(cont. from § 5) The Judiciary (cont. JuU1)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have gathered again to talk about the justice system's budget. The justice system, together with the defense, is the ultimate guarantor of our open liberal democracy and has the task of protecting people's civil rights and liberties both from crimes committed by individuals and from the arbitrariness or abuse of power of public authority – which is equally important.

Maintaining the rule of law and legal security for all individuals throughout the country – old as young and regardless of gender – is one of the state's core tasks. Organized crime has, however, come to be a threat to our general welfare. Enormous violent crimes and trafficking in drugs, weapons and humans, as well as thefts and fraud, challenge the society and the social contract that we safeguard.

I see an equally unacceptable situation regarding honor-related violence and oppression, violence against children, and men's violence against women. We must also not downplay the damage and suffering that the so-called mass crimes cause for both individuals and small businesses. An increased focus is needed on those who are subjected to crimes.

To solve this task, it is required that society pools its resources. It is required that there are more police officers and that they are given more tools to both prevent and investigate crimes. The law enforcement authorities need to have the right management and mandate. It requires a reinforcement of the entire justice system – from the police, prosecutors and courts to the Prison and Probation Service.

C has been and continues to be positive towards the government's historically large resource increases for the justice system, which now amount to almost 95 billion for 2025. C however argues that these resource increases have so far not yielded the results they should provide.

We see that gross organized crime continues. The prosecution of crimes has not increased significantly, and we see that police stations are being closed down. Small business owners still testify that bulk crimes all too often go under the police's radar, and when they are detected, the investigations are often closed.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has presented a budget so that more jobs will be created, emissions will be lowered, and welfare will function throughout Sweden. We have over 200,000 long-term unemployed and a beginning of high unemployment even for academics. Many children do not see their parents go to work. Young people themselves get no chance for jobs, and society is being torn apart. Our vulnerable areas are becoming increasingly vulnerable, and of course, it also hinders the fight against crime.

In order to be able to invest in the companies that create jobs and in measures for climate and environment, stopped dropouts in school and important investments in the countryside, the Center Party reduces state bureaucracy and skyrocketing costs for administration. The Center Party therefore believes that it is possible to lower the price and wage adjustment made for agencies' management and investment grants by 25 percent. This will have an effect for several agencies within this expenditure area.

We think it is a reasonable requirement that every tax crown is used as efficiently as possible. We are proud when we are addressed as a tax-cutting party, because it is to show respect for the taxpayers. The government's own productivity commission has stated that there is significant potential for productivity increases in the public sector.

Now I come to the various budget items. The Centre Party proposes that funds be redistributed within the Swedish Police Authority so that the core mission – handling violence against women and children, handling large-scale crime, and having a present police force throughout the country – can be further prioritized. Through reprioritizations within the authority, we allocate half a billion to this purpose.

We also want to introduce drones in the countryside to strengthen the police presence in sparsely populated areas that have even sparser police presence. Support for defector activities should also be expanded with a special focus on children, young people, and women. Remember that an evil force must be met by a good force – not by a vacuum.

I have, during the debate, which has been ongoing for some time, read in Dagens Nyheter that the police in Gothenburg are concerned that seven-year-olds are being recruited into gangs. What we know is that almost all who have been recruited into gangs so far have been subjected to or witnessed violence during their childhood. The Tidö government talks about "tough on crime", but these children have already experienced hard measures. One of our country's most important tasks is to protect these seven-year-olds. I still do not want to believe that anyone will propose that they should be put in prison. To be clear: the Center Party is "soft on" seven-year-olds who are being beaten, but we are "tough on" adults who beat children.

Centerpartiet will also say no to the government's announced proposal on lowering the age of criminal responsibility, which is also advocated by the Socialdemokraterna. This means that the appropriation to Kriminalvården is reduced by 11 million kronor in our budget.

We are, however, in favor of an increased investment in crime prevention work, with more adults in primarily vulnerable areas. This is financed through an increase of 250 million kronor of the appropriation for grants for crime prevention work.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party also says no to the government's proposal regarding the buyback of semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. Even if it potentially becomes voluntary, it means that the support for Ukraine decreases, or at least becomes more unclear. That would be wrong of us. The proposal does not make Sweden safer either, as the weapons of hunters and sport shooters are not the ones used by the gangs. Can we establish that, once and for all? They are illegal weapons, and they must be stopped in other ways.

When it comes to the appropriation for Sveriges Domstolar, the Center Party is adding 10 million to achieve faster permit processes. At the same time, we reject the government's proposal for an increased appropriation for environmental permits for new nuclear power, which means a reduced appropriation. It can be handled in the ordinary process.

Finally, the Centre Party considers that the Economic Crime Authority needs to be developed to better meet the rapid crime developments within the economic area. It is gratifying that many are raising this, for it is an important area to meet a very efficient serious organized crime, which finds our weaknesses. We propose that the Economic Crime Authority shall be reorganized into a new specialized agency, Ekokrim, which owns and manages its own resources. This means that the authorities can make better and more efficient prioritizations based on their expertise and experience. We allocate 700 million to this.

Overall, the Center Party's budget means almost 50 million more for the justice system in the coming years than the government's budget.

Mr. Speaker! I want to return to the point that the Center Party means that the enormous resource increases so far have not given the result regarding safety and security that they should give. Some parts are going in the right direction, but far too much is not. What we see going in the right direction is that the number of convicted persons and those detained in detention centers and prisons is increasing. That is naturally good. When we have not succeeded in preventing or deterring the crimes, we must prosecute the guilty, for the crime victims and for the rule of law.

What we see now, however, is that the Prison and Probation Service cannot provide the inmates with the care they need. This is hindered by the fact that the government and the Prison and Probation Service are failing to carry out the expansion of prisons and detention centers that the situation requires. From our side, we have assessed that approximately 30 construction projects need to be underway, given the long project times and the size of the projects. The Prison and Probation Service has 4 underway.

This demonstrates what has been said before and unfortunately deserves to be said again: Laws and budgets from here in the Riksdag are a prerequisite, but without a leadership that delivers based on these prerequisites, it still falls flat. Four years into the mandate period, a great responsibility rests on the government to uphold the rule of law and legal security for all individuals, regardless of gender and old as young, in the entire country. But I am concerned about the satisfaction that the Tidö government and its support party SD show here.

We in the Center Party are not satisfied. Sweden can do better than now and deserves better than now – Sweden deserves a leadership.

I have no motion, but I refer to the Centre Party's specific statement in the report.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have already turned to the Social Democrats' government base in the form of the Left Party. I can already foresee that I will do the same when it comes to another cornerstone of the government base on the left wing, the Green Party. I do not know exactly where I should place the Centre Party in that equation. It still seems to be an open question, even if it perhaps still, as they say, lies in the direction of danger that it is heading in the wrong direction.

I would like to raise a question. When one looks at the Social Democrats' budget proposal as a whole, one sees that it is underfunded by 50 billion. Regarding Vänsterpartiet, if one looks at that proposal as a whole, one sees that there is almost a financial quagmire. It is grants and taxes that are to skyrocket. It is increased taxes on work and entrepreneurship. The property tax is to be reintroduced in one way or another.

A reflection that I fundamentally have in relation to the Center Party is: How does the Center Party see a socialist economic policy being able to provide resources for security and safety? How would the Center Party, in the event that this direction were to be realized in relation to this, be able to resist when Magdalena Andersson, backed by Nooshi Dadgostar, were to prioritize unfunded proposals such as the abolished earned income tax credit?

The 50 billion that it is about is no small amount. It corresponds to the entire police budget. In that case, I have only accounted for the holes in the Social Democrats' budget.

In summary: If the Center Party were to eventually join this left-wing coalition, where would the money come from? Is it from the police, the Prison and Probation Service, the prosecutors, or the courts?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for raising an issue that is clearly important for Sweden's future.

