International enforcement in criminal cases

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For about two and a half years now, we have been implementing the largest change of Swedish criminal law in modern times. We are far from finished with the work, but we are already seeing good results.

The number of shootings in gang environments has clearly decreased during the period. This is largely due to the hard work that the police and other actors do every day in our country. But it also depends on the tools that we have given, not least to the police, so that they can become much more effective in solving crimes.

We have given them significantly greater opportunities to wiretap gang criminals than they had under the previous government. We have also given them the opportunity to establish security zones – what are called visitation zones – which the police themselves assess have stopped shootings in several cities around Sweden. It has saved human lives.

The number of shootings in gang environments is a third lower now than when we took office. Before we took office, approximately one in four shootings in gang environments were resolved. Today, nearly three in four shootings are resolved. These curves are connected. When the risk of getting caught increases, the willingness to commit the crime also decreases, and for the first time in over a decade, the curves are pointing in the right direction. It takes time to make changes, but our policy works.

This naturally has many different positive consequences. In place after place in our country, ordinary people are now taking back their streets and centers from the criminals. Some good examples of this can be found in southern Stockholm, where a number of open drug scenes have disappeared in recent years thanks to the stay bans.

An entrepreneur in Rågsved said the following in an interview with Expressen: ”They did exactly as they wanted. Sold in front of children. They owned us and we lost customers. Now the customers are coming back and everyone in the area is talking about the new law. It is 100 percent calmer.”

The criminals who were loitering there and selling drugs now risk imprisonment if they set foot there again. In combination with the fact that we have also enabled more camera surveillance, we will be able to restore safety even in places like this that have been very crime-prone previously.

This takes time, but this is how we do it. Street by street and center by center, we ensure that ordinary people take back this country from the criminals.

This policy has further consequences. One of them is that our prisons are becoming full. It is now so full in Sweden's prisons that the inmates are even allowed to sleep two to a bunk bed. Despite this, there are still hundreds of people sentenced to prison who today must wait for a vacant spot in order to be able to serve their sentence at an institution.

How are we going to be able to solve this? We are, of course, building several prisons as soon as possible. There are also projects underway to lease prison places abroad. In the long run, the idea is that crime will, of course, decrease thanks to these measures, but in the short term, we must ensure that all those criminals who are convicted of crimes can also serve their sentences in prison. We are therefore building several prisons and, eventually, we will lease prison places abroad.

A large proportion of the people who are held in Swedish institutions lack Swedish citizenship. How many it is naturally varies over time, but there are previous reports from the Prison and Probation Service that speak of approximately 25 percent. A significant proportion of those who are held in Swedish institutions do not, therefore, have Swedish citizenship.

The previous governments have been far too poor at ensuring that these people are deported after serving their sentences. Fewer than 10 percent of those who lack Swedish citizenship and who have committed crimes here have been deported. We think that is far too little. It means that nine out of ten get to stay.

We are now implementing changes which mean that it will be mandatory for the courts to consider the question of deportation when a person without Swedish citizenship is sentenced to prison in the country. This means that very many of these people will never set foot on Swedish soil again. And since they are to return to their home countries after serving their prison sentence, it is also reasonable that they serve the prison sentence in their home country.

Sweden should not be a collection point for the world's criminals. We need to free up our prison places to be able to imprison the gang criminals who are here in the country. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report, and I look forward to it entering into force on July 1 this year.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I note that as usual there are parties from the left side of politics that say no to our criminal policy proposals, despite the fact that they have proven to be effective and despite the fact that they have proven to work point by point. If we had listened to them, the shootings would have continued to increase. Three out of four perpetrators would have continued to go free. The open drug trade in southern Stockholm would have continued to increase. All around Sweden, people would have been shot in acts of violence that could have been prevented with security zones.

Madam Speaker! Everyone can see what happened to Sweden when the left-wing parties' crime policy took the lead. We went from being one of the safest countries to becoming one of Europe's most dangerous. That is where the red-green cooperation threatens to take us again. I think, Madam Speaker, that it is astonishing that some here seem to have such ideological blinkers on that they become completely blind to the reality that everyone else can see.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to ask Henrik Vinge about the evidence for the claims that were made here. The number of shootings has indeed decreased, but we see that the number of explosions is increasing. Crime always adapts, and one takes as few risks as possible.

