Compensation rules with the crime victim in focus

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on the Government's Proposition 2025/26:222 Compensation rules with the crime victim in focus, which aims to strengthen the position of crime victims and reduce the consequences of crime.

We in the Sweden Democrats support all the government's proposals for legislative changes in points 1–8 of the bill, and I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all follow-up motions from the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party, as well as all reservations that these parties have submitted to the report.

Madam Speaker! This is a bill that signifies something more than individual legislative changes. It marks a clear shift in perspective and paradigm.

For far too long, the focus in Swedish crime policy has largely been on the perpetrator – his or her situation, his or her rights, and his or her needs. At the same time, the crime victims have often been left to handle the consequences themselves, that is to say the trauma, the economic damage, the anxiety, and the struggle to obtain redress. For us in Sverigedemokraterna, this has long been the wrong path.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important changes in the bill is that crime victims shall be given a simpler and faster path to compensation. Today, a crime victim must first attempt to recover their damages from the perpetrator, sometimes via the Enforcement Authority, before crime compensation can become an option. For many, this means a long, complicated and mentally taxing process.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats now propose that this be changed. Crime victims should no longer have to go through the perpetrator before compensation can be paid out. The State should be able to step in earlier through the Crime Victim Authority and provide the crime victim with faster compensation. This is a change that is completely in line with the state compensation guarantee that the Sweden Democrats have long campaigned for.

The person who has been subjected to violence, robbery, sexual crimes, or other serious crimes should not have to chase their perpetrator to receive the right to compensation. The state shall help the victim and then demand the money back from the guilty party. This is fair, I think and my party thinks.

Madam Speaker! It is also positive that the bill limits the possibilities for deprivation of liberty compensation. The Sweden Democrats have long criticized an arrangement where people who have committed very serious crimes have been able to receive very large compensations, sometimes significantly higher than what their own crime victims have received.

A well-known example is when a criminal in 2021, convicted of among other things two counts of aggravated rape, was awarded damages of 840,000 kronor. This occurred after he refused to participate in the investigation and provided incorrect information about his age, which caused him to spend too little time in prison. The compensation was also much higher than the victim's compensation, even though the perpetrator was guilty of serious crimes. This is an unacceptable situation, and it has been difficult for people to understand and difficult to defend.

The proposals in the bill now mean that the possibilities to reduce compensation are expanded, for example when the individual has personally contributed to the situation or when other circumstances make it unreasonable to pay out compensation. We in the Sweden Democrats welcome this. We believe at the same time that further steps need to be taken in the future. Those who have been convicted of serious crime should not be able to receive extensive compensation while crime victims are still waiting for redress.

Madam Speaker! We also view the fact that the issue of parental responsibility is being raised and tightened positively. In recent years, we have seen how increasingly younger people are being drawn into serious crime and gang environments. When children are used to transport weapons, sell drugs, or commit acts of violence, it does not only affect society but also creates victims.

Parental responsibility needs to be clear. We in Sverigedemokraterna would have liked to see further tightenings ahead, but the bill is moving in the right direction by more clearly highlighting the perspective of responsibility.

When it comes to the opposition's follow-up motions, we do not consider that they add anything that justifies changes to the government's well-considered proposal. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Centre Party, and the Green Party want to take different paths in various parts or return with further investigations. But the bill is already based on an extensive investigation, referral process, and a clear ambition, namely to strengthen the position of crime victims here and now. More rounds of investigations are not needed when people are waiting for redress. Action is needed, here and now! That is what the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing here and now!

Madam Speaker! Society must stand on the side of the victim. The one who has been affected by a crime shall be met with support, justice and redress, not by bureaucracy, waiting times and further burdens. This report is an important step in that direction.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move again for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the bill Compensation rules with the crime victim in focus. And I want to start by saying: Well done, Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer. Thank you for this!

The main track in this bill is that it should become easier for crime victims to receive their crime injury compensation without them having to have contact with their perpetrator themselves. Children who are crime victims shall have their compensations better protected until the age of majority.

This is important and good, and it is a natural next step in the improvements we Social Democrats made during the last parliamentary term when we implemented the largest crime victim reform in 20 years. Among other things, the levels for compensation for violations were doubled. A special compensation for relatives for survivors was introduced, and the deduction rules were improved so that payment to crime victims was prioritized higher in debts to the Enforcement Authority.

From and with September 1 this year, the compensation rules will actually become even slightly simpler, clearer and fairer. Extra pleasing is that all parties are in agreement that we must strengthen crime victims' rights.

But I do not just want to thank the government for this bill, I want above all to extend a warm and great thank you to civil society. Unizon, Roks, Brottsofferjouren, Riksorganisationen för anhöriga till våldsdödade, Rädda Barnen and other children's rights organizations – to name a few. You do a magnificent job in providing unique support to the individual, in shaping public opinion and in educating the public – including us politicians. Members of Parliament also have two ears and one mouth.

It is so important that we get a solid understanding of how it can be experienced to be subjected to crime and violence and not be caught by society's safety net and where the greatest shortcomings lie.

Some of the strongest stories that have stayed with me are about the horrific consequences of post-separation violence. It is about mothers fleeing with their children from a life-threatening partner. Even in the few cases where one has actually managed to obtain sufficient evidence for a conviction, the perpetrator can still continue to torment their victims through post-separation violence. It can involve a protracted division of assets, repeated custody disputes, and the right to the former shared residence. It is completely unreasonable that the crime victims should then also have to stand there alone and demand their rightful compensation.

There are also other stories, for example from those who have their homes completely destroyed because gangs make mistakes in their crazy explosions. They too have witnessed great trauma, a strong experience of loneliness and all the hassle with insurance companies, hotel nights, and compensations. There, the crime damage compensation is, of course, also an important part.

I believe, therefore, that this bill is needed for all crime victims in the country. I would, however, like to raise a warning finger. People must not believe that it will now become incredibly easy for crime victims to receive compensation immediately after the judgment. Because that is unfortunately not the case. But the biggest and most important gain is that the crime victim shall not have to request the damages from their perpetrator themselves.

For the sake of order, I would however like to clarify that even the new regulatory framework can entail a division and a fragmented system between the Crime Victim Authority, the insurance company, and the Enforcement Authority.

I think the foundation Tryggare Sverige has clearly clarified the gaps in the bill. They emphasize, among other things, that there is a difference between crime victim compensation and damages. They also warn that an underfunding of the Crime Victim Authority could delay and complicate processing times and responses.

Tryggare Sverige also refers to the investigation's own reasoning regarding a very narrow investigation mandate, which makes it impossible to fundamentally overhaul the compensation system for crime victims. They state in their referral response: "In conclusion, we would therefore like this investigation ... to receive a new and expanded mandate with further directives to proceed and investigate how the collective handling of crime victims must function over the next 10 years at least." I could not agree more.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats support the bill, but we have two reservations.

