Improved measures when children are suspected of crimes

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, the Committee on Justice gathers here in the chamber for debate, and I believe this will be my last before the summer break. During the spring, I have had to debate everything from participation in terrorist organizations to terrorism issues in general, young lawbreakers, and so on. These are heavy and important subjects. Today's debate, which stems from the Committee on Justice's report number 21 and the bill Improved measures when children are suspected of crimes, is no exception.

Of course, we would all prefer to have a situation where we would not have to talk about children as criminals. However, we stand here today and are fairly united as a committee regarding this bill. It is a bill based on proposals from an investigation that the Social Democratic-led government appointed in 2019. Proposals from the investigation are also one of the points in our 34-point program against gang crime.

I therefore want to take the opportunity now to mention that we Social Democrats support the report in its entirety and that we have no reservations of our own.

Mr. Speaker! I have in a number of debates mentioned that society's fight against crime must be relentless. It is just as true today as it was the first time I got the chance to stand here in the rostrum on behalf of the Committee on Justice.

Serious crime among young people is a major problem and a threat to our democratic society. The fact that it is creeping down in age is something we can neither ignore nor should ignore. Youth crime must and shall be combated by all means, where the focus above all must be on the preventive work.

As a mother, as a teacher and as a politician, it hurts me to see that crime is creeping down in age. It hurts to see how grave it is, and it hurts to see so clearly in black and white that society has failed. For society's greatest responsibility - our greatest responsibility, which I have mentioned many times before - is to protect our children and give all children and young people in Sweden the opportunity to become their best selves.

Mr. Speaker! "I was young and stupid" – that is probably a sentence that many of us have uttered at some point. And if we haven't said it ourselves, I am convinced that we all have someone in our vicinity who has said exactly these words. For surely most of us are perhaps a bit stupid and unpredictable when we are young. We might drink alcohol before we are of age, we might snatch a piece of chocolate from the store, we might break into that outdoor pool that is closed at night, we might drive much too fast, we might fake our age to get into that disco or nightclub, we might end up in a fight, we might throw a first punch and we might threaten with violence in the pub queue when we do not yet have the ability to handle the situation.

Many of these incidents are purely and simply illegal, and those who get caught are counted in the category of young offenders. However, it is also the case that most of the young offenders in our country only commit one or a few crimes and stop there when they become adults.

But there are exceptions. There are children and young people who unfortunately do not stop at this type of crime. Therefore, it is important that we distinguish between crime and crime and make our justice system clear and legally secure. The rule of law must always act forcefully against crime. Through the penalties a crime receives, we demonstrate our values and reinforce what is right and wrong in a society. Young people who commit crimes must therefore expect tangible consequences and penalties, while we ensure that other young people do not end up in the same situation. Because we must always do both!

From time to time, however, it becomes apparent that certain parts of our legal system are not completely watertight and that adjustments must therefore be made. Many of the measures we see in the committee report stem precisely from these thoughts. But let me be clear: This is not a committee report that, for us Social Democrats, is based on any desire for children to be imprisoned. It is not about easing any conditions to lower the age of criminal responsibility. There are also no such proposals in the committee report that is on the table, which many may perceive as such when they read the committee report.

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe in the idea of locking up children for the slightest crime. I know that practically all research points out that that type of consequence can have the opposite effect, and I do not think that people in here want children to come out as more serious criminals.

The serious crime and the gross and sometimes deadly violence we see, we must never accept. But most of our children and young people do not commit that type of crime, and this is something we must also be able to talk about. One should be able to be a bit young and foolish, be able to feel remorse and be able to make amends without legal measures affecting one's entire life.

Mr. Speaker! What is the committee report about? Well, it is a report that primarily addresses the question of how the regulatory framework for investigations against children suspected of crimes can be improved. Many of the proposals are based on the fact that it should apply to gross and serious crimes. But it is also about ensuring that a high degree of legal certainty and efficiency is maintained in precisely such investigations.

The legislative changes that we are debating today and that we will later vote through concern, among other things, that more investigations shall be able to be carried out when children under 15 are suspected of crimes. It is about that the right to evidence shall be invoked in more cases, and then linked to serious crime. It is about that a victim's counsel or a special representative for children shall be able to be appointed for a victim when the person suspected of having committed the crime is under 15. People naturally deserve to have the same right to help and support regardless of whether the crime was committed by a person of legal age or by a person who has not yet turned 15.

