Criminal justice issues

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating issues regarding the correctional services. It is an area where quite a lot is happening, to put it mildly. First and foremost, the need for prison places, just as the Sverigedemokraterna predicted ten years ago, will need to expand very significantly. On one hand, as a result of the mass immigration, we have received entirely new dimensions of crime, which will place harsh demands on Swedish correctional services for a long time to come; on the other hand, we need to settle the left's nonsense policy in criminal law issues, which will result in more people in prison for a significantly longer period.

When the Sweden Democrats warned ten years ago of a development with an increasingly strained criminal justice system, none of the rest of you were interested in taking action. How our parties' respective budget allocations have looked over the years is well documented and is easily found by anyone who searches for JuU1 on the Riksdag's website and scrolls to the bottom of each document. It is, therefore, not a flattering reading for the rest of your parties.

One can briefly say that the Social Democrats over eight years have slowed down and put spokes in the wheels of a necessary expansion, and now we have a very strained situation with full prisons. The Sweden Democrats and the government have, however, acted quickly and decisively. We have, for example, opened up for the possibility of renting out detention places abroad. A potential capacity of hundreds of places is therefore available as early as next year if we only get sufficient support here in the Riksdag. It is therefore the fastest guarantee that we will quickly produce more detention places and create a vent in our Swedish prisons while we build new ones in Sweden.

In principle, I consider that detention places in other countries can be utilized for more reasons than a lack of capacity. In the near future, we can gain our own experience of utilizing European detention capacity to develop our way of managing a Swedish prison population where, for example, more and more people will be deported after their sentences.

In the report, there is a reservation from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet regarding stopping all proposals to lease prison places abroad. When there are convicted criminals who go free while waiting to serve their sentences, the Socialdemokraterna say no to the fastest solution to produce more prison places. The justification is that the correctional services risk being changed to only involve detention similar to a "punishment camp", that it could mean too little care for the convicted person, and that the recidivism prevention work could be risked.

I wonder what kind of care work and what kind of preventive work is needed for foreign citizens who are to be deported. For me, it is perfectly okay if persons who are to be deported after serving a sentence are only offered detention until they are deported. But it seems to be such a large problem for the Social Democrats that one chooses to reserve oneself and thus once again brake and put spokes in the wheels of necessary measures when they are needed most.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the government and the Sweden Democrats will need the Social Democrats' support here in the Riksdag to make it a reality to rent out detention places abroad, as it concerns the exercise of authority in another country. My question is why the Social Democrats always protect the criminals' perspective and never seem to want to do what is required to handle very serious situations in our country. I want an answer to that in this debate.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish criminal justice has long been a model. The agency Kriminalvården enjoys high confidence, and many foreign guests come here to visit and be inspired by the criminal justice system we have. It is a place where justice and rehabilitation go hand in hand – where crime victims shall receive redress and where the convicted shall be given the opportunity to change.

But today we see how this fundamental principle is threatened by a profound crisis. The lack of space is acute. The prison service has moved into emergency mode. Visitation rooms are being converted into residential rooms, and double occupancy is commonplace. We see that the extreme queues to detention centers and prisons are growing.

In the midst of this crisis, we have our correctional officers, those who every day are to uphold our justice system. Trade unions such as Seko and ST are sounding the alarm. They tell of a work environment where threats are growing, where unauthorized influence is spreading, and where stress is driving people away from the profession. In the trade union ST's report from 2024, we are presented with an alarming picture. Three out of four employees within the Prison and Probation Service state that threats and violence occur in the workplace, and over one-third have themselves been subjected to it during the past year. Seko's report from 2023 points to a similar picture: unauthorized influence such as threats, violence, and harassment has increased significantly, which creates an insecure work environment for the staff. The Prison and Probation Service's own reports confirm this picture: more and more incidents, high staff turnover, and an imbalance between experienced and new correctional officers.

We must dare to talk about our correctional officers and practitioners, who go to work every day with professionalism and commitment. We must highlight their situation. These are people who day after day ensure that our belief in change is not just clothed in beautiful words but also leads to something that happens in the encounter with the clients. But their work environment is unsustainable, and we must listen to their cries for help.

Madam Speaker! In the report that we are now debating, there is much that we Social Democrats stand behind. We also have a number of reservations which, among other things, are based on the reports and stories we receive from the correctional services, trade unions and staff, but also from the outside world.

Firstly, it is about the work on preventing recidivism, which must be prioritized. Today we see clear structural obstacles for the work on preventing recidivism. These are measures that must be prioritized. Cooperation between the correctional services, the police, social services, health and medical care, and Arbetsförmedlingen must be strengthened.

Secondly, it is about the crisis in the correctional services and about listening to those who work within it. We have a national crisis in the correctional services where the lack of space and the shortage of staff threaten both security and the work of preventing recidivism. We Social Democrats believe that the government must return and act to resolve the crisis.

For the third, it is about expanding community services so that no one is left without support. All forecasts show that the shortage of places within the criminal justice system will worsen. Even though reinforcements have been made and will need to continue to be made, we Social Democrats believe that the successful recidivism prevention work needs to be developed so as not to fall behind. Therefore, community services are important. Community services monitor, among other things, persons who are on parole, youths who are subject to youth supervision, and persons with ankle monitors. Community services also need to have the capacity to perform their work.

