2024-04-242023/24:JuU28 · p.2JuUJustice
Evaluation
Evaluation of the strengthened protection for police employees
What's at stake: The protection means that certain police employees in particularly exposed situations can have their name replaced with another designation in decisions, which raises questions about how the measure's effects on due process, transparency, and law enforcement should be followed up over time.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether a specific statement should be issued calling for continuous evaluation of the new protection for police employees, beyond the time limit and documentation duty already built into the proposal.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee notes that the bill is already time-limited so that its effects can be evaluated, and that the police authority is required to document the cases where the option is used, ensuring that its use can be reviewed and assessed. The committee therefore considers the proposal's built-in evaluation mechanisms sufficient and rejects the motion calling for further evaluation.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 2 (S)
The reservation (S) points out that the Council on Legislation criticized shortcomings in the preparation of the bill - including an unreasonably short consultation period during a holiday period, and the fact that the proposal should have been handled together with protection for other exposed occupational groups - and argues that the new rules should therefore be evaluated on an ongoing basis after implementation, to safeguard both due process and the principle of public access to official documents.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 2 by S.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The decision would have held
Explicit commitments that contradicted the vote: LLiberalerna
Ja 202–93Ja 188–107
Counterfactual: the parties above are moved to the position their own documents explicitly point at, carrying their whole contingent present. Every other party keeps its real figures, including dissenters and absentees.
How the AI parties would have voted
For each party: what its own plan – election manifesto and party programme – argues for in this case, next to how the party actually voted. The AI can only answer Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| AI | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | No | Abstain 10/0/11/3 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| S | No | No 0/92/0/14 | match | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| MP | No | Yes 16/0/0/2 | differs | confidence: high | derived |
| C | No | Yes 22/0/0/2 | differs | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| L | No | Yes 14/0/0/2 | differsagainst own programme | confidence: high | explicit |
| KD | No | Yes 17/0/0/2 | differs | confidence: medium | derived |
| M | No | Yes 59/0/0/9 | differs | confidence: low | not addressed |
| SD | No | Yes 63/0/0/9 | differs | confidence: low | not addressed |
Broke with the party line
| VAndreas Lennkvist Manriquez (V, Stockholms kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VCiczie Weidby (V, Jönköpings län) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VHåkan Svenneling (V, Värmlands län) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VIda Gabrielsson (V, Stockholms kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VKarin Rågsjö (V, Stockholms kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VLorena Delgado Varas (V, Stockholms kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VLotta Johnsson Fornarve (V, Södermanlands län) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VMaj Karlsson (V, Göteborgs kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VMalcolm Momodou Jallow (V, Malmö kommun) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
| VNooshi Dadgostar (V, Stockholms län) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motion 2023/24:2850 by Ardalan Shekarabi et al. (S).
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion 2023/24:2850 av Ardalan Shekarabi m.fl. (S).
Riksdag decision: Police officers who work against organized crime shall in certain situations be able to use a different designation than their own name when they sign decisions and document measures. This can involve decisions and documentation regarding police interventions, searches and seizure of weapons, drugs and money. The Riksdag said yes to the government's proposal for amendments to the Police Act and to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act. The Police Authority has flagged that police officers who work against the criminal networks face increased risk of being subjected to threats, violence and reprisals. Family members of police officers may also be subjected to attacks by criminals. The new legislative amendments that make it possible for a police officer to use a different designation than their name are time-limited and apply from 30 April 2024 to and including 29 April 2029.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants the new regulations for police protection to be continuously evaluated after implementation. (S) — Reservation 2
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The plan counts the principle of public access as one of democracy's most important foundations and requires effective and independent systems for scrutinizing the occupational groups that have the right to exercise violence.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan counts the principle of public access as one of democracy's most important foundations and requires effective and independent systems for scrutinizing the occupational groups that have the right to exercise violence. Continuous evaluation of rules that hide police officers' names in decisions is such a scrutiny tool and protects transparency. The plan does not address the current regulation, which is why the support is derived.