The report is therefore first and foremost about the fact that society must not stand by passively and watch when young people commit serious crimes and risk being drawn into criminality. It is about the fact that we Social Democrats believe in and stand behind that purposeful interventions from the side of society can prevent a negative spiral and contribute to the child receiving the help and the support that she or he needs.

Mr. Speaker! This is, therefore, a report that is fundamentally a continuation of Social Democratic policy - policy that is about doing both. It is about both acting, reacting, and preventing. It is about making society both react powerfully against serious crime and keep the crime victim in mind. It is both about intervention measures and about counteracting children continuing on a criminal path. It is about important signaling values for society regarding what is right and wrong, but it is also about ensuring that children do not fall through the cracks.

For us Social Democrats, it was already important when the investigation was commissioned to have a children's rights perspective. Therefore, we are grateful that the legislative proposals that the government has now presented follow much of the investigation's proposals. It was clear that the investigation had a children's rights perspective in much of the work and that one went in and corrected some of the parts for which Sweden has received criticism.

Some of the parts that are positive from a children's rights perspective are a clear increase in ambition when it comes to the social services' presence during interrogations - this being that the social services can act as support for the child and that they enter at an early stage, which can be important for the continued work.

It is also positive that the proof of guilt can be lifted in more cases. It concerns cases where the child has committed the act and thus needs support and interventions to not continue on a criminal path, but it also concerns cases where the child is actually innocent but where the investigation has shown otherwise. The Kevin case is a clear example of a situation we do not want to see repeated again.

Mr. Speaker! One day I will leave the Riksdag. One day I will leave this fantastic assignment as a Member of Parliament and most likely return to a life as a teacher. An equal school, a strong social service, a breadth of leisure opportunities available to everyone, an opportunity for a first job and a first home, the right to a strong welfare and an equal society is what I hope to be able to contribute to and push through during my time here.

When that day comes when I go back to being a teacher, I want to be able to look my students in the eye and know that I did what I could so that they could live in a safe and equal Sweden. In the end, that is actually what matters. Decisions linked to what we do in the Justice Committee are not what will make the big difference.

Sometimes, however, there are measures that are important and long-term, which were introduced to ensure a high degree of legal certainty and where the starting point is to do both. It is about better tools for the justice system to use when children are suspected of crimes and about early interventions to prevent children from ending up in crime.

Today is such a day. Today, both the politician and the teacher in me can be happy.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that we should lock up children for the slightest crime, says the member in the speaker's chair. I don't think anyone thinks that. This type of tilting at windmills dulls the debate just as much as Social Democratic claims that children are starving. We have real problems in Sweden that we need to solve with a serious and constructive debate. It would be excellent if the Social Democrats could contribute to that instead of continuing to mess around in this way.

We also have very young people who are dangerous and whom we need to lock up. The Social Democrats have been far from having a straight line in how to handle that problem. Until recently, you were against youth prisons, now you are for youth prisons - and more, and so on.

My question is: Which young people do the Social Democrats want to lock up in order to give crime victims redress and protect society?

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm from the Moderaterna is, of course, asking important questions based on how we view serious crime among children and young people. Already during the previous parliamentary term, we Social Democrats took important steps to make certain changes when it came to, for example, the sentence reduction for serious crime. It must be about serious crime so that we do not, as I mentioned in my speech, risk locking up children and young people for a brawl, for example in a pub queue. It is clear that it is serious, but we know that these individuals will never return to a better life if we lock them up.

The fact is that in the Tidö Agreement we also see several proposals that several children's rights organizations are extremely critical of. You want to investigate removing the sentence reduction for all crimes. You also want to investigate the possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. These are proposals that we Social Democrats do not believe in and are not prepared to follow.

We must take other measures. It is about us having an equal school where all children can succeed. It is about a strong social service that enters the lives of children and young people early. It is about ensuring, already in preschool, that we help those children whom we see are at risk of falling behind. These are measures that I want to see.

Mr. Speaker! I also think it is unfortunate that Fredrik Kärrholm raises this issue and at the same time claims that we do not have a situation in Sweden where children are suffering or where children are not getting food. Every school I have visited in the last half year bears witness to how much more food is consumed during the school meals on Mondays and Fridays.

