Response to interpellation 2024/25:397 on individuals who repeatedly threaten and fight in stores

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Åsa Eriksson has asked me what I intend to do to stop individuals who repeatedly threaten and fight in shops. I thank you for a very relevant question.

There is no doubt that we in the government and, I believe, very many with us take crime and other disturbances affecting the country's retailers very seriously. This applies in particular to persons who threaten and use violence. It affects the customers' safety, and it affects the working environment for those employed in the stores in a very negative way. Furthermore, it can, of course, have very negative consequences and lead to large economic damages for the stores that are affected.

The Act on Prohibition of Access entered into force nearly four years ago. When assessing whether a person should be prohibited from entering a store, various factors must be weighed. One circumstance that shall be particularly considered is whether the person in question has previously committed a crime in the store. The person who violates a prohibition of access can be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months. The Act on Prohibition of Access was a step in the right direction, but it is now important to follow up on the legislation and ensure that it is effective and that prohibitions of access can be issued to the extent required.

Last year, the Prosecution Authority published a so-called supervision report. The authority states there that the proportion of granted entry bans appears reasonable. It is also stated there that no significant regional differences in the country have been identified regarding how the legislation is applied. At the same time, I know that other stakeholders, not least shop owners, have expressed a different opinion and point out that today's legislation is insufficient in some parts. I believe we have reason to take note of that. That is why we have previously signaled that we intend to review the entry ban in order to make it stronger, among other things by reviewing the possibility for a shop owner to personally decide who should be welcomed into his or her shop.

The government has also appointed the Penal Reform Commission, which has been tasked with submitting proposals involving stricter penalties for multiple offenses. This is of great importance in this area and in many other areas, and I look forward to receiving those proposals later this autumn.

I also want to say the following in this context: In addition to legislation that provides effective protection for shop owners in this specific respect, it is important to have an increased police presence locally as well as a faster handling of the so-called "bulk crimes" (mängdbrott). It is an important reason why the government has provided the police with funds so that they can grow, and why the Commissioner of the Swedish Police has received a clear mandate to change important parts. A central part of that is precisely about re-establishing a locally visible and safety-creating police force and increasing the pressure in the investigative work aimed at the crimes we are now talking about, of course with the aim of solving more crimes.

In summary, I and the government take the problem that has been raised very seriously, and we are, of course, prepared to consider further measures to strengthen the protection for shop owners and their customers.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the answer and the commitment in this matter.

In some parts of the country, there are very large problems with rowdiness, violence, thefts, and harassment in shops. That was why we Social Democrats submitted this proposal when we held government power. I am glad that it received strong support in the Riksdag and that there was a broad consensus that a possibility was needed to deport individuals who seriously disturb the peace or commit repeated crimes.

Madam Speaker! When I did an internship at Ica in Skinnskatteberg a few weeks ago, I realized however that the law does not work at all as it was intended. The two shop owners who run this store, Andreas and Jaana, told me then about people who frequently – pretty much every day – enter the store and use it as their own pantry. They take what they want and leave without paying. If staff or other customers try to stop the person, a scuffle breaks out. It is threats, harassment, pure brawls and assault. On one occasion, one of the staff members was dragged out onto the parking lot by their hair.

Despite this, these Icahandlarna are not granted access bans for the persons in question. In that case, the law cannot function, I mean. As far as I know, hundreds of traders have had access bans granted against various persons. If it is the case that the law is applied identically throughout Sweden, I wonder what these hundreds of persons have done that is worse than this. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine a situation in a store that could be worse than what Andreas and Jaana told me.

Madam Speaker! It is not only I who mean that the law on access bans is applied differently in Sweden. The Minister for Justice just said in his response that the Prosecution Authority makes the assessment that there are "no significant regional differences in the country when it comes to how the legislation is applied". But the organization Svensk Handel has a completely different opinion.

The shopkeepers Jaana and Andreas, who often meet colleagues around the country, testify that shop owners in other parts of the country have been granted entry bans for rowdy individuals who repeatedly commit crimes in their stores – crimes that have been less frequent or less serious than those I just told about.