For the fourth, it is about standing up for the women in our women's prisons. There we see, unfortunately, that the burden is worse than ever. The crime patterns have changed, and many carry difficult traumas from a life of both vulnerability and abuse. Furthermore, it is a matter of women who often manage to go under the radar for a longer period before we even detect and notice them. We believe that the government must pay attention to the problems we see in our women's prisons and act here as well.

Finally, we have a reservation concerning the view on renting out positions abroad. We Social Democrats are concerned about this.

We are concerned about the plans to outsource detention places. We see, namely, that it would risk tearing apart the chain of justice. From experiences in our neighboring countries, we know that it is expensive, inefficient, and inhumane.

To meet the acute shortage of space, we Social Democrats argue that there are other ways to go. We can ensure a long-term and sustainable development of the correctional services. At today's meeting of the Committee on Justice, we presented a committee initiative concerning giving Specialfastigheter a social mission to support the Prison and Probation Service's expansion of new prison places.

We know that the Prison and Probation Service plans for a tripling of the number of places by 2034, but the current expansion rate is far too slow and insufficient. One factor that, among others, delays the pace of the expansion is the procedure that applies today regarding procurement. By giving Specialfastigheter a clear social mission, we can accelerate the process and ensure that the expansion is carried out with high quality and safety.

Madam Speaker! We face a crossroads. Shall we continue on a path where the criminal justice system is reduced to a storage system, where the staff work under unreasonable conditions and where the work of preventing recidivism is deprioritized? Or shall we choose a path where we invest in a criminal justice system that punishes and rehabilitates and where the staff have a safe working environment that gives people a real chance to change?

If the correctional services lose their mission to change, everyone will be a loser in that. We are not building a safer society, but we risk building more locked doors. In a time when crime is changing, the correctional services must also change, but without abandoning its soul.

Those who serve their sentence must know that society expects a change. But then our inmates must also be given the opportunity to succeed. Those who every day step behind walls, fences, and locked doors to make this possible, namely our correctional officers, shall feel our support – not our indifference.

Sweden needs a correctional system that punishes and changes – a correctional system that protects society and releases better people. It is the way to a safer Sweden.

I want to conclude by saying that we, of course, stand by all our reservations, but I move for the approval of reservation 6.

(Applause)

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I still intended to dwell a little on the conflict that exists between the Sweden Democrats and the government on the one hand and the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party on the other.

There is a lot of talk about it being a strained situation. People talk about the staff's situation and about the detainees' situation. There is a prison queue of people who are sentenced to prison but go free while waiting to serve their sentences. It is clear that we are in a very serious situation.

But the question is: Is there any single proposal from the opposition that could free up hundreds of prison places as early as next year? We have seen how the government has worked intensively with contacts in Estonia. Estonia has also willingly cooperated in the talks we have had and informed us that we have an opportunity to obtain hundreds of new prison places and expand our institutional capacity as early as next spring. What proposal do the Social Democrats have that makes this possible in such a short time? And why do the Social Democrats say no to doing exactly this, which is also being requested, namely to create a vent in our institutions for the staff and the inmates and to be able to incapacitate more people who are waiting to serve their sentences? Why do the Social Democrats say no to that opportunity?

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

As I said in my speech, we Social Democrats are concerned about outsourcing jobs abroad. The reason for this is that we choose to listen to our neighboring countries. There are reports there that show that this has not had the effect that was desired.

Of course, we can end up in a situation where the crisis escalates further. If the government chooses to talk with us, it is possible that we can find other solutions. We do not mean that one can say an absolute no, but we are concerned, and we therefore say no at this stage. It is among other reasons why we have submitted our committee initiative in the Committee on Justice today, where we believe that there are other ways to speed up the processes.

In recent years, I have met a number of municipal councilors who say: Build with us! They know that this would create jobs in a situation where we have extremely high unemployment in our country. It also happens that they say there is land and detailed plans, but still nothing happens.

The process of building prisons and detention centers is far too long and complicated today. The construction itself must be procured, as well as who will own and operate it. This is something we could change. Here, we hope that both the government and the Sweden Democrats will support the committee initiative. It is a step in the right direction to speed up the process and get more places already in the near future.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is no conflict between any individual proposal and renting out positions abroad. Everything will be needed. But the Social Democrats choose to say no to a proposal that would have an immediate effect. The Social Democrats will be required to answer as to why they say no to the proposal.

Our neighboring countries have mixed experiences, but we also have a completely new investigation from a Swedish perspective that is quite detailed. The Social Democrats are pretending as if they don't know what it is about. There is an entire investigation to read. I really hope that the Social Democrats have taken it to heart.

Now it seems as if the Social Democrats are sitting and waiting for some kind of invitation from the government where they are to have the investigation placed in the Social Democrats' laps and have it explained what it contains. That job should the Social Democrats manage themselves, I think.

In principle, there is an opportunity to rent hundreds of positions already next year. Why is it a bad proposal? And why are the Social Democrats blocking that possibility?

When the Social Democrats get the opportunity to brake a proposal, they do so. But when we have the opportunity to implement other criminal law reforms on our own, they lie flat. As soon as the Social Democrats get an opportunity for influence, they put a spoke in the wheel and brake the development.