Children in Sweden are having a hard time. To turn a blind eye to that situation, to deny that there are children who are having a hard time, I think is a bigger problem than that you want to question us Social Democrats.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! This was an answer that piled so many clichés and inaccuracies on top of each other that it is impossible to reasonably address them with the speaking time available. I must content myself with stating that you did not answer my question and that you continue to have a completely incorrect description of reality and blame the Moderaterna for standing for things and thinking things that we absolutely do not do. It is far from the ambition to be a bit constructive that is reasonable to demand of an opposition.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! It becomes clear that the Moderates intend to stand for a line that we are very critical of - where one is prepared to violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where one is prepared to ignore the fact that children in Sweden are suffering, and where one is prepared to lock up children and young people. That is what you, in the Tidö Agreement, think should be looked at.

It is also clear that we Social Democrats will continue to fight for what research shows, for what children's rights organizations talk about, and for what the Convention on the Rights of the Child says children have a right to. It is the policy I intend to continue to pursue and which we Social Democrats will be clear about.

Now Kärrholm has proven that the Moderates do not stand on the side of research, do not stand on the side of the children's rights perspective, and do not see that children and young people in Sweden are doing poorly and that we have a class system in Sweden that forces young people into a certain type of criminal path that we can never accept. But it is not about children being locked up. It is about that school, social services, and adult role models must exist to provide support to these children so that no child in our country risks becoming a criminal.

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

TALMANNEN

I would like to remind you in advance that we speak through the Speaker and do not address each other as "you" in the chamber.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is very positive about the proposal in the bill. I would, however, like to move for approval of our reservation that the Riksdag should reject the part of the proposal concerning more drug tests of children under 15 years of age. We believe that this should not be carried out.

One of the main points in the bill is the importance of being able to present evidence when children are suspected of crimes despite being under 15 years of age and cannot be prosecuted. It must then concern serious, grave crimes where it is important to clarify both whether the suspicion is justified and, in exceptional cases, whether the child might instead be able to be cleared of the suspicion.

The case of Kevin comes to many people's minds. We should probably see that it was an extreme case in many ways, but also that it concerned such small children that the evidence might not even have been helpful that time. When the children are older, however, this can be very important.

Another aspect raised in the bill is that the position of crime victims is strengthened by the fact that a victim's counsel or a special representative can be appointed for the person whom the child has subjected to a serious crime.

Something I also think is important to highlight is that in the referral responses to the bill, there are amounts of both interesting and worrying information about how weak an impact the children's perspective and the Convention on the Rights of the Child have nevertheless had in Swedish law and practice.

I return to the question of the burden of proof. If a child is suspected of a crime, early and appropriate interventions from society are obviously very important. They can prevent and slow down a negative spiral of criminal activities that might otherwise continue. With this instrument, we can also contribute to the child receiving sharper help and support and perhaps also to the family receiving support, if it is necessary.

Most of the proposals in the bill are well-considered. One can stand behind them with confidence. But the proposal regarding drug tests should not be implemented. All people, and in particular children, need to be protected from unnecessary interventions, for example, body searches. There is already today a possibility to drug test children who are under 15 years old. That regulation should we let be sufficient. Society should not meet children's and young people's addiction with more coercion.

We want, as always, to prioritize broad preventive work to realize children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the obligations that we reasonably should have in a welfare state.

The preventive work needs to be developed. When it comes to measures for drug-free living, we want to highlight that youth centers should include alcohol and drug counseling in their activities. The youth centers should be given a more central role by broadening the mandate. We also propose that Maria Ungdom in Stockholm should become a national knowledge center on youth addiction, in order to utilize knowledge and experience and develop research and competence.

Our questioning of the proposal to expand the possibilities for drug testing is shared, among others, by the Crime Prevention Council. They also do not consider the argumentation for expanding the possibilities for drug testing to be strong enough. They point particularly to Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and emphasize that such interventions should be used as limited as possible.

The factors stated to contribute to the fact that too few drug tests are performed are, according to Brå, not linked to the legal text itself. They see that examples are reported where there is a reluctance, many times well-motivated, among the police to use coercive measures against children. It can be a matter of time pressure when it comes to reaching social services, especially at inconvenient times, and hesitation within the police to contact the prosecutor to get the drug test approved.

The difficulties are partially confirmed by the municipalities. There, it is about problems outside of office hours if one does not have social services that can quickly come in and assess the need for drug testing and upcoming treatment. According to Brå, these problems cannot be solved by formulating the legal text differently. It is about other interventions in the welfare system.

Barnafrid, which is a competence center for children in Linköping, once again highlights the importance of preventive work at all levels and that a priority should, of course, also include those who have already exhibited problem behavior. They point out the need for specialists within healthcare and also note that we have problems that need to be addressed urgently.

