Secret and preventive measures when children under 15 years of age commit crimes

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we will consider the committee's report Secret and preventive measures when children under 15 years of age commit crimes. This is a difficult but important matter, for many different reasons.

Let me begin by being clear before the Riksdag. The Social Democrats will vote yes to the proposal in the report, because we see an acute need for new tools. The reasons are quite obvious. We have at many previous occasions discussed in the chamber that it can be seen that ever younger perpetrators are being recruited. We see that older men sit in other countries and remotely order murders, bombings, and acts of gross violence – crime as a service. At the far end of the ventricles are perpetrators who are children. It is a relatively new phenomenon in Sweden. We must find and come up with ways to meet this.

Preventive measures are an effective method. We have many times been critical and in many discussions and debates in this chamber have raised legitimate questions about proportionality when it comes to privacy versus preventive measures. Not least in the statistics that we in the committee have received, most recently yesterday, we have been able to see that the proportion of stopped planned murders is enormous. The efficiency of the police has increased. They have succeeded in stopping very many murders that were far ahead in the planning phase.

The children are placed in the execution chain. They transport weapons, and they act as couriers. They even carry out the actual violent act. We can never accept that.

The state shall in certain cases be able to use secret coercive measures. In this case, it concerns children under the age of 15. For that, certain, special considerations are required. We simply need to find a balance point. I think that this has been done in a good way by time-limiting a part and finding different types of legal safeguards.

I also want to highlight another perspective. Some parties here in the chamber are positioned quite awkwardly when it comes to repressive measures, which we have to call this even though it can be a preventive measure to intervene early when, for example, a murder is being planned. We must find a balance point between both repressive measures and preventive efforts, especially when it concerns the group we are talking about today – the children.

What does it help if we get a whole set of new police tools, if we build even more police stations and if we acquire even more uniformed personnel if we do not have the possibility to follow up on and prevent new recruitment? What does it help when social services are on its knees, when there are fewer and fewer adults in school to handle increasingly difficult challenges and when, at the same time, one lowers the tax for rich people like us who sit in this chamber? One must prioritize in a different way. Tax cuts are perhaps not the way forward right now, when we have these challenges. We have a society to build.

We believe that instead, one must build faith in the future. Security is naturally not built by monitoring children. Security is built by seeing these children before the gangs see them.

In the spring, everyone in the committee received a paperback, an award-winning one. A paperback is easy, but the content in this one is heavy. It is called *Blir du ledsen om jag dör*. I hope that all of you who are here in the chamber today have read it. But if you have not read it, it is in your offices; we had the opportunity to take our own copy from the committee. It was some donor who thought it would be appropriate if we read it.

The book is written by Nicolas Lunabba, who is a basketball coach in Malmö. In a speech he gave some time ago, he formulated the following: ”I would speak about how democracy is about community and humanity. But that we have simultaneously built into the system the exclusion of some people from the social community. That people in Sweden today are attributed different values. Children cannot dream on an empty stomach. Children cannot visualize a future, let alone believe that their dreams can be realized, when they are forced to live in the present – and only in the present.”

It is clear that if we are to get these children to stop shooting and not be drawn into the gangs' chimeric community, we must offer an alternative. Here, politics has an immensely important responsibility.

I have mentioned previously that there are some positive things with the investigation and in the report, which we have come to. This includes, among other things, the need to ensure that this is to be evaluated continuously and that we really review this. There shall be tests at different levels and at different times, so that one has a legally secure and good process.

It is something that Save the Children, among others, has highlighted in its consultation responses. I am sure that some others here in the chamber will raise the concerns that Save the Children has and which I believe all of us here can see in many respects. It is pointed out that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been a law for a number of years now. But perhaps we do not take the Convention on the Rights of the Child fully seriously. I believe that Save the Children's comments on this are important to take to heart.

The advantages of the proposal outweigh the disadvantages. It is important to say. With yet another tool, we trip up the gang leaders who try to use children as pawns in a cynical game. We make it a little harder to lure children into the execution chain. We thus break, at best, the long-term ability to recruit new people into this activity, which harms our society so enormously. There is the great potential in today's report. That is the reason why the Social Democrats say yes to the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! During the years when the Social Democrats governed Sweden, gang violence and organized crime escalated. Between the years 2012 and 2022, the deadly gun violence tripled. The criminal economy grew to 150 billion per year. This development, which was allowed, also meant that children were involved in organized crime to an ever-increasing extent. During the time when the Social Democrats governed Sweden, the number of children involved in murder and other serious crimes multiplied.

Now we hear from MP Petter Löberg that what we are doing now is right and that there is an acute need for this type of authority. I wonder: Why did the Social Democrats not do this? To me, it appears as a turnaround from the Social Democrats' side.

Voters listening to this debate should also note that the Social Democrats completely lack their own proposals for solutions. The only thing we hear is the usual Social Democratic disinformation and propaganda. They claim that no investment is being made in social services. They claim that no investment is being made in schools. These are lies. We have enacted a new Social Services Act that creates conditions for earlier and clearer interventions. We are making a huge investment in schools. Yesterday it was announced that with this budget, 4.3 billion is being invested in schools. In total, it will be 14 billion in the coming years.