Madam Speaker! This does not feel legally secure. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Justice what his comments are regarding the Prosecution Authority's assessment that there are no major regional differences in the application of the legislation. Does he share the Prosecution Authority's assessment, or does the Minister for Justice intend to do something about this?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Åsa Eriksson both for the question being raised in the chamber today, for the commitment to the issue, and for the fact that Jaanas's and Andreas's experiences also reach the government and the Riksdag!

Let me start with the last question that was asked. Do I and the government intend to do something about this? The straight answer is yes. What is it then that we are going to do something about and based on what basis?

I said in my response that I am aware of the Prosecution Authority's report or internal review regarding the application of entry bans and the conclusions that have been drawn there. I also said that I am aware that other actors have a different opinion and a different experience. These pictures and experiences do not align.

For my part, the testimony that Åsa Eriksson has conveyed today regarding the reality for these two traders is sufficient to realize that we cannot let the problem persist. I have also met many shop owners who both raise the issue that it is treated differently in different places and other weaknesses with the existing regulation.

I mentioned some parts of this. One such thing is that the starting point is that if someone has been in the store and caused trouble several times, one should be able to obtain a ban from the premises. If someone is there and causes trouble or commits this type of crime for the first time, it might not be enough to obtain a ban from the premises.

Another part concerns who is to manage the issue. It is clear that Jaana and Andreas would have come very far if those who today manage the issue, namely prosecutors, were to make decisions on entry bans for their store. I think it is also worth examining the question of whether the traders themselves should not have the right to make such decisions on the spot in order to ultimately themselves be able to decide who should be in the store or not.

The story that Åsa Eriksson conveys also possibly raises some other questions concerning the safety and security for both customers and employees in stores around the country. It raises questions about camera surveillance, about local police presence, about the possibility of using other security personnel or other preventive measures to reduce the scope for persons who obviously take these types of liberties in our stores.

I cannot today give a time for when the grip on the access bans shall be taken. It is not because I have no idea when it will happen, but I think it is better to talk about it when we actually do this. But we will do it, and today's testimony is just another expression that the need for a review of the access bans is of necessity.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker and the Minister for Justice! There are several things that the Minister for Justice says that I think are good and that I share his view on.

I want, among other things, to pay tribute to the Criminal Justice Reform Commission, which is to look at how punishments can be tightened for repeated crime. That is the problem. Every crime committed, perhaps every day, has such a low sentencing scale that one still cannot incapacitate the person. The individual can, in principle, stand and laugh the dealer in the face and say: Look now when I steal from you, and you cannot stop me! This is, therefore, good.

I do, however, have a few objections. For several retailers, it may certainly be relevant to have a security presence. But I believe it is a cost that few retailers want. This applies especially to small retailers in small towns, who have difficulty making ends meet on the customer base they have. There, the expense for security guards could be the difference between operating with a profit or a loss. I therefore do not believe that this helps very much, but there is much other good that can be done.

Madam Speaker! I want to thank you that things will happen in the near future, and I believe that all traders who have these problems will appreciate that. But while I still have the chance, I still want to raise a serious warning finger regarding what the Minister for Justice said about traders themselves being able to choose who shall have access to their stores.

Here I see a great risk for legal uncertainty. What happens if a trader starts acting discriminatorily and chooses to ban people based on origin, functional variation, or something else? What happens in a small town, where there is only one trader, if this trader has an aversion towards someone? Where is one supposed to shop then? I live in a small town myself, and I know exactly how it can become with conflicts in the hunting party, for example, when one does not want to speak to each other for several years. If one is banned from the store – must one then travel to another municipality to shop?

I wish that the Minister for Justice sticks to his previous background – fighting for anti-discrimination and legal certainty – and ensures that it is the law enforcement authorities that decide when a ban on access is granted. I believe that the law enforcement authority, in this case the prosecutor's offices, should issue the ban much more often than today. We agree on that, and that is what I want to push for. But that it should be up to each retailer, I find extremely doubtful; that is what I want to have said.