It concerns, among other things, the police's interrogation methods. Such methods have been developed to get closer to children as crime victims, but they are not adapted for children as suspected perpetrators. There is therefore no evidence base in that regard. It is noted that before further training is conducted within the police, it is urgent to produce evidence-based guidelines.

It is also noted that further reinforcements may be needed for the entire chain in the justice system to become trauma-informed. Trauma can affect children after abuse of drugs and alcohol, but there can also be risks associated with abuse of sexuality, pornography, and gambling. They need to be equipped on a broader level.

I finally want to also relate to the Crime Victim Authority's referral response. They point out that victim-representative counsel are of course important, but that an argument is ongoing that it is tragic that the victim-representative counsel's appointment risks ceasing before proceedings in the Court of Appeal. It is perhaps extra important that we are vigilant when it concerns young suspects and when there is a great risk that we have young victims in those proceedings.

A minor has very great difficulty in monitoring their own interests in a legal process. An adult would at least have a greater possibility of doing so. It is important not to believe that only guardians can step in. The young people need to be allowed to keep the complainant's counsel also in the Court of Appeal proceedings.

With this, I would like to conclude by returning to my motion that Vänsterpartiet welcomes that the bill is passed in large parts, but that we abstain from expanding the possibilities for drug testing of children under 15 years of age.

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

PONTUS ANDERSSON (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report Improved measures when children are suspected of crimes.

Let me first point out that no human being is born a criminal. That a child chooses a criminal lifestyle is primarily a failure of the parents. A parent's task is to prepare their children for the world, so that they can take care of themselves. That is how it looks for not only humans but actually most mammals. When the offspring is ready, it is allowed to take on the world. But no other mammals keep the offspring by their side as long as a mother and a father do. Man's world is more complex than the animals'.

Our children shall undergo a compulsory preschool and primary school education for ten years. After that, they can continue to study with grants and take on even more complex tasks than in primary school. How long they continue with this before the labor market takes over is up to them themselves. In addition to going to school, they shall learn to find work, pay bills, and everything else that is required to manage through life. That is how our wonderful Swedish welfare society works. All children have the same opportunities to do exactly what they want with their lives and to reach exactly as far as they themselves want.

The children who instead choose a criminal lifestyle have the exact same opportunities but often also one or more risk factors that increase the risk that they choose the path of crime. These risk factors can range from the parents lacking work to growing up without a father, being born abroad or having a foreign background, there being substance abuse in the home, or having a diagnosis.

Despite this, it is only a very small minority of those with one or more risk factors who choose the path of crime. That is why I repeatedly use the words "choose to become criminal" rather than "end up in crime." It is because the majority of those with a tough upbringing do not choose the criminal path.

In the Tidö Agreement, the government and the Sweden Democrats agree on a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. The reasons for this are many. When children are suspected of crimes, many instances have failed.

Firstly, the parents have failed to raise the children in a culture where one learns what is right and wrong, and also follows what is right and wrong. Secondly, the school has failed to detect the signals early and provide the measures required to get the children on the right track. Thirdly, the social services have failed to implement measures against both the child and the parents in sufficient time. Then one is left with a child who should have been raised to be a good citizen of society but who instead is suspected of a serious crime.

In Region Stockholm alone, almost 5,000 crimes were reported last year where the suspect was under 15 years old. We have, for example, the 14-year-old who is suspected of having participated in a shooting with an automatic weapon against an apartment door in January this year. We also have the 13-year-old who, this past winter, is suspected of an attempted rape against a woman in Borås. And we have, not least, all these young boys – often dressed in Adidas pants and with a fanny pack – who earn quick money by selling drugs to younger, peers, and older people. None of these will be convicted because they are not of legal age for criminal responsibility.

It is the Sverigedemokraternas firm opinion that when parents have failed to raise their children, when the school has been unable to intervene and when social services have been unable to do enough, the next instance must take over the responsibility and clearly set boundaries. We cannot leave these children at the mercy of the elements.

It is unreasonable that persons under 15 years of age are not sentenced to any penalty whatsoever for their crimes. It is not only about crime victims receiving redress, but also about preventing these children from committing even more serious crimes in the future. We must, from the side of society, step in and set clear boundaries when all other previous instances have failed to precisely set boundaries.

Mr. Speaker! One of the more tragic stories I have heard from this new Sweden, which previous governments have been involved in creating, was from preschool staff in Södertälje who say that they can already there know which children will grow up and be involved in ongoing conflicts and who risk becoming either shooters or targets. We would not have had to have this in Sweden. The politicians and parties who have actively fought for high immigration to Sweden and a justice system that is not adapted to today's situation are responsible for how it looks.

