(cont.) Response to interpellation 2025/26:458 on a statement regarding eradicating gang crime over the next four years

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! It pleased me very much to see eight Social Democrats here at the start of the debate. One wishes that a corresponding passion had characterized the preceding eight years, for then we would have been in a better position. Now some have dropped out; as far as I understand, three Social Democrats remain in the debate, perhaps more characteristic of this.

I thought I would start with the reality, then say something about the responsibility, and after that, take some of the questions that were raised by the different members.

A very important background to keep in mind is where we stood when we took over in the autumn of 2022 – a tripling of the deadly gang-related violence. It is of course so that all other deadly violence in society, whether it concerns the constant latent failure with approximately 15 femicides in close relationships every year or catastrophes like the one that occurred in Örebro, must be taken with the utmost, utmost seriousness.

Every fatal shooting and every murder is, of course, just as catastrophic and just as serious as anything else. But in a debate on organized crime, it is also clearly relevant to focus on the lethal and gang-related violence, and in that case, the reality is that the lethal gang-related violence tripled during a ten-year period between 2012 and 2022.

Three years later we can see that we have succeeded in breaking that development, with a halving over three years. If we look at the first quarter of this year, it is a reduction of 75 percent. It is an outstanding success that I do not primarily attribute to myself but naturally to everyone around in society who in different ways have worked day and night to turn that development. It is no bad capital to build upon as we look forward.

Is there any humility? That was somewhat present in Teresa Carvalho's question to me regarding the reality during these years. It is clear that it is.

Everyone can see, I hope, what an outstanding success it is to have halved the lethal violence in the way we have done together during these years. But there is also no doubt that other serious crime linked to the gangs has not gone in the right direction. The extortion violence and the explosions are such examples, and that is why I raised it initially.

When the recruitment of children moved from the schoolyard and the football pitch into the mobile phones, an exponential development occurred regarding the recruitment. It is clear that in every conceivable respect, it has gone in the wrong direction. But we bring with us much experience and much power from the successes that we can now also direct towards the large remaining problems linked to organized crime, that is to say, the remaining part of the violence, the extensive criminal economy, the recruitment of children, and much more.

To take responsibility is to tackle the social problems and do everything one can to solve them. That is what we have devoted ourselves to day and night during these years, and that is what we intend to do for another four years if the voters wish to give us that trust.

Petter Löberg, who has left the debate, thought that we either downplay the efforts during the previous mandate period or speak too much about the Social Democrats' government alternative for the upcoming mandate period.

I am not the one who is the one, but I am happy to build further on what is good that others have done previously, but the reality is that far too little was done. It is excellent that we at the start of this four-year period could link up with the legislative work that had been initiated.

One can note that almost all of this began during the last year of your eight years and during those few months when you were freed from the veto in the form of Miljöpartiet. It also makes the future forecast very relevant in that respect, because as long as Miljöpartiet is part of the government base, there are some who press the veto button, and then one gets nowhere in these issues. It is clearly a relevant question when we look forward.

Overall, we are on the right track, but we are really not there yet. An enormous amount of work remains. It is important to keep the course, not turn back, not slow down the pace, and not let Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet again gain a veto over the conducted policy.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the Minister for Justice highlights the development regarding the new recruitment as one of the most serious matters during this parliamentary term. It is undeniably so that we have had a completely catastrophic development with a skyrocketing new recruitment. There are, as it were, no glimmers of light here, only darkness.

Despite this, the government has been slow to take necessary measures. That is why I often call the work of breaking the new recruitment the government's blind spot, and I must allow myself to repeat that.

It is precisely the lack of a policy to break the serious development with the new recruitment that makes the answer to my question regarding what measures the government intends to take to realize the promise of eradicating gang crime over the next four years rather thin. I am, in fact, only getting a single concrete answer, and that is that the police shall be given the opportunity to take down the gangs' murder advertisements.

Don't misunderstand me: It is very, very good that this legislation is being put in place. It is something that we Social Democrats have been harping on about for several years. In previous debates, Gunnar Strömmer first blamed the tech giants and then the EU. It took far too long before Gunnar Strömmer himself took hold of this issue, and unfortunately, it is because of that sluggishness that half of the children's summer holidays will pass before these murder advertisements are taken down. During half of the summer holidays, the gangs will therefore be able to continue with their murder advertisements.

I had, as I said, hoped for a clearer statement on what the government envisions should be done to reverse this development. Instead, I received a rather sweeping answer about not slowing down the pace and, for some reason, not giving a veto to Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.

I therefore want to reassure Gunnar Strömmer with two messages. The first is that an S-led government will not be soft on crime, regardless of which other parties we may end up cooperating with – on the contrary.

We seek mandates to continue moving the positions forward, continue expanding the justice system, continue toughening the penalties for socially dangerous crimes, and continue refining the crime-fighting tools. Furthermore, we want to introduce a Swedish mafia law to reach the gang leaders and their activities that are eating deeper and deeper into both the business sector and welfare. We want to put the same force, energy, and resources into breaking new recruitment as into prosecuting the criminals.

