Better opportunities to investigate crimes by young offenders and some other procedural law issues

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the committee report Better opportunities to investigate crimes by young offenders and some other procedural law issues.

What we are to take a position on here today concerns giving the police better opportunities to investigate crimes committed by children who do not reach the age of criminal responsibility. The Social Democrats say yes to the proposals, and I would like to take the opportunity to briefly comment on the report.

Gang crime is creeping further down into the ages. We see how children are recruited to commit serious crimes. To break this development, society must strengthen the possibility of accessing this type of crime.

The proposals in today's report concern strengthening the police's ability to investigate crimes often committed by children under 15 years of age in gang environments, who are therefore not of legal age to be prosecuted. We will also make decisions on the Swedish Customs Service's powers in the investigation of crimes by young offenders, and we will make decisions on coercive measures to detain a group of persons for identification as well as coercive measures for potential release.

Mr. Speaker! I intended to briefly reflect on why we Social Democrats support these proposals but will stick to the parts concerning young offenders, i.e., children under 15 years of age who commit serious crimes.

The police shall be given opportunities for more coercive measures than today when someone is suspected of having committed a serious crime before the age of 15. The requirement for special reasons shall be removed for certain coercive measures. The time for detention during body search for the purpose of criminal investigation shall be extended. More biometric data shall be allowed to be collected for the purpose of criminal investigation and for registration purposes. The right to legal counsel shall be expanded and the right to a public defender during evidence presentation shall be clarified.

Against the background of gangs recruiting increasingly younger individuals, society's ability to break crime must be developed. Several of these proposals give the police more powerful tools to address the fact that gangs exploit young people by grooming them to hide drugs, drug phones, or weapons. The legislative tightenings provide sharper opportunities to use coercive measures even against young offenders to investigate and find any criminal proceeds and hidden objects.

This is good. It puts pressure on the gangs and provides further opportunities to break up and prevent new recruitment. It also gives the police the opportunity to seize criminal proceeds, and thereby the victim's perspective can be strengthened. Of course, we must however, just as several of the referral bodies point out in this case and also in many others, monitor the children's perspective. In dark times when gang leaders cynically draw younger children into crime, the children's perspective is incredibly important.

I naturally share the concern that exists and is expressed by many referral bodies regarding today's matter and other matters that we have made decisions on. But it is also important that we see the justice system's need to be able to reach crime earlier. We must, therefore, manage to make large investments to break this new type of crime while we, of course, demand large investments to break the new recruitment. This is the government's great failure during this mandate period, Mr. Speaker.

In today's report, there are two important parts concerning the children's perspective that I think are important to highlight here in the chamber.

Firstly: In every decision regarding coercive measures concerning a child, what is judged to be the best interests of the child shall be considered in the first instance. This follows from Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Within the framework of the proportionality assessment that shall be made at every individual decision on coercive measures, the child's age, maturity, and development shall be weighed in the assessment. The younger the child is, the greater the reason to be restrained.

Secondly: With today's decision, we also strengthen the possibility of legal counsel. The right to legal counsel during the evidentiary hearing shall be expanded. In a situation where more and more children and young people face court and the evidentiary hearing is conducted, it is incredibly important that the possibility of a defense counsel is strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals today are part of a series of increased penalties and the development of tools to address the dark situation we find ourselves in and have been forced to handle over the last 10–15 years. But at the same time as the SD government has pursued a policy for more police and the right tools, one misses closing the recruitment tap, which stands wide open. This is a betrayal of the children. We risk a situation where more and more children are lured into destructive environments and where the promise of quick money to blast, shoot, hide weapons and store drugs feels like a more reasonable path than completing school, starting a family and living an honest life.

I have looked for the major investments to break the new recruitment but only find four failed years. There are large cuts in the school and social services, more unemployed and poorer families. Society is being torn apart.