But having said that – the earlier society identifies which children are in the danger zone of choosing a criminal lifestyle, the better society will also be at getting these children to become good citizens. No human is born a criminal, but if parents, school, leisure activities, social services, etc., do not succeed in getting the children to become good citizens, it must have consequences.

With this bill, we are implementing a number of measures to prevent continued crime at an early stage, such as the possibility for more investigations of children under 15 suspected of crimes and that more drug tests for children under 15 shall be carried out. But it is far from enough.

With the implementation of the Tidö Agreement, law enforcement authorities will be able to use covert coercive measures against children under the age of 15. We will also ensure that we achieve a lowered age of criminal responsibility. It is for the sake of those children who have never clearly been told where the line is drawn, but also for all those crime victims who otherwise have to live with the fact that their perpetrators go unpunished due to being too young.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! That children in Sweden are involved to such a high extent in serious organized crime and planned deadly violence is unparalleled in our own history and has no equivalent in comparable countries. Right now, several children under the age of 15 are suspected or charged with very serious violent crimes, including murder and attempted murder.

Gun violence is unfortunately only a symptom of a much larger problem with crime-active criminal networks, which to a frightening extent have come to consist of young people under the age of 15. We have a changed reality, and it requires adapted legislation. We must do more to counteract children being drawn into crime or exploited in criminal contexts.

The proposed legislative changes we are debating here today are far from the entire solution, but an important part of the solution. Until now, the bar has been high for investigating crimes committed by a perpetrator over a period of 15 years, and this also applies to crimes of a more serious nature. The requirement that an investigation must be of particular importance is now replaced by a criterion which means that an investigation may be initiated if it is called for with regard to public or private interests.

That more investigations are now to be carried out when children are under 15 years of age is very significant. A victim's counsel or a special representative for the child shall also be able to be appointed for the victim when the suspect who has committed the crime is under 15 years of age. By appointing a representative for the child, we protect the child's rights and interests during the legal process. It ensures that the child has strong support and that its voice is heard and considered. We shall always safeguard legal certainty, and that is done with this bill.

Allowing the criminal proceedings to be initiated in more cases is important. Deciding the question of guilt for a crime in court even when the perpetrator is under 15 years of age is a legitimate interest of both the individual crime victim and society at large. It enables the circumstances surrounding a serious crime to be investigated and that sufficiently interventionist measures can be taken against the person behind the crime.

There is also an interest that authorities and other actors who work for the child's interests ensure that the child does not continue to commit crimes. There is no contradiction here – on the contrary. From the perspective of legal certainty and for the public's trust in the justice system, it is important that criminal case decisions are just and correct. An appeal should therefore be able to be granted by a judgment of proof of innocence that has gained legal force under the same conditions as for criminal judgments in general. It is important, and it is a matter of justice.

That more drug tests should be allowed to be carried out against children under 15 years of age is crucial for combating and preventing drug abuse among children and youth. By detecting and thus being able to treat drug abuse early, one can help young individuals toward a better life where they can avoid future criminality.

Finally, I also want to mention the possibility for prosecutors to decide on community service through a summary order. It is an important measure to be able to more quickly and effectively impose an appropriate, meaningful, and tangible consequence for young people who commit crimes. Community service gives these individuals a chance to learn from their mistakes while simultaneously contributing to the public good.

More needs to be done however - much more - not least lowering the age of criminal responsibility. But overall, the legislative change in this bill is a step on the way towards creating a system that gives young people fair treatment, gives crime victims redress and meets society's protection needs.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the report Improved measures when children are suspected of crimes.

Children and young people, and families, can be in need of support and advice to have a functioning everyday life, because sometimes they do not feel well for various reasons. It can be about mental ill-health. It can be about different types of diagnoses. It can be difficulties for a young person to get to school.

Therefore, clear and good cooperation at a structural level is required for these families. It is about support already at MVC, BVC, preschool, and then school as the young person gets older. But not all children and young people who are not feeling 100 percent well are potentially criminal individuals. It is incredibly important that we remember that when we discuss issues such as these. Sometimes it sounds in the debate as if all children and young people are potentially criminal.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must of course see that today there are very young people with criminal behavior. There is a great need, for both the suspect and the crime victim, that we clarify what actually happened. Who did what? What was the reason? What preceded the crime being committed? Here we are talking about more serious crimes such as murder or aggravated assault.