My second reassuring message to Gunnar Strömmer is that he actually does not need to be worried about other parties' potential influence in crime policy under an S-led government.

We Social Democrats have proposed a ten-year pact against gang crime together with the Moderates in the center of Swedish politics. It has unfortunately been rejected by the Moderates, but our hand is always extended, Gunnar Strömmer. We believe that in the same way that we stand united when it comes to external threats to Sweden, we should be able to stand side by side when internal security is threatened, not just to manifest a symbolic value but because it would truly be the best for Sweden. In that way, we ensure that the policy becomes both action-oriented and effective, and also long-term sustainable over time and changes of government.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! If I was negative in my first contribution, I shall be more balanced now. I appreciate the Minister's answer. One naturally desired more, but it was difficult in four minutes when there were so many participants. However, there is one further thing I would like to touch upon.

In my first speech, I stuck to speaking about girls and young women who are increasingly being drawn into crime, but there is a tool I believe we must address further. It concerns the Prison and Probation Service's important work. Of course, preventive work and strong crime fighting are important. But then what? The Prison and Probation Service, as we know, faces great challenges. The occupancy is extremely high. The staff testify that they are going to their knees. Child and youth departments are to be placed into existing environments. The number of incidents has increased. Decisions in this chamber strain their operations further and will do so for a long time to come.

The Prison and Probation Service warns that the development risks affecting the possibilities for reintegration. It is serious. The Prison and Probation Service should never just be a place where people are locked up. It must also be the place where recidivism is prevented, where substance abuse and destructive norms are broken, and where education, treatment, and rehabilitation function.

It is of course important to lock up dangerous people, but the policy must also be long-term and work in practice. Then we must ensure that the Prison and Probation Service has the capacity, staff, and resources to handle the consequences. Otherwise, we risk getting a system where more people are imprisoned for longer periods but where fewer receive the right support to leave crime behind. We risk getting a society where gang criminals are released one day and are still gang criminals. A functioning prison and probation service is ultimately about something as simple as the person who has served their sentence coming out in a better position.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! If Anna Wallentheim was positive, then I shall have to be the gloomiest one here today. I am not usually, but it is time.

I was very disappointed by the answer and by the non-answer, perhaps one could say, regarding the children who are extra vulnerable and exposed and whom we know the gangs target for recruitment. It is not just recruitment online, crime as a service, but we know that gang criminals stand outside adapted schools where children with intellectual disabilities attend. We also know that children who do not manage in school are extra exposed. We know that children with NPF diagnoses who do not receive the right help in time are extra vulnerable to being drawn into the gangs. And we know that children who are subjected to violence in the home are extra vulnerable.

I mean that it is incredibly important to talk about vulnerable children when it comes to the new recruitment to the gangs and to dare to see the connection between first being a crime victim and then becoming a perpetrator. If we do not do that, Minister of Justice, then we will not be able to implement the right measures, and then we will not be able to stop the spiral of violence. If we do not make the right diagnosis, we cannot administer the right medicine.

We have the knowledge. We get it through solid international research, including from the United Kingdom. We get it from the Children's Ombudsman, for example in the report There has always been violence, i.e., when there have been problems. We get it from Brås reports, including the one about children under 15 who commit serious crimes.

We see in the Socialstyrelsen's investigations of injuries and deaths that even when the police, school, social services, and healthcare know that there may be violence in the home, they wait instead of acting. Here, the development is going in the wrong direction. Children have to wait for too long when they have been subjected to crimes against children. They are not investigated in time. We see how deadlines are not met when children are subjected to crimes. We see how Unizon and Roks alarm about the closures of protected housing.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Let us gladly talk about preventive work. Speaking of blind spots, I can only state that the Social Democrats' government base is no better when it comes to preventive work. All interventionist measures that we have implemented during this parliamentary term have, in some respect, been opposed by some party belonging to their government base. In the referral response from the left-wing leadership in SKR, it is the same thing. It does not only concern the repressive and the most far-reaching.

What is it that we are doing, and what is it that we are going to do? Let us start with the effective tools. The advertisements are taken down. That is, of course, completely crucial. Sweden will be first in the EU with this. No other EU country is ahead in that queue. We have had a very efficient process. We have not had any external investigation but have investigated internally at the ministry and had a two-month referral period despite these being what one can call constitutionally related issues, which normally should be given more time. We have had an efficient process with the Council on Legislation. We will return to the Riksdag, and if the Riksdag speeds things up, this will be a record-fast process for legislation of this kind.

In the autumn, preventive coercive measures were introduced aimed at children under 15 years of age to combat recruitment via mobile phones. New legislation gives the police completely different opportunities to act in the digital environment, for example by posing as children themselves in the various forums where the gangs recruit. The penalties for those who recruit are tripled. We will lock them up. They may have moved abroad, but we have ensured that twice as many people are arrested abroad as before. It is those who order the violence and recruit the children that we will now reach with a force we have never seen before.