Firstly, we propose a control station, that the outcome of the legislation is followed up so that crime victims experience the payments as significantly smoother in practice as well. We also propose that the extended liability for damages for guardians is followed up, so that it is seen that the already existing adjustment rules work and are applied against unreasonable damage claims and that it does not hit hard against families with an already very vulnerable economic situation and that it instead works counterproductively.

Secondly, we Social Democrats want a crime victim law. Far too many crime victims testify to a strong sense of loneliness after having been subjected to a crime. It is difficult to navigate between different laws and authorities and to receive the right support and the right information at the right time.

Many feel that they fall between the cracks and that there is a lack of a holistic approach to one's life situation, which can appear incredibly critical after one has been subjected to a crime. More must be done to strengthen the position of crime victims and to ensure a clear and good reception from the whole of society – regardless of who one is or where in the country one lives.

The goal, I think, must be that already at the first meeting with the police or perhaps social services or health and medical care, where one tells what they have been subjected to, they should receive a clear overview of their rights, who is responsible for what, and how the process will look when they report the crime. This should, of course, be adapted according to what type of crime one has been subjected to.

We therefore want a new crime victim law to be investigated and introduced where crime victims' needs are gathered and rights are strengthened. A new law needs to address somewhat different parts, which the investigation needs to look at.

Firstly, support and rights are needed in the legal processes. This can involve information about the preliminary investigation, the possibility of support in court, as well as the right to a victim's counsel, the rules for damages, and information when the perpetrator has been granted permission or the execution of the sentence has ended. It can also involve the right to have one's case examined when one has been subjected to a violation, even if the perpetrator is charged with other crimes with more severe penalties.

Secondly, support is needed in practical and operational cooperation close to the crime victim. This could involve, for example, a task force when one's home has been subjected to an explosion, or all the practical support that is needed to be able to flee with one's children from a life-threatening, violent man.

Thirdly, qualified support from health and medical care is needed. Being subjected to a crime is extremely traumatic. The right to support calls and trauma treatment may need to be clarified. In some cases, it also concerns the need for cooperation between, for example, psychiatry and social services.

For the fourth, support was needed for a new life in safety and freedom. For those who leave a violent relationship or flee from honor-based oppression, it can mean a need for financial support, help with permanent housing, and support towards a secure self-sufficiency.

Last but not least, civil society has an important role. The unique and important support that a non-profit organization, such as the women's helplines (kvinnojourerna) and the Crime Victim Support (Brottsofferjouren), can provide is worth highlighting in particular. A crime victim law also needs to be able to include civil society's conditions to, for example, operate protected housing, enter into IOP agreements, and cooperate closely with the municipalities.

Madam Speaker! What is best for crime victims is, of course, when crimes are never committed. The preventive work needs to be intensified. But when crimes do occur, the collective support of society must be there for the victim. It is about safety, about respect, and about redress.

It looks like it will be a very close vote. The Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party support investigating a crime victim law. Now we are keeping our fingers crossed that more want to join this at the vote on Wednesday.

I move for approval of reservation 2, regarding a crime victim law, and reservation 3, regarding a control station.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Sanna Backeskog! For me, it is extremely gratifying to listen to the Member. I am glad that the Member and the Social Democrats give us and the government confirmation that we are doing the right thing regarding certain matters and proposals.

I understand that it is the member's first term in the Riksdag, just as it is for me, but I hope that the member can nevertheless answer my question.

The Social Democrats held power for eight years. The reason I am standing here today is that the Social Democrats could not handle the crime and criminality in our society. Had they done so, I would not be standing here. It was the Social Democrats' failure during Löfven's and Andersson's governments that forced me to become politically engaged.

My question to Member Sanna Backeskog is: Why did the Social Democrats do nothing during eight years regarding the fight against crime, criminality, and gang shootings? Morgan Johansson promised for four years that the gangs would be broken. But the number of shootings and fatal shootings only went up. Nothing happened.

Why did the Social Democrats do nothing? Now they are suddenly hardcore when it comes to taking the side of the crime victim and fighting crime and shootings. Why did they do nothing for eight years, between 2014 and 2022?

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to Rashid Farivar for the question, which gives me a chance to speak a little about the Social Democrats' previous crime victim policy! I feel secure and proud that we managed to achieve a lot during those years. We received a completely blank sheet from the Reinfeldt government in crime victim policy. During this parliamentary term, we have looked back and wanted to develop our policy, and we have received more and new ideas on ways forward.

I want to focus on the issue of crime victims, as that is what the debate concerns. In government position, we strengthened the support for the country's women's shelters and crime victim organizations and made the support more long-term, which was good and important. As I mentioned in my speech, we also did a great deal regarding compensation. We made a substantial increase, at least a doubling, of the compensation for violations, which were quite low during the Reinfeldt government. We also expanded the right to compensation for violations for police officers and other professional groups. We strengthened the right to compensation for surviving relatives through a new form of non-pecuniary compensation, a so-called special relative compensation. I think that is particularly important. We also expanded the possibilities for crime victims to claim the perpetrator's deprivation of liberty compensation.

I am very pleased with the positive attitude toward my speech. If the Sweden Democrats now say they protect crime victims, why do they not want to see a unifying crime victims law that would truly strengthen and unite the rights of crime victims?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Sanna Backeskog for the answer, which I truly appreciate.

To answer the question: Together with the government, we have made enormous reforms to combat crime, for compensation to crime victims, and to ensure that criminals end up behind bars so that they cannot commit crimes. Crime victims should be able to obtain redress both financially through the Enforcement Authority's seizures and by the perpetrator receiving the correct punishment. We have done an enormous amount. The Social Democrats have put a proposal on the table for an inquiry. I believe that this could be good to investigate. We have done very much in this area, but I do not rule out that we appoint such an inquiry if we form a government with M, KD, and L after the election.

The Social Democrats, however, had eight years to appoint such an investigation, receive it, and implement the legislative change, but they did not do so. The example I raised regarding compensation to a perpetrator who had been held in custody a little too long was so unjust toward a rape victim that all media in Sweden reported on it. Despite this, the Social Democrats did nothing.

I ask my question once more. The Social Democrats had every opportunity for eight years to do what they say we should do today. Why did they not do it for eight years? We have had power for four years now.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! We did a great deal of important work. In the area of women's peace, we introduced the crime of child peace, increased the minimum sentence for aggravated violation of peace, and made tightenings of the restraining order. Today we want to go further and introduce area arrest; it shall be the perpetrator's geographical area that is restricted and not the crime victim's. There I hope that we will one day reach an agreement.

