not a good way to govern.
When the Prime Minister, during Almedalen week, made a statement not as Prime Minister but as party leader for the Moderaterna, it could easily be interpreted as something the government will move forward with. One can then state, Mr. Speaker, that we are now in the end of August and that there are not many months left of the year. If the police now receive a mandate from the government to install an additional 2,500 cameras by the end of 2024, they have a very short time, and that means that other things will have to take a backseat.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that there are better ways to manage authorities than by giving this type of detailed assignments, such as providing legislation that allows for action based on how the situation looks but also the possibility to use the right tools in the right situation. If the government says in a regulatory letter that this number shall be set up, it will be more prioritized than, for example, the use of DNA technology if the police at the end of the year have this assignment that must be completed. It is an unfortunate way to manage.
In the debate, there has sometimes been talk about new public management. Initially, it was an idea of having target management. The politicians would set what they wanted to achieve, what goals should exist, and the profession would then be given the trust to develop methods and carry it out. This then developed in somewhat strange directions. Things were to be made measurable and followed up, and there has been a gradual development where politics at the municipal, regional, and state levels have started to set detailed, figure-based goals. It is not a good management system, Mr. Speaker.
In discussions about education from different parties, not just Miljöpartiet but also others, it is often said that teachers should be allowed to be teachers. In the same way, police officers should be allowed to be police officers. Politics should determine the regulatory framework and allocate funding, but the Swedish Police Authority should be allowed to decide how many cameras or other tools are needed to achieve the best results based on the budget they are allocated.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that we as politicians know better than the professionals how to do this. Even the police have limited budget resources, and whether the budget investments do more good for cameras than for something else is not something that either I or, for that matter, the government knows best. I believe that the Police Authority has the best overview of that.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that the government will, of course, not be pouring out a mandate for a few thousand cameras with a few months' implementation time at the end of this year. What we are talking about is the next horizon, after the goal that was set earlier has been achieved. Through the quantification, an ambition level is also clarified, but the more precise parts of the ambition level will, of course, be discussed in close dialogue with the authority in question.
This is also not entirely unusual, I would also like to say. What in the budget now goes from just over 30 billion to just over 40 billion is not a lump sum, but an amount which in turn is based on requests from the Swedish Police Authority and a dialogue between the Government Offices and the authority. This then forms a number of priorities that provide the whole which corresponds to the sum that is allocated in the budget.
That such a dialogue takes place is, in my opinion, a matter of course. I am also convinced that this is intended to make the management more purposeful and efficient, also from the perspective of the Police Authority.
I believe one should keep in mind that tools, after all, are of somewhat different characters. How a criminal investigation should be conducted in the concrete case is, of course, nothing that a government should have any opinions on. In which matter the police and prosecutor should go to court and request to use secret coercive measures, or to what extent this should occur, is naturally not something that a government should have opinions on.
It is, however, clear that other resource allocation, which is of a different and more structural character, is a different matter. This must have its basis both in the legislation that we are designing and in the economic resource allocation that we make for the use of, for example, various practical tools. I perceive that the interaction between the government and the Police Authority in this area has so far been very beneficial for the authority and, perhaps primarily, for the citizens. We clarify that our political ambition, from legislation via objectives to resource allocation, is connected and that this whole has been developed in close interaction with the authority which, in the next stage, has the full discretion in the important issues concerning when, how, and where.
I want to say something about what is now happening in the area to further underline the value of also concretizing this political ambition raising in concrete goals.
In April, I received important proposals concerning the removal of the permit requirement for actors other than the police. Municipalities, regions, and other authorities other than the law enforcement agencies can all play an important role when it comes to the use of cameras. We mentioned the case on Drottninggatan, where it was largely about a combination of public transport's cameras and private businesses' cameras.
Rasmus Ling asked if the goal we are setting is some kind of total goal for society and access to other actors' cameras. No, we are talking about the police's cameras. A very important matter that we have now received proposals on is that the police should be able to get access to cameras owned by others to a greater extent than until now. This could involve public actors, such as regions or municipalities, but for that part also private actors. This is supposed to add something on top of the ambitious investment being made from the police's side.
We now have proposals for, for example, expanded possibilities to use automatic facial recognition and automatic recognition of vehicle registration numbers. This will be implemented. It will require both ambitious goals and ambitious resource allocation. Both will be provided.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The undersigned and the Minister for Justice debated the regulatory framework for the camera legislation in the autumn, I believe. I see changes that are underway, which will give the Police Authority access to other authorities' camera surveillance, as something positive. At the time, I suggested, for example, that there should be increased surveillance in the traffic environment and that one could have direct access. Something that has been very topical now is camera surveillance on the Öresund Bridge – the police should very easily be able to see the registration numbers of the cars that have crossed. This naturally also applies to other places.
It is the Police Authority's collective capacity that should be the essential factor in this context. When one gains significantly greater access to surveillance in various parts of the public space, it should not be so essential that the new cameras being installed are one's own. If the Police Authority's own will is to do this, I shall have no opinions on it, but if it is simultaneously the case that municipalities all over Sweden will receive legislation that will cause this to increase very much, and if the police can benefit from it, the government should see the combined effect of this and not express such a detailed goal. It is not a good way to govern. It results in setting priorities at a level of detail that is not sound.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the authority can be managed a bit more softly and that it is seen that the expertise actually exists there and not primarily at the ministry or, for that matter, here in the chamber.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the opportunity to discuss these issues once again. They are very significant, and I fully share the ambition to create an infrastructure where the police's cameras are an essential part that can be integrated with infrastructure belonging to other actors in society - all from municipalities and regions to private businesses - to create a whole.
Many who are active in politics in this area have visited other countries and cities where they have succeeded in building such a functioning infrastructure. I know that even the Committee on Justice has visited New York; we were probably at exactly the same place. I believe that the proportions there were approximately 10,000 police cameras and 50,000 cameras from other actors. I reserve my judgment on the exact figures, but that is how the proportions looked. The power of the system is created by being able to build the whole together and by the police having access to this whole in real-time in one and the same room.
My firm opinion is that the ambition we are now setting for the police is to build up a critical mass corresponding to this proportion of the whole. This is not to anticipate the development of other actors, but it will be a critical mass within the police that will serve as a foundation upon which everything else that is to provide the collective strength can then be placed. I think it is responsible to do this in close dialogue with the authority, so that we know that the steering is anchored in real needs and in the assessments that the profession makes.
It is a matter of us, from a legislative standpoint, creating opportunities to fully utilize the potential of technology. For example, new police cars have cameras that allow one to read license plates, but this has not been done because it has not been authorized. It is a matter of us removing these types of obstacles. It is also a matter of allocating resources financially in line with the potential of the legislation and an ambition level that is developed jointly between politics and the authority – all for the benefit of the citizens and for their own good.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.