The arguments that we in the Social Democrats have put forward in the chamber and the proposals we have in our alternative budgets concern a Usväng program for children who run a high risk of being drawn deeper into crime. We want to see a social services boost that would provide more social workers and also provide opportunities to develop intensive family therapy and a risk family program. Young people should be met with active interventions and promises of jobs, not be forced into unemployment. We have proposed an increased child allowance to strengthen the families' finances, something that is particularly important when food, leisure activities, and electricity have become increasingly expensive.

These are not the priorities of the Sweden Democrats and the government. Perhaps it is not so strange that right-wing politicians desperately cling to the "only way" policy in the form of large tax cuts, mostly for the very richest. But it certainly becomes strange when one sees a reality where the police warn that the number of gang criminals continues to remain historically high at around 17,000 active individuals, many of them children under 15 years old, and the proportion of young people in murder cases has grown exponentially over the last four years in Sweden.

It is about priorities, and it is about insight. If the government were not interested in listening to the Social Democrats, one might have been able to bother to listen to the police, to the investigators who raise these perspectives in their investigations, to the social workers, to the families who are affected – or to the children themselves.

Today we will vote yes to more tools for the police, but we will push for a policy that closes the recruitment tap. Every child who is recruited into a gang is, in fact, a failure for society, and every child who is never recruited is a victory that is worth more than all the increased penalties in the world.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! For Miljöpartiet, it is very important that more crimes can be detected and investigated, that crime victims receive redress and that children are protected from being exploited by criminals. I naturally agree with much of what the Social Democratic member just said. The focus should be changed, and more resources should be allocated to preventive work.

For those of you who have heard me debate a few times regarding this committee, it is now going to be a small reprise.

Legislation concerning children must live up to high requirements for legal certainty, proportionality, and accuracy. This applies particularly to proposals that involve, for example, deprivation of liberty and extended coercive measures, which is what we are primarily talking about here today.

In our opinion, there are particularly strong reasons to question proposals concerning expanded opportunities to use seizure, house search, and body search against children, extended time for detention of children during body search, that biometric data shall be allowed to be taken from children for registration purposes, as well as that a coercive measure shall be introduced for the detention of a group of persons for identification.

Common to all these proposals is that they involve very intrusive measures against children who are not even of legal age to be punished, without the government having sufficiently clearly shown that the benefit outweighs the intrusion.

With this said, we have landed somewhat differently in our position regarding the various proposals.

Already today, it is possible to decide on seizure, house search, and body search against children who have not reached the age of 15. The government's proposal in this area does not therefore mean that entirely new coercive measures are introduced, but that the requirement for special reasons is removed in more situations. This can give the law enforcement authorities better conditions to investigate crimes and intervene when children are exploited in criminal contexts, something that both the Prosecution Authority and the Police Authority welcome. At the same time, the proposal means that the special protection threshold that has hitherto applied to children under the age of criminal responsibility is lowered. It is therefore important to emphasize that such a change must be applied with great restraint.

When it comes to such intrusive measures as having one's home searched or one's body frisked, the best interests of the child and a restrained assessment must carry great weight. Even if the legislation provides expanded possibilities, it must not lead to the coercive measures being used routinely against children. The referral outcome also shows that the issue requires careful balancing.

A majority of the referral bodies support or have no objections to the proposal, including the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, several district courts, and the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden. At the same time, some courts have pointed out the need for clear protective boundaries. Malmö District Court considers the reasons for the change to be convincing but advocates that the requirement for special reasons be retained and that it should instead be clarified in the legal text when such reasons are to be considered to exist. Svea Court of Appeal emphasizes that coercive measures against children should continue to be used restrictively and that special weight must be placed on the proportionality assessment. The Children's Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, and the Parliamentary Ombudsmand consider that today's regulation allows to a sufficient extent that these coercive measures can be directed at children under 15 years of age in cases of suspicion of serious crimes. Unicef Sweden warns that the proposal could affect children who are not suspected of crimes, for example, siblings. And Civil Rights Defenders emphasizes that children are particularly vulnerable to privacy violations and that the proposal risks leading to stigmatization and a reinforced criminal identity in children.