It is also very pleasing that the member views the investigation of a crime victim law positively. There is a chance to vote on it as early as this Wednesday. The reason why we did not introduce such a law earlier, I believe, was that we were doing many other things, and I also do not know if we had envisioned this until we met Brottsofferjouren at the beginning of this parliamentary term. Let he who is honored be honored! Civil society is incredibly important – listen to civil society! Brottsofferjouren clearly described the lack of coordination and how people fall between the cracks and are shuffled between different agencies. They also gave the proposal to introduce a crime victim law. We Social Democrats thought that was excellent.

This was also something that Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer promised during the 2022 election campaign. It would have been very tasteful if that election promise had been followed up on and, at the very least, an investigation had been commissioned on how a crime victim law could be introduced, if one is serious about wanting a shift in perspective and having a focus on precisely the rights of crime victims.

I am proud and happy about what we have done, but we have not done enough. The previous government did not do enough for the country's crime victims, the government before that did not do enough, and the current government has absolutely not done enough. This is the first proposition we are debating during the mandate period – which is soon to end – that concerns crime victims' rights. I sit in the Committee on Justice and participate in the debates concerning crime victims and their rights. Last week we debated honor, and it was the first proposition based on an investigation that the current government commissioned. The previous propositions we have debated and decided on have been based on investigations that our government commissioned. I believe that all of us in this chamber have much to do for crime victims.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Crime victims should be given redress, not be forced to pursue their own damages. It feels quite good to express that sentiment again in this speaker's chair. I have expressed that sentiment in many contexts and in many situations, even here. So here in my final chamber debate during my time in the Riksdag, it feels good to begin by saying that crime victims should be given redress, not be forced to pursue their own damages.

Still, Madam Speaker, that is exactly how the system has functioned for so long in Sweden. The person who has been assaulted, robbed, or subjected to gross violations has, despite a conviction, all too often had to hunt down their own perpetrator themselves to obtain the compensation the court has determined. It is not reasonable, Madam Speaker, and that is why this bill is so important.

Madam Speaker! With a Moderate-led government, a fundamental shift in perspective has been carried out in Swedish crime policy, from a focus on the perpetrator to a focus on the crime victim and society's need for protection. Dangerous people shall be imprisoned, so that law-abiding people dare to be out. Then the rule of law must also function for those who have been subjected to crimes.

For all too long, crime victims in Sweden have had to bear an unreasonably large share of the consequences of crime. Those who have been robbed, assaulted, threatened, or subjected to sexual crimes have not only had to deal with trauma, fear, and insecurity, but have also been forced to navigate a complicated system where the state has all too often taken a step back and said: Try it yourself first!

Madam Speaker! The most telling example is still the system we have had for damages in crimes and which we are now debating a change to. Those who have been granted rights in court and had it established that they have been subjected to a crime have still often been forced to contact their own perpetrators to obtain damages. In many cases, crime victims themselves have had to go to the Enforcement Authority and themselves had to drive processes forward against the persons who have hit, threatened, robbed, or violated them.

This is, Madam Speaker, frankly a completely unreasonable system, and that is exactly why this bill is so important. It signals a real shift in perspective. When the judgment becomes final, the crime victim shall no longer have to chase their perpetrator. The state shall take over the responsibility. The Crime Victim Authority shall be able to pay out compensation directly and subsequently demand the money back from the perpetrator. It will not just be a technical change – it is a principled change. It is the state that shall take the conflict with the perpetrator, not the crime victim.

We are shifting the focus – from the perpetrator to the crime victim, from a perpetrator perspective to community protection and redress. We say that those who have been subjected to crimes should be met by a society that stands on their side. It is about justice, but it is also about trust in the rule of law.

If people experience that the state is unable to protect them, does not help them, and does not even see them after the crime has been committed, then trust in the entire system is eroded. The very least a person can request is still to receive the compensation they are entitled to.

Madam Speaker! The bill also contains several other important changes. We propose that the possibilities to seize assets in favor of crime victims should be expanded. This means, for example, that damages, crime compensation, and insurance payments can be seized to a greater extent to pay debts to crime victims. It is a reasonable change.

There have actually been cases where people who have been subjected to serious crimes have been granted justice in court and yet have not received a single krona in compensation. At the same time, the perpetrator themselves, from another side, has been able to receive large compensations that could not be assessed.

Madam Speaker! It is simply difficult to describe as anything other than a mockery of crime victims. The person who is guilty of a crime against a victim should not simultaneously be able to protect their own assets behind different compensation systems. The victim's right to redress must carry weight here as well.

Madam Speaker! In this bill, the rules regarding compensation in cases of deprivation of liberty are also changed. It shall become easier to reduce or completely deny compensation to persons who themselves have obstructed the investigation, destroyed evidence, attempted to influence the legal process, or evaded prosecution. It is a reasonable change.

Madam Speaker! It cannot be that persons with a clear connection to criminal activity obstruct the legal process and then, without further ado, expect state compensation as if they themselves completely lack responsibility for the situation. The rule of law is not built only on rights. It is also built on responsibility. Those who themselves contribute to hindering a legal process should not be able to count on the state paying out compensation uncritically in retrospect.

Madam Speaker! I also want to dwell on the question of vicarious liability, i.e., the guardians' responsibility for damages that their children cause through crimes.

Madam Speaker! Now I may be saying something radical from this rostrum, but parents are responsible for their children. Here, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet choose to reserve themselves against the government's proposal. It is in a way telling. Here, the difference in perspectives becomes very clear.

We mean that parental responsibility matters, and that parental responsibility is directly decisive. When children commit crimes, real consequences arise for real people. Shops are vandalized, people are robbed of their phones, people are assaulted and windows are smashed. Then someone must bear the cost. The question is not whether someone should do it, but who.

We mean that it is not reasonable for the crime victim alone to be left with the consequences while the adult world can disclaim responsibility. That is why we sharpen the principal liability and increase the amount to one-third of the price base amount. It is a clear signal that parental responsibility matters, and that it must be the starting point.

Let me also be clear. It does not mean that courts should disregard economic hardship or special circumstances. The rules for adjustment remain. Courts can still avoid unreasonable results. But society must say that parental responsibility matters. Parents are responsible for their children.

Madam Speaker! When the opposition's main objection in a report concerning crime victims instead concerns care for the perpetrator's situation, it also becomes clear why a shift in perspective in crime policy with a greater focus on the crime victim and public safety has been so important. We shall not begin with the perpetrator's situation. We shall begin with the crime victim's reality.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I also want, as it has been raised, to touch upon the issue of a specific crime victim law. That issue has been brought forward here today.

It is a question that the Moderaterna were the first to bring forward in a purely political sense. The ambition with a unified crime victim law is fundamentally good. Crime victims should be able to more easily understand their rights and get an overview of the support that society offers.

