(cont. from § 7) The Judiciary (cont. JuU1)

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I became curious about the new proposal that Miljöpartiet has presented in its motion, namely the proposal to consider abolishing certain shorter prison sentences as a penalty. Member Ling clarified from the rostrum that it concerns prison sentences of up to six months. Vänsterpartiet has had a similar proposal for some time; they want to abolish sentences of up to one year.

The justice system

I have two questions regarding this new policy to abolish shorter prison sentences.

Can Member of Parliament Ling tell us which criminals it is that are not supposed to end up in prison? Is it the one who exposes their genitals to children? Is it the one who has committed aggravated drunk driving? Who is it that you imagine should not sit in prison, even if only for a short time? That is far too short a time in my opinion – I think they should sit in prison for longer. That was the first question.

The second question is how Rasmus Ling assesses the possibilities. It is two opposition parties that are driving this policy. What do the possibilities look like regarding achieving success in getting the Social Democrats to agree to abolish shorter prison sentences?

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Louise Meijer for the questions.

It is very clear who this would apply to. It would apply to persons whom a court has sentenced to imprisonment for up to six months. I do not think I can exemplify it any more clearly than that. It would be presumptuous of me to involve myself in what decisions a court should make regarding penalties. The judges do that entirely on their own, without me or Louise Meijer intervening, and I think this order should prevail.

Mr. Speaker! Now it is not just two opposition parties that are driving this, but the management of the Prison and Probation Service as well. The agency head has spoken of penalties of up to one year in order to complete the assignment in a sensible way.

We have an enormous shortage of space. We do not have enough places. Louise Meijer will surely say that it is the Social Democrats and the Green Party, who sat in government between 2014 and 2022 and 2021 respectively, who bear the responsibility for this. However, it takes longer than two parliamentary terms, Mr. Speaker, to get a prison completed from the time a decision is made until it stands finished. It takes longer – in applicable cases – when it is appealed and when decisions are changed by the municipalities concerned.

Two opposition parties stand behind this. One must ask the other parties what their position is. The authority's leadership presents a clear request for punishment of up to one year. Our proposal is, as stated, six months.

The risk exists, Mr. Speaker, that the situation will worsen. Someone who does something stupid once and receives a short prison sentence may become involved in more serious crime if they end up in a facility and have to share a cell with someone guilty of serious gang crime or with a radicalized extremist.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is a matter of not cutting corners. What the Prison and Probation Service says is that one could imagine extending the possibility of using electronic tags for up to one year. This does not mean that all shorter prison sentences would be abolished, but rather that there would be an opportunity to make an extended suitability assessment upwards in the sentencing scales and in the severity of the sentences. There is a certain difference here that is significant.

The Green Party's proposal is to abolish all shorter prison sentences and remove the suitability assessment of those who today are judged as unsuitable to wear an ankle bracelet and are instead required to serve their prison sentence in a facility. The Green Party wants to remove that suitability assessment, so that those who have been convicted of crimes with a sentence value of six months or less do not need to serve their sentence in prison. That is how one must understand this.

The answer I received was that no further pointing out of which criminals it is that no longer need to sit in prison is necessary, as this applies to everyone who is punished with imprisonment of up to six months. None of them need to sit in prison anymore. It was very clear.

I do, however, think there is a difference here that one needs to be clear about. It is one thing that in the current situation we have the possibility to sentence people to ankle bracelets and that those who receive ankle bracelets undergo an appropriateness assessment by the Prison and Probation Service. But to completely abolish prison sentences for crimes with a penalty value of up to six months is something new. No authority has proposed this, but it has been proposed by Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. Vänsterpartiet goes even further and says that one could imagine abolishing prison sentences up to one year.

I am still interested in how Miljöpartiet views the possibilities of getting the Socialdemokrater on board with this policy.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ankle bracelets are something that has replaced prison sentences in certain situations, and we believe that this can occur in more situations. In the budget that we are presenting, we do not go down to such a level of detail that we enter into whether a suitability assessment should be made and how it should proceed in that case. That can, of course, be discussed.

This is in the direction that the management of the Prison and Probation Service indicates, even though we indicate a shorter time than they do - we say six months, and the management of the Prison and Probation Service says one year.

Louise Meijer requested that I provide an example. I would have preferred not to do so in my first contribution, but I venture to do so and to describe what effects this could have.