I want to ask: Why do you vote no, through your reservation, to renting out positions abroad when it is fully functional and fully legal? It will work, and it will create a vent in our Swedish institutions. It is completely incomprehensible why the Social Democrats always have to stand in the way!

There is no contradiction between accelerating the processes and renting out positions abroad. I think the Social Democrats are truly answerable: Why do they say no to the proposal? Why is this opportunity, which could facilitate Swedish criminal justice, being hindered?

It is the Social Democrats who are responsible when we have a catastrophe in the employment.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Marttinen mentions here that it is both possible and legal and that one could do this. But we also do not receive answers to the questions we have.

Reports show that it often becomes much more expensive than expected, and it is incredibly difficult to ensure a good working environment for the correctional officers who would need to travel to the other country and work there. And how do you solve the situation for the inmates and their families? Have you spoken with the organizations in Sweden that work with children and young people whose parents and relatives are incarcerated? They have a great need to have contact with the family members who are in prison.

There are no answers to these questions. It is inhumane and expensive, and we mean that it does not live up to the requirements that can be placed on a part of the chain of justice. It must also be legally secure. I hope, at least, that the member agrees.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker! When it comes to increasing the pace of the expansion, there is actually no conflict whatsoever; on that point, we are in complete agreement. The Government has given a mandate to the Prison and Probation Service, and a coordinator has been appointed to coordinate different actors and see what else can be done. The Planning and Building Act is being reviewed to accelerate the processes. One is not actually unfamiliar with any initiatives to accelerate the processes surrounding the expansion.

However, there is a conflict regarding the issue of leasing positions abroad. In the committee report, the Social Democrats are very clear that they do not want to proceed with plans to lease positions abroad. In the committee report, it is even written as follows: "We therefore request that the government does not proceed with the plans to lease positions abroad."

At the same time, the Social Democrats' justice policy spokesperson expressed on TV4 last week that they are nevertheless opening the door ajar. That only the government talks with the Social Democrats is perhaps not entirely unfamiliar to us. The member also raises the issue – yes, but we have an acute situation; one perhaps cannot rule anything out.

Is this another question that can be added to the question about the security zones, where the Social Democrats for a long time said a flat no only to in the next moment want to have security zones in all of southern Stockholm, and the question about anonymous witnesses? They were a staunch opponent of anonymous witnesses only to in the next moment vote for this in the chamber. Is this the next example of the Socialdemokrater first being flatly against in order to then change their stance?

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to point out that I think it is important that all political parties are prepared to reconsider previous decisions. Reality changes. Politics must also do so.

Of course, our first, clear position on this is a no. That is based on the reasons that I also raised in the previous exchange of remarks with that member. We see that it risks being extremely high costs, that it is inhumane, and that we cannot really ensure legal certainty. How do you solve the family situation? How do we solve the situation for those who are to work at these facilities and so on? There are too many question marks, where I mean that one does not live up to legal certainty. It is a major problem.

But I will also be blunt and say that we can never risk our correctional officers, who work within the correctional services today, being in a situation that is unsustainable. We already see today that we risk being there – where all our detention centers and institutions are full. It is clear that we may need to find that quick, acute solution if we end up in a situation where it becomes dangerous to be inside our prisons, both for the clients and for those who work there.

We do not think that renting premises is the solution. But if the government succeeds in getting enough parties on board, it is clear that one can talk with us and see how this can be done. Is it short-term? Is it long-term? How is the government thinking? We do not get an answer to that either.

We stand behind our reservations, as I said, and move for their approval. Fundamentally, we stand firm on the position that the solution to the problem we see can never be to lease out facilities abroad.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I must state that we have a large number of people detained in our prisons who are sentenced to deportation. That one can worry so much about how those persons shall be reintegrated into Swedish society and how they shall be able to have contact with their relatives, I find difficult to understand.

These people should not remain in Sweden. I therefore find it very difficult to see it as a problem if we can resolve the placement at a facility abroad.

But I want to come back to the question. It is clear that all parties sometimes change their views on things. We have also done that. Reality changes. There is reason to take new positions. But the point here is that the Social Democrats are very certain. In a reservation adjusted last week, it is written: ”We therefore request that the government should not proceed with the plans to lease detention places abroad.”

It does not leave much room for dialogue or conversation, but rather it is a flat no. At the same time, the Social Democrats go out in the media and say: "Yes, but only if the government talks with us can we look at this issue and perhaps be open to another alternative."

It is that attitude, that rather spineless attitude, that one cannot stand by a position for even a week, that I have a bit of difficulty with.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions!

We must find several solutions to the problems we see. Right now, we are dealing, among other things, with a bill concerning the fact that more people without consent should actually be able to serve their sentence in another state – when it concerns that one is not to be deported or does not have citizenship and so on. There we have no reservations. That more people serve their sentence in other countries is also a way to increase capacity in institutions and detention centers.

But when it comes to people who are established, who have family and children here, it is clear that there is an ideological dividing line. I mean that we must see the children. We must see the family members who are also incredibly affected when, most often, a father or a brother ends up in prison. It may be important for that person to maintain contact, to be able to have that farewell or to say: Unfortunately, this is no longer enough. We must also live up to those types of principles.