The Green Party understands the law enforcement authorities' need for appropriate tools, not least to be able to protect children from being exploited by older criminals and to be able to secure evidence or restore property to crime victims. But precisely because the measures are directed at children who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, the application must be characterized by precision, proportionality, and restrictiveness. We therefore believe that the expanded possibilities should be time-limited and followed up. The Government has not proposed any such limitation, but since it concerns intrusive measures against children under 15, the legislation should not apply longer than necessary.

A time limit, preferably five years, would create better conditions to test whether the reform actually leads to children being protected from being exploited in serious crime and whether the measures are used in a legally secure and proportionate manner. The Government should therefore return with a time-limited proposal and ensure that the reform is evaluated thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker! According to today's order, children under 15 years of age may be detained for a maximum of three hours when a body search is to be carried out for criminal investigation purposes. The Government's proposal means that children can be detained for an additional up to six hours if there are compelling reasons. The question, therefore, is not whether such a possibility should be introduced, but whether the time children may be detained should be extended.

If the police are unable to carry out body searches within today's timeframes, the starting point should be to review resources, organization, and prioritization, not to give the authorities expanded opportunities to detain children longer. Several referral bodies also question whether the need for the extension has actually been demonstrated, including the Svea Court of Appeal. Save the Children points out that the motive behind the proposal seems to be a lack of resources rather than a real need for new legislation. And the Institute for Human Rights emphasizes that such detention is a deprivation of liberty which, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, may only be used as a last resort for the shortest possible time. Even Ecpat Sweden warns that the proposal entails further restrictions on children's freedom of movement without it being shown why the problem should not instead be solved through increased resources.

Miljöpartiet shares these referral bodies' opinion in this matter. Children should not bear the cost of the authorities' lack of capacity.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet also advocates for the rejection of the proposals that biometric data should be allowed to be taken from children for registration purposes and that a coercive measure should be introduced for the detention of a group of persons for identification. Registration in biometric registers involves a far-reaching and lasting privacy infringement. It also risks stigmatizing children who have not even reached the age of criminal responsibility, which Rädda Barnen also emphasizes. This is particularly serious when it concerns registration after the evidence has been presented. A child who is not of criminal age should not be treated as if they were a convicted adult offender.

Several referral bodies have also directed clear criticism towards this part of the proposal. Both the Institute for Human Rights and Ecpat Sweden question whether the proposal is compatible with the European Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Civil Rights Defenders considers it to be a disproportionate interference with children's right to privacy and integrity and emphasizes that biometric data are particularly sensitive personal data. Miljöpartiet shares that assessment. The State should not expand the registration of children in a way that risks having long-lasting consequences for their future.

The government also proposes a new coercive measure, which makes it possible to detain a group of people for identification even though there is no individual suspicion against each person. Miljöpartiet considers that the proposal, despite the limitations proposed by the government, raises serious rule-of-law issues. When coercive measures are used without individual suspicion, the risk of arbitrariness and of an application that is or is perceived as discriminatory increases. The fact that the measure targets groups makes it particularly sensitive from a rule-of-law perspective. Similar views have been expressed by Civil Rights Defenders, Fryshuset, the Chancellor of Justice, and Stockholm University.

Miljöpartiet considers that the legal certainty risks resulting from a collective coercive measure without individual suspicion weigh too heavily. That the state gains greater opportunities to intervene against groups of people without regard for the individual's actions is a step in the wrong direction, we argue.

Furthermore, I would like to add, as usual, that Miljöpartiet, like a large number of referral bodies, wishes to see a review of the regulatory framework regarding secret coercive measures and other privacy-infringing powers, which in recent years has become so extensive and complex that it is difficult to oversee the consequences of the legislation for both individuals and society as a whole.

