8 SUMMARY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S CONCLUSIONS 8 Summary of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s conclusions On the basis of what has emerged in the investigations of, inter alia, shortcomings in the agencies’ crisis preparations as well as shortcomings in the legislation, each Parliamentary Ombudsman has submitted their decisions to the Government for attention. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning and Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant have also submitted for attention the decisions to the so-called Corona Commission, which was established by the Government on 30 June 2020.1 8.1 Shortcomings in the agencies’ preparations The Prison and Probation Service, the National Board of Institutional Care, the Swedish Migration Agency and the National Board of Forensic Medicine conduct functions vital to society. In the decisions concerning the Prison and Probation Service and the National Board of Institutional Care, Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson and Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling stated that it is crucial that the agencies make preparations for any possible crises, such as a pandemic, and that they train staff and plan for measures to be taken. The purpose of such preparations is, inter alia, to ensure that any measures then taken can be considered as appropriate, proportionate and legally secure. In their investigations, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen have been able to establish a number of shortcomings in the agencies’ crisis preparations. For example, Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated that one 1 of the first measures taken by the Prison and Probation Service in mid-March 2020 restricted inmates’ rights to receive visits and take leaWell-prepared crisis ve. However, this measure was part of a routine des- management contribucription introduced as an tes to predictability for appendix to the Swedish both inmates and staff Prison and Probation Service’s health and medical care handbook. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the manner in which the Prison and Probation Service introduced the restrictions was problematic and she therefore questioned whether the agency was sufficiently prepared for the crisis caused by the pandemic. She further stated:2 “[It should] be reasonably possible to demand that there is better preparation for how the Prison and Probation Service is to handle the spread of a disease that pose a danger to public or society. Well-prepared crisis management with clear rules and structures contributes to predictability for both inmates and staff regarding which measures may be taken in a crisis. I assume the Prison and Probation Service will evaluate and analyse how the agency has handled the ongoing pandemic. This also ensures that any measures taken in relation to inmates in the next crisis are legally secure, appropriate and proportionate.” 2 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 30 June 2020, ref. no. O 122020. See the Commission terms of reference in dir.2020:74 – 60 –