Drunk driving is absolutely a serious crime, but think if a person who commits such a crime at one occasion gets to share a cell with someone who is radicalized, an extremist, or grossly criminal and involved in criminal networks. After six months or a year, a drunk driver who previously had no other problems and who had an orderly life, might come out recruited into a gang. I do not think that is a positive effect, and I am afraid that we would see more of that if those who serve shorter sentences in prison get to share a cell with grossly criminal people. I think that Louise Meijer and M should consider that risk.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a brief comment regarding the previous exchange. One must also possibly consider that the person who drives while intoxicated risks driving while intoxicated again and then perhaps kills someone.

But that was not why I requested the floor, my question concerns visitation zones. Rasmus Ling may correct me if I am wrong, but I interpret it as that Miljöpartiet and Ling are against visitation zones. If I have understood it all correctly, it is primarily because one can stop people without suspicion of a crime. Sverigedemokraterna and I are for visitation zones, that is to say that the police, for a limited time in a limited location, can stop people in order to try to remove weapons from the street and prevent these from being used to shoot someone dead or in other crimes.

Let me take traffic controls as an example. In a limited place during a limited time, the police stop everyone, without suspicion of a crime. You have to show your driver's license, and it is checked that you are not driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and that you have a seatbelt on. Is Rasmus Ling also against this type of control? Here, people are stopped without suspicion of a crime in a limited place during a limited time. Everyone is stopped. I have no problem with that. You are welcome to search my car to check if I am driving with a weapon in the car or driving under the influence – I have never done either.

If Miljöpartiet is against visitation zones where people are stopped without a concrete suspicion of a crime, is Ling also against traffic checks where people are also stopped without a concrete suspicion of a crime?

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Richard Jomshof for the question.

Let me first emphasize that I see drunk driving as a serious crime which - especially if repeated - can have catastrophic consequences. But for me, the solution is not always to put people in prison for a long time, but I mean that there are other interventions that can make people stop such behavior before it has these consequences.

Stop and search controls and traffic controls are different things. I have nothing against the police being able to conduct traffic controls with alcohol tests. If suspicion arises during the traffic control, the police can also search the car. This is something different from establishing large zones in municipalities where the police are given the opportunity to search anyone without any reason whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that this could be damaging to the trust in the police, who need to work in many areas where trust in the police is low. One needs to work in other ways than to search everyone who is in such a zone. I believe that the proposal leads in the wrong direction and will have negative consequences and that the police should work in other ways to build trust.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even though I think it is inconsistent. During a traffic check, the police, as stated, stop everyone in a limited location for a limited time, and this applies regardless of whether one is a crime suspect or not. One must show a driver's license and blow to show that one is not driving while intoxicated. I have no problem with that because the purpose is to prevent people from driving while intoxicated, and an intoxicated driver can actually kill someone.

I assert that it is the same thing with a search zone. There, one can stop people in a limited area at a limited point in time without concrete suspicion to ensure that they are not carrying a knife or a firearm. In my world, these two controls are the same thing, and I assume that the police, when they get the opportunity, will use the search zones when there are reasons to do so.

It happens that the police stop people where I live after a long weekend. In those cases, one could almost talk about racial profiling, because most of those driving there are ethnically white Swedes. But I have no problem with that.

I thank you for the answer but think it is inconsistent. In my world, it is approximately the same thing. The purpose is to prevent someone from using a weapon or someone from driving under the influence, without a driver's license, etc. I just want this to be said.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I hope I misheard, because I thought Richard Jomshof said that he has no problem with racial profiling. I have big problems with it regardless of against whom or in what way it occurs. I hope we can agree that it is wrong.

I think that stop-and-search zones and traffic controls are different things. A traffic control where the police check that people are not driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs is not comparable to a stop-and-search zone where you mark an area on a map and say that it is fair game there. Furthermore, the experiences that exist from, for example, Denmark show that it has been negative for the trust in the police in the areas where stop-and-search zones have often been used.