We can, however, agree that if there is a risk of going there and being arrested by the police, it constitutes an important deterrent effect. But all research, both international and Swedish, shows that what really matters are social preventive measures. Harsher punishments do not have the effects that the government parties claim.

It is demonstrated time and again. I want to strongly contest the idea that we would be blind. I mean that it is rather the government parties that are looking at the development from a very narrow perspective. We on the left have stronger evidence when we want more to be invested in preventive activities.

At the same time, we must naturally also have measures from the police and prosecutors and have a correctional system that is prepared to receive the most serious offenders.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! The clearest evidence that the left's crime policy is not working is the situation in Sweden. It is the effect of Gudrun Nordborg's and the red-green parties' crime policy.

Not daring to take a firm hand against the criminals has caused Sweden to go from being one of the safest countries to being one of Europe's most violence-affected. It is a fact. That is how it looks.

What we are doing now is that we are restructuring Swedish crime policy. We ensure that the police get much better opportunities to solve crimes. It has gone from one in four shootings in gang environments being solved to nearly three in four being solved.

The punishment becomes harsher. These people are removed from the streets and locked up in prisons. The residency ban ensures that they are not allowed to return to old areas where they committed crimes and, for example, sold drugs.

We see now that the trends are turning. We see that the number of shootings is decreasing trend-wise over time. It is true that we had a hump of explosions, but we see that the trend has turned.

Under the red-green government, the shootings increased by 300 percent. Now they have decreased by a third. It is not a coincidence. It is due to the fact that we have given the police tools to handle this and that we have a different approach to crime policy than the left side does.

What I am afraid of is that if the red-greens were to get power again, we will go back to the politics that Gudrun Nordborg stands for. Then we will withdraw the police's powers.

We have debated this before. Vänsterpartiet has said that they do not want the police to have the possibilities for wiretapping, information sharing, and other things that we have given them. Then those possibilities are withdrawn.

People do not want the cameras. One might want to take down the surveillance cameras that we are now enabling people to install. Then we will go back and see the extreme development of violence that Sweden was affected by during the last parliamentary term. I would become extremely worried if we were to see that development in Sweden.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! We are in deep disagreement. It is also about the fact that we can see that when visitation zones or stay bans have been used, it becomes calm in those specific areas. It is the same thing with cameras. But there is also a risk, as many are proving today, that the crime moves elsewhere.

It is about something else and more that must happen. We must have strong social interventions and rehabilitation activities that work and that do not become contaminated by new criminal forces.

I also want to point out that the welfare system was not perfect during previous terms when the Social Democrats had more power together with other left-wing forces. Much more needed to be done to achieve a functioning welfare system with strong safety nets, which also takes the vulnerability of children and young people fully seriously.

The general developments in the world and in Sweden have created challenges that neither the previous government nor the current one manages to properly tackle, with the internet and other challenges that are truly sharp for communication and for triggering new crimes.

We must find new tools and dare to invest in, for example, more police officers patrolling online.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I still want to maintain that if one believes that it is more left-wing politics that Sweden needs to become safer, one is affected by ideological blinkers. It is precisely that type of attitude towards crime policy that has led to the situation we have today.

If we had intervened earlier with tough measures against gangs, not so many people would have had to be shot or blown up. That is my firm opinion.

When we talk about preventive measures, I agree with Gudrun Nordberg that it is fundamentally important. There is a great deal of work that we in Sweden need to do. It is about reducing the recruitment of, not least young people, into criminal gangs.

Before this debate today, we had another debate concerning a new Social Services Act. There, we give the social services completely new tools to do just this.

We have previously had a debate concerning information sharing. School, police, and social services shall be allowed to share information. Social services shall be able to access information that the police have, and the police shall be able to access information that social services have.

In that way, one should be able to catch the young people who are entering criminal gangs. It was Vänsterpartiet against it. They do not want that information sharing.

The debate before this debate was about a new Social Services Act. The social services will receive completely new tools. This means that it will be able to intervene and perform measures for children even in families where the parents do not consent.

It is often a problem that the parents are not involved in the interventions. Sometimes it can even be the case that the parents themselves are in some kind of gray zone or criminality. In those cases, one must be able to step in and help the children in different ways.

The Left Party was also against it. This [claim] that the Left Party in some way would be responsible for the socially preventive policy is simply not true.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! We shall return to discussing the enforcement abroad and vice versa of foreign decisions by, among other things, Swedish authorities and prisons. I want to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 1. I will return a bit more to the content.