Then I think the member should be aware that municipalities all over Sweden are shouting: Build institutions and prisons here! It is municipalities that see that the high unemployment could be solved by them being given job opportunities. They have land and detailed plans but nothing happens. I mean that if the government had only been sufficiently responsive to this, we could have had a situation where people were putting the spade in the ground for more institutions. Then we could have gotten started with this. But nothing happens when it comes to shortening the processes and doing anything else.

So there is something else to look at than to outsource jobs abroad – if one is only prepared to turn over every stone to find that solution.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The government has now launched the largest offensive against crime in Swedish history. It is about a strengthening of the entire justice chain, new tools for law enforcement agencies, a complete renovation of crime prevention work, and a complete review of the entire penal code.

We are shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim. The sentences must reflect the severity of the crimes. The government intends to introduce double sentences for crimes committed in gang criminal environments. Today's form of bulk discount shall be abolished, and the rules on parole are tightened.

The prison sentence aims to provide the crime victim with redress and to give the perpetrator the opportunity to re-enter open society as a law-abiding member of society after the sentence. But the prison sentence also aims – not least – to protect society from dangerous perpetrators.

To manage all of this, the criminal justice system needs to be significantly expanded.

In the budget bill for 2025, the government plans to increase the Kriminalvårdens budget by 11 billion kronor from 2023 to 2027. This corresponds to an increase of the budget by 75 percent.

In the regulatory letter for 2025, the government tasked the Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) to submit a capacity report for the period 2025–2034 in connection with the budget basis for 2026. Kriminalvården submitted its report in March. In the report, the calculated capacity need is taken into account due to the proposals in the Tidö Agreement, and it is assumed that all proposals for increased sentencing in the government's reform agenda will enter into force during the mandate period.

In the capacity report, the Prison and Probation Service presents four different scenarios with a range of 19,000–41,000 inmates in prison in 2034. This means an increase of between 140 and 420 percent, depending on which scenario is followed.

But to state the obvious: The number of people admitted to prison is also by its nature dependent on the development of crime. The government's offensive against crime aims for Sweden to become a safer and more secure country.

At the end of May, Petra Lundh will hand over the investigation where the government's major criminal law reforms are being prepared. After the investigation has been referred, the government will return with a bill containing significant criminal law reforms. It will only then be possible to assess the need for the number of prison places with greater certainty in a longer perspective.

But one thing is certain: A substantial expansion of prisons and detention centers will be necessary during the ten-year period we have ahead of us. It is a matter of continuing to densify and double-occupy within existing detention centers and prisons, building new detention centers in Sweden, exploring the possibility of renting detention places abroad, and in more cases transferring the execution of the sentence to the convict's home country in cases involving foreign citizens.

In February, the government appointed a national coordinator for the expansion of the correctional services. The coordinator shall cooperate with municipalities, the real estate market, and state agencies with the aim of facilitating the creation of detention and prison places, as well as mapping and analyzing obstacles to a swift and cost-effective expansion of the correctional services.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are considering a committee report where motions regarding criminal justice from the general motion period are being addressed. In many of the motions, wise points are presented for which one can feel great sympathy. The committee's majority proposes, however, that all motions be rejected, in most cases because there are already announcements from previous parliamentary years, work is already underway at the Ministry of Justice, or assignments have been given to authorities or investigations.

Regarding the issue of overcrowding in prisons and detention centers, the committee notes that this is an obvious problem that entails challenges, for example, when it comes to security, the work environment, and the work on preventing recidivism. However, intensive work is underway to increase the number of permanent places in prisons and detention centers. Planning is underway for new detention centers, and new detention centers are being built. The Government has also tasked the Prison and Probation Service to report proposals for measures that could contribute to a faster and more cost-effective expansion of capacity and, if necessary, propose necessary legislative amendments.

It can also be mentioned in this context that Specialfastigheter, which has been mentioned previously in the debate and which is the state-owned company that owns many institutions and prisons in our country, recently sold several properties within the defense sector, including the Armed Forces' headquarters, to Fortifikationsverket for 8.2 billion kronor. In addition to freeing up a lot of capital for Specialfastigheter to invest in the Prison and Probation Service's operations, it also provides increased opportunities for Specialfastigheter to focus on the prison service's needs – which are so important.

Mr. Speaker! Persons who repeatedly commit crimes account for a very large proportion of the total crime in society. Effective recidivism prevention work can therefore provide great benefits for both the individual and for society. One of the correctional services' fundamental tasks is to work towards preventing recidivism, among other things by cooperating with other actors in society.

Regarding the question of structural obstacles for the work of preventing recidivism, I can truly emphasize the need for strengthened inter-agency cooperation. It is among other reasons why the government reworked the directives for the parliamentary Safety Commission and directed the investigation towards the work of preventing recidivism.

The mandate of the Safety Commission was to map out which competencies are currently involved in the work of preventing recidivism, to analyze how involved actors can jointly contribute in a better and more efficient way to reducing recidivism in crime, and to submit proposals on how the work of preventing recidivism can be strengthened.

The government has thus already noted the deficiencies regarding cooperation between different actors in the work to prevent recidivism. The investigation has been referred, and work is now underway in the Government Offices with the conclusions.