Then we also hear the socialist propaganda that lowered taxes are a problem. No, it is the high taxes that the Social Democrats stand for that have made Sweden poorer and hindered growth. Now we will ensure that we lower taxes and invest in the core of the welfare state in a way that makes Sweden richer and safer.

I wonder what the member's answer is, besides that one is a doormat for the government. What ideas does one have of one's own?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Kärrholm delivers a wonderful campaign speech. It is good to warm up before the upcoming exercises. We have an election ahead of us, and it is noticeable in the high tone. It is also clear that he is wearing a jacket of good self-confidence and possesses rhetorical edge. It is very pleasant. But there are a number of problems in the member's address.

We see now that the shootings are decreasing. We see that the police have better tools on the ground. We see that we have achieved a police expansion of historical proportions. It has never happened before in our country – and perhaps almost never in any Western European country – that one has increased the police density in the way that Sweden is currently doing. All of this is a product of the eight years when we were in power.

The truth is – and the members know this – that 80–90 percent of everything that has influenced things so far during this mandate period, when you governed, Fredrik Kärrholm, are products that the Social Democrats developed in a government position. It is our investigations, our referrals, our proposals and our tools, for example secret coercive measures, which we introduced earlier – it is not just one piece of legislation but several. We did not sit on our hands. We had a pace of reform never before seen in this country regarding the possibilities of law enforcement agencies to combat crime. Never before had so much work been done at the Ministry of Justice to produce new legislation and products as during the Social Democratic government. We sleep well at night.

But as I pointed out in my speech, there must be a two-sidedness in politics – we also need to work with the new recruitment. In that discussion, we Social Democrats consider you to be totally naked. You have nothing to contribute.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are astonishing exaggerations and lies. The member says that everything we do is done at the Social Democrats' initiative. Has the member heard of the Tidö Agreement? Read it! It is quite a few pages with very many proposals. We have, during this parliamentary term, implemented 99 percent of the measures in the Tidö Agreement.

Another lie is that we are completely "naked" when it comes to recruitment. We absolutely are not. In my previous remark to the member, I provided information about the new Social Services Act and the investments in schools. We ensure that there will be earlier and clearer crime prevention work towards young people and sufficiently effective repression against older people.

I am almost breathless before the Social Democratic arrogance. All the successes we see now, such as the fact that shootings have decreased since the election, we are apparently to thank the Social Democrats for. That is absolutely not the case. In principle, nothing of what is in the Tidö Agreement would have happened if the Social Democrats had continued to govern. Even if you had the creative power and the will to implement what we are doing now, you would not have been able to, because you are dependent on cooperating with reality-detached environmentalists and Left Party members, who – nota bene – are against the legislation we are debating here today.

My question to the member is actually which planet he is living on.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! There was a lot at once!

When we took power in 2014, there were not particularly many products in the works. There was nothing in the pipeline – in the "pipe," as it was popular to say at that time. It was completely blank. We started with a blank sheet in many and many respects, but what we did was good. This applies to the terrorist legislation, serious crimes and a number of other things, not least secret coercive measures, which are being discussed today. It was a rather blank sheet that the Moderate government handed over.

It is a rather tiresome blame game. Look instead, and be honest! Politics is like a slow Finnish ferry. It takes a long time to turn a development. It is not your Tidöpapper, which you had at that castle on that wet evening, that has decided the situation and ensured that the Police Authority has good tools and resources. It is things that we have developed over an extremely long time. This is not fixed overnight. It is not the Tidögänget's merit. Your proposals have rolled out over the last few months. The member speaks about investments in schools to be made in the next budget for next year. Is that not what we are talking about? We are in an acute situation. Youth are recruited into gangs by a lot of criminals who sit in Turkey and order online. Is it not these investments that are the answer to that?

This is something we have worked on for decades in Sweden in different ways. The reason we are in this mess is that over 20, 30, 40 years there have been things that we have not managed in our society, for example segregation and the class society. They have closed youth centers as soon as they had the opportunity to do so in Greater Stockholm. But look at Stockholm now! They are working incredibly efficiently and well. There we have a showcase for how one fights crime. Look at the Social Democratic-led Stockholm!

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

TALMANNEN

I remind of the importance of using a respectful language in the chamber.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is still an extremely serious and cruel situation with shootings and explosions being driven forward via the organized criminal environments. The bill we are now talking about concerns children. It is children who have vastly different upbringing conditions, children in the Swedish class society and children who have not reached the age of 15.

Thoughts of children evoke emotions and should evoke emotions. Hearing the ringing laughter of children fills most of us with joy. I also want to believe that most of us feel sorrow when children's needs are not met and despair if children are exposed to threats and violence.

Sweden is actually a wealthy country. But we have extensive child poverty. According to SCB, it could involve more than 400,000 children. According to Rädda Barnen, it is about 200,000 children who live in an economic vulnerability that means families cannot afford the most essential expenses for housing, clothes, and food.

As if that were not enough, many children experience violence. It is a violence that exists among us regardless of social class. One in ten children in Sweden has at some point witnessed, seen, or heard violence in the home, and one in twenty children has done so often. That is, therefore, one child in every class.