But when the Ministry of Justice began to look at the issue and how it should be designed, it turned out to be very legally complicated. Crime victims' rights are found in many places in general laws that apply to more than just crime victims. To then break out individual provisions risks making the regulatory framework more fragmented, more difficult to oversee, and in practice less accurate.

We mean that the focus must lie on what makes the biggest difference here and now. Therefore, we chose a different path by giving clear government mandates to strengthen the Crime Victim Guide, strengthen information to crime victims, and strengthen the national coordination responsibility. Above all, we are strengthening crime victims' rights in practice, as for example in this bill, or for that matter in the bill that we discussed just a couple of hours ago, where we have put the crime victim's perspective first.

Crime victims need, above all, a system that works when they are subjected to crime, not more years of legal-technical restructurings. With that, Madam Speaker, I move for the proposal to be approved.

Since this is my last debate in the Riksdag before I leave the Riksdag and also politics in connection with the election, I would like to extend a huge thank you to the entire Speaker's Presidium and to all colleagues in the Riksdag on both the government side and the opposition side.

It has been very pleasant and very educational. I have always appreciated debates and discussions. It feels reassuring to know that when I now leave the Riksdag, there are plenty of wise people remaining here from left to right who will continue to take responsibility for Sweden. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker!

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) and Martin Melin (L) agreed.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! I also want to extend a thanks to Member Ludvig Ceimertz for quite reasonable discussions regarding crime victim issues and men's violence against women that we have had with each other in this chamber and outside the chamber.

I have truly appreciated that the member has been too good to use the country's victims of violence, perhaps especially women and children, as whipping boys to win some cheap political points.

I think that Member Ceimertz has truly had his eyes on the goal of improving things for all the country's crime victims. I appreciate that.

I would also like to say something about the crime victim law. On September 6, 2022, just before the election, the Moderaterna promised to introduce a crime victim law. They beat the big drum.

Gunnar Strömmer was not the Minister of Justice at the time, but aspired to that position. He is a lawyer himself and should know what is complicated and what is not, and he promised to introduce a crime victim law.

In February 2023, after we Social Democrats had carried out political development work, we extended a hand to the Moderaterna to join forces in producing investigation directives for a crime victim law.

During the national crime victim week, where the Minister for Justice gave the opening speech, I sat in the audience the same month and was very happy when the Minister for Justice spoke positively about a crime victim law. I remember it.

I was surprised when it is said that the question has been looked into. There are no public documents that we other Members of Parliament can follow up on. There is no investigation. Why do you not want to stand behind investigating the question?

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Backeskog!

I would like to begin by thanking you for the kind words. I can completely agree with what was said regarding the crime victims. It is entirely mutual. We have had a great common interest in these issues and discussed them on numerous occasions, which I have always appreciated. Many thanks for that!

Let me answer Member of Parliament Backeskog's question, which has many parts. The Government put forward that we want to see a unified crime victim law because we want a greater focus on crime victims in Swedish politics. We believe that for far too long there has been an all too great and one-sided focus on perpetrators and on perpetrators' rights and right to support. We believe that it is important to shift the perspective to crime victims' rights and crime victims' need for redress and support.

The government raised the issue of consolidating this into a specific victim of crime law, but when it was started to be looked into, it was noted that it rather risked complicating and worsening the situation and making the whole thing more difficult to oversee. It risked leading to more cases where laws stand against each other.

The Government therefore argues that it is a greater gain to have a clearer focus on crime victims in the legislation we put forward. In every piece of legislation, we have as a fundamental pillar to focus on the crime victim's right to redress and support.

That is also why we have given clear government directives to the Crime Victim Authority to coordinate this and provide a clearer picture of what rights one has as a crime victim and what opportunities for support exist. There shall be clear support when it comes to this.

Madam Speaker! Ultimately, it is not about in exactly which folder in the legislation the rights of crime victims are stated, but about what effect the law has in reality.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are not concerned with which folder the law is in. But a consolidated legislation still provides a uniform and clear message not only to all the country's crime victims and their relatives but also, of course, to those actors whom one wants to impose a special responsibility to provide exactly the right information, the right support, and the right help in a timely manner.

Let me ask it this way: Are there any parts in what we mean that could be included in a crime victim law that the Moderaterna would like to look into further? I can mention some that I am particularly interested in.

It is about the right to have one's case examined when one has been subjected to a violation, even if the perpetrator is being prosecuted for other crimes with more severe penalties.

It is about the operational and the close cooperation. I usually mention Trygghetens hus in Bollnäs as a very good example. I am particularly interested in the conditions for social services, police, and health and medical care locally to join forces.

It is also about civil society's incredibly important role. Now, four years of a very uncertain time for civil society have passed. Brottsofferjouren received a fairly substantial reduction in funding the first year and then again. There is no secure funding for its support line.

Kvinnojourerna now have almost 40 protected shelters that have been closed or are dormant due to Ivo's requirements for a permit obligation. There we see a failed implementation, even though the intention was very good.

Is it any of this that the member would like to say that the Moderaterna are prepared to look further into even before the election?

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks, Member, for the question and for raising several important matters!

The government has given a clear mandate to the Crime Victim Authority to be a unifying and cohesive force to ensure that crime victims' rights can be gathered. We believe that this is a better way to gather crime victims' right to support and crime victims' rights than to place it in a long investigation which actually risks having the opposite effect. Therefore, the government has chosen to proceed in this way.

Now I have lost the questions. I should have noted them, but Sanna Backeskog stole one of my blocks!

(SANNA BACKESKOG (S): Protected housing, for example.)

When it comes to the right to have one's case examined, which was the first question, the government proposes, for example, the abolition of the volume discount. Every crime has a crime victim, and every crime should therefore be investigated and have consequences. I think it is important to have a clear crime victim perspective, and I hope that the Social Democrats can imagine standing behind this proposal at a later stage. I do not believe anything else.

Support for civil society is incredibly important. It is important that civil society can have long-term funding, and that can be achieved in different ways. We Moderates have, for example, proposed that confiscated assets from criminals should be taken. The confiscated assets we take through, for example, independent forfeiture shall be able to be placed in a crime victim fund to finance support for crime victims and for civil society.

Money that has come from criminal activity should in that way go directly back to those affected by crime. I think that is a reasonable arrangement, and I hope that we will be able to come forward with this.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Ludvig Ceimertz for the commitment and the pathos that you have shown in many issues in which we share the commitment! It is about curbing men's violence against women and children and about crime victim perspectives in general.

I have worked for a long time at the Swedish Crime Victim Authority as information manager. I know a fair amount about how the processes work there, and I know that it is not entirely correct to say that it is the crime victim who has to hunt down the perpetrator.