Even if it concerns young people, we must ensure who is guilty of the crime, otherwise one can continue to believe that an innocent person is guilty. It is just as bad as a guilty person being allowed to go free. I think it is important that we do these things partly so that the crime victim gets justice and has a chance to move on and not place things on their own shoulders, partly so that the young people who have committed these crimes get the support they need.

There are, of course, failures in adult society that can lead to very young people committing these acts. It is about social services not being present as early support. It is about parents who have failed in their capacity to care. It is also about relatives and about school that have not been available to these young people.

I also find it difficult to accept the argument that young people choose to become criminals simply because adult society has failed. It is adult society that has not been available and supported them. I find it difficult to see that 13-year-olds would choose to commit serious crimes if they had felt a sense of hope for the future to be able to become a part of society.

Mr. Speaker! I think it is good that, in light of this committee report, we now move forward with proposals to investigate more crimes committed by young people between 12 and 15 years of age to ensure that they receive the interventions they need and that they might have needed earlier. But we must simultaneously be able to think about the important work that is being done and that needs to be improved within social services to provide support and interventions at an early stage so that the young people do not end up in a situation where adult society has failed.

I hereby move for approval of the government's proposal.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating improved measures when children are suspected of crimes. In many respects, it is both distressing and sad that we need to delve into the subject, but the development of increasingly younger serious criminals demands it.

That children and young people commit crimes is nothing new in itself, but previously it has mostly been about simpler crimes in the form of, for example, theft and property damage. Unfortunately, I must say that what we are now experiencing in the form of gang crime and serious violent crimes has escalated over time.

I was previously the head of the criminal intelligence service in Malmö and Skåne. More than 20 years ago, we conducted a mapping of young criminals in gang environments because we noticed that something was brewing. Many were under 15 years old, and we could state that several of them managed to develop heavy criminality without any actual measures from the side of society. A group that stood out were those who had been reported for nine crimes or more, and several of them we now find as leading figures in the gang criminal environment.

What happened then with our report? Well, it was criticized by criminologists who argued that we exaggerated. The message from them was that some criminal youth gangs were not on the map. Our police leadership got cold feet and did not want to publish the report. What was the reason for that? Over 95 percent of the guys—because it is about young guys—were of foreign origin. It was therefore considered that the risk was too great that we would be branded as xenophobic, even though it was only a situation report and an account of the situation in Malmö.

What we saw in Malmö just over 20 years ago has developed and spread like a cancerous tumor to large parts of our society. A journalist recently tried to capture this development and wrote: "In the new Sweden, there are child soldiers. Teenage boys ready to murder to become someone, for money, to be taken into a gang. Or just for the sake of the thrill, because the killing gives them a kick."

Is it exaggerated? Yes, it can be. He paints with a very broad brush, but there is a grain of truth in this. Reality speaks its clear language. The police estimate today that there are around 30,000 people, many of whom are minors, in the gang criminal environment. In that sense, we are no longer talking about a few.

Let me give some examples.

A 15-year-old is now detained suspected of incitement to terrorist offenses and has what are said to be strong links to IS. The Swedish Security Service has noted and warned of a trend where increasingly younger people are seeking out violent extremism.

In Gävle, there is the gang G15 with about thirty members, most of them underage teenage boys. The gang engages in violent crime, drug offenses, and weapons offenses. Six of them are now charged with murder.

Another example was mentioned here earlier. It concerns a 14-year-old who has fired an automatic weapon here in Stockholm. There have been several shootings with minors involved.

I also want to point out that there are young people who do not want to become criminals but who nevertheless get drawn into this. Some time ago, I met a desperate single mother living in Rosengård in Malmö with her 13-year-old son. She told me that her son had been forced by other guys into cannabis sales and could not withdraw for fear of reprisals. So that variant exists as well. Children are forced to commit crimes, but here we hopefully have legislation that can prevent this by criminalizing the recruitment.

This was only a snapshot of the recent violent crimes committed by minors. The development is similar in large parts of the country. In addition to the serious violent crimes, we also have rowdiness, public order offenses, thefts, robberies involving humiliation, and so on with younger people involved, many under 15 years of age.

We have let it go there because public Sweden has engaged in a kind of denial of fear of being accused of xenophobia and, in the worst case, racism. The problems have been swept under the carpet. Here we can actually speak of a mandated culture of silence, but no one can emphatically claim that there have not been warning signs over the last two decades, and indeed there have been.