Many have also been subjected to physical violence on their own bodies. Many boys also learn violence as a means of power that way by seeing dad hit. Research also shows that there is an increased risk for those children to eventually use violence in life. We can also see this echo of violence in many of the gang criminals' experiences of traumatic experiences as children.

The question is now: Should the children bear the consequences of the adults' and society's lack of ability to provide them with security? Should the children bear the consequences of responsible authorities failing to catch them if they are drifting, and thereby opening up for criminal forces to recruit them and exploit their vulnerability also via the internet and not only physically?

Sweden has a great responsibility to ensure that children are not drawn into criminal networks. Many referral bodies point out that the government has too great a focus on repressive measures. Just as the Left Party claims, they argue that the preventive measures need to be given more attention and receive resources.

A strict welfare system is needed with preschool, school, social services, and BUP to be able to detect and prevent a negative development. We know from research that it is precisely the preventive measures that have a great effect when it comes to children. In that way, one can strengthen children's self-control, self-esteem, and capacity to resist the temptations from the criminal gangs.

Now we face something completely new in Swedish politics, a right in the matter of the use of secret coercive measures against young people, so young that they are not even of legal age. Research shows that when children are more or less treated as adult offenders, there is a clear risk that they are strengthened in their criminal identity. This naturally hinders rehabilitation and increases the risk of recidivism.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child marks in its Article 40 that children who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility shall be handled alternatively and thus outside the criminal procedure. Article 2 is mentioned almost never in our contexts. It concerns non-discrimination, which is also essential.

Almost all the proposals we have before us now threaten the children's personal privacy. There are also those who are very worried that it will have widespread effects, not only for the children who could concretely be in the danger zone of being recruited, but also for their close friends and relatives, who may also be children.

It cannot be emphasized enough that children can be both perpetrators and victims. It is not uncommon that these children are recruited online or in other environments through threats, violence, and grooming. Since it is now a criminal offense to recruit children into crime, the double vulnerability of the affected children should both be made visible and clarified.

We are now in a situation where I believe the bills will be voted through this afternoon. I have said before, and I repeat it, that law is frozen politics. A majority in the Riksdag has the power, via our democratic rules, to dictate the legislation.

But law is also something else. It is a discipline in academia with requirements that certain hierarchical principles, such as respect for the constitution and certain conventions, must be observed. In this legislative matter, there is criticism from the Council on Legislation on that point. Furthermore, the Government is obviously in a great hurry. The legal texts with tangled rules on 24 pages are to enter into force as early as October 1, in two weeks.

I and Vänsterpartiet first and foremost move for approval of our reservation 1. In that, we reject the proposal to use preventive coercive measures against children under 15 years of age, that is, coercive measures for preventive purposes without a requirement of suspicion of a crime. We also reject other things, but particularly strongly the preventive measures.

In summary, I and the Left Party argue that the proposal is too far-reaching and that it does not meet the requirements of legal certainty and proportionality. It also does not take sufficient account of children's special rights. The Riksdag should therefore reject the bill.

We also have an additional reservation that I want to highlight and move for approval. It is number 3. The Government should return to the Riksdag with a time-limited proposal that certain secret coercive measures shall be allowed to be used against children under 15 years of age in cases of suspicion of certain clearly specified crimes. They shall be included in a catalogue of crimes, and it should not be as vague as in the bill we have before us today. Furthermore, the Government should add a proposal that children's communication with their parents shall be covered by prohibitions against secret wiretapping and surveillance.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the government's and the Sweden Democrats' bill on secret and preventive coercive measures when children under 15 years of age commit crimes. According to the government and the Sweden Democrats, this is a well-balanced political way forward when considering various interests, which are notably highlighted through the referral responses.

One interest is to safeguard the privacy of young people who risk being drawn into very serious crime. Another is the rule of law's ability to prevent serious crimes from being committed by children under the age of 15.

In this assessment, we can see how the preventive coercive measures against adults have actually prevented very many serious crimes. Often, it concerns crimes so serious as planned murders, where it is always significantly more than one intended murder victim who is affected. It is about families with children who are woken in the middle of the night by gunfire and about neighbors who have to live with the knowledge of what has happened in their area. It is about completely innocent people who are unintentionally affected by deadly violence.

When we have taken into account the serious situation that Sweden continues to find itself in, we have concluded that it is worth protecting young people and society as a whole by allowing the police, customs, and security police to be granted expanded opportunities to use these secret coercive measures.

Between 2012 and 2022, lethal gun violence in Sweden tripled. It is a development that the Sweden Democrats saw coming long before then, and we have, not least in this assembly, annually attempted to point out the gravity to a number of paralyzed left-wing governments.

Even though the deadly gun violence has decreased annually since Sweden got a new government in place, we know that the conflict levels are still high and that the demand for perpetrators of violence remains high. When we see how many children are drawn into serious crime, where clients often lure in children specifically to commit horrific acts, we must ask ourselves whether we should act or whether we should look on.