Once a judgment has been obtained, it is sent to the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden), which contacts the crime victim if one has a victim status with a right to damages. Then the question is asked: Do you want us to help you collect the damages or check if the perpetrator has the possibility to pay? If one answers yes to the question and there is a possibility to collect something, the Enforcement Authority does so at no cost. If, on the other hand, there is no money, the ball remains with the crime victim, and then the Crime Victim Authority (Brottsoffermyndigheten) shall handle that part of the damages. In that case, there is no subsidiarity.

I think it is important to emphasize this, because it has been said many times in the debate here, both now and previously, that the crime victim themselves must chase the perpetrator. That is, it is not quite true.

I would also like to comment on the crime victim law. I belong to those who sign on to the fact that we want an investigation. I could imagine that if we start such a process, we might discover things that we do not cover in the current legislation or in the assignments that the Crime Victim Authority has. I also think it is an important move that has been made by starting a crime victim guide digitally, which is a bit more flexible.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Nordborg, who is the individual member I have had the most exchanges with! I have appreciated that very much, as it has been pleasant to discuss. Even though we have many times disagreed on the solutions, I have appreciated all these conversations, so thank you very much for that!

Let me now comment on the compensation to crime victims. The Government argues that a crime victim should not have to take a stand on that issue at all. The person who has been subjected to a crime and perhaps been threatened or subjected to crimes in a gang-criminal environment, where there is a large grouping around it all, should not be the one forced to drive the person in question to the Enforcement Authority. That human being should not have to take a stand on whether he or she should drive a person to the Enforcement Authority with the consequences that it can, in turn, entail.

This should not be the responsibility of the crime victim; instead, it should be the state that takes the responsibility directly. It should also be the state that takes a holistic approach to this, and the crime victim themselves should not have to do it. We think that is reasonable.

When it comes to the support for crime victims and the need for redress, it is a broader perspective shift that the government is laying broadly across all reforms. That is what we enter with when we make changes. In criminal law, in tort law, and in the rules on compensation, the government has a clear focus on the crime victim. I mean that it is a more efficient path. When it comes to consolidating the legislation, it is more efficient to consolidate this at the Crime Victim Authority.

We Moderates are not entirely opposed to a unified crime victim law, but it is complicated to extract general legislations that do not only handle crime victims and place them in one and the same legislation. It is therefore our view that it is something that could actually complicate and counteract its purpose of providing stronger support to crime victims, which is what is important.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I believe it can be complicated. If a crime victim law is introduced, there must in any case remain markings, in the preliminary investigation notice or in other places, of which responsibility some professions have to provide information and support crime victims. There needs to be some kind of double connection, regardless of which solution is chosen.

It is also interesting that it is sometimes possible to receive crime compensation even without a conviction. If someone has reported a crime to the police, there is such a formal right. In that case, one must investigate whether there is sufficient objective data to make it probable that it concerns a crime and not an accident or something self-inflicted. This is important and something I would like to see more people notice: It is not always over even if there is no conviction.

I wonder how Ludvig Ceimertz would wish the continuation to be regarding the development of crime victims' rights.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Gudrun Nordborg for the continued development.

Member of the Committee Nordborg points out exactly such a thing that is problematic when it comes to a crime victim law, namely the need to have double regulation in several pieces of legislation. It has been pointed out that we will continue to need rules in the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Tort Liability Act, the secrecy legislation, the Social Services Act, and several other pieces of legislation, and that we then risk having a double regulation where pieces of legislation, in the worst case, contradict each other. This can lead to more difficult assessments and make it more difficult to oversee and more fragmented, completely contrary to our intentions behind wanting to move forward with a crime victim law. It is another part of the problem, and I think Nordborg points it out.

She also raises another point that is very important, namely the right to crime victim compensation. We have seen many examples where people have had their doors blown open, been subjected to crimes where it has not been possible to link any perpetrator to the crime, or been subjected to major property damage. In those cases, it is important to be able to take a collective approach and provide compensation.

We Moderates have proposed a special crime victim fund with assets confiscated from criminal activity. I believe it would be a very good step to proceed with this. I also believe there is an important symbolic value in declaring that confiscated assets from criminal activity should go directly back to crime victims and not into the state treasury. Money from criminal activity should go towards support for crime victims, for example crime injury compensations, to civil society organizations or to preventive social interventions where needed.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I take the floor regarding the crime victim fund directly from Ludvig Ceimertz's last speech. There is a crime victim fund where the funds go in that convicted perpetrators must pay to the fund. But then the funds go to crime victims as a collective. They can, for example, go to non-profit organizations or to finance research. Many very important projects have emerged that way. More of that! Then we get more knowledge and more strength also within the non-profit sector.

Back to the bill we are discussing now. Vänsterpartiet supports it in large part, however not in the part where it is desired to sharpen the guardian's liability for damages that the children cause through crimes. If this is reservation 1, which I move for approval of and which we have submitted together with Miljöpartiet.

The so-called principal liability concerns a guardian having responsibility for their children. It concerns different forms of responsibility. One has, to begin with, the general responsibility according to the negligence rules in the Tort Liability Act. If you, for example, have been negligent, you should naturally be liable, and you should also be liable if you have been negligent in relation to the child and it has led to a criminal outcome. But principal liability actually concerns that one should be liable regardless of whether one has been negligent, or even caused something intentionally, in relation to the child. This is not something we want to be involved in strengthening.

I would also like to point out that many major referral bodies consider that we must consider abolishing the principle of principal liability, for example Lund University, the Prosecution Authority, and Uppsala University. It is argued that there is a lack of support for the idea that this would have a crime-preventive effect and that the risk is rather the opposite as it affects economically weak parents.

What the government proposes is an increase of the maximum amount at each instance of injury. It would amount to almost 20,000 kronor, and it is an increase that is quite significant – almost 8,000 kronor more than the previous norm.

We do not want the increase in any case. We also do not want pure property damage such as extortion, fraud, or other economic crime to be included in this. We believe it would risk becoming far too burdensome.

I also want to come back a little bit to the Crime Victims Act, which we touched upon in the previous exchange of remarks. It is not only crime victim compensation, damages, and what the chain looks like in order to receive one's compensation that is relevant here, but it is many other rights that are regulated, such as the right to support and treatment. It is a diversity of different systems that are linked together, and authorities are also expected to cooperate with one another so that it becomes effective.

As I mentioned in the exchange, I think it would be interesting if we could start over and see if there are things that we should regulate more. That is why we are in favor of an inquiry, even if one can question what the law will look like. Will it be possible to navigate it in a good way? Perhaps the alternative of a website at the Crime Victim Authority and a crime victim guide is just as good as establishing this in a legal text. But an inquiry would be very important, so that we can move forward. The crime victim organizations long for this and have great confidence that it would work.

I would like to bring up a few things in the Swedish legal system that are very clever and in some cases unique.