It is clear that there is no united opposition within the criminal justice policy. This has clearly emerged today and previously. I have raised the age of criminal responsibility, where the Social Democrats have a completely different starting point. We have also had it regarding anonymous witnesses. The Center Party stands more for the liberal rule of law, where we do not think this is the right tool.

I also want to thank the Minister for Justice for pointing out that the Center Party takes responsibility for the state budget. We are indeed the only party that does not even use the entire reform space that the government assessed exists, because we believe that sound public finances are important.

We also believe very much in growth. That was why last year's budget was called Jobs jobs jobs. Now it is called More jobs and lower emissions – we are broadening our scope a bit. Growth determines much of the space that a state has.

When it comes to elections and coalitions, each party puts forward its own [proposals], and then a negotiation takes place. The Minister for Justice makes it sound as if it doesn't matter which party within the Tidögänget one votes for. Is that really the case? Can one spin a roulette wheel and choose one of the parties and still always get the same policy?

We in the Center Party seek confidence for our policies. It is about jobs becoming more numerous, emissions going down, and welfare in the countryside functioning. We are a liberal party. We stand up for a liberal justice policy.

Our prime ministerial candidate until the election is Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that many citizens, like myself, are curious about who will be the prime ministerial candidate after the election. It will have a very significant impact on how Swedish politics develops during the coming four or eight years.

I really appreciate the Center Party's grip on the jobs, the jobs, the jobs. The problem is just that in that company which in any case looks like a possible exit – I still don't want to believe it will go that badly – it is not the jobs, the jobs, the jobs that are the payoff, so to speak, but it is the tax, the tax, the tax and the benefits, the benefits, the benefits. If you look at the budgets, you see that it is the holes, the holes, the holes.

Let us broaden the perspective and look outside of the criminal justice policy, where it is obvious that it is splintering in all directions and corners on the left side of politics. This is, of course, already concerning when we are now talking about safety and security and when we look at the future. To that, we can additionally add the enormous leftward shift that seems to be occurring in politics in general on the left side. A radicalization of economic policy is occurring to the left.

It has been a very long time since one heard anyone speak about the importance of work for tax revenues to increase and for prosperity to grow. It is striking when one looks at budgets that are actually very sloppy. Even the Social Democrats, who have nevertheless distinguished themselves as a governing party, have a hole of 50 billion. It is quite eye-opening.

To that, we can add the rest of the left-wing basis. If we just say, for the sake of discussion, that the policy in these specific issues has shifted a bit more towards the government's side, we can probably say that a radicalization to the left is occurring in the policy otherwise.

My fundamental question is this: How can a socialist economic policy ever be able to deliver the resources required for both welfare and many other pressing social purposes as well as for the justice system? And what significance does it have for the Center Party's choice of path regarding the question of who should be Prime Minister after the election?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the Minister for Justice is talking about what is important for the country, such as jobs and growth.

Speaking of belonging to a team, I have a bit of difficulty remembering whether it was the old Moderates or the New Moderates, as we have historically had very much in common regarding the work ethic and the growth policy. People should work; it is good for the country.

That is why we in opposition, with some disappointment, have seen that the Moderaterna have done nothing regarding the employer contributions for the long-term unemployed, young people, or low-wage earners. We know that this is something that the business community is requesting. When they came to power, they raised the employer contribution for young people only to now, in an election year, lower it again over the course of a year.

We know that jobs are a very important part economically, especially for the young, who we unfortunately often discuss when it comes to justice policy. When I became the justice policy spokesperson, I did not think I would talk so much about the young and about the children – about seven-year-olds who are feared to be drawn into this.

It means that we need to have an economic policy that focuses on this. We have seen projects where young people get jobs. There are projects where the police are involved so that people can get employment. One cannot fight an evil force with a vacuum; it must be a good force. We must recruit these people into the good society, and we see that jobs are very important.

Jobs create growth. Jobs create a larger cake to share. It is good for welfare, for Sweden as a country, and for personal respect and integrity. I hope that the giant-new Moderaterna return to the growth center. It is in the center that we find the growth policy in Swedish politics, not on the outer edges.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! The question is what is most important: how much money the police receive in their budget or what one does with the money, that is, what results one delivers. In my world, the results will always be more important than the budget itself, even though I understand that the two are linked. My friends in economics get quite angry when I say so, but for me, the results will always be what one should measure and what one should judge an agency by.

I have always said that one can determine a government's interest in a certain policy or a certain policy area by looking at what its budget looks like. If we look at the sitting government, we see that it allocates almost 95 billion to the justice system, of which 48 billion go to the police. It is a significant offensive investment in the justice system that shows that one means business when saying that one truly wants to combat the problems we have here in the country with shootings, explosions, women living in fear, children who are forced or lured into crime, theft gangs, open drug scenes, and far too many reports of rape. Safety shall be restored, and streets and squares shall be cleared of those individuals who want to destroy the freedom of ordinary honest people.

When we talk about the budget for the justice system, which we are doing here today, I am always fascinated by how certain parties beat their chests and claim that they are indeed investing so and so many millions more than the government does on a certain activity or a certain direction. What one should ask oneself in such investments is whether they are the right investments and whether that is how one gets the best results for the money.

This government is making its assessment. I think it is well-balanced and that the money is correctly distributed. I am, of course, extra pleased that the Police Authority in particular receives so much money in the budget – 48 billion, which is more than ever before.

I actually believe that all Ministers of Justice want happy and satisfied police officers, because they know that happy and satisfied police officers often do a good job. What is it then that affects the police's mood? It is, for example, what they receive in salary, what compensation they have, and how many weekends and nights they have to work. They think about whether they can get vacation for the summer. Is there money for education and further training? Can that old police car be replaced? New technology is needed, such as cameras, drones, computers, and mobile phones. Is there money for that? The uniform breaks – can it be replaced? That is what police think about, because it affects their everyday lives.

The answers to the police's questions are in the budget that the government presents. The police authority only receives a sum of money. From that, one cannot just manage which activities to conduct but also what the police's working environment will be. It should hopefully be as good as possible. If there is no money, training must take a backseat. If the raincoat is broken, you have to use duct tape. A tired old Volvo with sunken seats will have to suffice for one more year.

With this government's budget, I believe that we will see reasonably happy and satisfied police officers next year – well-educated and in full uniforms, hopefully also with an updated vehicle fleet.

Mr. Speaker! With a high budget come demands. In addition to the obvious – that crime should decrease and people's safety increase – the government is clear that it wants to see the police show results. There shall be more locally present police officers, so-called area police, and the preventive work of creating relationships and building trust shall increase.

One also wants to see a better clearance rate and better investigation results when it comes to volume crimes, the so-called everyday crimes. Violence in close relationships shall continue to be prioritized. One wants the work against organized crime, with shootings, explosions and recruitment of young people, also to continue to rank high in the prioritization.

What is being talked about most in the debate today is gang shootings and organized crime. I must take the opportunity to say something about the American mafia legislation RICO.

I have been on-site in New York and studied the RICO legislation with both the New York police and the federal agency FBI. I understand what is intended when one mentions RICO. It is, however, a very complicated legislation that is difficult to apply to the Swedish criminal networks. There is so much that must be fulfilled. Law enforcement in the USA has also not succeeded in solving the problems with organized crime and the mafia with the RICO legislation. What has been possible to influence are the criminal MC gangs, but that is because of their actual structure.

Instead of calling it mafia legislation, I think one should look at existing legislation and see how it can be tweaked. One can, among other things, look at how one can utilize instigators and accomplices much more and in that way bring the collective together. One must definitely look more at how the Economic Crime Authority can work. It is about going after the money, which this government has actually understood now. Take the money and the proceeds of crime – then it is no longer fun to commit crimes!

When the Social Democrats say that one is looking at mafia legislation, it almost makes it sound as if this government is not looking at being able to punish the collective. The government does. I am glad that it feels like it spans from right to left and that we want to achieve something that we can at least call mafia legislation. This government wants that as well.

