Response to interpellation 2025/26:88 on GPS surveillance to protect women at risk of violence
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns GPS surveillance and protection for women at risk of violence. M argues that the government is systematically moving the goalposts in the fight against violence in close relationships 1. M believes that legislative changes make restraining orders more effective by allowing electronic surveillance to be used as a primary measure 1 2 3. M emphasizes that the reform is significant as it can cover entire municipalities 1 3 and that the starting point should be the crime victim and public safety 3. M does not rule out further surveillance possibilities 4. SD argues that current protections lack real-time security 5 6 and that GPS alarms are necessary for the state to take safety seriously 6.
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)
Good morning, Mr. Speaker and others! Sara Gille has asked me whether I will work for GPS monitoring linked to restraining orders to be introduced in Sweden, which measures I consider most effective to ensure that women who have left violent relationships can actually live free from fear, and how I and the government intend to follow up on the effect of restraining orders to ensure that they provide real safety for the victims.
Let me begin by emphasizing the importance of combating violence against women and violence in close relationships with full force. That is why the government is systematically moving forward the positions in the fight against different forms of violence in close relationships – physical, psychological, and economic violence.
The legislation on restraining orders is an important part of this work. On July 1 this year, legislative changes entered into force that in several ways make restraining orders more effective and more intrusive and thereby strengthen the protection for women exposed to violence. Now, restraining orders can be issued in more cases, cover larger areas and in more cases be combined with electronic surveillance, that is, an ankle bracelet.
An important change is that one can now weigh in more circumstances than previous crimes when making the risk assessment that precedes a decision on a restraining order. Consequently, so-called extended and specially extended restraining orders, which can be combined with an ankle bracelet, can be issued in more cases. It is also new that even the most stringent measure – a specially extended restraining order with an ankle bracelet – can now be decided as a primary measure. All of this makes the restraining orders more preventive in character. Furthermore, the prohibitions can cover larger geographical areas than before, for example an entire municipality. The surveillance also becomes more effective as the Swedish Police Authority has been given expanded possibilities to register and obtain information about the monitored person's position.
As far as the restraining orders are concerned. In addition to that, the government has taken a number of measures to combat men's violence against women and to better support women who need to leave a violent relationship.
We improve prevention, among other things, by removing confidentiality barriers so that information can be shared to prevent violence and by strengthening the rental law protection for those exposed to violence.
We are reviewing the protection for the weaker party in property divisions and how economic violence can be countered.
We also intend to proceed with proposals for strengthened criminal protection against psychological violence, which, for example, includes forcing someone to remain in a relationship or a marriage.
We have tasked an investigator to propose how the right to a victim's counsel can be strengthened, not least for women who are victims of violence. I received those proposals earlier this week.
To this is added the government's action program to prevent and combat men's violence against women, violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking. This includes, among other things, a so-called exit program with measures to facilitate a way out of a violent or destructive life situation. Additionally, Socialstyrelsen has an ongoing assignment to investigate a coordinated support system for persons subjected to violence.
Overall, it is about a systematic effort to strengthen the protection for women who are victims of violence. But there may still be a need to further develop the work, and I gladly welcome more good proposals.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I welcome the reforms that have been implemented and those that are underway. But I can also state that the problem remains. For the woman exposed to violence, safety in real-time is still lacking.
In Sweden, every year 13–17 women are killed by persons with whom they either have or have had a relationship. In almost all cases, warning signs have existed previously in the form of police reports, repeated threats, previous violence, or even a breached restraining order.
This is not really about the lack of knowledge. It is not that which kills the women, but it is the lack of action in time. Protection is activated only when the harm is already about to occur, not before.
Contact prohibitions can in some cases be combined with electronic surveillance, so-called ankle bracelets. That is very good. It is a step in the right direction. But it still does not change the basic problem. It is passive for the victim. The woman receives no warning signal and no opportunity to act in time. That is what the interpellation is about. The woman simply becomes dependent on the police arriving in time. We know that the police do not always arrive in time, especially not out in the rural areas.
According to Brå, every fourth restraining order is breached. In more than 2,000 cases annually, the perpetrator defies the law and approaches the woman again and again.
Mr. Speaker! Leaving a destructive relationship does not always mean that you become free; you can still live in a hell even though you have left that partner. He may come after you, hunt you, and stalk you and still pose a threat.
It is about the woman's mental state and the possibility of moving forward. The woman does not know if the perpetrator is behind the house knot or if he is lying on a beach in Thailand sunbathing. She has no idea where he is and has to live with that anxiety.