The left wing is usually deeply divided with strong opposition to main parts of the bill to give the police, customs, and security police the possibility to wiretap young people who are drawn into serious crime. It is, of course, a clear picture that explains the passivity that characterized Magdalena Andersson's side of politics when they governed Sweden. But now we have a government that, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, is moving forward with a united political offensive against gang crime, where we note that more needs to be done.

When 14-year-olds plan and carry out explosions and murders with firearms, it is not enough to simply resolve the crimes after the fact. We believe that many of the crimes that young people are involved in are so serious that we must give the judicial authorities an opportunity to try to prevent them from being committed in the first place.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats have designed the bill so that the new law makes it possible to investigate all serious crime with an expected penalty of over four years through secret coercive measures. What we particularly want to emphasize are crimes such as murder, human trafficking, public endangerment, serious weapons offenses, serious narcotics offenses, and serious extortion, that is to say crimes that are commonly occurring in the gang criminal environment.

We have also expanded the proposal so that both the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Customs Service are given the same conditions as the Swedish Security Service to use secret coercive measures against persons under 15 years of age.

Overall, it can be said that we have done the most possible with the investigation that formed the basis for the government's bill.

Mr. Speaker! If one wants to prevent serious crimes where children are involved, one cannot avoid the fact that preventive coercive measures today are a crucial key. It should be emphasized that even though several referral bodies have expressed some criticism towards various parts, this is something that the Swedish Police Authority, the Crime Prevention Council, and several others have welcomed.

Mr. Speaker! The question I ask myself, in light of yet another proposition that splits the opposition, is whether the Swedish people are ready to let through a Social Democratic Prime Minister – a Prime Minister who is to govern with parties that not only want to stop and limit the possibility of preventive surveillance but who have also shown a compact resistance to all successful policies that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have delivered during the mandate period.

It bears repeating that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet will vote no to the government's proposal to give the police the opportunity to prevent young people from committing serious crimes such as murder and explosions before they have occurred.

Those who cast their vote for the Social Democrats will jeopardize stable work against gang crime and thereby risk throwing proposals, which are welcomed by among others the Swedish Police Authority, into the wastebasket. A vote for the Social Democrats risks taking us back to a time of escalating violent crime where it is the criminal gangs that move forward their positions instead of it being, as it will be with our proposal, the law enforcement authorities that take major steps forward.

The voting on this bill this afternoon illustrates in a good way what is at stake in the upcoming election: a united front against gang crime on my side of politics, or a split red-green gang that is both for and against on the other side. For those who want to see action and results, the choice should be simple.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposed decision in the report and against the various motions from the left wing.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, gun violence and lethal violence in the criminal environment have progressively increased in Sweden. Violence among children and young people has generally decreased, but when it comes to serious crime, it is more and more children who are both victims and perpetrators. This is noted, for example, by both Brå and the National Audit Office. This development does not only affect the children and their relatives but risks undermining the safety of society as a whole.

Violence must be stopped and the entire society must join forces to break the gangs' recruitment of young people and protect children from being drawn into crime. The police, social services, health and medical care, the school, and other actors need resources and conditions to continue developing the proactive work and identify risk factors among children and their families. More resources must be allocated to, among other things, identify and punish those who lead criminal gangs and the individuals who get children to commit serious crimes.

To break the development, it is the Miljöpartiets view that expanded opportunities to use secret and preventive coercive measures against children under 15 years of age can be an effective crime-prevention tool – if it is used with clear frameworks and with strong legal safeguards.

Just as several children's rights organizations have pointed out, it is about protecting both the victims, who also often are children themselves, and the children who commit the criminal acts. Among others, the Institute for Human Rights, Save the Children, and the Children's Ombudsman consider that the proposals in the investigation that partially form the basis for the government's bill, More effective tools to combat crimes by young offenders, are clearly anchored in real situations and that the use of coercive measures in such cases can lead to early identification of children who are at risk of committing serious crimes and increase protection for children as well as facilitate the identification of those who recruit children into gangs.

For Miljöpartiet, it is very important that society acts powerfully against children being recruited into serious crime, including by allowing secret and preventive coercive measures against children in certain cases.

Mr. Speaker! We consider, however, that the design of the proposal on the use of coercive measures presented in the bill is disproportionate and entails great risks for children's privacy and legal certainty. The problem with gangs' recruitment of children is acute and requires measures. But the legislation must be clearly regulated, accurate, and proportionate in relation to the intrusion into personal privacy that it entails in order to be effective.

We consider that the proposal in its current form does not live up to these requirements. Miljöpartiet therefore urges the government to return with proposals that are more in line with the proposals in the original investigation regarding the use of secret and preventive coercive measures against children under 15 years of age. The investigation's proposals are, in our opinion, more proportionate, well-balanced, and legally secure than the government's currently submitted proposition.

To begin with, the government proposes a significantly wider range of crimes where secret coercive measures shall be permitted to be used. The investigation limited the application to crimes with at least four years of imprisonment in the sentencing scale to ensure that only the most serious crimes in the gang environment would be covered. The government proposes, however, that crimes with a minimum sentence of two years in the sentencing scale shall also be covered in the provision.