One must not forget that the work against organized crime is difficult. When the police move forward their positions and become more effective, the criminals see to it that they duck and find other ways to earn money. Today we also see how more and more people in leading positions within the criminal networks are no longer active in Sweden but are located abroad, not infrequently in slightly less democratic countries where it is difficult for the law enforcement authorities to establish a cooperation.

I must really praise the police and also the Minister for Justice for the work that has been done to improve the channels, for today we see good results. The police assess that a few hundred gang criminals are hiding abroad, several of whom hold leading positions, and it is precisely the leaders – the tops, those who rule – that it is important to get hold of. And that is now being achieved to an ever greater extent. Recently, there have been arrests and extraditions from countries where we previously did not see it happening.

Now it has become difficult to be a criminal, not only in Sweden but also abroad. The hunt for the gang leaders is ongoing, and it happens 24 hours a day, every day of the week. And it will not stop until we have caught them all.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To fight crime, to work preventatively to prevent crimes from being committed and to ensure that those who nevertheless commit crimes are punished but also get a real chance to return to a life free from criminality is one of society's most important tasks.

If people do not experience that society helps them when they are subjected to crime, an important part of the social contract is broken. We must ensure that this does not happen. Regardless of which crime someone is subjected to, society must be there. The police shall receive reports and investigate, and the person who has committed the crime shall be punished for it.

Society must work even harder to try to prevent something similar from happening again. For this to be possible, real resources must be invested in the preventive work, both the basic preventive work, such as the school must function for all children, and the more targeted preventive work, when there is reason to suspect that a child is heading in the wrong direction.

There are examples of projects that have shown good results, and more municipalities should be given the opportunity to work with them. We also need more visible police on the street to prevent, for example, shoplifting, and we must work more with effective secondary prevention so that as few as possible commit crimes again.

In our budget motion, we have tried to cover all these aspects.

Mr. Speaker! We must stop the gangs' recruitment of young people. Otherwise, we will never get a handle on the violence. We know that children under 15 who are investigated for serious crimes have an extensive profile of problems with several risk factors. A large proportion of these children have a previously established psychiatric diagnosis. They have exhibited high aggression and low impulse control, and they have extensive school absence.

Many have also grown up in an area with socioeconomic challenges and live with a single parent or parents who lack sufficient parenting skills. Furthermore, nearly nine out of ten children were already known to social services before they committed the first crime.

It is completely obvious that almost all children who commit crimes early in life have exhibited risk behaviors regarding recruitment into criminality and that both the school and social services are aware of this. There are therefore great opportunities to catch these children and their families even before the first crime is committed, through better agency cooperation and more support for the affected families.

In Denmark, the number of gang criminals has decreased by a third over ten years. It is not primarily harsher punishments, visitation zones, or a lowered age of criminal responsibility that have produced that effect; instead, researchers highlight long-term social interventions as the strongest contributing factors.

In Denmark, a model is used that identifies children with various risk factors regarding involvement in gang crime at an early stage. The children included in the model are then flagged by social workers, teachers, and contact persons. They are provided with follow-up support and guidance over several years.

Even in Sweden, there are successful initiatives for children in the risk zone, such as the crime-preventive and individually tailored program Rätt kurva. There are also projects run, for example, by the foundation Idéer för livet. More municipalities must be given the opportunity to work in that way, and Miljöpartiet wants to accelerate the work of spreading and developing methods to catch and support children at an early stage who risk being drawn into crime.

It is important that the state is involved in financing these methods and that the efforts do not stop at temporary projects but are given sufficient and long-term resources. Therefore, we are making a major investment of 1 billion kronor per year in addition to what the government has allocated to achieve results in crime prevention work and to address the recruitment of children and young people.

Mr. Speaker! A person who is subjected to a crime is often simultaneously subjected to a trauma, which can leave marks in their own body, in the person's self-esteem, and in their security in everyday life. That crime victims receive redress is one of the justice system's most important tasks. As a society, we need to ensure that crime victims and their relatives receive support and clear information.

To strengthen the position of crime victims, Miljöpartiet wants to review the system for compensation and support for crime victims. This applies in particular to young people and persons who have been subjected to violence in close relationships, sexual crimes, and honor crimes.

The state must also take greater responsibility for collecting damages and providing crime compensation. It should not rest on the crime victim, who is already in a vulnerable situation. In our budget, there is a reinforcement of 138 million kronor annually for this, in addition to what the government has allocated.

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Sweden's detention centers and institutions is acute. The overcrowding increases the risk of threats and violence both between inmates and against staff, and the rapid expansion risks worsening the quality of care and the work on preventing recidivism.

The Prison and Probation Authority's own calculations, based on the government's pursued policy, show that the number of places in detention centers and prisons needs to more than double over the next ten years. At the same time, the staffing density is to be significantly reduced, despite the fact that high staffing density and staff with solid knowledge and experience is a prerequisite for both reducing recidivism and creating a good environment in detention centers and prisons for both staff and inmates.

We welcome that Kriminalvården receives additional funds for increased capacity. However, the conditions for Kriminalvården to grow, develop, and improve become significantly worse with the government's extensive criminal law reforms, which will lead to prisons being filled at a faster rate than Kriminalvården can reasonably handle.

This is counterproductive. Instead, we want to reduce the burden on the staff, for example by letting more people serve their sentence with electronic monitoring and strengthening the Prison and Probation Service's conditions to work with rehabilitation and desistance programs so that fewer recidivate.

We do not stand behind the government's proposal on youth prisons, or perhaps rather youth wards in prisons, and neither do we support the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years.

We will analyze the proposed sentencing increases more closely, but I can already say that we have a more restrictive view on such far-reaching changes in the view on punishment as are now proposed in the investigation that recently arrived.

Punishment for those who commit crimes is a self-evident and important part of crime prevention, but punishment must be reasonable and proportionate and lead to a life without crime. We do not see that the government's proposals on harsher sentences, youth prisons, and the age of criminal responsibility live up to that purpose. Many of the criminal justice proposals that the government is now presenting lack support in research and have been met with extensive criticism from authorities, academia, and civil society.

At the same time, the Prison and Probation Service is in a strained position and needs increased support to finance the expansion of prisons and detention centers, reduce double occupancy, hire and train more staff, and strengthen the inmates' opportunities for rehabilitation and care. Therefore, in our budget motion, we maintain the government's proposed initiatives, but we do not stand behind exactly the policy that the government has signaled.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not object, but that we have a specific statement in the report.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet can be said to be the party that, alongside the Social Democrats, forms the core of a red-green government cooperation. Every red-green government cooperation since 1998 has included just Miljöpartiet.

I note that Miljöpartiet opposes many of the sentencing increases that have been announced. I respect that we may have different opinions and that we analyze needs and conditions differently. A good portion of the announced sentencing increases will come into force already during this parliamentary term, but there will also remain reforms that come into force later.

The expansion of the Prison and Probation Service with associated budget reinforcements is partly a result of the development of crime and the increasing effectiveness of crime fighting. But it is also an effect of the government's reforms within the field of criminal law.

I noted that the member in her speech said that she will analyze more closely the sentencing increases that the government proposes, but that she can already state that Miljöpartiet has a very restrictive view on the far-reaching changes in the view on sentencing that are now being proposed.

My question to Ulrika Westerlund is possibly hypothetical, but I still think the voters deserve an answer. How will Miljöpartiet act in relation to the proposed reforms? It is partly about the issue at hand. In what way will you, in the cooperation with the Socialdemokraterna, oppose the reforms? That was the first question.

The second question is: How does Miljöpartiet view the relationship to budget funds? These reforms cost quite a bit, and I can imagine that Miljöpartiet would rather increase aid.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damsgaard, for the questions!