The investigation will arrive next week, and I will read it with great interest. I assume that we will continue to debate this, that the preparation of the matter will be thorough, that all different actors in society will be given the opportunity to give their views on this, and that we can prepare and handle it further in the Riksdag moving forward.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Safety is our time's great issue of freedom, for if one is not safe, one is also not free. The one who risks being hit by stray bullets at a pub or at a subway entrance is not safe and not free. The one who sleeps in their own home but wakes up to a bomb or, in the worst case, perishes is not safe and not free. The one who puts on a Sweden shirt before a football national match and becomes a victim of a terrorist act just because they are Swedish is not safe and not free. The Jews in our country who are afraid to celebrate worship together, send their children to school, or wear the Star of David visibly are not safe and not free. The Muslims who in recent times have seen their mosque hit by vandalism or threats perceive the signal that here you are not safe and not free.

Mr. Speaker! The fight against serious organized crime and the fight against terrorism and violent extremism is undoubtedly a fight for every person's safety and security. But for me, it is clear that it is also a fight for all people's freedom and, in the long run, for our entire open and free society. It is a fight that we as a society must take and that the government is determined to win. It will take time, but it will happen if we are prepared to do what is required and do it together.

This is also reflected in the budget we are debating here today. We are talking about historical reinforcements of the entire justice system, from 69 to 90 billion over three years - and this is happening simultaneously with billion-scale investments in crime prevention work.

The government is now handling three parallel threats to Sweden's internal security and the citizens' safety and freedom: first, terrorism and violent extremism, second, various state actors acting hostilely towards Sweden, and third, the gross organized crime.

In August, as is known, the terror threat level was raised from a three to a four on the five-point scale - from an elevated threat to a high threat.

Over a longer period, this threat has come primarily from three sides: right-wing extremism, autonomous left-wing, and violent Islamism. During this year, we have primarily seen an escalation of the latter threat. Sweden has moved from being a legitimate target to being a prioritized target for violent Islamists. Most evidence points to the fact that the victims of the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels last autumn were chosen precisely because they were Swedish.

After Hamas' terror attack against Israel on October 7, we see an increased polarization in society with an increased risk of radicalization as a consequence. Furthermore, Sweden's security is challenged by hostile state actors engaging in intelligence gathering, cyberattacks, disinformation, and other forms of pressure.

The increase in the terror threat level is an important signal to all relevant authorities to intensify their efforts to increase security. The Government and the country's authorities have continuously taken a large number of measures to protect Sweden and Swedish interests. The Police, the Swedish Security Service, MSB, and the Authority for Psychological Defence have received new and specific government mandates to take various measures to prevent and preclude terrorism. The Centre against violent extremism has, since this summer, received a specific government mandate to counter radicalization and strengthen cooperation between actors at the national and local levels.

In this budget, the government more than doubles the state grant for security-enhancing measures for religious communities. Furthermore, the government has allocated extra funds for the security work in the Jewish Central Council. The Police Authority has reinforced its surveillance around certain Jewish sites where it is assessed that there is an increased threat. The Police Authority also increases its presence and tightens surveillance during the Christmas shopping season.

Mr. Speaker! I will now proceed to speak about the serious organized crime.

When the government took office a year ago, we inherited a societal problem that is system-threatening and which, in the long run, endangers the free and open society. This development has been ongoing for a long time. The deadly gun violence has tripled over ten years. Last year was record-dark with 62 fatal shootings. This is to be compared with four in Norway, four in Denmark, and two in Finland.

In the spring, the police estimated that approximately 30,000 people today have links to criminal networks and that 1,000 new ones are recruited every year. The criminal economy turns over 100-150 billion kronor, according to the police's estimates in the spring. So far this year, approximately 80 children have been indicted for murder or attempted murder, aiding and abetting, and so on, for that type of serious crime. That figure was eight ten years ago. It is thus a tenfold increase over the recent years.

The gang criminals want to instill fear. They silence witnesses, threaten social workers and infiltrate authorities and political parties. They have a great amount of violence and are completely indifferent to innocent people being affected.

The insight is obvious to me: If we do as we have done until now, it will also go as it has gone until now, and that is not an option for this government. The government is therefore restructuring policy broadly and in depth to push back crime and restore safety, security, and freedom in Sweden. The plan has three distinct parts: first, to strike hard against the gangs' gross violence, second, to strangle the criminal economy, and third, to break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

We are fighting against the gangs' gross violence through several sentencing increases that target the criminal networks. For example, those who commit gross crimes with weapons and explosives will serve double the time starting from January 1st next year. We are also giving law enforcement the effective tools they have long requested: preventive secret wiretapping, expanded opportunities for camera surveillance, anonymous witnesses, stay-away orders, and search zones, among others. With tighter processes and closer interaction with the Riksdag, we can also ensure that many of these tools are implemented quickly but with maintained quality and precision.