If there is a prosecution in a crime where it may be relevant to have damages, the prosecutor shall contact the crime victim and ask if they wish to pursue a claim for damages. In that case, it will be one and the same process. I believe everyone can understand that this is an important point: One does not need to pursue an entirely separate process and risk legal costs, instead, this is a package.

If it is more advanced or if it involves enormous amounts, it may need to be broken out into a separate process, but as a rule, it can be coordinated in this way. If there is a victim's counsel or if a child is given a special representative, it is they who provide extra help with this and relieve the prosecutor.

I would wish that the judiciary took these parts of the process more seriously than is done today. It lies at the very end of the trial manual. It concludes the trial in the court, and it also comes last in the judgment. There may be a lack of time in both cases. I would wish for a better development and that the judges devoted more time to arguing around this.

When one talks about a crime victim law, I also want to emphasize that it is at least equally important that the professionals who come into contact with crime victims have rules that mark their responsibility in relation to the crime victim. It can be about information or about follow-up.

Often, the person who has been subjected to a crime has experienced a trauma. In that case, it is extremely important, as some have also mentioned, that one does not just say things orally but that the crime victim receives written information. The information needs to be repeated at the next meeting so that it really sticks and so that the crime victim understands what rights they have.

It is also invaluable to receive tips and information about which non-profit organizations exist. These can mean even more than the professional organizations and authorities.

Even though the legislation currently on the table means that the Crime Victim Authority pays the compensation directly to the crime victim, every crime victim would want it to be the perpetrator who actually pays. If the Crime Victim Authority has paid, it will, in the future, just as today, have the right to reclaim, so-called right of recourse, against the perpetrator.

The authority can tolerate that the repayment period is long and extends several years forward, but the crime victim should not have to endure it. It is also important that the money is ultimately, and preferably, from the perpetrator and that the crime victim receives their funds as soon as possible.

If the Crime Victim Authority has paid out compensation in place of an unknown perpetrator and the perpetrator is later identified, that person must step in. In that case, one also has the right to pursue recourse.

I can also think that there is a slight concern with this system. There may be incentives for insurance companies to no longer offer assault protection. This concern has previously slowed down similar reforms to the one we are discussing today. In that case, it would naturally mean huge cost increases for the state and a socialization of the responsibility that the insurance companies take today. I hope that will not be the case.

I believe I have said enough about the fact that I do not think the parents' responsibility for the children's actions should be expanded. Parents should have responsibility for their children and educate them in a good and reasonable way, but not with new burdensome liability rules. I unfortunately think that the government often has a tendency to push the responsibility down the chain – all the way down to private individuals.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Compensation rules with a focus on crime victims: What is it that we are actually talking about? I have three different examples of how it could look:

Example 1: A woman was subjected to assault by her former partner. The court ordered the perpetrator to pay approximately 50,000 kronor in damages for violation and for pain and suffering. The woman turned to the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden), but the investigation showed that the perpetrator was unemployed, had large debts, and no seizable assets. She therefore received no compensation from the perpetrator and had to apply for crime victim compensation from the Crime Victim Authority (Brottsoffermyndigheten).

It is this part that we want to take care of. It should go faster for the person who is vulnerable to receive the compensation that is needed. They should not have to go through the Enforcement Authority but should be able to receive compensation from the Crime Victim Authority immediately. This is a fairly clear example of what the government wants.

Example 2: A young man was robbed and sustained injuries. He was awarded damages of around 30,000 kronor. The process of collecting the money via Kronofogden took over a year with repeated contacts, forms, and investigations. Due to mental health issues following the crime, he could not continue the process. He ultimately received no compensation either, because he did not complete the application for crime compensation within the deadline.

This concerns two different parts, but here the process must be much simpler and clearer so that the crime victim actually receives the compensation they are actually entitled to.

Example 3: A child was subjected to gross property damage and threats by a 15-year-old person. The court sentenced the young perpetrator, and the guardians via principal liability, to pay damages. The parents lacked the ability or refused to pay. This means that the crime victim received no compensation from the perpetrator and had to wait a long time for any crime compensation.

This is one of the reasons why we must expand the principal responsibility. Parents must be present and be able to take that responsibility.

The statistics show that since 2020, almost half of the crime victims have not received a single krona of the awarded damages from the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden). Seven out of ten have not received the full amount. The total unpaid amount amounts to billions of kronor. This is exactly what the report is about. Crime victims must be able to receive compensation and not get stuck in the process with the Swedish Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden).

I mean that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag basically think alike – except when it comes to the responsibility of families and parents. Perhaps that is not so strange. We Christian Democrats believe that the family is the individual's core, which should both nurture and participate in taking responsibility. Unfortunately, not everyone thinks alike, and therefore there are also different opinions on that in this part. We think it is good that the principal responsibility is expanded so that parents can take responsibility and to show in actions and words that one actually must do this.

The central changes mean simpler and faster crime victim compensation for the crime victim. We have all talked about this. We think this is important, and we think the process must go much faster, not least for the one who was actually exposed from the beginning. It is not enough that they were subjected to a crime – afterwards, society also does not take care of them in the best way, and they might have to wait quite a long time before the process itself is concluded. We do not think that is good. With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report Compensation Rules with the Crime Victim in Focus. It is a welcome report. The proposals presented concern faster crime damage compensation, stricter responsibility for guardians, and better opportunities to collect damages. These are all important steps in the right direction. They are steps that strengthen the position of crime victims and reduce the consequences of crime. Therefore, I will vote in favor of the committee's proposals. But these steps are not sufficient. Even though they are important, they are parts of a system that is fundamentally fragmented and difficult to oversee for the one who is hit hardest, that is, the crime victim.

The debate on crime and punishment is rightly dominated by the gross violence – the shootings and the explosions. These are crimes that shake our society to its core. To lose a child, a sibling, a parent, or a close friend through a murder must be one of the worst, if not the worst, experiences in life. For those who are affected, it feels extra welcome not to have to have contact with the guilty parties in order to, for example, receive damages.

In the shadow of the headlines lies another, more muted but often equally painful reality. It is the reality for the countless victims of the crimes that rarely reach the newspapers but which affect many.

The most vulnerable victims are the children. The crime statistics are a grim read. Thousands of children are subjected every year to assault, threats, and harassment. Girls are significantly overrepresented when it comes to sexual offenses, a crime that is occurring to an ever-increasing extent in the digital environment. The home, which should be the safest of places, is for many a crime scene. The school, which should be a place for learning and development, is for many a place for violence and violations.

Much has been done in the form of increased resources to the justice system and stricter laws, but it is not enough to go all the way. What I want to say when we talk about crime victims is that we must become better at protecting everyone, and especially children, from ever becoming victims. We need to see the crime prevention work – which is often questioned in this chamber – as crime victim prevention work. The preventive work is absolutely crucial. The best way to help crime victims is to ensure that crimes are prevented and that crimes never occur. Here, we as a country can do more.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to take the opportunity to highlight all the crime victims affected by the widespread petty crime. We are talking about thefts, frauds, and property damage. These are crimes that many, including the Swedish National Audit Office, have noted that the police do not handle effectively and where the clearance rate is, in the worst cases, as low as a few percent.