Our view is that crime policy should be conducted in a way that is effective. Increased penalties have no intrinsic value. We also stood behind a number of increased penalties when we sat in government earlier with the Social Democrats. It is not the case that Miljöpartiet always says no to all increased penalties, but rather it depends on whether one believes that they will have an effect. If one does not believe that they have any effect, then there is no point in working with just increased penalties.

That is what the wording in our budget motion refers to; we have not yet had time to take a position on all the proposed sentencing increases that are in the SOU titled En straffreform. We will look at them carefully. It may very well lead to us considering that some of them fulfill their purpose and will lead to a society with less crime and less criminality, which of course is what we all want. There may also be sentencing increases that we do not believe will lead to this.

Miljöpartiet has always tried to take great consideration of what various expert agencies and researchers think about different measures. This autumn, I organized a seminar with a number of criminologists which began with a somewhat provocative question. A student of one of the researchers had asked the researcher if he believed there was any point in studying and researching within criminology because the politicians did not seem to care about what the researchers do at all and what they come to.

Teresa was at the seminar. Statistics were shown there indicating that all governments, regardless of color, over several decades had followed the path of increased penalties rather than anything else, while the research showed that this perhaps does not have just the effect that we desire.

We want to conduct a justice policy and a crime policy that has an effect in such a way that crime decreases. I will have to return to parts of the answers to the other questions that the member asked me in my next speech.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for clear answers!

I think it is clearly evident that the Environment Party's enthusiasm for making tightenings in criminal law is limited. One would prefer to see both money and reform effort being allocated to other areas.

From the perspective of the Moderates and the government, we see that there is a need to tighten the penalties in a wide range of areas. Those who commit crimes must be imprisoned so that ordinary, honest people dare to be out. But here we have a different view than the Green Party.

The question is: How will Miljöpartiet act in a potential future cooperation? Will Miljöpartiet lie flat? Or will you demand that a future government does not move forward with or stop these types of reforms? It could then be both about wanting something different in substance and about creating budget space for other types of reforms, such as aid or other things, which are more prioritized for Miljöpartiet.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has a lack of enthusiasm for political measures that have no effect; that is entirely correct.

We do not think that one should conduct symbol politics or propose measures that, according to research, do not achieve the results that one wants to accomplish. We try to conduct crime policy and other policies in a way that science and proven experience, including political experience, show has an effect.

Sometimes it can be increased penalties, and sometimes it is not. Increased penalties in themselves have no intrinsic value for us – that is the truth. But we have a very great enthusiasm for conducting politics that ensures we get a better society, and that also applies in the criminal policy area.

I received a question that the member himself said was perhaps a bit hypothetical. It was about how the Green Party will eventually act. We will, of course, not lie down. I do not think any party would answer that they will lie down regardless of what proposals are put before them.

We will analyze proposals coming from different parties that we may potentially enter into a government cooperation with and see which proposals we think are best. Then, as always, one has to discuss, set different proposals against each other and see what we will be able to agree on.

The question of aid has come up here several times, and I find that interesting. We are in an incredibly turbulent time, and I think it is remarkable that it is then considered problematic that a party wants to prioritize aid. We are only two parties in this Riksdag that still stand up for the one percent goal.

Let us try to lift our gaze and see what is happening around the world! For example, due to the Trump administration's actions, millions of people will die as a result of a policy of withdrawn aid from the USA. It is aid that would have gone to maternal healthcare, HIV prevention, and other things. We think that is bad. Aid is definitely a priority issue for Miljöpartiet, but it is not our only issue.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first express my appreciation for Ulrika Westerlund's substantive approach in the political debate, and this debate is no exception.

It is inherent in the nature of the matter that the Moderates and the Green Party do not always agree on the content of the policy. The Green Party is a cornerstone of the Social Democrats' government support, and against that background, I think it is important to raise some issues.

I would, above all, like to point out that since October 1 of this year, it is finally possible for the police to use secret and preventive coercive measures also in relation to children under the age of 15. The police have requested this for a long time. Speaking of research, the Crime Prevention Council has also requested this for a longer period specifically as a key measure to be able to break the recruitment and reach the leadership levels that control and direct the children's mobile phones.

We know from experience that precisely the preventive element in the use of coercive measures is absolutely crucial to being able to stop and prevent the violence. Nevertheless, Miljöpartiet voted no to just this point, i.e., that law enforcement authorities were given a tool to intervene before it is too late. It is about stopping the children from committing serious crimes and preventing them from acting on the instructions they receive on their phones from those who are behind and directing and controlling, and thereby preventing them from destroying both their own lives and the lives of others.

My questions against that background are quite simple and straightforward. If one truly cares about prevention – why did Miljöpartiet then vote no to this? How would it have turned out if Miljöpartiet had sat in a government and had the bill in front of them when it had been finalized? Will Miljöpartiet work to ensure that this is overturned in the future?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the question!

I tried to guess which of our positions in this area would be of particular interest, and I guessed correctly. I printed out our follow-up motion on this area.

You who were here during the debate may remember that I tried to explain our different considerations in the matter. The content of our follow-up motion and the reason why we voted no to the government's bill is that we felt that the investigation which formed the basis for the proposal had a good proposal, but that the government went too far for it to be proportionate.

It is not always just yes or no, but it can be about how and to what extent one is allowed to use secret and preventive measures. This is an issue where the referral bodies were quite divided. A number of referral bodies, for example a number of children's rights organizations, said that they thought the investigation's proposals were good. But when the government's proposal then came, they no longer thought it was proportionate.

That is often how it is, quite simply. It is not black or white. One must ask: Should we do it this way, or should we absolutely not do it this way? We might do it this way, but exactly how should we do it to safeguard different societal interests that are often pitted against each other?

It is this that we often talk about here in the chamber. We want to fight crime – of course. Everyone wants that. We also want to stand up for the rule of law, for the individual's privacy, for the proportionality in our system and so on. That was the reason why our follow-up motion received this design.

We have not discussed whether this is something we will fight to overturn. It is rarely meaningful to pursue politics in that way. We would like this to be evaluated, to see how it has worked and so on. It may be something that comes up in any future discussions.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think this captures a bit of the essence of what I want to get across. If we are now truly going to work preventively, if we now largely have a new problem picture that means we must make major shifts in everything from the interaction between school, social services, and the police in the work against the recruitment of children to how we work with other means, it is very typical that central actors in the left-wing alternative, at best, will get 70–75 percent of the way. If one were to systematize that approach in relation to this problem picture, we would not have much systemic power to break the recruitment.

It is quite true that we chose to go one step further. The original proposal was about only being allowed to use secret coercive measures within the framework of preliminary investigations. In that case, it is inherent in the nature of the matter that for children under 15 who are not of criminal responsibility, it concerns a completely different environment if it is only to be about coercive measures in relation to suspicions of crime.

The whole point is to not intervene in hindsight once the crime has been committed, but to intervene in advance to prevent and preclude children from being drawn into this criminality in the first place. These are therefore not tools aimed primarily at the children, but this is absolutely crucial for intervening in advance against those who organize and direct and control.

Another observation, regarding the importance of clarifying what different government options one has with ten months left until the election, is that the left side in this specific issue managed to take three distinct positions. I am pleased that the Socialdemokraterna voted for it. I note that Miljöpartiet came halfway, or 60 percent, of the way by saying no to the preventive element. Vänsterpartiet said no, probably no, no, no, to all parts of the proposal.

So that is also how the choice looks when we look forward: full speed ahead against organized crime and against those who recruit, or half speed ahead and the problem picture at best at the same level as until now.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now, that was more of an exposition from the Minister for Justice on the view on crime policy, I perceived. I did not quite perceive any concrete question.

We have tried to provide a brief overview of how we have positioned ourselves regarding various proposals in the area. There are very many, and we have tried to clarify our position:

Reduced sentencing for young people in cases of serious crime – I stand behind it.

Tighter penalties for crimes in criminal networks – stands behind certain parts.