The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection similarly warns that the cumulative intrusion into personal privacy may be greater than what each individual bill suggests, and they call for a holistic approach to privacy issues in the crime-fighting area. We agree with this.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! We do not accept that serious crime with links to criminal networks is penetrating ever deeper into the younger ages. We intend to put a stop to that development. Children must be protected from being exploited and involved in crime. The Moderate-led government is taking step by step to stop this – after the previous government's eight years of failure when it came to taking care of the children.

There is an image that many of us recognize. It is an image we have seen in the newspapers and heard about from police. It is a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old, or sometimes someone even younger, with a weapon in their hand, not because they want to, but because some adult has calculated that the laws do not quite reach them. It is no coincidence, but a business model.

The criminal networks have studied the regulatory framework. They know where the boundaries are, and they know that children under 15 years of age cannot be prosecuted. They have exploited every single loophole that has been left open – coldly, deliberately, and without an ounce of conscience. It is that reality that we are now going to legislate against. We shall ensure that every such loophole is closed.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating is about giving the law enforcement authorities tools that actually work. Focused crime prevention work is central, and crimes must be able to be investigated effectively regardless of the perpetrator's age.

More effective tools are needed to investigate crimes committed by young offenders – committed by children. Today, the police can initiate a so-called § 31 investigation, that is, an investigation of crimes committed by children under 15 years of age. That possibility exists, but it has been too narrow. In too many cases, the police have been tied up. They have not been able to clarify what has happened, and they have not been able to provide the social services with the basis they have needed to actually help the child.

Now that possibility is expanding. More investigations can be initiated, more crimes can be solved, and more children can be caught in time. The police receive tools such as house searches, seizures, and body searches. These words may sound cold when one speaks about children, but what is the alternative? The alternative is that a child suspected of theft, possession of narcotics, or involvement in serious crime should be able to go home without one even being allowed to look in the child's room. We have had that alternative, but it does not work.

Today, the law requires that there be special reasons for these tools to be used against children under the age of criminal responsibility. In practice, this has meant that the police are not allowed to act in cases of ordinary crimes – not in cases of theft and not in cases of narcotics possession. A 13-year-old who has stolen a mobile phone has been able to walk away without the stolen property even being able to be returned to the victim.

We are now making the regulation consistent. It is not about repression but about justice for the victims, crime fighting and the child itself, who needs to face consequences in order to be reached by change.

DNA, fingerprints, photographs, and voice samples may be obtained and registered but only in cases of very serious crime. There is a strict delimitation, and proportionality prevails in practice. The best interests of the child shall be considered in every assessment in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Speaker! I have read and now heard the arguments from those who have reserved themselves. I respect that the arguments stem from a concern for children's rights, but I cannot help but note what they lead to in practice. Not investigating a child is not protecting it. It is to leave it in the hands of the criminal gang and then call it humanity.

As we have heard, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is used very often as a shield in such debates, but the children's rights perspective deserves more than to become an argument for being passive. The Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes that every child has the right to protection from exploitation – that they should not be recruited into crime by adults who know that they will escape.

There are children on both sides in this legislation. There is the child who is suspected of a crime and the child who is a victim. There is the young person who was assaulted and the young person who was robbed. They also deserve a justice system that takes them seriously.

Taking children's rights seriously is not to turn a blind eye to crime. It is to take seriously that children must not be exploited, whether as perpetrators, as crime victims, or as recruited tools in adult criminality.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for too long had a gap between reality and legislation – a gap that criminal networks have exploited with precision – systematically and deliberately. The bill we are now handling closes parts of that gap. This is a necessary step, for we do not accept the criminals' business strategy.

The expanded tools do not only lead to more solved crimes. They also lead to more children being reached earlier by the social services' support and interventions. Through the new tools, society will be able to catch young people who are heading towards a criminal lifestyle earlier and provide them with appropriate support. It is not either tougher measures or social interventions – it is both. The entire chain must function, and the chain can become stronger from July 1st.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Riksdag rejects the motions and approves the committee's proposal to approve the bill.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Crime in recent years has largely been characterized by serious violent crimes in the form of shootings and explosions. The clearance rate has increased significantly, and several planned crimes have been aborted at the attempt or preparation stage. The number of shootings and deaths linked to these have decreased. We have not seen quite the same effect regarding the explosions, but there is now a brightening even in that part. The number of explosions has decreased sharply recently, but it is perhaps a bit too early to blow the danger over.