When the matter is now debated, one usually ends up trying to find the underlying causes of why children and young people are drawn into crime, which several speakers have touched upon. Exclusion, segregation, socioeconomic factors, and failed schooling are often highlighted as triggering factors. More and more crime prevention measures are proposed.

Mr. Speaker! I like crime prevention measures to the extent that they are effective. The truth is that we in our country have invested in this for decades but unfortunately often with disappointing results.

Everyone knows that the family is of great importance for basic security. Secure families give secure children with good values. Everyone knows that we need well-functioning schools with order and discipline and that children need to be given opportunities for stimulating leisure time. We Christian Democrats work for all of this, but preventive measures often take a long time before they yield visible effects. The question is what we do now, when we have this acute situation.

As I usually say: If the house is on fire, it helps little to reflect on fire prevention measures. First, we must put out the fire. We must take measures against the most violent youths and do everything in our power to get them off the street before they harm or kill more.

To work towards preventing and deterring new recruitment is laudable, and we must, of course, do that moving forward. We have done it, as I said, and we must put in more efforts there. But what do we do with children who, despite that, commit serious violent crimes? What do we do with young boys who become serial killers? What do we do with children who commit serious crimes such as drug offenses or extortion or place explosive devices at properties?

Mr. Speaker! It is not included in the submitted proposal, but for my part, I believe that we must establish special youth courts that handle all crimes committed by young people under 18, even in the case that the age of criminal responsibility remains unchanged. It is important that there are some form of interventions that ensure even perpetrators of violence under 15 are kept off the streets. At present, there is an unfortunate division between the district court and the administrative court when it comes to young people under 15.

Now the government is presenting a number of legislative proposals aimed at changing and improving the regulatory framework for investigations against children suspected of crimes. The proposed changes should have been made much earlier, but it is welcome that the government is now addressing the issue.

With this said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is nothing new that children commit crimes, neither in Sweden nor elsewhere, as it has always occurred. Those who are most active in crime are usually around the age of majority or just above it. What has changed is that crime has become more widespread at younger ages and that it has become increasingly more severe. This is a major problem in our country.

When children have committed crimes, the pattern must be broken. Society and the state need to step in quickly, because it is important that there is a swift consequence when it happens.

Today's matter, the bill, and the decision that I can promise will be made will involve, among other things, that more investigations shall be conducted when non-penal minors, that is, children under 15 years of age, commit crimes. This is good, partly for the crime victims, and partly for those who have committed the crimes. Measures need to be put in place so that the crime does not worsen, which otherwise could quickly become the case.

Mr. Speaker! The parties are in all material respects in complete agreement on the proposals in the bill, which are based on an investigation that the then S-MP government commissioned and which the current right-wing government has continued. There is one exception, which was mentioned earlier by the Left Party member. The Left Party opposes the increased drug tests directed at children. It is, however, a change that the Green Party and other parties support, because it is important to detect drug use and abuse, especially among minors. It is a violation of privacy – let us not sugarcoat that – but there must be a grounded suspicion in these cases. The more children with this problem that we can detect, the more we can also help.

Mr. Speaker! We will not always be as united as in this committee report. The right-wing government will most likely in the future present propositions that we will oppose, not least when it concerns young people who commit crimes. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is one such example. But in this specific committee report, it is well-considered proposals that we from Miljöpartiet stand behind. I therefore move for approval of the proposal in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I cannot help but comment on the debate, or what one should call it, about famine and hunger. If I were to claim that I am shocked by the debate, I would be exaggerating. I am not even surprised. But I do not think many would interpret "shock" as a state of acute circulatory impact resulting in reduced oxygen supply to the tissues, which is actually the meaning of the word. If the word famine has been used at all in the way presented in that debate, I believe in a corresponding way that most are smart enough to understand what the actual meaning is.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Mr. Speaker! "All children have the right to a safe upbringing and every child who is drawn into crime is a societal failure." These words come from the Children's Ombudsman's latest report I had a heavy heart - Early societal interventions to strengthen children and prevent crime.

Previous generations have built up a welfare system in Sweden that we have been immensely proud of. But the extensive gang crime shows that many children and young people fall through the cracks, are drawn into crime, and are exploited by criminal gangs. Today's debate is about the fact that Sweden needs a shift in perspective and that the government is now implementing it. It is about strengthening the victim's perspective, but it is also about ensuring that children and young people in risk zones are caught in time. Children should be given support as early as possible.