Furthermore, a general possibility to use secret coercive measures is included for all crimes if the police or prosecutor judge that the combined punitive value of the crimes is so serious that it could result in more than four years of imprisonment. Such an arrangement can be questioned from a legal certainty perspective – which has also been done – as a preliminary assessment of the punitive value during the preliminary investigation does not necessarily correspond with the final sentence in court.

The Government also deviates from the investigation's line regarding the use of preventive measures, which the Council on Legislation is also sharply critical of. The investigation proposed that only the Security Service, and then only in cases of suspicion of terrorist offenses, should be allowed to use preventive measures against children. The Government now also wants to grant the Police Authority and the Swedish Customs Service such powers, even though the Council on Legislation, with reference to the investigation's conclusions, considers it neither justified nor proportionate to give the police and customs service the opportunity to use preventive measures. It risks affecting a large group of children and would involve an extremely far-reaching interference in their rights and personal integrity. The risk of discrimination, stigmatization, and arbitrary surveillance of children increases with such a use of preventive measures, and this contradicts fundamental principles of the rule of law.

The Council on Legislation also questions whether the government's proposal meets the requirement for preparation in the Instrument of Government, as the proposal is more extensive than that which was presented in the investigation and which the referral bodies have commented on. The Green Party views this handling seriously, that the government in this way has bypassed the requirements for a thorough preparation.

We note that the Council on Legislation is of the opinion that the government's proposal should await the result of the comprehensive evaluation that the government has commissioned, which we appreciate. We share that opinion.

Mr. Speaker! We, however, support that those under 15 years of age who can be suspected of a crime should be able to be detained for questioning for an additional six hours beyond the three hours that apply today. Unlike the proposals regarding coercive measures, this proposal is in line with what the investigation suggests. Among others, Socialstyrelsen, SKR, Brå, and Sveriges advokatsamfund support a longer time limit, and it is also an opportunity that the police are requesting. It is about giving the police enough time to investigate serious crimes that are often committed in closed environments. The proposal can also contribute to protecting children.

Miljöpartiet has two reservations. I move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns that the government should return to the Riksdag with a proposal that is more in line with the commission's proposal.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! During the years when the Social Democrats mismanaged Sweden, gang violence and organized crime escalated. Between 2012 and 2022, the deadly firearm violence in Sweden tripled, and the criminal economy grew to 100–150 billion kronor per year. The development that was allowed also meant that children were involved in organized crime to an ever-increasing extent.

The current parliamentary majority was elected with the mandate to reverse this development and push back organized crime. That is what we are doing now.

Mr. Speaker! Since previously, when the police have conducted wiretapping to investigate serious crimes and it has turned out that the person who can be suspected of the crime is under 15 years old, one has had to terminate the wiretapping. That is, of course, completely absurd. In those cases, it is more important than ever to investigate the crime. Now we ensure that it can happen, with new legislation coming into force as early as October 1. Decision by decision, we ensure that we push back organized crime on all fronts.

We are also introducing a possibility for preventive measures, that is, in situations where there is not yet a suspicion of a crime but where the risk is imminent that a serious crime will occur.

The police are now preventing more shootings and bombings than ever before. Now we are providing them with even better conditions for the important preventive work.

This reform also means that the police can detain children longer after an interrogation while waiting for social services or parents. It may sound like a small change, but in practice it is very important. When a child is arrested with drugs or weapons, it is extremely important that the child leaves the police station in the company of an adult who can take responsibility and care for the child.

Mr. Speaker! It must be said that there have previously been good reasons for an arrangement that has meant that the police do not wiretap children under the age of 15, against the background that children's crime has previously, historically speaking, been of such a character that there has been no need for these secret coercive measures in order to be able to investigate the crime. But in view of the criminal development that we all are aware of, there are obvious reasons to now make a different assessment.

We know that children today occur in both the execution and instigation stages of organized crime and occupy central roles in the commission of very serious crimes. They are suspected of shootings of very serious offenses. These children have also become younger over time. The development has brought us to a point where 10- and 11-year-olds are recruited into gangs, 12- and 13-year-olds transport weapons and explosives, and 14- and 15-year-olds commit murder and attempted murder.

The Swedish Security Service has also seen examples of children under 15 years of age expressing a desire to commit terrorist acts and that foreign powers are attempting to recruit young criminal actors to carry out serious acts in Sweden.

It is very clear that this type of legislation is absolutely necessary. I regret that there is opposition to this on the left side.

All of this is a symptom of a broken society, a broken society that has not arisen by chance. The problems we see today, 2025, are a direct consequence of the policy the Social Democrats pursued for eight years.

Mr. Speaker! What we are doing now signifies a shift in perspective. We ensure that the sentencing scales reflect the severity of the crimes. Gang criminals shall be able to receive double sentences. Today's bulk discount shall be abolished. Repeated serious sexual offenses shall be able to lead to life imprisonment. The rules for parole are tightened. For the most dangerous repeat offenders, a new penalty without a time limit shall also be introduced, a form of detention.

As the Prime Minister stated in his government statement: Dangerous people shall be locked up so that law-abiding citizens dare to be out. It is that simple.

Being able to intervene against children is as much about protecting these children as it is about protecting their potential crime victims.