For the year 2024, the Swedish Police Authority has stated that the number of restraining orders with ankle bracelets was remarkably low – only 200 cases. Given that over 8,000 restraining orders are issued every year, it means that more than 95 percent of women still stand without technical protection. It is very remarkable, Mr. Speaker.
The Swedish National Audit Office's report, State Protection of Threatened Persons, which applies to 2024, states that protective measures are often implemented too late. Information sharing between authorities is lacking, and many vulnerable individuals state that they experience a false sense of protection.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister why it looks like this. This is not enough. What will the Minister do to ensure that these women can feel that they have real protection and that they have the state on their side?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Sara Gille for the opportunity to discuss these issues today. They are very pressing, especially of course for the women who are subjected to threats, harassment, and ultimately violence, and whom society has a duty to support, help, and protect in a completely different way than until now.
I completely share the problem description that Sara Gille describes. The figures she refers to concern 2024. The answer to the problem description is the legislative change that we have now put in place and which applies from July 1 this year. Through it, we reverse the main rule regarding at least electronic surveillance. If electronic surveillance and ankle bracelets have until now been used as a last-resort measure, which is reflected in the figures for 2024 that Sara Gille refers to, we are now reversing the starting point. Electronic surveillance can now be used as a first-resort measure.
This means that the forecasts for the use of this intrusive measure are very good in many more cases than before. This includes the experience from 2024 that Sara Gille refers to and which is the background to the reform. The intention is that electronic surveillance will now be deployed as a primary measure in many more cases. It is of course very important that one should not always have to wait and first exhaust less intrusive measures, which occurred even in cases where it could have been seen on very good grounds that there had been a need for surveillance. Now it can be deployed immediately.
Regarding the specific question of whether a victim should be able to follow the person who is the subject of a restraining order in real time, it is, of course, a balancing of many different interests. It can involve privacy interests but also purely practical questions. The balancing that has been made is that the most important thing is to apply the electronic surveillance, the ankle bracelet, against those who are primarily risky from the victim's perspective and to do it early as a primary measure. That change is in place from July 1 of this year.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
A restraining order in all honor – it is of course good that there is one – but we must not forget that it is actually just a piece of paper. If a perpetrator is interested in, for example, harming another person and has done so for a longer period, a piece of paper may not stop that person. I know of course that there can be consequences for that, but it is not always that a piece of paper stops a perpetrator.
Regarding restraining orders, I still think that the victims are forgotten in some way. What I am referring to in the interpellation concerns the possibility of moving on in life, being able to live a life without fear, not having to look over one's shoulder, and avoiding living with a feeling of imprisonment.
I know that I have previously taken up in the speaker's chair that I myself have lived in a relationship that was very destructive. I do not know, however, if I have mentioned it to the minister. There was a very large amount of violence involved. The police were called to our home but drove us back there. We simply did not get help from outside to be able to become free.
When I finally left him, I managed to get a restraining order granted. But the restraining order did not help, instead he stalked me and stayed around the house. From Brå, I received the instruction to download the 112 app just to be able to press the button in the app when, for example, I was going out with the trash. It is difficult to live in that way, to not be able to dare to be even in one's own home without being afraid that someone is standing and looking in and can do something.
I also want to say something about another thing that is noteworthy. I know that on several occasions in the past I have spoken with the Minister about restraining orders and specifically GPS monitoring. In Spain, since 2009, they have used GPS-based monitoring of persons who have restraining orders. The system is called Cometa and consists of the perpetrator wearing a GPS transmitter and the victim a receiver that gives a warning signal when the perpetrator comes within a certain established radius. The person in question can thereby live without having to worry. As soon as it beeps, she knows that she can run and hide or run to her neighbor. But when it does not beep, she can live in peace and quiet, because then he is not nearby. It does a lot for mental health. At the same time, the police center is also alerted.
The system is used in over 3,000 active cases. According to Spain's Ministry of the Interior, not a single woman with an active GPS device has been murdered by her former partner. That is very remarkable. Similar models are used in Portugal, France, and Italy. France introduced its system in 2021 after a long series of women were murdered by a former partner despite a restraining order. The result was that the number of fatal violations decreased sharply already in the first year, which is great. Since 2023, the United Kingdom has had a GPS-based warning system being tested in London and Manchester. Why does Sweden lack similar systems? Why does the signal not go to the woman?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to express respect and recognition for Sara Gilles' own and personal experiences of the issues we are talking about. We have spoken about this before, both here in the chamber and in other contexts. The second thing I want to say is that I do not rule out that we can also look at the technical possibility of strengthening the protection for vulnerable women, especially in light of experiences in other countries.