But it is also not possible, Mr. Speaker, to ignore the lax way in which we in Sweden have handled persons who repeatedly relapse into crime. An important part of the ongoing criminal law investigation is therefore that recidivism shall, more than today, have an aggravating effect in the sentencing. In plain terms: Those who relapse into crime will receive more tangible penalties.

Mr. Speaker! Even though it is difficult today to assess the exact number of detainees in jails and institutions in ten years, it is obvious that a powerful expansion of the correctional services will be required. Everyone easily realizes the magnitude of that challenge. It is naturally about the physical expansion itself, but also about the correctional services' supply of competence. But the fact that it is difficult does not change the fact that it is necessary.

The government is now implementing a paradigm shift in criminal policy. It will require more places in detention centers and prisons, which means that we are shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim and that the sentences shall reflect the severity of the crimes.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 6.

For Vänsterpartiet, it is important that Sweden has a well-functioning criminal justice system that functions preventatively and contributes to a safer society. Our criminal justice system has previously been a model abroad and internationally. That is no longer the case.

It is no exaggeration that the Swedish correctional services are now being challenged to the breaking point by the Tidö parties' paradigm shift. It is a repressive policy that demands more and longer sentences. We have waiting times for institutions, remand centers, and prisons, and many today serve their entire prison sentence in remand. It is overcrowded. Double occupancy applies as soon as a living space is six square meters or larger. It is not much, but that is the limit for having two residents.

The Prison and Probation Service's objective of "Better out," meaning that upon release, one should come out better than when one entered the Prison and Probation Service's custody, is being challenged and risks becoming what the Sweden Democrats have desired: cheap detention and nearly a penal system.

We mean that it must not be about pure confinement or storage. That would mean that everyone would risk coming out worse off and becoming more dangerous during and after the prison stay. The risk with such a density is also that those who have not had such serious crime previously are recruited and fascinated by those who have, and in the overcrowding, they might not be able to defend themselves against attempts at persuasion.

I also want to mention that crime is actually decreasing in Sweden. However, we cannot just be happy about that, as both research and others see that it concerns fewer but more serious crimes being committed.

The Prison and Probation Service must be equipped to meet both those who are dangerously violent and those who have committed less serious crimes. This should lead to a variety of measures, from far-reaching structural changes and requirements for agency cooperation down to small but perhaps for some completely decisive measures in how one, for example, plans before meeting a deprivation of liberty operation or before leaving such an operation – practical things that make you a little more equipped when you meet your new reality.

The shortage of space that exists now does not only create pressure and stress for those residing in the facilities – it also pushes out rooms that have previously been used for visits, employment, education, or treatment. Recidivism prevention measures are thus being restricted.

One example is that two-thirds of the visitation rooms at the facilities within class 1 and 2 have instead become residential rooms. This affects the psychological climate and causes stress and anxiety. The overcrowding naturally creates a risk of conflict and violence in different groups among the inmates and the employees. The staff are also challenged by threats and unauthorized influence with a risk of violence.

I notice that women have been noticed more than before. Women, who previously were primarily arrested for drug offenses, are now coming in for more gang-related crimes. It is also noted that they are in worse psychological condition than before and that they have often been subjected to serious abuse. Their status as crime victims is important to note, but unfortunately, I do not see traces of that when it comes to the male clients.

What you heard me state from the rostrum just now, which I have done several times before, was about how those who experience violence during upbringing run an increased risk of themselves later committing serious crimes. We must break that macho culture. There are many who see and react to this now. The police do it, the Children's Ombudsman does it, and Bris does it. Many point out that we could gain a lot by seeing and supporting these young crime victims so that they do not become criminals.

I also want to touch upon the competence supply. It is also very worrying. New employees are leaving the criminal justice system in an undesirable extent. In the texts, personnel-efficient facilities are mentioned. I can wonder what that is. I guess it is about not creating too many cramped spaces and that it should be easy for the staff to move around. But I still don't quite understand how that is supposed to help, even though one should naturally plan wisely for new facilities.

It will require a lot of new hires to manage the expansion. Figures are being tossed around regarding several thousand jobs. One must make an effort there. A good working environment is required. That is something you risk not having in cramped prisons.

The Safety Commission has been mentioned earlier. I was involved in that investigation. It provided exciting but also worrying insights into what the situation looks like within the correctional services today. There are several deficiencies that the proposals in the commission's report attempt to point out and highlight and which should be possible to address but which require resources.

I can be pleased that we were in some parts in agreement on such proposals, and it surprised me a little. I was pleased that one can, among other things, consider further examples where the convicted person serves part of their sentence with an ankle bracelet instead of in prison. When it concerns certain less serious crimes, one could entirely serve the sentence with an ankle bracelet. The Safety Preparation Board drew the line at a prison sentence of one and a half years. More have been able to support such proposals in other investigations. It is my hope that such measures are chosen and developed.

In the cost calculations for what the expansion of the criminal justice system will cost, 10 billion has been sketched out for the future. There, I would sincerely wish that at least some of these billions went to concrete preventive activities so that we get fewer people in line to be held in detention or in prison.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision. This entails the rejection of all motion proposals within the area of criminal justice.