We will choke the criminal economy by going after the gangs' money. A new payment authority will be in place on January 1. Skatteverket, Tullverket, and Kronofogden have received new mandates to go after the money. We are tearing down secrecy barriers and limiting the scope for criminals to use companies as tools for crime. Soon we will also present a new, modern, and offensive forfeiture legislation with completely new tools to go after the criminals' proceeds from crime.

We must break the recruitment of children and young people. We shall do this with offensive prevention across the board. We are now implementing a shift in the view of young offenders with stricter sentences for those who commit serious crimes and youth prisons with a clear mandate for preventing recidivism.

At the same time, we are making a broad overhaul of social preventive measures. We are breaking down confidentiality rules, realizing a new, more interventionist Social Services Act, and carrying out the largest investment in social services that any government has ever made. From July 1st of this year, social services may intervene with open measures against children as young as 12 years old, even without the parents' consent. Previously, the age limit was 15 years. We are increasing parental support and combining it with increased parental responsibility. We are increasing the economic resources for Sis, municipal interventions, foster homes, and much more.

Through last year's budget and the one that is now on the table, it is about crime prevention measures at 2.8 billion kronor. The plan is, therefore, to strike against the gangs' gross violence, choke the criminal economy and break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs. This is now backed up by economic investments of historical dimensions in the justice system. We strengthen the entire justice system with these three clear priorities.

The police are being reinforced from today's 37 billion to 47 billion in 2026. It is an increase of 27 percent.

The expansion of the criminal justice system started much too late. Now we ensure that it can escalate with full force. By 2026, the appropriation is estimated to increase from 14.1 billion to 22.6 billion, which is an increase of over 60 percent.

The Security Service's operational capability must be strengthened. This applies, among other things, to counter-espionage and counter-terrorism. We are talking about an increase from 2.1 to 2.8 billion by 2026, that is to say 33 percent.

We are therefore strengthening the entire justice system so that the whole hangs together: the prosecutors, the judges, and the support for witnesses and crime victims.

Madam Speaker! This is what is required - a mobilization of the entire justice system and interaction with other important parts of society. Step by step, we are now implementing the reforms, taking the measures, and providing the resources that make it possible to reverse the development.

If we keep a cool head and a warm heart, if we understand that reality requires us to do things in a different way than until now, if we work together and if we do not give up on people's inherent strength, I am convinced that a safer, more secure and freer Sweden is possible.

(Applause)

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for his participation in our debate.

I want to return to what the Minister for Justice began his speech with, namely that safety is our time's great issue of freedom. I agree with that.

As the Minister perhaps noted, I made a reflection in my speech regarding the importance of exactly what the Minister for Justice just took up, namely the preventive work and that it must be prioritized, and how poorly this aligns with the government instead prioritizing large tax cuts and an underfunding of operations such as health and medical care, the sports movement, Arbetsförmedlingen, and the entirety of Föreningssverige. How is this supposed to work? How can one be able to prevent new recruitment with less money?

But back to safety: When the government took office a year ago, it was promised that the work against men's violence against women would be stepped up. I note that the Minister for Justice did not even mention the safety of these women, of whom approximately 17 blameless, mostly non-criminal women have died. Not one word did the Minister for Justice mention these.

My question is what the Minister for Justice is doing to ensure that the police and other law enforcement agencies do not deprioritize the work on violence against women when other crime increases. We receive indications that the police disband working groups when the work against gang crime is scaled up.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Strandhäll for the opportunity to discuss this important issue.

Let me first correct a couple of claims that Annika Strandhäll made when the questions were discussed at an earlier stage, namely that there would be no management of the police in those parts. On the contrary! I recommend reading the government's regulatory letter to the Swedish Police Authority, where it clearly appears that we want reporting requirements regarding men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and various types of abuse against children. It is incredibly important. I can assure Annika Strandhäll that those formulations will be even clearer in the regulatory letters that will arrive in the near future before next year.