A common pattern is that many of those involved are very young. We have seen a significant increase in young perpetrators acting as both executors and recruiters. Children, who should be in school, are instead sent out onto the streets to carry out bombings and contract killings.

Despite major efforts, tightened legislation and increased clearance, recruitment continues, now almost exclusively on digital platforms. We are now working to quickly establish legislation that makes recruitment via social media more difficult, but obviously the risk remains that criminals will find new forms of recruitment. One should therefore not underestimate the danger in that regard either.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal we are debating today concerns increased opportunities to identify early those young people who are heading towards a criminal lifestyle. It is about opening up for the possibility of increasing the use of coercive measures even against young people under 15 years of age and about having better opportunities to investigate crimes by children who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility.

And, as the serious crimes are increasingly committed by non-penal minors, the need for legal tools for the police and prosecutors in the operational work also increases. It is about the need for cordoning off to conduct crime scene investigations and to secure evidence for increased opportunities for crime clearance.

Already today, there is a possibility to carry out a house search under certain circumstances. Now, the possibility is being expanded to carry out the investigation at another location in order to search for persons or objects.

Fundamentally, this is largely about equating the coercive measures against children under 15 with those that apply to those of legal age – not because we want to, but because we must, in light of the crime development with increasingly younger people committing serious crimes.

This, Mr. Speaker, is of course a development that must be reversed. No one in this chamber can accept that young people, whether voluntarily or under duress, commit murder or other serious crimes. The coercive measures currently in question are a necessary evil and must, of course, be combined with broad crime-preventive measures.

Mr. Speaker! There is talk about a lack of integration, about the school, about social services and about more police. All of this is obviously important, but at least as important are efforts from non-profit activities. Non-profit organizations make great and fine contributions, but they can certainly do more if they receive the right support and backing.

The most important foundation, Mr. Speaker, is created by engaged parents and guardians. Those who are closest to the children have for a long time been almost forgotten in the political debate in Sweden. It is a serious mistake.

What we see today is the consequence of Swedish politics having turned a blind eye for far too long to that which constitutes the building blocks of a secure society: family and values. This situation has been created through parallel social structures that challenge Swedish values, with children and young people who cannot navigate between right and wrong.

The problems do not start in school, at the social services, or at the police. They start at home – in the family. There is no authority, school counselor, or social worker, or any laws, that can replace a present mother or father. There are also no socioeconomic factors that can compensate for loving and present parents who set clear boundaries. It is in the home where the foundation is laid, and without this foundation, we will have to continue picking up the pieces when it is too late.

Mr. Speaker! Within research, it is observed that socioeconomic background does not constitute a decisive cause of crime. Instead, it is good norms and values that play the decisive role. It is a question of upbringing and values and whether the person can justify their actions to themselves and their surroundings.

Another factor that has had a decisive impact is the availability of social media, primarily the smartphone. The police authority today has a kind of timeline where they distinguish between the time before and the time after the smartphone, which fundamentally changed crime. We underestimated the danger and the power of the smartphone's impact on our children. Suddenly, a digital and boundless world opened up with a great impact on children, without insight from an oblivious adult world.

The most important preventive work in the short term is about limiting children's use of smartphones. No 13-year-old needs access to encrypted apps. As recently as yesterday, an investigation was placed on the Minister for Social Affairs' desk where there is talk of a possible restriction of social media. We shall have to see where it lands.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must not be a country where 13–14-year-olds blow up stairwells, carry out contract killings, and seek status in the criminal world. If Sweden is to become safe again, we must talk about the obvious: safe families, responsible parents, and clear values. With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 19.)

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