Sweden is in a serious situation. Violent crime, gang crime, and constant recidivism threaten the very foundations of our society. While the police and prosecutors stand on the front line against crime, correctional services should be our primary effort against the recurrence of crime. This can be achieved by keeping criminals locked up to protect society, but also by rehabilitating those who commit a crime and preventing recidivism.

The situation in Sweden is alarming. Today, the recidivism rate according to Brå is 32 percent, and among young people, the recidivism rate is even higher. Recidivism is a testament to how effectively the justice system functions, and in particular, early recidivism testifies to insufficient interventions during the prison sentence.

The Prison and Probation Service has for a longer period struggled with several parallel challenges for which the previous Social Democratic government bears a heavy responsibility after eight years of insufficient activities, which have created today's situation. It concerns internal structures that have been challenged by the increasingly more violent organized crime, a failed integration policy that has affected crime, and also insufficient resources that have caused the Prison and Probation Service to go to its knees with overoccupancy and extensive space shortages in prisons and remand centers as a result. This has negatively affected the work of preventing recidivism. Several important programs, for example the twelve-step program and the monastery activities, have been discontinued, according to information, due to space shortages.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the coalition parties have during this parliamentary term taken responsibility and given the Prison and Probation Service significantly expanded resources and also facilitated the construction of more prisons, at a much faster pace. Today, a large number of construction projects are underway, and the number of places is expected to triple over a ten-year period.

As a complementary measure, activities to rent prison places abroad are underway. This is something we Christian Democrats have wanted to see since 2019. But it is alarming and remarkable that the Social Democrats say no, despite the fact that they bear great responsibility for the situation and the lack of places that the Prison and Probation Service has today.

We in the government are turning over every stone while the Social Democrats sit with their arms crossed and are still saying no. For the sake of all crime victims and for the legitimacy of the justice system, those who are convicted must receive their punishment. Therefore, it is relevant as a quick and effective measure to lease prison places abroad. Furthermore, more Swedish prison sentences shall be able to be served in convicted foreigners' home countries, and more criminals shall be deported. The current government takes its responsibility through various measures to ensure that one serves their punishment in their home country. It is something that previous S-governments have not succeeded in implementing.

The measures I have now mentioned are crucial for dispensing justice and preventing crime. If justice is to be dispensed, more prisons are required where criminals serve their sentences, but if we are to achieve reduced crime in the future, it is required that sufficient resources are allocated to the correctional services' work of preventing recidivism. Why is it important? Yes, because we cannot accept that criminals return to society only to soon be back behind bars.

Mr. Speaker! A long prison sentence can be deterrent in itself, but it would be a waste of resources if the time in prison was not also used to prepare the inmate for a law-abiding life. This requires active work with a focus on right and wrong and the values that our society is built on. The Prison and Probation Service must be given the right tools to carry out its entire mission, including rehabilitation.

Abuse is one of the biggest causes of crime. Of those detained, 70 percent have various drug problems. Without effective programs, such as the twelve-step model, there is a risk that the same people commit the same crimes over and over again. By reintroducing, for example, the twelve-step program, which we know achieved successful results, we can give those detained with abuse problems a better chance to break destructive life patterns that lead them back to crime.

Mr. Speaker! It is written that man shall not live by bread alone. So it is; there is another dimension to life. An important resource for breaking a negative and criminal life choice is the spiritual care that exists within the correctional services and which is conducted under the leadership of the Swedish Christian Council through the Board for Spiritual Care, NAV. The approximately 180 employees meet the inmates' needs for personal conversations. They organize worship services and offer discussion groups for guidance in ethical and existential questions.

A descriptive description of the activity is as follows: ”Serving a sentence can provide an opportunity for important reflection. In the meetings with the NAV staff, the clients are allowed to talk about big and difficult questions and are given spiritual guidance, regardless of faith or religion. The conversations sometimes turn out to be the beginning of a decisive change for the individual. The NAV staff contribute knowledge, experience, and new perspectives to the Prison and Probation Service's activities.”

This is what Martin Holmgren, Director General of the Prison and Probation Service, says.

It is therefore important that NAV operations receive both resources and premises in the expansion of the criminal justice system that is taking place right now. It is not just about keeping criminals locked up, but also about giving them the opportunity for moral and spiritual development.

The monastery at Kumla is an example of an activity that helped many to reflect on their lives and choices. It is not just about correcting behaviors in the short term, but about reconnecting the inmate with fundamental values of right and wrong. Therefore, we Christian Democrats believe that such activities should exist in prisons.

Mr. Speaker! A strong rule of law is built on clear values: respect for the law, responsibility for one's actions, and a will to return to the community after having atoned for one's crime. The correctional services shall be an institution that embodies these values. It shall not just be a place where criminals are kept until they are released, but a place where they have the opportunity to learn what is right and wrong.

Alongside rehabilitation, naturally, sharpened sentences for serious crimes, more police, and a strengthened crime prevention effort with a focus on safe families, a strengthened child perspective, and a requirement-based integration policy were needed. When gang criminals exhibit a total indifference and use children to murder other children, Sweden also needs a discussion about right and wrong.

Crime is about choices, responsibility, and morality. To deny that is to turn a blind eye to reality. A purely materialistic perspective will not solve the societal problems that Sweden faces. That is why we Christian Democrats always emphasize the family and values as society's most important crime preventers.