When it comes to the growth of the police, it is quite true that the number of police employees has increased. I might possibly think that the Social Democrats have been interested in the quantity and not the quality of that growth. For us, it is unfortunately striking that the local police presence has become too weak and that the investigative activity has not had the capacity required to handle crimes close to citizens, including violence and sexual assaults against women. Therefore, we have sent the new national police chief and the new management precisely with the mission to ensure that the crimes close to citizens, including the crimes we are now talking about, are investigated in a much better way than until now.

A pleasing thing in the budget is that 600 million kronor within the gender equality policy go towards the work against gender-related violence, honor-related violence, violence in close relationships, prostitution and human trafficking. The fact is that the earmarked funds exceed the earmarked funds for these purposes in the last two three budgets that the Socialdemokraterna submitted in a government position.

Let me conclude by asking a question. This summer, I received criticism from your colleague Ardalan Shekarabi regarding our broad sentencing increases. Does it mean that the Social Democrats will vote no when we on the Riksdag's table submit extensive proposals that will lead, for example, to mandatory detention in cases where women's peace is violated or to that the sentences for rapists shall be tightened?

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! It is incredibly gratifying if we can see a sharpening in upcoming regulatory letters. The past year has not been directly encouraging in terms of the government's work against men's violence against women.

During the autumn, the Committee on Justice has handled only one bill in this area. It was based on proposals from an investigation commissioned by the Social Democrats, and it concerned protected housing. Contrary to what the Minister for Justice says, SKR (Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner) signals that they do not have sufficient funding to be able to implement the legislation. Changes are obviously needed.

Regarding the cuts in the area of women's peace, for the first time in 17 years, the municipalities will also not receive any development funds for women's peace work, which has been noted. I have asked questions earlier during the debate.

It is extremely important that the Minister for Justice understands and takes to heart that in a situation with extremely serious problems with gang crime, as I addressed in my speech, the Minister for Justice must send a signal. He gives a twelve-minute speech in today's budget debate but does not mention the area of violence against women with a single word. At the same time, he speaks about safety being our time's great freedom issue. This invisibility naturally has repercussions for the authorities working with crime fighting and for the many women's organizations watching today's debate. They expect a statement from the Minister for Justice on these issues.

I look forward to taking part in upcoming initiatives in the area.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I am certainly not contributing to making these issues invisible. However, I am extremely eager that they should be debated in a factual manner and that real reforms should come that truly make a difference for vulnerable women.

It is quite true that we have delivered only one bill this year. It reflects, if I may put it that way, the lack of finished material that was on the shelf when we stepped in. I can assure Annika Strandhäll and everyone else who is involved in the issue that starting as early as next year, you will be handling an incredibly large number of important proposals in the Committee on Justice and, in that regard, in other committees in the area. Furthermore, it will involve everything from women's peace-related issues to honor-culture issues to issues concerning safer homes. It will involve issues of dowry-sharing, where dowry-sharing is used as a tool in destructive relationships. The Riksdag will have to work on these issues like never before. I would like to note that the proposals will obviously take root when they finally arrive.

Even in the regulatory letters I was responsible for last year, we were sharper in the wording regarding follow-ups in the area than they had been in the previous regulatory letters.

Regarding the economy, I want to say the following. I know that it is a pressured economy out there. That is the case for the citizens, for the municipalities, for the regions and for the state. There was a time when social democracy stood for a work ethic. It would be interesting to hear whether it is the tax cuts we are talking about in this budget, which affect low- and middle-income earners, that are going to become tax increases. It is the only tax cut included in the budget that affects the citizens.

What primarily jeopardizes welfare is that money loses value. To conduct a responsible economic policy that ensures that the citizens' money, the municipalities' money, and the regions' money do not lose value is the single most important welfare policy reform that we can make at this stage. As soon as the economy turns, we shall continue to invest in welfare, which we otherwise did with 40 percent of the reform space already in this budget.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I greatly appreciate the Minister for Justice's participation in the debate. There is great value in that in several ways, not least because the debate ran over the question period.

I intended to ask a question concerning drugs, not in a polemical way, but in a genuinely curious way.

This summer, the narcotics penalties were further tightened from already high levels compared to most other countries. It is too early to see the effects. I am concerned that it will be harmful, but it remains to be seen.