The Crime Prevention Council shows that the proportion of solved petty crimes has not improved despite a historic investment in more police officers. For the individual entrepreneur who has repeatedly been robbed in their shop, for the elderly person who has been cheated out of their savings, and for the family who has had a burglary in their home, it is not just petty crime. They are, to the highest degree, important crime victims. The crimes involve a deep violation, a loss of security, and often a feeling of being abandoned by society. Petty crimes are the police's Achilles' heel and something that, in the long run, risks the social contract.

I think it is important to take the opportunity to highlight all kinds of crimes and to see all crime victims. Therefore, I move not only for approval of the proposals in the report, which are good and welcome, but also for reservation 2. The proposals in the bill are good, but the laws and rules concerning crime victims' rights are scattered, difficult to oversee, and fragmented. For the individual who may have just been subjected to a trauma, it is an impossible task to navigate this system.

Crime victim support centers and a number of other referral bodies have long pointed out that society's support is not equal across the country and that coordination is lacking. We are failing both in the crime prevention work and in the work with the vulnerable – the crime victims. That is why the Center Party wants to investigate the possibility of consolidating crime victims' rights into a single crime victim law that legally but also pedagogically puts the victims' needs at the center, clarifies rights and obligations for all involved parties, and makes it easier for both crime victims and those who work with crime victims to understand what applies.

An important aspect is also to ensure that all crime victims, regardless of where in the country they live or what crimes they have been subjected to, receive the support, protection, and redress they are entitled to. It is a matter of justice and decency. With the motion presented, I again move for approval of the proposals in the Committee on Civil Affairs' report and also for reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! 30 years ago, I was struck by a person in connection with my attempt to arrest him. I was working as a police officer at the time. I received a heavy blow to the face and fell to the ground. It was the cheekbone that had taken the hit. Half of my face was quite swollen in the days that followed, and it hurt a lot. Despite this, the person could be quickly arrested in the vicinity. He was then convicted for the crime of violence against a public official, and I was awarded damages in the amount of 1,000 kronor. Of course, I received no money.

This person had no desire to pay damages to me, and I let it rest. But one day, a couple of years later, I reconsidered. He would not get away with it. He had been ordered to pay me damages. It was only right that he had to do so. I submitted a claim to the Enforcement Authority to have my damages collected, and they did, which led to me receiving a phone call one day from the person who had struck me down a couple of years earlier.

I felt no fear of this person. I also didn't really feel any personal animosity or desire for revenge. How he would pay, we settled over the phone. Then the matter was out of the world, and we both moved on with our lives. But this was, therefore, how I handled this. Think of all the crime victims who have been subjected to worse things than what I happened to experience and where the perpetrator is of a completely different caliber! If it is a rapist, an ex-partner, or a person who is just a crazy devil, it is not so easy to be a crime victim, having to drive in and handle the compensation debt yourself and being the one who must have contact with their perpetrator.

Mr. Speaker! Now the government is changing it so that the state steps in and pays the damages. Then the state goes to the convicted person and asks them to pay. I am trying to explain this in plain Swedish. If people do not pay, it is the state that pursues this further legally. So that is how it will be in most cases.

I think this is good. Possibly I might think that the law should have come many years ago, but it is good. For me, it is clear that the crime victim is put in the foreground. No crime victim should have to hunt down their perpetrator to obtain their damages.

The government is also changing other laws linked to compensation to crime victims and how the state can collect damages, but other parties have already accounted for this in an extraordinary manner. I will therefore skip that and content myself with stating that I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Melin, for a good speech!

Now my hope lies a little with Member of Parliament Martin Melin and the Liberals, I must say. Because when the Moderates, but perhaps especially the Sweden Democrats, talk about a crime victim perspective, which I believe everyone in this chamber stands behind, it is for the Sweden Democrats unilaterally about harsher penalties.

We have stood behind the tightenings we have made and which I have been involved in debating. But the Liberals are the party in the Tidö group that has the strength to see the whole picture. When I looked at the different parties' crime victim policies before the election, I saw that of the Tidö parties, it is actually the Liberals who have some form of holistic perspective and have the strength to talk about the preventive work and the operational cooperation close to the crime victims and have the strength to look at the important civil society and what it does for crime victims. It is good politics, I think, which I think we should be able to join forces on.

This Wednesday, there will be a vote on investigating a crime victim law. An expert investigation could look at the legal difficulties that exist regarding a crime victim law. Rights legislation is not simple, but the Liberals have historically been a party for various rights legislations. It was not entirely simple with the Convention on the Rights of the Child either. But I believe we need to state the needs that exist around the individual and make visible which actor is responsible for what. Can the Liberals consider investigating a crime victim law?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will start with the last one. The answer to that question is no. To elaborate on the answer: We have looked at it and initially thought it was not a bad idea to gather everything so that it becomes easy to oversee. But when one looked deeper into it, it was more complicated than that.

I do not want to go into what it was about and how and why it was complicated; it was much more knowledgeable people than I who looked at this. But I received an explanation as to why. It was explained that it was a very large amount of scattered legislation that was to be intertwined in some way, and it was very difficult to carry out. That was the answer I received, and I must somewhere lean on and trust the experts who explained this to me. Otherwise, it is because you collect the legislation and make it more easy to oversee, perhaps especially for those who are not so well-versed in it.

When it comes to the policy pursued in the Tidö cooperation, that is perhaps what is the strength of the Tidö cooperation. We are four parties that have different policies, but we are quite good at what we do within our respective silos. That makes us quite competent and strong as a collective political force.

For me personally, it is precisely the preventive work and the perspective of the crime victim that is important. Somewhere, it feels like we have now given the police and prosecutors the tools they need to be able to combat what is now happening repressively. During the next mandate period when we govern, if we are granted that trust, we will focus very much on precisely that preventive work to prevent new recruitment and also give the crime victims even more redress.

I see, therefore, how we have now done something about the acute situation we had. Now it is a matter of moving forward and taking phase two.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Mr. Speaker! So far – and the parliamentary term is almost over – we see no measures to break the new recruitment. It is truly this government's blind spot. The new recruitment harvests so many crime victims. Here, I completely lack confidence in the Tidö government. I know that regardless of how many punishments one tightens – some parts are completely good and reasonable – new young people will stand in line, both girls and boys, ready to take on assignments that involve committing horrific acts. Here, we simply need a completely different policy.