As today's debate shows, there is a need for further activities regarding the shortage of space. But the correctional services also need to continue to focus on breaking a destructive lifestyle and a drug addiction.

As I said initially, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, which means that I move for the rejection of all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! When the Prison and Probation Service takes over in the justice chain, it is usually after a legally binding judgment. The crime-preventive work has failed, but the law-enforcing work has succeeded. Police and prosecutors have presented the evidence that existed to Sweden's courts. Witnesses have testified, and crime victims have spoken out. Now a new phase begins for everyone involved. But I want to begin by saying that the plaintiffs, the crime victims, continue to need to be an important focus. They need to continue to receive respect and receive the information they desire and need from the Prison and Probation Service.

For the convicted person, a period of deprivation of liberty of various kinds and of various lengths begins. Above all, the work of preventing recidivism begins for the convicted person, for the correctional services, and for society. The correctional services' vision is, as we know, Better out. Whether it concerns short or long prison sentences, the goal must be that the punishment marks the end of the convicted criminal's path.

We therefore need to have activities, measures, and efforts that we know are effective and impactful and not just slogans. But we shall also have a major focus on high security for both employees and inmates during the time the sentence is served.

The picture that the correctional services provide is not a picture of the best conditions for this. There is a high occupancy rate with more threats and incidents of violence, and the number of isolation measures is increasing. Many remain in detention for far too long.

To solve the problem of overcrowded institutions, the Center Party believes it needs to be investigated to what extent so-called restriction judgments can be introduced. These are judgments that can mean that a convicted criminal, if appropriate, serves a prison sentence in freedom for a certain period and with certain controls and under supervision, and that they are prohibited from staying in certain areas.

Another and perhaps more debated way to alleviate the strained situation is to expand the possibility of intensive surveillance with electronic control, commonly called an ankle bracelet. It is to let those who have been convicted of less serious crime serve their sentence with an ankle bracelet to a greater extent and when appropriate.

This is nothing that the Center Party is alone in thinking. There is a completely unanimous security preparation. There is an investigation on sanctions, recidivism, and enforcement that has presented proposals for new rules regarding the possibility of enforcement outside of an institution with an ankle monitor. But in today's report, it is referred to that the proposals are being prepared within the Government Offices and that there is therefore no reason to take any initiative on the grounds of the motions.

We have heard this many times now from the government. But the referral response from Trygghetsberedningen has been in the Government Offices since December, for nearly five months. At the same time, the government travels to other countries. We have heard about trips to Estonia to rent places there. We hear about double occupancy as standard. We hear that the safety of both employees and inmates is being risked. And I do not think anyone can describe the expansion of new facilities as fast. In this situation, the government should focus on the proposals that allow the correctional services to free up places so they can focus on the long sentences, the gross violence, and the gross organized crime.

Regarding imprisonment abroad, there is already legislation that allows it, and the Center Party supports it. However, it must then occur via agreements in the final part of the sentences and with the country to which the convicted person is to be deported or will continue to reside in. There is also new legislation in progress where it can occur without consent in cases of serious crimes. This is very good, and the Center Party supports it. But we remain critical of generally allowing other countries to execute Swedish punishments for all convicted persons after Swedish crimes and Swedish judgments.

Solutions to the shortage of places have been requested. The Centre Party has a solution that frees up places already this year: to allow ankle bracelets for short sentences. It is up to the government to ensure that something such is promptly put in place. I therefore move for approval of reservation number 11, Mr. Speaker.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about the criminal justice system, it is easy for us to get stuck on police arrests, remand prisons, and institutions. We talk about the number of inmates and the shortage of space we see today. I would instead like to spend a few minutes talking about community probation, the part of the criminal justice system that takes care of those who are under the care of the criminal justice system but are not locked up. I know that the criminal justice system also handles people who are locked up, but we leave those clients aside for a moment.

The staff in the probation service, the probation officers, have control over those sentenced to punishment outside of detention. It concerns those sentenced to supervised release, community service, conditional sentence, and electronic monitoring. The probation officers also conduct the very important personal investigation, which the judges then use in their assessment when they are to impose sentences.

A large part of the probation service's tasks also involve supporting the punished individual and ensuring that there is a life after the sentence. In this way, the probation service is a very important part of the criminal justice system when it comes to preventing recidivism.

A few weeks ago, I was in Östergötland and met some people who work within community service in Norrköping and Linköping. It was a very positive meeting. I was struck by the dedication with which these community service inspectors took on their jobs, the ambition they had, and how they were passionate about the work. They showed a real understanding of the job, both by having to be tough and determined and make difficult decisions, and by having empathy and commitment for the clients. So to everyone in the criminal justice system: If you have a community service system like the one in Östergötland, you can be proud!

Mr. Speaker! But – now comes the "but" – the correctional services face, as we have heard today, great challenges ahead. Today, occupancy is just under 100 percent. This is even after double occupancy has been introduced. They have also, as we have heard earlier, converted spaces that would otherwise have been used for other purposes into cells. They have vacuumed Sweden for properties that can be converted into prisons. They are simply trying to pull off a miracle to find other solutions – modules and so on.

But in order to not again end up at over 100 percent occupancy, the Prison and Probation Service must find more ways to solve the space shortage, and work is being done frantically on this. I meet regularly with the management of the Prison and Probation Service, and they have my full confidence; they are truly doing what they can.

