8 SUMMARY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S CONCLUSIONS know the preconditions under which the agency operates and the measures it is able to take to prevent the spread of infection. In addition, Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated that a well-functioning crisis organisation is based on, inter alia, agencies’ and other actors’ abilities and preconditions for good cooperation. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning also stated that the details that emerged during the investigation of the National Board of Forensic Medicine highlighted the difficulties that may arise for agencies responsible for people deprived of their liberty in a situation where there exists a risk of spread of infection. In her view, neither the Communicable Diseases Act nor the laws governing the National Board of Forensic Medicine’s activities provide sufficient support for the measures that may be necessary to prevent the spread of infection in a way that provides sufficient protection whilst simultaneously being proportionate and legally secure. In her view, it appeared obvious that the preconditions for such measures in activities where people are held deprived of their liberty should be urgently reviewed. The issue of cooperation between agencies was also raised with regard to the possibility of testing for infection. Representatives of the Swedish Migration Board, the National Board of FoTesting is an imporrensic Medicine and the tant part of preventing National Board of Instituthe spread of infection tional Care stated that, at among people deprived the beginning of the pandemic, there were limited of their liberty opportunities to test for Covid-19. In his decision following the investigation of the National Board of Institutional Care, Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling noted that, as recently as the beginning of June 2020, the agency experienced differences between the different regions in the extent to which staff were given the opportunity to test. Both Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson and Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated in their decisions that testing is an important part of the work in preventing the spread of infection among people deprived of their liberty. Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant noted that the safety and security of inmates during a pandemic largely depends on the capacity to test for infection and that such tests are carried out. The investigations of the Swedish Migration Board, the National Board of Forensic Medicine and the National Board of Institutional Care continued until the summer, and it was reported that the possibilities to perform tests had gradually improved over the course of the pandemic. In her decision, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning pointed out that the Communicable Diseases Act is based on the premise that the testing of suspected cases of diseases covered by the law can take place. The lack of coordination was also made clear when state agencies were not subject to the mandate given by the Government to the National Board of Health and Welfare to secure protective equipment and other protective materials for use.3 In her decision, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning stated that it was serious that it was not until the end of May that the National Board of Forensic Medicine had sufficient protective equipment. This led to – as she understood it – staff not being able to use protective equipment in all the situations recommended by the Public Health Agency of Sweden and Region Stockholm. 3 – 62 – See the Government’s decision of 16 March 2020, S2020/01558/IFS.