Secret coercive measures – stand behind certain parts.

Preventive ban on contact – stands behind certain parts.

Visitation zones – no.

Measures for safer residential areas – supports certain parts.

Better opportunities to carry out deprivation of liberty – stand behind.

Clearer provisions on hate speech – stands behind.

Preventive measures – stands behind certain parts.

And so on. It often sounds like this.

The reason for this with "stands behind certain parts" is that we have not participated in the negotiations. We have had to take a position on a proposal with a certain design that has been placed on our table, which of course happens when one is in opposition. Had we been part of the negotiation, we might have been able to participate in twisting the proposals a bit and then gotten through something that we considered good and that took into account the various interests that are on the table when we are working on crime policy but also other policies.

It is very difficult to judge exactly how the design would have become. It is not natural science we are dealing with, and there are very many different opinions, not just on the left side. Among researchers and debaters of different political colors, there are different opinions. We try to take in all the wise viewpoints that come from different knowledgeable people when we design our policy, and so it will also be in the case of a potential negotiation in a government position. That is as clear as I can be.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! During the years 2012–2022, the lethal gun violence in Sweden tripled. The authorities estimate that the criminal economy grew to an annual turnover of 100–150 billion kronor. The gangs' recruitment was pushed further and further down in age.

At the same time, it is obvious that our society was not at all prepared to meet this development. Crime fighting did not receive the tools it needed. The penalties were too low and not designed to counter the emergence of criminal networks. The preventive work in various parts of society also proved to be completely inadequate.

The justice system has also not been sufficient for all the other things – the sexual crimes, the honor violence, the frauds, the youth robberies, the shoplifting and the burglaries. All of this is rooted in political negligences. It is impossible to escape the misjudgments that were made and the political paralysis that prevailed during the eight years that the Social Democrats ruled and the very serious consequences that this had for the safety in our country.

It was also against that background that we received the voters' mandate to get Sweden in order, and that was how the situation looked when we entered Rosenbad.

Mr. Speaker! In three years, we have rolled out a historically extensive overhaul of the policy. It is, of course, about several different things in relation to organized crime – to strike hard against the gangs' gross violence, to choke the criminal economy, to break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs and, not least, to reach all those gang leaders who hide abroad.

We see now that it matters what one does. It also matters that things are being done. New tools, gang laws, and resources are starting to bite. The shootings have so far this year more than halved in comparison with the same period of the dark record year 2022. The clearance of the most serious gang-related crimes has doubled. More serious crimes are prevented, and we now have the highest police density in modern times. Police growth is also now occurring close to the citizens, out at the very ends of the capillaries.

We are now also finally apprehending, one by one, those gang leaders who hide abroad and from there direct and control the violence, the recruitment, and the frauds.

Mr. Speaker! We are, therefore, on the right track, but we are far from finished. We still have levels of violence that no decent society can live with. The conflict levels in the gangs are high, the violence capital extensive, and the ruthlessness and negligence great. Beneath the surface, the risk of new acts of violence and new spirals of violence is also constantly bubbling.

We already said before the election that it will take a long time to reverse the development. We have seen that in other countries such as Denmark and in cities like New York it has taken perhaps ten, sometimes fifteen years to reverse the development. We are three years into Sweden's ten-year journey. The decisive thing now is that we do not turn back to a time when nothing or far too little was done, but continue forward and do not yield an inch from the course.

The extensive investments in the justice system that we have begun must continue. It is about organized crime, but I want to emphasize that the large investments now being made in the justice system are also largely about ensuring that organized crime does not push out other very pressing tasks, such as combating violence against women or combating the crime that affects citizens in everyday life.

The Government proposes that the justice system shall be allocated nearly 95 billion kronor in 2026. With this budget, we move from 69 billion in 2023 to 108 billion in 2028. It is an increase of 57 percent.

The initiatives are based on four clear priorities: firstly, extensive sentencing increases, not least for gang-related crime; secondly, stricter rules for children and young people who commit crimes as well as better support for those children who are convicted of crimes or risk being drawn into criminality; thirdly, stricter measures against men's violence against women as well as honor-related violence and oppression; and fourthly, reforms to strengthen support for crime victims.

When it comes to the increased penalties, it is undoubtedly about a shift in perspective where we shift the focus from the perpetrator to the focus on the crime victim's redress and for society's need of protection against serious crime.

Among the proposals that the government places before the Riksdag and which we take into account in the budget are double penalties for crimes related to criminal networks. There are tightenings of about fifty sentencing scales, ranging from crimes against persons to serious economic crime and crimes against the state. There is an opportunity to sentence those who commit several very serious violent or sexual crimes to life imprisonment, even if it would not be included in the sentencing scale for the individual crime. A new indeterminate custodial sentence is introduced, and we tighten the rules for parole, among other things by raising the proportion of the sentence that must be served in an institution before parole from two-thirds to three-quarters for those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for six years or more.

It is a reality, Mr. Speaker, that serious crime has been pushed further and further down into the younger age groups. It is obvious that today's system does not work for either the prevention or the management of young offenders. It is also therefore why we are restructuring the entire order – everything from the crime prevention work to the crime-fighting work.

We are tightening the penalties for young offenders, and we intend to proceed with a proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility for serious crimes. The youth prisons shall be ready by July 1, 2026.

These are measures that are important for protecting society and for increasing the redress of crime victims, but these are also measures that are crucial so that children and young people who fall victim to gang recruitment shall have better opportunities than today to break a criminal path.

At the same time, it is obvious that a completely new approach is required when it comes to preventing and stopping children and young people from being drawn into crime. That is why the government is restructuring the preventive work regarding social services, schools, and parental responsibility. A new Social Services Act has been in place since last summer, and now the government is working full-scale on more proposals for new tools for social services. Next year, the government will allocate a total of 8.2 billion kronor for crime prevention work. Of those, 6.8 billion will go in various ways toward work with children and young people.

Madam Speaker! Men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression must be combated with full force. This applies to violence in various forms; the physical violence, of course, but also psychological violence and economic violence. Now we are making major investments to strengthen the protection and the redress for those who are subjected to that type of crime.

A new crime, psychological violence, is proposed to be introduced. This entails a strengthened criminal law protection against, among other things, economic violence, controlling behaviors, as well as honor-related violence and oppression.

Madam Speaker! It is also important that it should become easier for crime victims to receive help and redress after having been subjected to a crime. Crime victims should be able to receive their crime compensation directly from the state without first having to claim the compensation directly from their perpetrator. We also introduce a special function to support crime victims who have been affected by serious crime involving destruction of housing, for example an explosion outside the home or terrorist crimes. So we strengthen the right to a victim's counsel.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say a few words regarding the overcrowding situation in institutions and prisons. That it is so strained is primarily due to the fact that the expansion of the correctional services began far too late. Now we are correcting this, and we are doing the right thing. We are expanding the correctional services significantly. The large expansion shall continue. Between 2023 and 2028, the Kriminalvården's appropriation is estimated to increase from 14.1 to 31.5 billion kronor. That is an increase of 123 percent.

Everything we do is about making Sweden a safer, freer, and more secure country. We are on the right path, but we are far from finished. With barely a year until the election, Sweden, Swedish citizens, and Swedish voters face a crossroads. That crossroads has also been clarified in the debate we have had today regarding the budget: Either make a proper turn to the left with associated paralysis, not least because opinions differ so greatly between the parties on the left side, or continue forward toward a safer, freer, and fairer Sweden.

The choice of path is either to retreat to the politics that caused, or in any case worsened, a long series of the problems we are now talking about, or to continue forward according to the course we have now embarked upon, where we see that new tools, new ways of working, and new resources are really starting to take effect.

We want to work for a Sweden where hard work pays off, where crime is punished and where responsible citizens can feel faith in the future and security. It is a Sweden where we can trust the state and each other; a Sweden that we can be proud of.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the presentation. I also thank the Minister for Justice for participating in the debate. It is commendable that we are given the opportunity to ask questions.