It was a challenge to handle this report. It is an unmanageable basis. The committee's report in itself was not difficult. But what lies behind it? Yes, a bill of more than 400 pages. The basis consists partly of a department stencil from 2019, and partly of a rather large SOU from 2023.

If one wants to capture what we are often curious about, how the reactions have been to the investigation basis, it is very difficult to find the referral responses. One has to go in and perhaps via keywords try to search for those entities that one considers most important.

There is no list of the referral bodies, as there usually is, where one can read their entire responses, which are not always reflected in the bill. This time, I tried to capture some of them via the bill.

I searched Amnesty and the Bar Association and found some hits. I searched Civil Right Defenders and was informed that they had not had the time to submit a consultation response this time. Non-profit organizations do not always do so.

Since then, I have, of course, tried to read the bill. There are many rather tangled paragraphs in seven chapters that deal largely with formalities. There, it is sometimes difficult to grasp what one option or the other implies in relation to what is written in the proposition.

In summary, Vänsterpartiet is in any case prepared to stand behind the committee report. We believe that in large parts these are important matters. It expands to some extent the possibilities to adapt the execution of sanctions in a way that can become very advantageous for the individual. It will be extremely interesting to follow how this will be applied going forward, and it remains to be seen.

What is regulated in these chapters of the law are the conditions for when a Swedish judgment on deprivation of liberty may be enforced in another state and when a foreign judgment on deprivation of liberty may be enforced in Sweden. But it also concerns when a Swedish fine or decision on forfeiture shall be enforced in another country and likewise when a foreign fine or decision on forfeiture shall be enforced in Sweden.

The general rule is that decisions on such matters should be made at the agency level. I believe that it is important, and several referral responses have pointed out that it should be so. It should not be about political decisions, and it is not the government that should decide, except in exceptional cases.

One also notes that what is important is to try to see what such a decision entails. The overall hope that the government expresses, and which I truly share, is that the convicted person's social reintegration is facilitated by an execution transferred from one country to another.

It is also noted that a holistic assessment shall be made, which is obviously important. Consideration shall be taken of how long the person has been resident in one country or the other, what the family situation is, what the employment situation is, and which languages the person masters. Cultural ties to the respective state shall also be taken into account.

Then we have the question of citizenship. If someone is convicted in Sweden and is a citizen or resident of the other state, it is argued that a transferred execution there would facilitate reintegration. But it is also written that this should be able to occur even if the convicted person is a Swedish citizen. There, I argue that Miljöpartiet has made an important distinction in its reservation, and I assume that we will have it further clarified.

Then there are brakes, which we absolutely must have, that become obstacles to moving a person from Sweden to a forfeiture of the sentence abroad. One must not challenge the rules we have in the Aliens Act that prevent rejection or deportation.

One must also be attentive to whether it concerns a foreign judgment that someone wants to have enforced in Sweden. It is not always reasonable for such to occur. This concerns, among other things, those cases where the corresponding crime or act is not criminalized in Sweden. Double criminality is therefore required.

It is also required that the convicted person is not under 15 years of age at the time of the crime and the act. It is also argued that we should brake if there is a risk that it concerns a political or military crime.

Our reservation 1, which I move for approval of, is about that we should be quite strict when it comes to the risks that an expulsion, even though it is decided in the judgment, does not mean that the person who has received the judgment including expulsion would have a weak connection to Sweden. If there is a stronger connection, it must be considered in that case as well.

We mean from the Left Party's side that consent should be required for prison sentences to be served in a country other than Sweden, even in cases where the person has been sentenced to deportation.

We have another reservation that I want to mention which is somewhat connected to this. It concerns the fact that consent should be able to be withdrawn during the entire process. In support of the reservation, there are several statements in the bill, including from Advokatsamfundet, Uppsala University, Göta hovrätt, and Örebro tingsrätt. They have similar objections. It therefore cannot be considered ensured that when one gives consent, one always has a complete picture of what it will entail. One should therefore be able to withdraw consent, and one shall have the right to appeal decisions.

Amnesty notes that they had wished for more reminders of provisions on human rights – both from our own constitutions and from the European Convention. The government's response is that this shall always be taken into account. Let us hope that is the case and that we will now respect human rights both in the legal text and in the application.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gudrun Nordborg, for the speech and for the clarity!

There are truly two clear sides here. Our side of politics wants to take less consideration of the criminals' ties to Sweden and greater consideration of the public interest of law and order, Sweden's security, and not least the perspective of the crime victims.