In addition to the legislative changes that now enter into force on 1 October and make it possible to use secret and preventive coercive measures against children under 15 years of age, the age of criminal responsibility will also be lowered. The sentence reduction for young people will also decrease significantly, while it will be abolished entirely for young adults. Special youth prisons are being built right now and will be ready and begin to be used on 1 July next year.

Of course, however, the goal is that it should never go so far that we need to lock up children. The government has implemented the largest reform in the field of social services in over 40 years, a reform that makes it possible to take measures earlier regarding children in the risk zone and in a better way intercept them before crimes are committed. At the same time, we have removed confidentiality barriers between the police, school, and social services so that the country's municipalities get significantly better conditions to carry out crime prevention work.

Yesterday, an almost historic investment in schools was also presented. The government is investing 4.3 billion in the upcoming budget to improve quality. In total, it amounts to 14 billion kronor over the next three years. This can rightly be described as the largest school budget in modern times.

My hope is also that a stronger school and responsible parents can counteract the destructive gangster culture which is a main explanation for gang crime. That we minimize immigration to Sweden is simultaneously a fundamental prerequisite.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating here today is of great importance in this broad offensive against crime. The new legislation will protect honest people, protect children from being drawn into crime, and further complicate things for the criminal gangs and clans.

I vote in favor of the government bill and against the motions being considered in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party demands approval of the committee's proposal in today's report. But to demand approval of a proposition to allow secret and preventive coercive measures when children under 15 years of age commit serious crimes is nevertheless nothing other than a defeat and a failure for Sweden. A lack of care and control, a lack of accountability and clarity, and a lack of leadership have resulted in us being where we are now.

The children who are now covered were born from 2011 onwards. Those who are 13 now were 10 when this government took office.

For the sake of these children, we need this legislation, but we also need a completely different policy. We need a policy for growth, for jobs, and for a fair school. We need a policy that gives hope in the whole country, a policy where children get to be children and where adults take their responsibility and not a society where adults, in their failure, instead point the finger at the children as being responsible.

The proposal that the Centre Party says yes to today constitutes a protection of and a help to the children. In like manner with the Chancellor of Justice, the Children's Ombudsman, Save the Children, the Security and Integrity Protection Authority, and many other instances, we say that this legislation is needed for the sake of the children.

JK considers that the need to be able to investigate and prevent serious and difficult-to-investigate crime among children under 15 years of age today weighs so heavily that there is reason to open for that use even against children who cannot be prosecuted for crimes. JK considers that the underlying investigation has made careful assessments of compatibility with applicable freedom and rights regulations, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that the proposal appears both appropriate and well-balanced.

The Children's Ombudsman states in its referral response that children must be protected from being drawn into crime and exploited by criminal networks. It is important that we have access to these tools, primarily in order to be able to take into account the crime victims' interest in redress, clarity, and compensation for damages. There are many who benefit from the legislation.

Just as several others have raised, we share the assessment that it is important that the police in more cases are allowed to detain a suspected child offender in order to then be able to promptly hand them over to parents, guardians, an official within social services, or someone else, so that the gangs cannot recruit the children back from the police station. It is important.

In summary, we from the Center Party consider today's proposal necessary to combat serious crime and gang violence with almost daily shootings and explosions. We consider the proposal to be well-balanced in its nature, degree, and scope, and we view it positively that it is time-limited in selected parts.

We also look forward to the comprehensive review of secret and preventive measures that the government finally commissioned at the beginning of the year. We look forward to May 29 next year when the investigation is to be completed. With every bill and report, the need for an analysis of the consequences of the overall regulation for personal integrity becomes clear. Even if every law is justifiable – as it is today – the forest of legislation can sometimes become too dense and impenetrable, and one therefore needs to have the big picture.

Mr. Speaker! Let me go a bit ahead of the events. We in the Center Party note today that when reality changes, the political tools must also change. But what does not change is that children are still largely children, even when they commit grave, horrific crimes. I often hear about the laws of physics when it comes to energy policy, but increasingly rarely do we hear about the development of the brain. Therefore, it is welcome and honorable that the government itself in its proposition writes that children are generally easier to manipulate and exploit than adults, and that they have a more limited ability to make risk assessments.

The Centre Party says yes today to us giving children exactly the protection and the opportunities for support they need. Just this fact that children have a more limited ability to make risk assessments, that their consequential thinking is not that of an adult, is one of the reasons why we from the Centre Party later in the parliamentary year will not be in favor of a lowered age of criminal responsibility, but instead will be in favor of a society that gives children and their families the support and the clarity that is needed, which gives children care, not criminal justice. Today's proposal enables this, and it is welcome. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in today's report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is with some sadness that I stand here today debating secret and preventive measures against children under 15 years of age who are suspected of committing serious crimes. It is nothing less than a great failure. How could it actually end up like this?

We receive daily reports of 13- and 14-year-olds running around with firearms and murdering targeted victims, but in many cases they mistake the person and shoot completely innocent people. Young people are also recruited to carry out explosions with large material damage and, of course, a great risk of personal injury.