When teenagers and young children are recruited into criminal gangs, it is a societal failure. Society has failed to protect the children. The Government and the Sweden Democrats respond by proposing that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered to 13 years and that it should be possible to imprison children.

The proposal has been cut to pieces by almost all instances that have some form of knowledge and insight into criminal law issues. It also conflicts with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Sweden was one of the first countries to sign. A number of children's rights organizations are critical, for example Rädda Barnen, the Children's Ombudsman, and Bris. Researchers and several heavy authorities have rejected the proposal and are deeply critical, for example the Prosecution Authority, the Police Authority, the Swedish Courts Administration, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service.

Research shows that lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not reduce crime among children. There is no evidence for it. On the contrary, there is a risk that crime will increase instead. This is the wrong path to take. Why is the government not listening to authorities, researchers, and children's rights organizations and throwing the proposal in the trash?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The answer to the question of how we should prevent 13-, 14-, 15-, 16- or 17-year-olds from committing serious crimes is, naturally, not about incarceration. But then it is interesting that the answer from the Left Party to the policy we are presenting to work preventively and proactively – more offensive tools for the social services, removed confidentiality barriers and reformed legislation regarding LVU – is to also say no there. You say no to everything that concerns restructuring the preventive work in such a way that in the future we will not have 13-, 14-, 15- and 16-year-olds who commit such serious crimes.

My hope is that we will get a majority for the major reorganization, the major reforming of the crime prevention work, so that we can prevent crime in a completely different way than today. I say it again, namely that those who today are 15, 14 or 13 years old were thus five, four or three years old ten years ago. The Left Party's line is that we should continue exactly as so far, perhaps inject a few million into the same thing which obviously has not been able to change the picture. It is therefore not our line, but we want to carry out a huge reforming of the crime prevention work.

Then we cannot get around the fact that we can end up in a situation where young people still commit serious crimes. It is about when the interventions have not yielded the intended results. Then I want to take this from the other side, and it is, in itself, a reform that the Left Party also says no to – I also heard earlier that the Green Party heard it, I actually didn't know that. It concerns the transition to youth prison for 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds. Why do we make that shift? Well, because the state youth care has shown itself to reproduce criminality, when over 90 percent of those who end up there and have connections to the gangs who are sentenced to closed youth care re-offend in serious crime.

When school activities are broken, the treatments are broken and the leisure activities do not measure up, it is clear that we must consider whether other young people who commit really serious crimes should also be subject to the interventions that have broken down or possibly become part of a new order where we have the opportunity to break the destructive patterns.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers.

The government's policy actually undermines the preventive work. You are not investing what is needed in welfare, in schools, and in municipalities and regions so that they can employ more teachers, counselors, psychologists, social workers, and so on to meet these children, who truly need support and help. You do the opposite, Gunnar Strömmer. You cut back on welfare. The truly preventive work is to ensure that we get a strong welfare that can meet these needs.

I want to return to the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility. I do not think I received a proper answer to my question.

The heavy referral bodies – the police, the Prison and Probation Service, the Swedish Courts Administration, the Prosecution Authority, among others – are extremely critical, as I mentioned earlier. Why are you not listening to these experts? It does not help to put 13-year-olds in prison. It has the opposite effect.

We can look at Denmark. They lowered the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14 years. Then youth crime increased, because the gangs instead started recruiting even younger people. Then they went back to the original proposal. Why are you not looking at this? Why are you not listening to the experts and the research in the field and ensuring that you do not proceed with this proposal?

Of course, we must handle the children who commit the truly serious crimes. But we must do it in a different way. We must ensure that these children are given a way out of crime and a way into society instead. They shall receive support and help for this. One must have staff who have the right competence and the right education to meet those children's needs.

It is clear that there must be consequences for committing these absolutely most serious crimes, which have been committed. But the way forward is not to put children in prison and to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! So far this year, there are just over 50 children under the age of 15 who are the subject of a detention order and have been involved in murder and attempted murder and in other ways in that type of crime.

I hear Lotta Johnsson Fornarve tell what she does not want and that we should take care of them in a different way. Tell then which way it is!

These are children who have already been the subject of a long series of interventions, which have not proven to have an effect. They have been part of a merry-go-round of placements and home placements according to LVU, Sis-placements, and other types. They are part of a system that is so bad that we do not think that 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds should be a part of it; instead, we break them out and establish new youth departments, which shall be run by Kriminalvården.

School activities are being built there, treatment activities are being built, and facilities for children's leisure activities are being built. This is done in light of the fact that the old system, which Lotta Johnsson Fornarve really wants us to press on these 13- and 14-year-olds who have committed serious crimes, has failed for the 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds.

The Danish reference is not uninteresting. I hear it often. But we have listened to the research, and we have looked at Denmark. What was done in Denmark was a general lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years. We can wonder against which problem picture it was done. I do not know.

We do not have that problem picture. We have no interest in lowering the age of criminal responsibility generally. We have a very specific problem. It is these roughly 50 children, the 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds and others, who are involved in very serious crime. Our system on the social side is built for completely different tasks and is not sufficient there.

What is almost even worse are the children who are pushed out of state youth care, care according to LVU and foster homes, when all social resources must now be redirected toward precisely this group. I heard someone say that we should not throw children who are in the risk zone into prison. No, we should not do that. The problem is just that there are no resources to work with the children who are in the risk zone, because those resources are now directed toward completely different ones.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! In this exchange, I did not intend to bring up this matter regarding the prime ministerial candidates. SVT had, as recently as last night, a debate between their prime ministerial candidates: Andersson and Åkesson. I felt that it might perhaps be a bit too sensitive to bring up.

I am also not going to bring up this matter of reconciling the politics. On the Day of the Convention on the Rights of the Child here in the Riksdag, members from both KD and the Liberals were among those who raised their hands against a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. It is not entirely easy to reach a consensus and put together a law every time.

What I intend to speak about is the correctional services. We agree on the budget regarding this, we agree that youth prisons are a good idea from 15 years and upwards, and we agree on the increased penalties that have occurred.

What raises questions is the workshop when it comes to building more institutions. The Minister of Justice and the undersigned have discussed this previously. We now have just under 10,000 places in detention centers and institutions, and it is said here that we are to go up to 30,000. My assessment is then that it concerns approximately 15,000 new places, as I calculate.

Right now, Värnamo, Norrköping, Kalmar and Trelleborg are named objects. They do not even have 500 places, but we say it anyway so as not to round in the wrong direction. Then we need to have perhaps 30 projects underway, and they take seven to nine years. I say seven years, but it usually takes a bit longer. But even there, I would rather round in the right direction.

JO's reports, which arrived this spring, regarding the situation in both detention centers and institutions showed great risks for inmates and employees with double and triple shifts. It was one of the main reasons why Centerpartiet said yes to prison places in Estonia.

Does the Minister for Justice stand behind Kriminalvården's vision of "Bättre ut"? How does the Minister for Justice view the risks that exist in today's correctional system?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Liljeberg, for the opportunity to discuss this important issue!

It is clear that it is extremely important that we increase the pace even further when it comes to the expansion of the criminal justice system. If the claim is that it is going too slowly, I gladly confirm it. Yes, it does.

I must also say that the conditions at the transition to the new government were not the best. We are now reviewing from the ground up everything that can affect the speeds for this. When I speak of that, I mean among other things legislation; we will return in the near future with legislation concerning changing the planning and building regulations for the Prison and Probation Service.

We are also looking at reforms of the prison legislation, as this has significance, among other things, for the possibility of expanding in the form of modules and those types of solutions.

We have a coordinator on site, a very solid municipal councillor, who is to ensure that the gap that has obviously existed in the relationship between the state and the municipal level regarding the expansion can be tightened. We have already seen tangible results of that work, not least in Kalmar where a number of question marks were resolved. The expansion rate is being significantly stepped up. We must see more such results ahead to be able to maintain the curve that we have laid out.