Last week, the Expert Group for Studies in Public Finance released a report. It concerned the criminalization of drug consumption. The group proposes that consumption should be decriminalized and that an investigation be appointed with that purpose. The Expert Group for Studies in Public Finance are not hippies; they are researchers at Stockholm University, and it is an independent committee under the Ministry of Finance.

I am not myself sure what is best in the matter, and I do not believe that a decriminalization of drugs would break the gangs. At the same time, I consider that the situation that prevails now is not satisfactory. It is difficult to claim that the policy that has been advocated has been successful.

Gunnar Strömmer said in his speech that if we continue as before, it will result in the same outcome. It might not have applied to exactly this, but it could apply to this.

Will the government possibly appoint an inquiry, an SOU, during the mandate period to look at this issue without prestige and without preconditions?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The short meaning of the long speech is no. I will gladly elaborate on this.

Drugs are, of course, enormously harmful to society in a number of different respects. Drugs lead to abuse which leads to large costs for society as a whole, and it leads to major social problems and broken families. We know that the handling of drugs takes place in a criminal environment, and it involves large economic values. This, in turn, also has a long series of very negative consequences for the citizens' safety and for society as a whole.

At the same time, I am not quite clear on the arguments that are nevertheless put forward for decriminalization. What is it that is to be decriminalized, if I start from that point? Which narcotic preparations are we talking about? Is it cannabis? Is it cocaine? Or is it even more severe preparations? I can only state that there is an extensive market for all these preparations. I imagine that the person who wants a decriminalization still wants to draw a line.

When it comes to punishment, it would be interesting to hear—and it is not polemical—what it is that is harmful about punishment in these contexts. If there is anything we know when it comes to short sentences, it is that they are meaningless from a treatment perspective. This applies regardless of whether we are talking about substance abuse, work training, or education. Punishment in a well-ordered and protected environment with proper treatment programs can, on the contrary, be the opportunity forward for the one who is caught and who has substance abuse problems.

The bottom line for me, when one also looks at the international experiences, is that I do not quite see why the countries that have decriminalized certain substances would have a more favorable situation in their criminal economy than what we have.

No, this is not relevant for me. I do not quite understand the arguments and the connections.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! One purpose of appointing a non-precondition investigation would be that one can simply become wiser and get a better picture of this.

When it comes to which preparations it should be about, proponents of decriminalization probably differ on that and see it differently.

I also want to get to another question that is not about decriminalization. It is, on the contrary, about a form of legalization. In Denmark, which is "hot" to look at for politicians in Sweden, they work with heavy drug addicts in a different way than we do in Sweden. There are establishments with drug rooms where the police do not take those who use drugs. The police turn a blind eye to this. There is healthcare personnel employed there. There are simply environments where heavy drug addicts are given the opportunity to use the substances in a safer way.

Madam Speaker! There are also places in Denmark where preparations are provided. One may have views on the fact that this is permitted by society. At the same time, this means that, for example, heroin addicts receive the preparations without having to prostitute themselves or chase money in other ways to obtain them. One avoids a crime, and one improves the lives of people.

Madam Speaker! I think this is something that one should consider. I do not believe that anyone would choose to become a drug addict because of the fact that this type of activity is provided.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to first confirm that I believe it is easy to see that there are also goal conflicts in this policy area as well as in many other policy areas. There is also no doubt that there is a great deal of social misery surrounding abuse and that there are situations where the surrounding society, both in the concrete case and on a more general level, can certainly benefit from some kind of pragmatic approach in certain concrete situations. I do not, therefore, want to signal at all that I cannot see these conflicts of interest, so to speak.

At the same time, I believe it is extremely important to consistently underpin the line that one chooses in a society. If we choose criminalization as a starting point, and if we thereby choose to signal the seriousness in the handling of narcotics and, in that respect, signal the seriousness of the harmful effects that narcotics have, there are also great risks regarding the legitimacy of that policy by, so to speak, undermining it through excessively far-reaching exceptions.

The justice system

I still believe that the starting point is to achieve a synergy between criminalization with clear penalties and, of course, a developed health and medical care, treatment, and all social interventions, which naturally in no way are excluded because one chooses an order of criminalization. I am certain that the whole can be developed in different parts.

There are certainly situations where the balance point can also be discussed. But my important starting point, seen principally, is that there are very good reasons for a criminalization, both in terms of norm-building in society and when it comes to the possibility of helping those who are exposed to a serious addiction.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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