Original (Swedish)
Planen räknar offentlighetsprincipen till demokratins viktigaste byggstenar och kräver effektiva och oberoende system för att granska de yrkesgrupper som har rätt att utöva våld. En kontinuerlig utvärdering av regler som döljer polisanställdas namn i beslut är ett sådant granskningsverktyg och värnar insynen. Planen behandlar inte det aktuella regelverket, varför stödet är härlett.
- independent scrutiny of the policedecisive»Det måste finnas effektiva och oberoende system för att granska de yrkesgrupper, till exempel polisen och militären, som har rätt att utöva våld.« (party programme ↗)“There must be effective and independent systems to scrutinize the occupational groups, for example the police and military, that have the right to exercise violence.”
- the principle of public access as a foundation»Några av den politiska demokratins viktigaste byggstenar är föreningsfriheten, yttrande- och tryckfriheten, offentlighetsprincipen och meddelarfriheten.« (party programme ↗)“Some of political democracy's most important foundations are freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the principle of public access and freedom of information for the press.”
- transparency in law enforcement»Genom medborgerlig insyn, rättshjälp, offentlig debatt och granskning av rättstillämpningen garanteras allas likhet inför lagen.« (party programme ↗)“Through citizen transparency, legal aid, public debate and scrutiny of law enforcement everyone's equality before the law is guaranteed.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The programme establishes that the democratic process and public administration must be based on transparency and insight and that citizens shall be able to scrutinise activities and demand accountability.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The programme establishes that the democratic process and public administration must be based on transparency and insight and that citizens shall be able to scrutinise activities and demand accountability. An arrangement where police employees' names are replaced with a designation is an exception from this, and continuous evaluation is the minimum required for transparency and legal certainty to be maintained. The requirement is thus in the plan's direction.
Original (Swedish)
Programmet slår fast att den demokratiska processen och samhällsförvaltningen måste bygga på offentlighet och insyn och att medborgarna ska kunna granska verksamheten och utkräva ansvar. En ordning där polisanställdas namn ersätts med en beteckning är ett undantag från detta, och kontinuerlig utvärdering är det minsta som krävs för att insynen och rättssäkerheten ska kunna värnas. Kravet ligger därmed i planens riktning.
- transparency and insightdecisive»Den demokratiska processen och samhällsförvaltningen måste bygga på offentlighet och« (party programme ↗)“The democratic process and public administration must be based on transparency and”
- scrutiny and demand for accountability»Oavsett i vilken form skattefinansierad verksamhet drivs ska medborgarna ha möjlighet att« (party programme ↗)“Regardless of what form tax-funded activities are run in, citizens shall have the opportunity to”
- legally certain government administration»beakta allas likhet inför lagen och iaktta saklighet och opartiskhet.« (party programme ↗)“respect everyone's equality before the law and observe objectivity and impartiality.”
The party programme establishes that the principle of public access and freedom of communication must be protected and strengthened, that citizens must always be able to scrutinise power and that there must be good civic oversight of all judicial and law enforcement activities.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme establishes that the principle of public access and freedom of communication must be protected and strengthened, that citizens must always be able to scrutinise power and that there must be good civic oversight of all judicial and law enforcement activities. At the same time, legal certainty must be secured. A requirement for continuous evaluation of rules that limit oversight of police decisions follows from these commitments.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet slår fast att offentlighetsprincipen och meddelarfriheten måste värnas och stärkas, att medborgarna alltid ska kunna granska makten och att det ska finnas god medborgerlig insyn i all rättskipande och rättsvårdande verksamhet. Samtidigt ska rättssäkerheten tryggas. Ett krav på kontinuerlig utvärdering av regler som begränsar insynen i polisens beslut följer av dessa åtaganden.