Our side of politics wants that more people who do not have Swedish citizenship should be deported from the country if they commit a crime that leads to imprisonment. We want that more of them should serve the sentence in a prison in their home country.

But the Left Party clearly expresses in its reservation and in Gudrun Nordborg's speech that they see it in the exact opposite way. They want to take greater consideration of the offender's connection to Sweden than of the crime victim's perspective, to Swedish security, and so on. I interpret it as that they want fewer foreign citizens who are convicted of crimes to be deported and that fewer foreign citizens who are convicted of crimes should serve their sentence abroad, that is to say, that they should serve it in Sweden.

My question to Gudrun Nordborg is: Is this correct? If Vänsterpartiet gains influence over Swedish crime policy, will Vänsterpartiet then work for more foreign criminals to be released at liberty in Sweden after serving their sentence rather than being deported? And will Vänsterpartiet work for more foreign criminals to serve their sentences in Sweden rather than serving them in some other country?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Henrik Vinge, for your question! I believe you know roughly what I am going to answer, and it is not as pointed as Vinge wants it to appear.

Vänsterpartiet does not think that one should not serve a sentence for the acts one has committed. But the question is: Where can the criminal justice be best enforced and be of greatest benefit to the person who has committed a crime? There, the connection to Sweden and the alternative country must be assessed in parallel. It is also marked in the bill that it is important to consider all aspects in the assessment. It must be a holistic view.

I believe that this can also be about relationships. We may want to maintain certain family relationships that could be healing. Today's development, where we often see that the government parties, with the support of SD or pushed by SD, want to increase the possibilities for deportation, means that this is further challenged. We want to mark, and we also do so with our reservation, that we are a bit worried that there will be a large relocation to other countries' prisons, above all – that is mostly what we are discussing.

I also realize that the government parties' strategy is to remove as many people as possible who are not Swedish citizens. I mean that there may be other grounds for such persons to be allowed to remain in Sweden.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not know what you would answer, Gudrun Nordborg. I am perhaps a little surprised, because I thought it became more unclear now.

In the Left Party's reservation, it is still clear that there is a fear that too many will be deported. I interpret it as that they simply want there to be fewer. My question is therefore: If the Left Party gains influence over a government and over crime policy, will you then work for fewer people to be deported and for fewer people to serve their sentences in another country?

It is therefore not a question of that the same rules should be applied to all people and that one should not take anything other than citizenship into account. It is a question of quantity. Today, approximately 10 percent of the people who commit crimes in Sweden and are not Swedish citizens are deported. Nine out of ten people who come to our country without citizenship and commit crimes are therefore allowed to stay here.

We consider that it is wrong. We consider that more people should be allowed to leave Sweden if they come here and commit serious crime.

My question is therefore: Will Vänsterpartiet work to ensure that more people are allowed to stay in Sweden despite the fact that they come here and commit serious crime?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the follow-up question, Henrik Vinge!

We will not wish for those who have committed serious crimes to stay in Sweden. In those cases, deportation is probably justified.

When Henrik Vinge presents the statistics that nine out of ten are allowed to stay, I do not know what type of crime is being referred to. What was mentioned as the basis was foreign citizenship. There can be great variation in how serious the crimes are.

It is not that we would brake all forms of deportation. But it must occur based on fundamental values in a constitutional state with human rights.

It is also the case that a crime victim's need for redress can be met in many different ways. We agree that a conviction alone is a strong redress for a crime victim. Whether the eventual penalty is then carried out does not have to mean everything. But it can mean a lot, and it certainly does when it concerns the truly serious crimes. In that case, Vänsterpartiet is also in favor of it being possible to carry out deportations.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

The rule of law needs to function across borders. It should not matter where in the world a convicted person is located. If a crime has been committed, the sentence must be carried out. This is fundamental for public confidence, for the crime victim's right to redress, and for our collective safety.

Therefore, we Social Democrats welcome this legislation. It addresses an order where international enforcement has sometimes been delayed, hindered, or not even started. It clarifies that Sweden must be able to act even if there is no formal agreement in place with the other country. When crime becomes more international, the rule of law must also become so.

We have today a growing problem with persons who are sentenced in Sweden but who then flee the country to avoid punishment. We have criminals who continue to run drug trafficking, extortion and violence from other countries and at the same time mock Swedish justice.