It is obvious to everyone that children fundamentally lack the competence and ability to handle weapons and explosives. The risk of injury is great not only for intended victims but also for the children who are induced to carry out the acts. Just a few days ago, a 15-year-old died in a detonation, likely when he was attempting to detonate an explosive charge.

Teachers and students from schools are sounding the alarm about increased violence and threats. The violence affects both teachers and students, and there are signals of significant harassment and bullying both physically and digitally. Lost young people are attracted to the criminal lifestyle fueled by criminal rappers. The children ultimately become easy prey for crime recruiters.

All this is a sign that many children are lost and are suffering very badly. We have an adult world that seemingly more or less seems to have capitulated and is unable to provide the children with the security and good upbringing required to give them hope for the future and so that they can grow up and become good citizens. It is a matter of a despair and a lostness that many times results in self-harming behavior or a violent outward aggression that costs lives. The children are prepared to murder on others' behalf to earn money and pursue a criminal career, or – something that is almost even worse – they become members of the sadistic network 764 and seek out innocent people solely in the act and intent to kill them, film the process and post the deed on the internet.

Mr. Speaker! It is nothing new that young people, especially boys, commit crimes, but at the time when I worked out in the field as a police officer, it mainly concerned young people who committed burglaries or engaged in car theft and vandalism or other types of petty crimes, sometimes linked to drug abuse. It was problematic enough many times, but manageable and mostly free from serious violent crimes.

What we are now seeing and experiencing is unparalleled, and we must resort to the means required to push back the violence. We must do everything we can, partly to prevent and resolve the serious violent crimes, and partly in parallel with that, also work to ensure that all the good forces in our society, such as parents, schools, non-profit organizations, the business sector, and social services, work together to give our children the love and upbringing that I believe all children actually desire. The adult world must simply take back the initiative and stand up against the forces that influence and lure children into a world characterized by violence and lack of empathy.

Mr. Speaker! At its core, it is about values. The importance of the family cannot be overemphasized. Some time ago, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå, released a report on the risk of committing crimes linked to socioeconomic background. The conclusions in that report emphasize what we Christian Democrats have always pointed out, namely the decisive importance of the family rather than socioeconomic factors when it comes to crime.

Brå writes that crime is ultimately due to values and whether the person can justify actions to themselves and their surroundings. The family and a strong attachment to the parents then become a completely decisive safety-creating factor, where good norms and values can be transferred over time and between generations.

The Christian Democrats are a values-based party, and we have always highlighted the family as the cornerstone of crime prevention work. It is there that good values and a sense of right and wrong are built. This is more urgent now than ever before in a time when we see children seeking out criminal gangs and seeking status by urinating on, assaulting, filming, and humiliating their crime victims. It requires patient work, but we are doing things that will have a real effect.

Mr. Speaker! Secret coercive measures are, of course, an infringement of privacy, but the proposals we are now debating are not solely a means to prevent and solve serious crimes. They are also a way and an attempt to protect children who are subjected to the influence of cynical gang criminals, whose only purpose is to use the children as criminal tools without exposing themselves to risks.

Mr. Speaker! The number of shootings has decreased thanks to new legislation and good police work. The police report a record number of solved crimes, and the number of indictments has increased significantly. But the situation remains serious. The recruitment of young people continues. It is cynical and irresponsible. The now proposed coercive measures can hopefully give the police and prosecutors increased opportunities to identify and arrest the actual perpetrators and at the same time catch the young vulnerable individuals who are in the risk zone.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

In this speech, Martin Melin (L) agreed.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats have left the chamber of the Riksdag before the debate is finished, which I interpret as them not wanting a debate on the justice policy. It is very strange. Perhaps it is because they understand that they would not win such a debate.

What we are debating today is a law that can give the police and prosecutors the opportunity to more effectively prevent and stop children from committing serious crimes. "Prevent" and "stop" are two important words that we must take to heart, and we must focus on them moving forward if we are to put a stop to what is called the wave of violence.

What we are debating here today is legislation that, according to the police, would make a difference. It is legislation that, on the very day it comes into force, which is in two weeks if we vote for it later this afternoon, would make a difference immediately. Then we are talking about a difference between life and death. This is legislation that is effective. It is legislation that works. And it is, perhaps most importantly of all, a law that is necessary.

Mr. Speaker! We politicians should devote ourselves to giving those who know, who can, and who will carry things out the opportunities and conditions to do a good job. In this case, it is the police and prosecutors who need to do a good job.

Police and prosecutors have identified a problem, namely that more and more children under 15 are involved in serious crime, such as murder and bombings. The problem for police and prosecutors is that they lack legislation so that they can effectively reach these children, preferably before they commit murder.

When the police and prosecutors have identified a problem, they turn to those who enact the laws and point out the problem. The legislators are us here in the Riksdag. Thus, it becomes up to us to do something about the problem and approve the laws. The law that we are debating today is such a law. The law gives, simplified expressed, the police the right to use secret coercive measures, for example to wiretap a mobile phone of a person under 15 years of age. We are talking here about it being in cases of serious crime.

Six of the eight parties stand behind this law. Only Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet are against it. We have just heard that Miljöpartiet is not directly against it, but they want the government to return with a new proposal. I think it would be better if Miljöpartiet came up with a proposal that could be countered. But I understand what Miljöpartiet means. They are, however, saying no to an effective tool that can prevent children from murdering.