We also know that a couple of new facilities are underway and being built, and more are planned. We do not need to dwell on the fact that this expansion is happening 15 years too late. I heard earlier that Sverigedemokraterna claimed that this was being discussed in 2010. I want to remind that the Liberalerna stood at this rostrum in 2004 and said that we must now begin building more prisons. So, it stands at 1-0 for the Liberalerna against Sverigedemokraterna.

But – now there is another but, Mr. Speaker – an expanded criminal justice system will also cost money. When it comes to probation, it will probably have to handle more clients and will therefore need to grow. It is about the proposal to expand the use of ankle bracelets and whether this will take over instead of incarceration. We have heard that the Safety Board has proposed that for a sentence of up to one and a half years, one should be sentenced to an ankle bracelet instead of incarceration.

This will mean a higher burden on community care. Among other things, the logistics must be managed. It will result in more visits by community care to the clients. There will be more clients to be monitored, more ankle bracelets to be installed in the homes, and so on. Above all, more ankle bracelets must be purchased, and in that case, it is not possible to buy the cheapest ones.

I hope, finally, that the government thinks about this and takes action properly when a budget is being prepared this autumn. If we are to have a functioning correctional system and continue to have a well-functioning community service, it must cost. I am sending this to those who will negotiate the budget moving forward, not just this year but also in coming years.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Such an attack as we heard from Martin Melin is something one does not get away with here in the chamber.

Firstly: In 2004, the Liberals were called Folkpartiet – 10 to the Sweden Democrats. Secondly: The Sweden Democrats were not in the Riksdag in 2004 but first in 2010 – 20 to the Sweden Democrats. After that, from 2010 onwards, we have in our budget proposals made a quite distinct investment in the correctional services. The remaining parties have had significantly smaller appropriations for their investments in the correctional services.

We pointed out this need as mentioned already in 2012, I believe, when we began to see a shift and the facilities began to become a bit more full again. Previously it had been a bit airier, but from 2012 onwards we saw a development where the facilities became significantly more strained. Since then, the Sverigedemokraterna have distinguished themselves particularly, and that can be checked by reading JuU1, which I referred to. If one searches on the Riksdag's website, one can see the expenditure area and can read the budget tables. I urge both the Liberalerna and Folkpartiet, or whatever they want to call themselves, to ensure that we get the history right in the rostrum moving forward.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member in this case. But the Liberals, or the then Folkpartiet, were in any case ahead of the Sweden Democrats in speaking about the fact that we need to build institutions. But I agree with the member that the Sweden Democrats have pushed this issue in an active way and that they have stood at the forefront and pointed out that we need to build more institutions.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the opportunity to step in at short notice in this debate! Ulrika Westerlund has traveled to Turkey to support Joakim Medin there, who is imprisoned on completely bizarre grounds. This is a development that we unfortunately see in all too large parts of the world right now – towards more authoritarian states and more soft-hearted feudal leaders. I am very proud that Ulrika can be there and show the support that I believe the entire chamber stands behind for Joakim Medin and his journalistic work.

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party has recently criticized the plans to amend the Education Act so that the children and young people who, from next summer onwards, will be within the Prison and Probation Service and not as they are now at Sis, will no longer automatically have the right to education on-site.

A good education is an important protective factor against children and young people being drawn into crime or, for that matter, continuing on a criminal path. A prerequisite for education to have a crime-preventing role is that students participate in the teaching and meet skilled teachers in safe environments. The school's core mission must be protected. This presupposes on-site teaching.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Education said on April 8 that a good education is, at its core, a vaccine against the gangs' activities. How this squares with making the education for children in detention worse and less adapted to the needs that exist is very difficult to reconcile. That distance learning is more flexible and can provide more teaching time and teaching in more subjects is true. The problem is that this is also a teaching model that places significantly higher demands on the person participating in it. We are skeptical that children who have been convicted of crimes and are already behind in school would manage it.

According to information from the State Institution Board, as many as 95 percent of the young people currently staying at Sis need extra support in school. Experiences from the pandemic show that it is not self-evident for the children who need this support to be able to manage distance learning.

It is important that all those detained within the criminal justice system, regardless of age, are given the opportunity for basic education and complementary upper secondary education. For adults, it is also desirable with an increased opportunity to participate in distance education, such as folk high school courses, higher education courses, or vocational training. The educational opportunities at the facilities should simply be improved generally.

Criminal justice issues

Mr. Speaker! In the work of preventing recidivism, cooperation between all significant actors – for example, the Prison and Probation Service, the police, social services, health and medical care, and the Public Employment Service – must be strengthened. All different actors need to take their share of the responsibility.

Even the relapse prevention health and medical care needs to be strengthened, and the care must be coherent from the time the execution begins at the institution until community care and reintegration and further into free life in society. If the cause of the crimes can be considered an addiction, neuropsychiatric condition or comorbidity, the client needs to be guaranteed a coherent chain of care.

To succeed in this, it is required that the government addresses the structural obstacles that hinder the work, such as the crisis in the correctional services and the difficult economic situation of the regions and municipalities. The work on preventing recidivism must be prioritized much higher.

I vote in favor of reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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