Regarding the question of the activity's content, there are of course risks for the surroundings in a situation with increasingly serious crime in combination with a higher crime clearance rate. We are pleased that we are now bringing home one after another of all the hundreds of gang criminals who are abroad. It will result in many years of imprisonment from the, in itself, pleasing development in the crime clearance rate. To that are also added the justified tightenings of the sentences.

Overall, it creates a pressure on the content of the operations that I am very aware of. I just want to emphasize that we are very keen to take forward proposals, for example from the security preparation where all parties were involved, which concern developing the content. I am the first to think that it is right to lock up people who have committed serious crimes. But we really must make something meaningful of the time in there. We are also working on that in a purposeful way.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Justice and I agree on very much; if we have not succeeded in preventing the crimes and they have nevertheless been committed, they shall be prosecuted and serve the sentences – absolutely!

It is good that we acknowledge each other's view that the Prison and Probation Service is not managing this pace of expansion. The problem now is that I am in opposition in the Riksdag and that the Minister for Justice is the one who has responsibility for this and leads the agency in the work.

It is always good when an experienced KSO gets to serve the state and conduct investigations. I believe it is good. We have colleagues here in the Riksdag who also submit proposals regarding this. But it goes too slowly. I have understood that the expansion in Kalmar provides approximately 400 places. One does not even reach the 500 places that are needed, and according to my calculations, we would need 30 such prison constructions.

Again: Regarding the Security Preparation, we have had the privilege of having a part of the proposals passed; it concerns ankle bracelets. It is appreciated that the bill arrived and that this opportunity was given. But the other parts remain. It is a question of the foundation of the Prison and Probation Service's work, Better Out, and the cooperation with regions and municipalities. I believe that both crime victims and those who should not become victims of perpetrators are waiting for these bills.

I also appreciate that the coordinator has contacts. I was in Hagfors last week, a municipality that is completely ready to do this. They have been in contact with the coordinator, but they still do not receive any notification. The municipalities are ready. What is it that makes the state not give a notification, so that we get this expansion?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Ulrika Liljeberg that the messages should come as soon as possible. It is fundamentally the Prison and Probation Service that ultimately must set its foot down and decide whether it is full speed ahead that applies or if one wants to do things in other ways. Our contribution in this equation is to ensure that the municipal council perspective is included in the state handling, so that we can put the parts together in a good way.

I want to take hold of this regarding Bättre ut. It is clear that it is about what one does when one is already serving a sentence, but it is also about what the controlled release looks like when one is then heading out into open society. Then I actually want to link back to the reasons for establishing youth prisons.

Now I shall be fair towards the underlying investigation. It takes a position on youth prisons for 15–17-year-olds, i.e., today's criminally responsible minors. One had no reason then to consider the question of a lowered age of criminal responsibility. That investigation should not be blamed for that, so to speak, but it is a later question.

Under all circumstances, I find it very interesting to understand the grounds for that reform, both in relation to the broader issue we are talking about and in light of how we are to handle those who are even younger. There were two main reasons.

One reason was that a better distribution of work would be achieved between the state youth care and the Prison and Probation Service. They have failed to manage this group. This is a system built for completely different care needs, and it cannot manage it. Furthermore, it pushes out everyone else who has a need for these institutions.

The second reason had to do with the controlled release in the Prison and Probation Service's system. Our criminal justice system includes probation and interaction with actors out there. It is clear that it is important for everyone who is locked up by the Prison and Probation Service to subsequently be able to be released in cooperation with other actors and emerge as better people with good prospects on the other side. This is particularly significant when it concerns children and young people. We must truly return to those questions and develop this significantly moving forward.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! On Saturday, Nazis marched through our capital. During the autumn, several acts of violence by members of Aktivklubb Sverige have been noted. Säpo has warned that it is a movement that is growing rapidly and which, with clear far-right characteristics, recruits young people and engages in violence.

To intimidate people with political violence is deeply Swedish. What we are now seeing take shape is also very dangerous. We cannot afford to wait for the next act of violence or to see what these activist clubs are actually prepared to do with the strategic violence capital they are now building up in their so-called defense of the nation's future.

We Social Democrats want to dissolve these activity clubs. This can be done in several different ways from a legal perspective. During the previous parliamentary term, we, for example, commissioned an inquiry into banning Nazi organizations that engage in persecution and violence. The government chose not to proceed with it.

Before the work in the Constitutional Committee, which Gunnar Strömmer appointed, we proposed that this too should be subject to the review of the constitution. Nor then were the Tidö parties willing to take the issue further.

In the near future, we Social Democrats have proposed to modernize the law from the 1930s that prohibits unauthorized paramilitary activity. The law was enacted to stop the rise of the Civil Guard when the Nazis of that time were on the march. But the legislation has proven to be too outdated to target today's neo-Nazi activity movements, for example Aktivklubb Sverige.

The Minister for Justice has nevertheless woken up during the autumn and said that there will be legislative proposals to stop the activity clubs. Therefore, I ask now: When will the Riksdag get to take a position on such a legislative proposal?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Pleasantly enough, the Minister for Justice has been awake during the entire parliamentary term. This is expressed, not least, in this area.

We see that our society is threatened from various sides by violent extremism: by the far-right, which we are talking about now, by violent Islamism, and historically also by the autonomous left. The latter threat has faded somewhat recently, but it can be understood that things can happen again.

This insight led to a consolidated new strategy against violence-oriented extremism and terrorism, which the government decided upon in January last year. It is, in turn, very operational in its character. We have, for example, been able to see it in the form of the Swedish Security Service's work with mapping the right-wing extremist threat. As recently as during the spring, the Swedish Security Service at large described the activist clubs, their activities, and the potential threat they pose, for example in the form of an accumulated capital of violence.

In this work, very many preventive measures are carried out. The Center against Violence-Promoting Extremism, which falls under the Crime Prevention Council, has very important missions in this part, not least to contribute to and support municipalities and other actors, so that they in turn can be alert and assist in the work of ensuring that children and young people are not drawn into these contexts. Within the framework of the so-called Redex cooperation, an interaction between the police and the Security Service, very offensive work is carried out in relation to critical individuals to prevent and deter, among other things, this development.

When it comes to criminalization in relation to this type of phenomenon, our established line since the last parliamentary term has been that we shall tackle this with modern legislation. Participation in crime is therefore the way to go in relation to both terrorism and this type of violence-seeking extreme threats. I will receive the investigation on this in the new year. Then we shall also, as promptly as possible, ensure that it reaches the Riksdag.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Much was said by the Minister for Justice, but very few concrete messages were given regarding when we will be able to take a position on legislation that will stop the activity clubs. Gunnar Strömmer is hiding behind the ongoing constitutional work. That a constitutional amendment would be needed to stop the activity clubs is simply not true. If Gunnar Strömmer had wanted to, he could have acted here and now. There is even an investigation in Gunnar Strömmer's desk that says that no constitutional amendment was needed. One almost gets the feeling that this is something that Gunnar Strömmer resorts to in order to avoid acting here and now. What it might be due to, one can speculate freely about.

Nazis are marching on our streets and squares, saluting and spreading hate propaganda, and it is becoming increasingly urgent to address this. We have pointed out several different solutions. We have commissioned an investigation into banning Nazi organizations. The government has chosen not to proceed with it. We have also pointed out that one can modernize the legislation that already exists regarding illegal association activities in order to thereby stop the activist clubs. Gunnar Strömmer does not seem willing to do that either.

Firstly, I want to ask: Is it only a constitutional amendment that is relevant for Gunnar Strömmer? Secondly, it is an afterthought that this regarding the criminalization of participation in gangs would hit the active clubs. It is very uncertain whether it will happen in that way.