At the same time, I am very keen that we do not diminish the importance of the reform that our parties, with joint forces, have now pushed through in the chamber and had in place from July 1. It also addresses, in practice, many of the problems that Sara Gille raises. This concerns, for example, the fact that contact prohibitions previously as a rule were limited to the abused woman's residence, but can now be extended to apply to an entire municipality.
It means that general contact prohibitions shall be issued to ensure the freedom of action and living space of the woman subjected to violence, not the perpetrator's. One can now implement electronic surveillance, an ankle bracelet, which alerts the police if the prohibition is violated. If one is so dangerous that they are not allowed to stay in an entire municipality but crosses the municipal border while being electronically monitored, the alarm will go off. The police can then intervene preventively to ensure that the person with the prohibition does not come near the persecuted woman.
A good number of the men with restraining orders that we are now talking about should also not be out moving around in society. They should be locked up. We do not solve that with restraining orders.
In this regard, I want to point out the major penal reform that we are now preparing and that our parties are working on jointly. For persons who are very violent, and if it concerns physical and sexual violence, it can be a question of extremely long sentences, including life sentences, for the person who, for example, is guilty of repeated aggravated rapes or other such crimes. It is very important.
We have also now announced that we are going to significantly tighten the maximum penalty for stalking, that is, the type of harassment typical for persons who are subject to restraining orders. They should not be moving around in society with or without an ankle bracelet; they should be locked up.
Overall, I say again that I have great respect and recognition for the personal experience that Sara Gille carries with her into this discussion.
Secondly, I do not exclude at all looking at even more intrusive surveillance possibilities of the kind that Sara Gille points out, as there is experience of in other countries.
But for the third, we must also realize that the reform we have now put in place will make a very big difference. I dare to promise that the figures that Sara Gille refers to regarding 2024 and earlier will look different when we summarize perhaps at least 2026, if we need a little time to get this reform in place – we are turning around the entire starting point for how the tool in the form of a restraining order is to be used.
And fourth and finally, it is important to realize that the most dangerous individuals should not be moving around in society, with or without a restraining order. They should be locked up to protect crime victims and to protect the surrounding society against serious crime.
Sara Gille (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Nothing of what I have raised in this debate is new. This has been a reality not only for me but also for thousands of other women in the country. They leave the relationship. They move and live in hiding. They change numbers and isolate themselves from family and friends. But the fear remains – they do not become free. This is what the debate is about. It is not about them not trying to protect themselves, but about the protection not being enough.
We have a justice system where the woman is expected to trust that the restraining order will protect her. But the truth is that far too many women, including myself, live with the same fear. I am never free. One is not actually free until the perpetrator dies, to be blunt.
I have the luck that my perpetrator is in prison. He has received a long prison sentence, but he will be released one day. That is the day I dread, and I will have a lump in my stomach; then it starts all over again. That feeling disappears when the state stays one step ahead, not one step behind.
That is why the question of GPS alarms for the victim is not about technology and so on. It is about a woman who has already been subjected to violence being given the opportunity to live a life that does not revolve around fear – about whether the state takes her safety seriously, as she herself has done at every step to be able to get out of the relationship.
I wonder why other countries can introduce this system but not Sweden. Is it something the minister is considering introducing?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Sara Gille for the opportunity to discuss these pressing issues today!
As I said initially, I do not rule out at all that we should also look at other tools to further strengthen the protection for the woman subjected to violence. The starting point for the reforms we make is constantly that we should not start from the perpetrator and the perpetrator's interests, but look to the crime victim, the crime victim's redress, and also the protection of society. The protection of society includes the protection of the individual; we shall therefore start from the one who is subjected to violence.
I think it is important that this is how we view the major reform of the restraining orders that is now taking place. It is a reality that the restraining orders in previous years – Sara Gille has also referred to experiences going back in time – have not been effective, in any case not sufficiently effective. It can certainly vary from case to case. But we can at least say that they have not been sufficiently effective systematically.
That is why I think it is important to emphasize that the reform we are now making of the restraining orders is not a small reform. It is a major reform, and it is based on the person exposed to violence, the harassed person. For the first, it is about the fact that the restraining orders can now cover an entire municipality, and for the second, it is about the fact that electronic surveillance can be implemented as a primary measure – not as a last-resort measure when everything else has been exhausted and the harassment, the threats, the hate, and potentially also the violence have been allowed to run rampant and continue unhindered. I think it is important to follow this now, because the intention is very clear: It shall truly strengthen the protection for everyone.
I have previously accounted for a long series of other measures that we are taking, both to make it easier for a vulnerable woman to leave a relationship and to work preventively against violence and harassment in various ways. But I take note of the proposal that Sara Gille is now raising, and we will have to see how we are to look at it moving forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.