For the Liberals, it is crucial that society's interventions become more effective, so that children and young people who are about to be drawn into crime are identified early and clearly. The interventions must also become more legally secure. Equally important is providing support to those children and young people who are victims of other children and young people. The crime that is spreading among so many children and young people in Sweden ruins lives both for the children who are victims of crime and for the children who commit crimes.

It is rarely a surprise to those around them when a young person gets caught up in a criminal lifestyle. The warning lights have often been flashing for a long time. Many of these individuals have grown up in families where the parents have not had the ability to provide care for the children or protect them from violence and abuse. For far too many children, the home, which should be a safe place, has been transformed into a crime scene. In other cases, there are desperate parents who feel powerless in the face of the criminal forces pulling at their children.

Studies from the Agency for Health and Social Care Analysis have shown that similar home conditions can lead to completely different interventions depending on where in the country the child lives. Girls are also granted interventions to a greater extent than boys. Boys with a foreign background are granted interventions to the least extent, which is partly stated to be because their parents to a lesser extent consent to interventions for their sons.

It is important to see the clear connection that children who commit crimes have, to a large extent, themselves been victims of crimes. In Brås school investigation from 2021 on crime, it appears that a majority of the children who state that they have committed crimes during the past year also state that they have been victims of crimes. In the Crime Prevention Council's report Measures against crime and insecurity in socially vulnerable areas, the importance of early crime prevention measures is particularly emphasized to prevent children at a later stage from committing crimes or joining criminal networks. In the report, it is emphasized that effective measures can be implemented at a much earlier stage. Children in risk zones often grow up in families where there have previously been clear risk factors.

It is important to make the seriousness visible when children and young people are suspected of having committed serious crimes and to mark it by having the police investigate the suspicions of crime. The knowledge that emerges in a police investigation helps to clarify what has happened, which is important for both the perpetrator and the crime victim. The investigation can also help to clear children and young people of unjustified suspicions. The investigation can also provide information that is important for the social authorities so that the child can access the correct interventions.

For the Liberals, it is important that the children's rights perspective permeates all legal changes concerning children and young people. Therefore, it is good that the government's changes strengthen the legal protection for children and young people who become subjects of police investigations.

It concerns, not least, the child's right to insight into so-called section 31 investigations. The starting point should be that a child under 15 years of age who is suspected of a crime shall have the same right to insight into the investigation as an adult has in a preliminary investigation.

In addition to the child, the child's legal representative should also have a continuous right to access information in the investigation. Subsequently, if it can be done without prejudice to the investigation, the child shall continuously be given access to what emerges.

Mr. Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of the Child is crystal clear that children must be allowed to speak and be listened to. Children shall also have complicated processes explained to them.

When it comes to young crime victims, it must be improved. It is an important link in the shift in perspective of putting the crime victim at the center. Therefore, it is important that the victim is given the opportunity to obtain legal counsel.

It is important that a complainant is given the same right to assistance and support from a legal representative regardless of whether the suspected perpetrator is over or under 15 years of age. The need for support and assistance is just as great for a complainant who has been subjected to a crime regardless of the age of the person who committed the crime.

The Liberals have long advocated for the issue that a retrial, that is, a review, should be carried out in more serious cases. It is very unusual today for a retrial to be initiated. It is important to emphasize that even in the future, most crimes that children under 15 are suspected of will not be reviewed by a court.

A proof trial shall take place in cases of suspicion of very serious crime. Such an arrangement is judged to be in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to the government, the presumption should cover crimes for which a prison sentence of less than five years is not prescribed.

We must also become better at listening to the children who have been recruited into crime in order to find out which causes and risk factors underlie the serious development we have seen. Then the preventive measures can lead to significantly better accuracy.

Socialstyrelsen's mapping of Reports of children who are harmed or suspected to be at risk 2021 expresses concern for girls in gang environments as a new area. Girls who commit violence, sometimes in groups with other girls, we must obtain increased specific knowledge and research about in order to be able to work preventatively in a significantly better way than today.

In conclusion, I want to say that the questions we are discussing today concern the very most important things for our common future. All children growing up in Sweden have a right to freedom and security. That freedom and security shall apply in the home, at school, in the residential area, and in society as a whole.

I hope that moving forward we can discuss and cooperate across party and bloc boundaries to implement the measures that I believe we are actually in fair agreement on.

We politicians bear a responsibility to ensure that the dreams children carry are realized instead of being extinguished. Children should be met with high expectations and be given the right conditions to reach their full potential. Children and young people should feel that they belong and contribute.

Improved measures when children are suspected of crimes

I therefore move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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