This proposal establishes that the person who flees shall not be able to escape their punishment. It is an important principle. If you have been convicted and flee, Sweden shall be able to request that the punishment be executed where you are. The same applies in the case of deportation. It is a balance between legal certainty and clarity, and it is necessary.

Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about consent, which is an important part of this law.

At the core, it is such that the person who is sentenced in one country and is to serve their sentence in another normally must consent to it. It is a principle of legal certainty.

But – and this is the core of the bill – the person who flees abroad to avoid their sentence, or who is to be deported from Sweden after serving their sentence, shall not be able to say no. It is not about taking away someone's right; it is about ensuring that justice can be served.

Hiding in another country should not become a way to impunity. In that case, the state must still be able to act. But even when consent is not required, the authorities shall take into account what the person thinks. They shall also never execute a sentence in a country where the person risks torture, the death penalty, or other degrading treatment.

Madam Speaker! We also want to highlight a closely related problem where the government parties and SD have unfortunately chosen to say no to the Social Democrats' proposal for an initiative in the Committee on Justice.

We have today a system where the person suspected of a crime can travel abroad and simply wait out the justice system until the prescription period expires, until the country's police no longer look for the person hiding there and until the crime can no longer be prosecuted. This is not fiction but a growing problem in reality.

It is not reasonable to have a rule of law that functions so differently for the one who remains here and faces justice and the one who has contacts and enough money to hide and keep away.

We Social Democrats have submitted a proposal that the prescription period should be able to be extended for those who deliberately stay hidden. It is about justice and about the trust that law and order apply equally to everyone. But that proposal was voted down by the Tidö parties. I hope that we can return to that discussion. We cannot afford legal loopholes that are exploited by the criminals with the most contacts and resources.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: Justice should have no borders. This law makes it clearer, faster, and more just to execute sentences – in Sweden and abroad. No one who commits a crime in Sweden shall be able to run away from their responsibility.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet argues that it is welcome that the government in the bill we are debating here today proposes a more modernized and uniform regulatory framework for the international enforcement of criminal judgments. It will now be easier to enforce custodial sentences, fines, and forfeiture orders across national borders when necessary.

It is also welcome that the Prison and Probation Service, when it concerns prison sentences, and the Swedish Enforcement Authority, when it concerns fines and forfeiture, shall be responsible for execution to a greater extent. In this way, decision-making can take place as close to those it affects as possible. In this part, it is important that the relevant authorities receive sufficient resources to manage this new assignment.

Overall, we believe that the proposal in the bill can contribute to a smoother handling of international enforcement.

We are, however, very critical of the government's stated ambition that more people – including Swedish citizens in some cases, even though we understand that it is a small number – should be able to be transferred to serve their sentences in other countries without their own consent.

We want to point out that there may be significant reasons why individuals need to serve their sentences in Sweden. Some serve prison sentences shorter than six months, which means that today, special reasons are required for a transfer to be carried out. In other cases, the process is slow and complicated, especially if the other state does not cooperate.

Furthermore, serving a sentence in another country against one's will can have major consequences for the individual's safety, health, and social relations. We know that many countries do not have the same standards for justice systems and institutions as Sweden, which means there is a risk that the convicted person will not receive a legally secure and humane treatment. Execution in another country can also mean that the convicted person is separated from family, friends, and other social contexts, which is of course easier to maintain if the convicted person serves their sentence in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Regarding Swedish citizens – we understand, as stated, that it is a small number of potential cases – we wish to refer to the Instrument of Government, which clarifies that no Swedish citizen may be deported or prevented from entering the realm. In view of that, we question how the proposal will be able to be implemented based on the provisions of the constitution. The ultimate risk with the transfer of enforcement being able to take place without consent is, we believe, that Swedish citizenship could be eroded.

Previously, Swedish legislation has been clear that Swedish citizens can in principle not be extradited or transferred to other countries, which has been a fundamental part of the rule of law and the state's responsibility towards its own citizen. Furthermore, Swedish citizenship often implies a strong connection to Sweden. It should be the ultimate protection for a person's civil rights and freedoms, even for persons who commit crimes. Against that background, we oppose that judgments are enforced in other countries without consent.

We have no objection to enforcement being transferred to other countries when it is necessary, for example if a sentence is transferred in connection with a deportation judgment in a general court, and especially not if the convicted person themselves express a desire to serve their sentence in a country other than Sweden. In our opinion, however, consent and voluntariness must constitute a fundamental principle in cases of international enforcement. This appears in our reservation 2, which I move for approval.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Westerlund, for the speech!