It is incomprehensible to me how one can be against this, given what the violence looks like today when children are recruited to commit serious violent crimes. If one says no to this, it shows a total lack of perception of reality. I do not understand how one can say no to effective and necessary legislation, which can prevent children from being drawn into serious crime, without having one's own proposals on how to stop 14-year-olds from shooting other children or blowing up homes where witnesses or relatives of criminals live.

Last year, almost 500 children between the ages of 15 and 17 were detained. This should set off the warning bells and alarm clocks for both Vänstern and Miljöpartiet.

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the solution to the wave of violence we see today is not just about giving the police and prosecutors the opportunity to wiretap 14-year-olds. I completely agree with the Left Party and the Green Party on that. We have talked about it before, and we completely agree that other measures, such as social measures, were needed. But when even the measures already being taken today do not work and we still have 14-year-olds who are murdering, the police must be given a tool that can effectively prevent those killings. The law we are debating today is such a law.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I will not drag this out for long but just want to point out that what I said was that the proposal should be in the way the investigation originally suggested. We do not, therefore, need to come up with anything new. This has already been investigated. We thought that proposal was better.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Westerlund, for the clarification! So you stand behind the investigation's original proposal? Then I understand. It was good to have that clarified.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Martin Melin claimed that we are only requesting a rejection. We are not doing that. We have a similar approach as the Green Party and want the government to return with a proposal that is more legally secure.

We are facing crises. We are in complete agreement on that. But it is also about the fact that we must handle crises with respect for what legislation entails. When one bypasses and does not follow constitutional rules and other things, and proceeds incredibly fast and carelessly, one undermines the democratic rules of the game.

I think it is serious that it is accepted that the constitutional rules are bypassed. But I also want to mark that Vänsterpartiet has the option to demand that the government should return, because it is serious problems we are to handle.

I believe we are in complete agreement that preventive measures must be implemented. But I think the government parties are invoking the Social Services Act a bit too quickly. It is an important piece of legislation, but it must be enforced. It is quite new. We must wait to see how the municipalities can live up to and realize it.

When it comes to the investment in schools that is coming now, it is due to the fact that it is an election year. It would have been welcome much earlier and could have helped many children.

Could I get some comments on this?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! There were some questions there. If we start with the last one, the school budget, I belong to the party that has pushed just that part of the budget quite offensively. We are satisfied that we are getting an investment of 14 billion over three years. I agree with the member that this could have easily come perhaps ten years ago, but then the Liberals were not in government. One has to talk to those who were in government positions ten years ago about why that investment was not made already then.

The member, as well as the member from Miljöpartiet, says that you think the bill that is before us today is not good, is not legally secure, and so on, and that we should go back and return with a new proposal. On that, we disagree. I think that this is a good bill. There is a tendency among some politicians to think that things should be investigated all the time. One is never satisfied; it never becomes good. Here there is a concrete bill. Consideration has been given to privacy, legal certainty, and so on. It is time-limited, and it shall be the court and the prosecutor who review and so on.

I do not understand how much more this law must be reworked for everyone to be satisfied. Six of the eight parties are obviously satisfied and think it is good. But it feels like it is almost always Vänstern and Miljöpartiet who think it is not good. It must go back, and then it shall be reworked and reworked. With what people are demanding is a bit more efficiency.

When it comes to the constitutional aspect, I do not believe that two days here or there makes any difference for the rule of law. But I understand what the member says.

In other respects, we must do more regarding prevention. The Social Services Act is good, but resources are also needed to be able to meet the requirements set forth in that law. I agree completely.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I shall comment a bit out of order. This matter of two days does not concern me. But that a bill is presented which has not been the subject of either an investigation or a referral process is serious.

The criticism we have regarding the proposal is that it is a very strange construction to build on what is believed to be the consequence for certain crimes and a long catalogue that could be included in this – we have several reforms that will disrupt such a principle. From the Left Party's side, we want a clear catalogue of crimes. These paragraphs, these crimes, shall allow the new means to be seized.

We also do not want this criminal law valve, where one tries to assess a lump of crimes. We believe this is very insecure regarding the rule of law, and we truly do not envy those who are to apply this legislation.

When it comes to the school issue, we agree that it is good now. But we perhaps do not need to go back ten years to say that it would have been good then. The government parties have been in power for a number of years now, and this could have also come earlier from the current government power.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased to hear that the member thinks that things can actually go faster and that it is good, when it comes to the school issue, for example. I also agree with this. I mean that it is the same thing when it comes to the justice policy – that can also go faster. Therefore, I think it is good that the government has presented the report that we are debating today and that it has gone fast.

We have a situation today that has escalated. The development has gone incredibly fast just in the last five, six, seven years. It is not possible to sit for three or four years and investigate things, we must do something. I have said this before. What I like about this government and with our Minister of Justice is that things are happening, concrete things.

We must now give this a chance, an opportunity. Then we can return in five years and see how it turned out. I might not be standing here then, but I hope that the member does. Then we can see how it goes and so on.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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