Madam Speaker! I have another question. When we Social Democrats were in government, we changed the legislation on entry bans and wanted to include entry bans not only for individual stores but also for shopping malls. I recall that the Moderaterna opposed it then. The Minister for Justice is welcome to refresh my memory. Is this correct, or am I misremembering? And if I am right, have the Moderaterna then changed their minds and are now prepared to grant entry bans even for entire shopping centers and malls?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me take the question about the galleries first. Quite honestly, I have no knowledge of this, so we will have to check that up in that case.

My starting point is that when we review the reform regarding the access bans, we shall do so with the aim that it is, of course, to be legally secure but also effective. That also covers the question of how it is to be used and on which surfaces. Is it in individual stores? How does one use it in an environment where individual stores are located in shopping malls and elsewhere? But I have no closer knowledge of the history, so we will have to follow up on that.

Let me just say something about the reason why I think it is important to review this legislation, which I fundamentally welcomed when it was introduced – it has been in place for a few years now. There are several reasons, including the testimonies that exist regarding the at least perceived unequal treatment in its application – even though we are aware of the Prosecution Authority's analysis on the matter. It is also about the fact that the access bans are not used in enough cases.

I mentioned that we naturally must crack down much harder on this issue of multiple offenses, especially in terms of criminal law. But if you turn it around, I do not think it is obvious that multiple offenses must be required before a ban on entry can be imposed. It could be that someone who commits a serious crime, even if they do it for the first time in a concrete case, should be able to be barred from a certain store already based on that crime. I see such a question as one that I think the investigation should look into.

So, to Åsa Eriksson's questions about the guards and whether shop owners should have greater discretion.

When it comes to the guards, my point was not that individual traders should hire guards. I believe, however, that we must achieve better cooperation between the state level, that is to say the police, and the municipal level, where one largely controls security guards and watchmen. Also, the presence of municipally employed guards is significant for the safety of individual shop owners.

When it comes to the discretion of shop owners, we obviously should not have an arrangement where one can discriminate against people by, based on ethnic background or other such considerations, refuse people entry into shops. If there is to be a different distribution of work between individual shop owners and prosecutors, it can be designed in different ways, but it all boils down to the fact that it must be legally binding. One should not be able to deny people access to a shop on whatever grounds as may be, but it is about precisely what I am speaking about now. One can also imagine a model where a shop owner has made an interim decision on the spot, but that must then be subject to a judicial review.

There are different ways to handle this. My point is that our friends in Skinnskatteberg and others must be able to rely on the legislation aimed at preventing dangerous persons from being in their stores being effective. Now that we are conducting a review, it is reasonable to look at different aspects of this legislation in order to make it more effective. But of course, it must be done in a way that is legally secure.

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

Åsa Eriksson (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that, on the whole, we are in agreement. I think that an alternative to municipalities hiring guards is that the government invests more money in psychiatry and social services so that these individuals, who in my experience often suffer from mental illness and substance abuse problems, can instead receive help. But that is another debate.

I would like to conclude by thanking you for your commitment and urging the Minister for Justice to fast-track the issue of a ban on equal access throughout the country as much as possible, so that staff can work and customers can shop without having to fear that well-known individuals will steal, harass, threaten, and assault. We can never accept that, and action is urgent.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Åsa Eriksson once again for that we were able to talk about these important issues today. I also thank you for the testimonies from Skinnskatteberg and the traders there.

The short message of the long speech is that the issues Åsa Eriksson raises are real and affect many. It is also a reality that many of those who are affected and the organizations that represent many of those who are affected raise the same problem picture. This is reason enough to review the reform, and we shall, of course, do so in order to make it safer and more secure for traders, their employees, and their customers.

I look forward to returning with how this exactly shall proceed. But the direction from my side is that all relevant issues regarding this in such cases must be on the table so that we at the end of such a process can truly be sure that this moves the positions forward and increases the safety and security for all those we want to help.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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