It is clear that there are two different sides in Swedish politics, where we have somewhat different priorities. To begin with, one can say that in such cases it is extremely important to follow the basic principles of the rule of law, not to expose people to unnecessary danger in connection with these types of deportations and other matters, and to naturally only cooperate with countries that also uphold human rights and the basic requirements we set for legal certainty and so on.

At the same time, Sweden has a problem with people who are not citizens coming to our country and committing crimes. It has been a problem for many years, and we see it in a number of different ways. We see it in violent crime. We see it when it comes to burglaries and thefts. There are many who are affected by this type of crime.

Previously, people have been sentenced to deportation to a very small extent. Approximately 10 percent of those who lack Swedish citizenship but who have come here and committed crimes have been deported. Now we are changing those rules, which means that significantly more will be deported. We are also now changing the rules regarding execution, so that significantly more of them will serve their sentences in their home country.

My question is: If Miljöpartiet gains influence over crime policy in the future, will you then work for fewer people who lack Swedish citizenship and commit crimes here to be deported and thus be released onto Swedish streets, and will you also work for them to serve their sentences in Sweden to a greater extent rather than in their home countries?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Henrik Vinge, for the question! I note that the member primarily wants to talk about numbers. This also appeared from the previous exchange with the Left Party. The Green Party may not want to talk about numbers, because that is not the focus.

I think we have a common goal: to counter crime and criminality in Sweden. We want people who have committed crimes to be punished for it. I do not believe any party in Sweden opposes that. We want a policy to be pursued that leads to as few crimes as possible being committed, regardless of whether they are committed by Swedish or foreign citizens. The focus for this rather limited debate is, as I mentioned earlier, primarily that we do not want to see a potentially initiated erosion of Swedish citizenship. It is a principled issue.

The government clearly writes that it probably cannot be a question of particularly many cases. Even if that is true, it is important to also discuss in these discussions what it means for the principle of human rights, regardless of the number of cases. That was what I tried to focus on in my speech.

When we read this – perhaps not quite as thoroughly as the representative from the Left Party seems to have done, for which the chamber received a remark here earlier when she presented everything she had addressed – we discussed that it stated that one should assess to which country the convicted person has the strongest connection. We thought that this could open up for an arbitrariness that we do not want to see in the area of human rights. They apply to all persons, regardless of whether they are convicted of a crime or not. That is the point with human rights; they shall apply to everyone.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that it is of the utmost importance to uphold human rights in all situations, regardless of who it concerns. That is not where the disagreement lies. There is also a principled discussion regarding the citizenship one can have. What I am discussing and asking questions about is primarily the large group of people who are not Swedish citizens but who have come here and committed such serious crime that they have ended up in prison. There is a certain threshold for doing that. This affects many people in our country, who are subjected to violence, thefts, and other types of crime.

One can have the principled discussion, but I maintain that the numbers matter. It is the number of crimes in our country that is why we have a large debate on crime right now. It is because the number of crimes is so large. The number of crimes and the number of criminals also put the Prison and Probation Service in a very pressured situation. People are standing in queue to begin serving sentences because it is so full and because we have so much crime. The committee's proposal is a step toward also freeing up resources at the Prison and Probation Service.

People who are to be deported and still not return to Sweden should not end up in freedom here but somewhere else. In that case, it is just as well that they also serve their prison sentences there.

My question, which I do not feel I received a clear answer to, concerned the numbers. Will Miljöpartiet, if they gain influence over crime policy, work to ensure that fewer non-Swedish citizens sentenced to prison are deported?

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a question that is not possible to answer. We want human rights to apply to everyone, even to convicted persons. We want Swedish citizenship to be respected. But I also said in my speech that we do not mind if execution is transferred to other countries when it is necessary.

We are therefore not fundamentally opposed to this in all situations, but we want other aspects to be taken into account as well. The numbers are not our focus. On the other hand, I completely agree that it is very desirable that the number of crimes committed in Sweden decreases.

I had an interesting meeting with a group within Noa, which I mentioned in a previous debate here. They showed statistics on how different types of crime have gone up and down during recent years. One saw, for example, a clear decrease in the number of shootings, I believe. This was also mentioned earlier by the member. I then asked what the decrease is due to. Is it some political measure that has led to this, or is it something else?