But I am also wondering who has looked at the Moderates' election promises regarding a crime victim law. Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer also refers to "when we have looked at it." But I have not seen any investigation or any investigation directives. So how am I, as a Member of Parliament, who also has the responsibility to scrutinize the government, able to ensure that this is actually being addressed? We have not seen anything that shows it, and I think that is bad. I understand that the Member needs to trust the experts who one hears speaking. But it would still be very appropriate to have an investigation regarding a crime victim law?

I mean that it is not enough to give different assignments to different instances. I believe the member, who is a police officer herself, knows what it is like when things fall between the cracks. They have that assignment and they have that assignment, but one has slightly different assignments. It is incredibly tough out in the municipalities now, especially after the years with the Tidö Government, and then one will back away from their responsibility.

That is why we need to gather all the actors' responsibilities, with the crime victim in focus. And that is why I again appeal for the Liberals' cooperation on the issue before the vote on Wednesday. It would be very good for the country's crime victims.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I repeat my answer: We will not vote with the Social Democrats on Wednesday.

We have other ideas, however. I must stop at this for a bit. I have heard several representatives for the Social Democrats say that the Tidö government is doing nothing about the new recruitment. Then one must know one thing: The new recruitment that is taking place today and has been ongoing for many years is very difficult to access. It is also a new phenomenon because we have social media that did not exist ten years ago. It is a completely new phenomenon, and I dare to assert that regardless of which government we had today, we would have seen a problem with new recruitment. So I probably do not want to make party politics out of the new recruitment that is happening right now; it is very difficult.

One must also not forget that the responsibility for ensuring that children are not drawn into crime lies with our municipalities. In Stockholm, it is actually the Social Democrats who are in power. I would therefore like to assert that even the Social Democrats have a certain responsibility for the fact that new recruitment occurs as it does in our municipalities.

In other words: This is not partisan. This is a huge problem that all of Sweden, regardless of which party one belongs to, must address. Above all, we must address it in the next parliamentary term. I can say already here and now that at least we in the Liberals have very good policies for the next parliamentary term when it comes to preventing crime and preventing and hindering children from being drawn into criminality. We will take that with us to the Tidö cooperation. Then we will stitch this together, and it will become the best government this country has ever seen.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Strengthening the rights of crime victims is a key issue for Miljöpartiet. Everyone who is subjected to crime shall receive the protection, the support, and the redress to which they are entitled.

In order for crime victims to be able to assert their rights, it is required that the regulatory framework is clear, accessible, and legally secure. Today, the rules are often scattered and difficult to oversee, not only for the individual but also for professionals who encounter those affected by crime. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to see a clearer and more coherent crime victim perspective in the legislation.

Miljöpartiet has also long advocated that the state should take greater responsibility to strengthen the position of crime victims. Therefore, we welcome the vast majority of the government's proposals in the bill that we are debating here today.

The state should take greater responsibility for collecting damages and crime compensation so that the person who has been subjected to a crime can focus on their rehabilitation instead of having to bear the burden of a complicated process themselves.

Crime victim support centers and other support activities must have stable conditions, and the professional groups that meet crime victims need better knowledge of the specific needs of different crime victims, not least regarding the situation for children, women, hbtqi-persons, and persons with disabilities. There are still things to be done here, even though we will now on Wednesday vote for this proposal.

The government's bill contains several welcome proposals. We particularly welcome the proposal for a faster and simpler procedure for obtaining crime victim compensation. The person who has been subjected to a crime should not have to face unnecessary obstacles to receive the compensation they are entitled to. When a crime victim, after a final judgment, is still forced to navigate additional steps to receive their compensation, both the sense of redress and trust in the justice system are weakened. This is an important reform to make the path to compensation faster, simpler, and more legally secure.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet, on the other hand, does not share the government's assessment that the liability for damages of guardians should be tightened through a raised amount limit. This is what our reservation number 1 is about. The government has chosen to proceed with a tightening despite the fact that the investigation does not advocate for any general increase of the principal liability and despite the fact that several heavy referral bodies have opposed this, including the Crime Prevention Council, the Crime Victim Authority, the Swedish Bar Association, and the National Centre for Women's Peace.

The decisive problem is that there is a lack of empirical support that a stricter financial responsibility for parents for the damages caused by their children would have the crime-preventing effect that the government claims.

The special liability for damages for guardians in the form of principal liability, which was introduced in 2010, was evaluated by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in a report in 2017. There, they found no evidence that the principal liability had led to a reduction in juvenile crime. Brå also found no evidence that the reform had had any positive impact on crime victims' opportunity to actually have damages paid out. The Government's investigation assesses that these conclusions are still valid and that the principal liability has also not affected parents' responsibility and supervision. The investigation's assessment is confirmed by most referral bodies.

The Crime Victim Authority, the Bar Association, and the Prosecution Authority have all pointed out that there is a lack of support for crime-preventive effects and that the measure may instead have the opposite effect because it risks hitting economically weak parents particularly hard. That conclusion is also shared by the National Centre for Women's Peace, which particularly emphasizes that single mothers risk being hit harder by such a tightened responsibility.

Miljöpartiet naturally shares the view that parents have a great responsibility for their children. But a stronger parental responsibility is not achieved through a repressive policy that risks putting even more pressure on already economically vulnerable families. The investigation emphasizes, on the contrary, that there is generally a strong commitment among parents to guide their children correctly, regardless of their ability to bear a financial responsibility if the children commit crimes. Even the social services' experiences, as they have been reported to the investigation, point in the same direction.

As the National Centre for Women's Peace also highlights, there are strong reasons to assume that most parents take the measures they can to prevent criminal behavior in their children and that these efforts are primarily driven by care and a sense of responsibility rather than by concern for economic consequences. To achieve a real crime-preventive effect, other measures are therefore required.

The National Centre for Women's Peace specifically points out the need for targeted support programs for families, early and preventive interventions in schools, as well as a social service with sufficient resources and a mandate to act at an early stage. Miljöpartiet shares this assessment. If society is to break the new recruitment to crime, functioning welfare, early and targeted interventions, and support for families are required – not tightened economic sanctions but demonstrated effect.

Placing a greater financial responsibility on already pressured families without clear support for the fact that they prevent crime or improve crime victims' chances of receiving compensation is the wrong way to go. In crime policy, the crime victim perspective is completely central. It can be so while the proposed policy is legally secure, knowledge-based, and accurate.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about the crime victim law, which has been debated here today. Miljöpartiet stands behind reservation 2, which concerns the introduction of a crime victim law. We believe, despite the measures that have been taken by the government, that such a law could further facilitate crime victims' ability to orient themselves and protect their rights, as well as clarify which agencies are responsible for what. We therefore hope that the government appoints an inquiry into this.

We have two reservations, 1 and 2. Approval has already been requested for them, but for the sake of clarity, I also request approval for them.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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