- protect principle of public accessdecisive»Offentlighetsprincipen och meddelarfriheten måste« (party programme ↗)“The principle of public access and freedom of communication must”
- oversight of the legal system»Det ska finnas god medborgerlig insyn i all« (party programme ↗)“There must be good civic”
- citizens shall scrutinise power»kunna granska makten. Alla former av korruption« (party programme ↗)“be able to scrutinise power. All forms of corruption”
- legal certainty shall be secured»Rättssäkerheten ska tryggas samtidigt som de« (party programme ↗)“Legal certainty shall be secured at the same time as the”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The party programme requires that every restriction is proportional to the law's purpose and makes openness and transparency fundamental prerequisites for preventing abuse of power.
Plan documents: party programme · 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires that every restriction is proportional to the law's purpose and makes openness and transparency fundamental prerequisites for preventing abuse of power. Continuous evaluation of rules that allow police officers' names to be replaced is precisely such protection for legal certainty and transparency. The plan also wants Sweden to become even more transparent.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet kräver att varje inskränkning står i proportion till lagens syfte och gör öppenhet och transparens till grundförutsättningar för att förhindra maktmissbruk. En kontinuerlig utvärdering av regler som låter polisanställdas namn ersättas är just ett sådant skydd för rättssäkerhet och insyn. Planen vill dessutom att Sverige blir ännu mer transparent.
- proportionality in restrictionsdecisive»Det måste finnas en proportionalitet mellan lagstiftningens inskränkning av medborgarnas integritet och lagarnas syfte.« (party programme ↗)“There must be proportionality between the legislation's restriction of citizens' integrity and the laws' purpose.”
- insight into exercise of authority»Öppenhet och transparens är grundförutsättningar för frihet, demokrati och för att förhindra korruption« (party programme ↗)“Openness and transparency are fundamental prerequisites for freedom, democracy, and for preventing corruption”
- increased transparency»Sverige ska bli ännu mer transparent.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden shall become even more transparent.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The party programme requires that all new bill proposals be analysed from a privacy perspective and that already enacted laws with strong impact on personal privacy be regularly evaluated.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme requires that all new bill proposals be analysed from a privacy perspective and that already enacted laws with strong impact on personal privacy be regularly evaluated. That is precisely what the counter-proposal asks for the new rules. The plan moreover emphasises the fundamental importance of the public access principle and that legal certainty needs strengthening, which are the two protective interests the counter-proposal invokes.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet kräver att alla nya lagförslag analyseras ur integritetssynpunkt och att redan införda lagar med stark påverkan på den personliga integriteten regelbundet utvärderas. Det är precis vad motförslaget begär för de nya reglerna. Planen betonar dessutom offentlighetsprincipens grundläggande betydelse och att rättssäkerheten behöver förstärkas, vilket är de två skyddsintressen motförslaget åberopar.
- regular evaluation of lawsdecisive»påverkan på den personliga integriteten ska regelbundet utvärderas.« (party programme ↗)“impact on personal privacy shall be regularly evaluated.”
- privacy analysis of bills»Alla nya lagförslag ska analyseras ur integritetssynpunkt.« (party programme ↗)“All new bill proposals shall be analysed from a privacy perspective.”
- public access principle upheld»Offentlighetsprincipen har en grundläggande betydelse för att förankra och fördjupa folkstyret,« (party programme ↗)“The public access principle has fundamental importance for anchoring and deepening democracy,”
- strengthened legal certainty»Rättssäkerheten och skyddet för de medborgerliga fri- och rättigheterna behöver förstärkas.« (party programme ↗)“Legal certainty and protection of civil freedoms and rights need to be strengthened.”
The stance rests on the quoted commitment in the party's own documents; the actual vote deviated. Click the quote to verify it in the document.
The party programme makes evaluation, cost tracking and quality control important political tasks and establishes that secrecy opportunities shall be used restrictively.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The party programme makes evaluation, cost tracking and quality control important political tasks and establishes that secrecy opportunities shall be used restrictively. An arrangement where information about police employees' names can be replaced directly touches on public disclosure and legal security, where the plan requires strong and independent courts. Continuous evaluation of the new rules therefore follows from the plan.