According to the police at Noa, it is not possible to say that any specific political measure has led to this. They mean that it is primarily the police's own work with new methods that has led to the decline in certain types of crime that we have been able to see. It was, of course, a disappointment for me. I want to know exactly what politics can do to reduce crime. They meant that it was not possible to reason in that way. We probably have to accept that from both sides in politics.

It is very difficult to say that a certain political measure – especially when it has been taken relatively recently – has had powerful effects on crime in Sweden in a short time. There is no evidence for that.

I think we should continue to listen to each other's good ideas and discuss them and, above all, listen to those who work in practice to combat crime, for example the police.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Of all those sentenced to prison in Sweden, approximately 25 percent are foreigners who lack Swedish citizenship, but as it has been, very few of them have served their sentence in their country of origin. Until now, it has required that the convicted offender gives their consent to be moved to a prison cell abroad. A murderer, fraudster, or rapist who has been sentenced to prison with a deportation order by a Swedish court has been able to say "no thanks, I prefer it here" and thus remain in a Swedish prison. It is a completely unreasonable arrangement and a manifestation of an absurd care for offenders which has characterized the Swedish justice system for far too long. This is just one of many systemic flaws we are now correcting. Decision by decision, we are getting Sweden in order.

Madam Speaker! In 2022, Sweden received a long-awaited change of power. The new parliamentary majority and the Moderate-led government have since worked hard to solve the problems that the Social Democrats caused and which worsened under their watch. The lack of prison places is one such problem. At the end of the Social Democrats' time in government, 2,600 offenders were released while waiting for a prison place. In addition to addressing this neglect, we also need to address crime. This requires that thousands of additional prison places are added, as we now incarcerate more seriously criminal individuals with longer sentences.

The Police Authority's assessment is that there are 14,000 active individuals in criminal networks in Sweden. These need to be imprisoned and, if possible, deported. The goal is therefore to increase the number of inmates in institutions from around 11,000 to 29,000. This is necessary, and it requires major efforts. We have already installed bunk beds in all the country's institutions. Barracks have been built on the prison grounds, and right now several new prisons are being built. An effective partial solution is also to rent prison places abroad, which is underway. An additional partial solution could be prison ships, something that the Prison and Probation Service is currently evaluating. Ensuring that foreigners serve their prison sentences in their home countries can also relieve the Prison and Probation Service. Potentially, taxpayers will save a lot of money.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, important social prevention is being carried out so that young people are not involved in criminal gangs. I share that ambition completely and fully with our well-meaning friends on the left. There is a total consensus in the Swedish Riksdag that we need social crime prevention work. But the increased incarceration and more deportations support this crime prevention work.

The Crime Prevention Council has stated that a prerequisite for children being involved in criminal networks is that older individuals are present in their residential areas, display a desirable lifestyle, and are available for those seeking contact. When we imprison and deport active criminals, we do not only prevent their own criminality – we also prevent new recruitment. When the criminals are locked up, they are practically prevented from recruiting children, and they are eliminated as role models. The toughened sentences set examples that show that crime is no longer profitable.

This is of enormous help for teachers, leisure leaders, and parents who are doing their utmost to ensure that their young boys stay on the right track in life and are instilled with healthy, law-abiding values. There is no contradiction between this tough locking-up policy and social crime prevention work. On the contrary, there are synergy effects.

Madam Speaker! This bill is part of the logical, rational, and just systemic shift we are now implementing in Swedish criminal policy. The law we are debating here today enters into force on July 1, but it should have applied 30 years ago. This reform is not just a matter of administration, law, and cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, it is about justice.

That the parties on the left wing reserve their objections is, unfortunately, expected. Vänsterpartiet wants convicted criminals to be allowed to choose whether they should serve their prison sentence in their country of origin or not, even when they are to be deported. Miljöpartiet wants that immigrants who admittedly have Swedish citizenship but have a weak connection to Sweden should not be able to be transferred to prison in their countries of origin, even if they have returned and have all their roots in their home country.

It is liberating that these arrogant thoughts no longer have a majority behind them in Sweden's Riksdag and that we are now correcting the law. But it is all the more worrying that it is these parties the Social Democrats have as coalition partners. I am worried that this legislation, like other very important and reasonable legislation that we are now introducing, will be rolled back if the Social Democrats were to regain government power and we were hit by a leftward turn in Sweden.

International enforcement in criminal cases

With that said, I am very proud of this important legislation. I move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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