What is certain is that we Social Democrats proposed that the review of the constitution should also look at bans on Nazi organizations, and the Tidö parties said no to that. When will the activist clubs be stopped, Gunnar Strömmer?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The attentive listener may have noted that I did not mention the constitutional issues in my first contribution. It must have been a prepared speaking point that came up in the second contribution. I shall, however, return to the constitutional issue, but first I shall address something else that Teresa Carvalho said.

As I understood it, the member said that we can only speculate on Gunnar Strömmers motives for being slow. I do not know what insinuation lies in that speculation. Could it be that I am turning a blind eye when it comes to far-right violence and that I think we should crack down on violence-oriented Islamism and autonomous left-wing movements but not far-right extremists? I do not know what Teresa Carvalho is implying with that remark. The member often speaks about how we should not bicker in politics. Then one should also not come with bickering insinuations.

If one wants to read ahead and takes these questions seriously, one can go back to the strategy that we decided on last year. It pointed out very clearly the neo-Nazi threat as one of two, historically three, prioritized problems to tackle, and we do so in very many different ways.

If we are to return to the constitutional issue, it is the modern legislation that can address this type of problem, and which we have used in relation to criminalizing participation in terrorism, that we wanted to achieve during the last parliamentary term. The Social Democrats said no to that.

I emailed Morgan Johansson and asked: Can we not include the other organized crime in this grip? He said no. Nothing came of it. Now we have received a majority for that, and that is where the constitutional issue arises.

It is also that which enables legislation, which I think was a very concrete announcement. I will receive the proposal in February in the new year. Then we have, for the first time, in any case during the years I can oversee, a concrete proposal that will truly be able to be used against this problem.

It applies regardless of whether it is organized in relation to organized crime as a whole or whether it is organized in relation to violence-seeking threats against our free and open society. The Riksdag will be asked to take a position on that proposal very shortly.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I intended to take the opportunity to return to some of the issues that have been raised in previous exchanges of remarks. I will begin with the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility.

I cannot recall there having been such an enormous consensus from all referral bodies on actually any issue during this mandate period. The government chooses, as it appears so far, to ignore it. I would like to hear a reasoning as to why the government knows better than everyone else.

It concerns both rights organizations and pure correctional authorities, including Kriminalvården itself, the police, and Åklagarmyndigheten. They point out various aspects that mean it will not get better, but rather there is a risk that crime prevention will deteriorate if we look at it from a longer perspective.

One aspect is juvenile prisons. It is partly related to this and partly not. The Minister previously stated that the investigation that looked at it specifically emphasized that they had looked at imprisonment from 15 years old and not from 13 years old. It is not quite investigated. That makes it even more complicated.

The younger a child is, the greater the difference can be in personal maturity and how it is possible to internalize different types of measures simply. The Prison and Probation Service lacks experience so far in caring for children at all. Now it would be given responsibility for 13-year-olds.

Then I wonder if I have missed something. We continue to talk about youth prisons. But as I have understood it, these are actually youth wards in existing institutions. This is something that is highlighted, for example, by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They do not think it should be done in that way. If children are sentenced to prison, they should be housed in separate institutions and not in wards near adult convicts. I would like to have a reflection on that.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Now I must ask Ulrika Westerlund to remind me. Didn't the member say earlier in her contribution that Miljöpartiet also opposes the reform regarding juvenile prisons for 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds? Let me start there anyway.

That investigation, which is not to be burdened with the question of the age of criminal responsibility, aims at the fact that today's system for caring for this target group has largely failed. The testimonies and the revisions of the state youth care have been numerous.

It is all from figures that it is 90 percent of those sentenced to closed youth custody who relapse into serious crime if they have links to the gangs. The school activities do not deliver. The treatment activities do not deliver. In practice, the risk of escape has been high, if one widens the perspective. It has been easy to communicate on the inside and other things.

It leads to the conclusion that the state youth care was not built for this group of young people. It has been built for other young people with other needs. It is the young people who are now being pushed out to a very high degree. If one again takes the municipal council perspective on the question, everyone at the local level says: It is full when you call. This group has to a high degree taken over.

It is for me the important reason to move to specifically youth prisons, or youth wards. It is about building an operation that is tailored for just this target group with schooling and treatment with other activities. It shall, of course, be separated from adults and otherwise adapted to children. It has good prospects of breaking the destructive patterns we have seen until now.

In my second round of remarks, I will return to the 13- and 14-year-olds who commit the most serious crimes. I want to emphasize that we are not talking about children and young people in general. It is now about fifty under the age of 15 who are the subject of evidence for being involved in murder, attempted murder, and other crimes for which no other interventions are effective anymore. What shall we do with that group? I will gladly return to that in the next round.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

I continue with the reasoning style. I just want to clarify one thing. If we say that we do not want youth prisons, it does not mean that we do not want any type of consequence for young people who commit crimes. So that is obviously not the case, and it is not the case now either. It is not that 13-year-olds who commit a crime should be out, but there we want to see care and measures.

We have been very critical of Sis. We have welcomed the investigation into Sis, the State Institution Board, which the government has appointed. But we have still landed on the belief that it is better to continue reforming Sis than to move the care of children and young people who have committed crimes over to Kriminalvården.

Sis has better experience. Sis has also worked for many years, for example, on diversifying its operations. There are now facilities within Sis that are practically to be considered as youth prisons. From these, for example, there have been no deviations for a long time.

She has really worked on trying to diversify the operations and become better at addressing the different needs of different groups of young people who are there. We think it is much better to continue with this.

School is perhaps what Sis usually receives the best judgment on, and one thinks that it still works okay. It has also been emphasized that practically all admitted youths have great challenges in taking in the teaching. It is a major fear when moving the school to Kriminalvården, which does not have any experience of conducting teaching for children and young people.

Furthermore, a legislative change will be implemented to enable distance learning. We in Miljöpartiet do not believe it will be possible for most of these youths to take anything in at all. We risk getting youths who come out after several years in prison and have completely failed in school. They will then find themselves in a very difficult situation.

I also want to ask the Minister for Justice to reflect, in conclusion, on the situation of the girls. They are very few. Will it be possible at all to have them separated from adult women?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for many relevant and pressing questions. I shall try to tick them off somewhat systematically.

First to the so-called research situation. Many refer to Denmark and the experiences of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. I have addressed that previously. It was a general reduction to 14 years that lasted for 18 months. It was a short period, and it is difficult to draw conclusions. Under all circumstances, we shall not lower the age of criminal responsibility generally. If we return to it in that way during the new year, we target those who have committed the most serious crimes.

I say it again. It is those approximately 50 under 15 who are now the subject of the investigation – who have committed murder, attempted murder, shootings, and explosions linked to it. That is the target group, and it is that target group that it has shown to be very, very difficult for the social side of the system to handle. It becomes bad for those children. It becomes bad for the victims of the crime they are involved in. It also becomes very bad for public safety.

This is the target group. This is something other than the Danish model, and that makes me think that many general references are significantly weakened.

Another aspect that is rarely raised is the societal benefit of having truly dangerous individuals locked up. Then, that confinement can occur in different ways. It can be state youth care or correctional services. We have now talked a lot about the act of taking someone into custody itself. I believe everyone in here is on the same page. No one wants any 13-, 14-, 15-, or 16-year-old to have to be locked up. Then, in some cases, it is a reality that it is necessary. In that case, my question is: Which part of our system is best equipped to handle it?

We assess, in line with the investigator – and I perceive that a broad majority in the Riksdag also does – that the correctional services have very good conditions when it comes to 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds.

We would like to return to the school activities. They are, of course, completely central. This matter of digitalization is not an expression that there should be digital teaching in general. This is about the possibility of being able to meet certain specific needs in an individual case, but it is not a general model for teaching that we are talking about.

We can return to all content issues when it comes to the agencies. I believe that they will be excellent and have very good conditions to do much better than the system has managed so far.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 December.)

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