Original (Swedish)
Partiprogrammet gör utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll till viktiga politiska uppgifter och slår fast att sekretessmöjligheten ska nyttjas restriktivt. En ordning där uppgift om polisanställdas namn kan ersättas berör direkt offentlighet och rättssäkerhet, där planen kräver starka och självständiga domstolar. Kontinuerlig utvärdering av de nya reglerna följer därför av planen.
- evaluation as political taskdecisive»Utvärdering, kostnadsuppföljning och kvalitetskontroll« (party programme ↗)“Evaluation, cost tracking and quality control”
- restrictive secrecy»Sekretessmöjligheten ska nyttjas restriktivt.« (party programme ↗)“Secrecy opportunities shall be used restrictively.”
- legal security»Domstolarnas ställning ska vara stark och självständig.« (party programme ↗)“Courts' position shall be strong and independent.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan says nothing about how specifically these rules should be followed up.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan says nothing about how specifically these rules should be followed up. The closest principles are that all public exercise of power carries a responsibility, that citizens' rights and freedoms and the courts' independence should be strengthened, and that reforms should constantly be tested and re-tested. On the basis of these, the plan provides weak support for the demand for continuous evaluation to protect legal security and the principle of public access.
Original (Swedish)
Planen säger inget om hur just dessa regler ska följas upp. Närmast liggande principer är att med all offentlig maktutövning följer ett ansvar, att medborgarnas fri- och rättigheter och domstolarnas oberoende ska stärkas, och att reformer ständigt ska prövas och omprövas. Utifrån dessa ger planen ett svagt stöd för kravet på kontinuerlig utvärdering till skydd för rättssäkerhet och offentlighetsprincipen.
- responsibility for public exercise of powerdecisive»Skärpa tjänstemannaansvaret så att du som skattebetalare vet att med all offentlig maktutövning följer ett ansvar för de beslut som fattas« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen official responsibility so that you as a taxpayer know that all exercise of public power carries a responsibility for the decisions that are made”
- legal security and rights protection»Stärka domstolarnas oberoende och skyddet för medborgarnas fri- och rättigheter« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen the courts' independence and the protection of citizens' rights and freedoms”
- reforms should be re-tested»Det kräver en pragmatisk reformvilja och en förmåga att se samhällsproblem för vad de är.« (party programme ↗)“It requires a pragmatic will to reform and an ability to see societal problems for what they are.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan does not take a position on how precisely these rules should be followed up, but requires clear results for every public investment and that transparency and the possibility of accountability increase.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan does not take a position on how precisely these rules should be followed up, but requires clear results for every public investment and that transparency and the possibility of accountability increase. Continuous evaluation of the new rules follows from this principle, without conflicting with the plan's demand for strengthened protection for police. The position is derived and uncertain.
Original (Swedish)
Planen tar inte ställning till hur just dessa regler ska följas upp, men kräver att tydliga resultat begärs för varje offentlig satsning och att transparensen och möjligheten till ansvarsutkrävande ökar. En kontinuerlig utvärdering av de nya reglerna följer av den principen, utan att strida mot planens krav på stärkt skydd för poliser. Ställningstagandet är härlett och osäkert.
- results follow-updecisive»Begära tydliga resultat för varje offentlig satsning« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Require clear results for every public investment”
- transparency and accountability»Tjänstemannaansvar ska införas och åtgärder ska genomföras för att öka transparensen och möjligheten att utkräva politiskt ansvarsutkrävande.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Official responsibility shall be introduced and measures shall be implemented to increase transparency and the possibility of political accountability.”
- protection for police»Skapa trygghet och säkerhet för poliser och deras familjer« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Create security and safety for police and their families”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2023/24:JuU28)
- Committee report full text (HB01JuU28)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2023/24:2848 — med anledning av prop. 2023/24:102 Stärkt skydd för vissa polisanställda av Gudrun Nordborg m.fl. (V)
- Motion 2023/24:2850 — med anledning av prop. 2023/24:102 Stärkt skydd för vissa polisanställda av Ardalan Shekarabi m.fl. (S)
- Proposition 2023/24:102 — Stärkt skydd för vissa polisanställda
Source: The Swedish Parliament