Regarding social prevention, we have a new Social Services Act. It was debated well for 25 years, but now it is in place. A new intermediate measure in the form of tools between voluntary interventions and coercion will be crucial for breaking destructive patterns, not least when 50 percent of families say no to the social services' interventions.

A large and much-awaited reform of the LVU system and state youth care is coming. Furthermore, the youth prisons have the great merit of significantly relieving state youth care and freeing up hundreds of places now that children convicted of serious crimes will be taken care of by Kriminalvården. This will provide completely different opportunities for municipalities in need of placements for children – either for crime prevention purposes or to meet other needs, for example psychosocial or substance abuse-related needs. They will be able to use state youth care for what it was actually originally intended for.

All this means a record-breaking reorganization of both the repressive and far-reaching and the preventive. It is necessary. It allows us to say that we are on the right track, but there is undoubtedly a long way to go.

I have one post left. Then I intend to raise the question about the girls, which I think is particularly important. But I will save it for the last post.

I want to raise the government issue again, because I should now be reassured by the messages. The fact is that the Moderates are the Social Democrats' least concern. The Social Democrats' great concern is that one must negotiate one's policy with the basis on which one builds one's government. On our side, we have been able to implement our policy because we know that we have a stable majority in the Riksdag. It has been a prerequisite for everything we have done during these four years.

It is a reality that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have voted against large parts of this. It is a reality that much of this is time-limited and that it will come up again for new votes during the next mandate period. It is a reality that the intervening measures that were carried over from the previous four-year period to the current government occurred during the little over half-year when S was freed from MP in a very specific situation. So it will not happen again.

It is clear that politics is about will, as our friend Olof Palme said. But it is also about having a plan for how that will is to be realized. That presupposes that one has a majority behind them, and S does not have that on its side of politics.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Justice and my colleagues for this debate. We have been united in the will, the ambition, and the strive to crush the gang crime that for a decade has truly plagued our country. We have noted that the number of shootings has, gladly, decreased and that the police have become better at solving the gangs' acts of violence in order to be able to imprison more. But we have also noted that the explosions have increased avalanche-like, that the mafia-like gangs have eaten themselves ever deeper into the welfare system and the business sector, and that new recruitment is spiraling.

It is somewhat symptomatic when we Social Democrats ask questions about what preventive measures the government intends to take and the Minister for Justice answers with imprisonment. I think one needs to intervene a bit earlier than that.

Madam Speaker! I requested this debate following the Prime Minister's and the Minister for Justice's promise to eradicate gang crime over the next four years, not because I do not share the ambition, but because I sought answers on how the government intends to fulfill that promise when so much is going in the wrong direction.

The government seems to have taken the victory in advance, but is there something we Social Democrats have learned? It is that organized crime consists of very strong forces that cannot be overestimated. We must not stare blindly at individual parameters or rely on all the excellent investigations and propositions we produce.

We Social Democrats are prepared to do everything that is required – everything that is legally sound and effective: more resources for schools and youth psychiatry, U-sväng programs, pinpointing young people who have become trapped in the gangs' grip, harsher penalties, an expanded justice system, a mafia law, and much, much more. But I hope that we, regardless of who wins the election in September, can agree to continue moving the positions forward.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for a very good discussion!

I also want to thank you for a common ambition which, I believe, most fundamentally share, namely that we must fight organized crime in depth and in breadth. It is about stopping the violence, strangling the criminal economy and breaking the recruitment of the children.

Teresa Carvalho, however, hardly listened at all. It was very obvious why I brought up imprisonment as part of the preventive. A large part of the point with the Prison and Probation Service taking responsibility, and an important consequence of that, is that we significantly ease the pressure on state youth care. But it is, of course, not the answer to the question of how we should avoid these children ending up there.

The state youth care can in that case use its resources for what it was originally intended for, namely to prevent crime at an early stage and break destructive patterns before one ends up in serious crime. It shall help families where children may have fallen into substance abuse themselves or been subjected to serious violence and become violent or have other needs for state youth care.

It was this angle I had on imprisonment as an answer to the question. It was obvious to everyone who wanted to listen.

Let me also say something about prevention. It is, of course, completely crucial to move the positions forward, and it is a matter of doing so with full force. It is also a matter of getting work done in practice.

In many of the issues that have been raised, for example the girls or the children who grow up in homes where they themselves experience violence, are subjected to violence or experience abuse, it is often about the same kind of prevention. The different actors must share information among themselves to be able to see the problems and intervene early. The police's profiling must not only be based on boys but must also capture the girls. Measures and interventions must be made early.

In that way, we can catch the girls and the children who are subjected to experiences at home that make them more prone and more vulnerable. I think that is an incredibly essential part of what we already do, and we will do very much more of this as we look forward.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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