Procedural law issues

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to express my support for the committee's proposal in the report, so that I do not forget it.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish rule of law is a cornerstone of our democratic society. It rests on the trust that those who are subjected to crimes receive redress, that those who commit crimes are held accountable, and that this occurs in a legally secure manner, quickly and with high quality.

But the strength of the rule of law is not static. It must be nurtured, developed, and adapted to a time where the character of crime has changed, where the pace is increasing, and where threats and a culture of silence test the system's resilience.

That is why this government, with the Moderaterna at the forefront, is conducting a broad and reform-oriented work to restore security, and the judicial process is a part of this.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by speaking about a process that has been underway for some time. It is an example of a faster prosecution. This has been a method of work introduced throughout the country since April 2023.

It means that simpler crimes – such as petty drug offenses, thefts or traffic offenses – are investigated directly by the police on site. It can lead to an indictment on the same day the crime was committed. In many cases, the suspect receives a trial time already at the time of the intervention.

It is not just a new way of working. It is a new perspective. It is a rule of law that acts in real time and tells crime victims: We see you, we listen, and we act. To the perpetrator, it says: You face the rule of law here and now, and not in six months.

During my most recent visit to the police earlier this week, this was highlighted as a successful tool in the fight against everyday crime. It frees up investigative resources, reduces the burden on the courts, and creates a clear feedback loop in the justice chain. It is simply smart, fast, and legally secure.

We want to take this further, and decisions have been made to expand and enable this even when it concerns perpetrators under 18 years of age. This is positive. This is being done on a trial basis, and it is moving forward and shall be operational across the entire country during 2026 to then be evaluated. The results speak for themselves when it comes to specifically faster prosecution: from approximately 22 weeks to barely 7 weeks from crime to judgment. It is a positive change, not on the margins but actually in the heart of the legal process.

Madam Speaker! When I highlight the advantages of this, I would like to take the opportunity to mention that all of the parties that are usually counted as part of the social democratic potential government base had reservations when this was discussed in the chamber and subsequently introduced. One can choose to reflect on that.

Madam Speaker! Digitalization is also changing the evidence. Crimes today occur just as often in a chat flow as in a physical location. The Government therefore ensures that the courts receive the right technology, the right knowledge, and the right methods to handle digital evidence, remote hearings, and the like. We enable witnesses who risk being subjected to threats to participate via video link, something that is also highlighted in one of the reservations from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet.

Madam Speaker! Here I want to emphasize that the government is already preparing concrete proposals to strengthen the possibility of video presence through procedural reforms in general court. The courts shall be given greater flexibility when it comes to deciding on video links, both for reasons of efficiency and for reasons of safety. It is therefore not a lack of will that prompts a rejection of the reservation, but the fact that the work is already in full swing.

Madam Speaker! An effective process also requires tools to be able to prosecute those who seek to evade justice. Therefore, we have strengthened the possibility of using secret coercive measures, secret data retrieval, room bugging, and camera surveillance in the fight against crime. In that regard, we are broadening the application to more types of crime and earlier stages, and also enabling more preventive use.

The government is also about to present and advance the introduction of the fact that secret coercive measures can also be used against children under the age of 15. It is a necessary reform. Children should not be protected from the rule of law, Madam Speaker, but by it. When children commit murder, carry weapons or are exploited by gangs, society must be able to act with determination and legal certainty and with the child's future in focus.

Madam Speaker! I also want to briefly address the reservations that exist regarding secret coercive measures. It is argued there that legislation that restricts personal integrity should always be time-limited and evaluated. It is an important discussion that we will, of course, have. But it is also a discussion that presupposes that one sees the whole picture, both the need for legal certainty and the need for long-term functioning tools in crime fighting.

That is why the government has introduced a considerable amount of time-limited legislation in the area, including the possibility of data retrieval for preventive purposes. We also submit annual reports to the Riksdag on how the coercive measures have been used.

The government has also already appointed a systematic investigation to review the entire regulatory framework for secret and preventive coercive measures, where the purpose is to create a clear and unified regulatory framework.

Madam Speaker! We do not just need new tools. Durable methods of work are also needed. Temporary exceptions, even if they can sometimes be good, can never in the long run replace a functioning, legitimate and long-term regulatory framework. Therefore, we ensure that the reforms are introduced and that they are evaluated while they are being used, improved in a timely manner and anchored for the future.

Madam Speaker! We are not only equipping the tools. We must also equip the justice system itself. We have added significant resources to Sveriges Domstolar and Åklagarmyndigheten. We enable more judges and prosecutors to be hired, that case backlogs are cleared, and that the legal process regains the speed and weight that the rule of law demands and requires.

The Courts Administration has been tasked with developing a competence supply plan with a focus on strengthening recruitment, developing career paths, and focusing on the work environment throughout the entire chain. It is about building a long-term capacity.

This is also something that is raised in a reservation, where it is argued that it needs to be done. But it is, Madam Speaker, something that is already being done. Already in the 2023 regulatory letter, this was raised, and Domstolsverket was given the assignment. In the 2024 regulatory letter, it was raised again for an evaluation of how we shall provide competence for our courts.

Madam Speaker! It is not one-off measures that make a difference; it is the systematic long-term work.

Another matter that has been mentioned in the reservations, Madam Speaker, is security risks linked to the authorities' premises. In that regard, the government has already acted and tasked Domstolsverket, Kriminalvården, and the police to identify and manage security risks in property ownership and lease conditions.

The authorities have, among other things, now proposed acquisition permits and a state right of first refusal, and that certain critical infrastructure properties should be able to be owned permanently by the state. Here, too, the work is already underway and is functioning on a broad scale.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: The rule of law is not just paragraphs and protocols. It is a promise to every crime victim that we see, that we care, and that we act. We cannot wait for the future. We must build it with reforms that bite, with tools that work, and with a determination where one is not ashamed to call crime crime and right right. We reform so that people can get their justice in time, for real.

We reject the reservations in the report, not for lack of commitment but because we are already doing the work. We have taken the initiative, we have the strength and we have the ability. We know where we are going, and we have already begun to go there for a safer tomorrow.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I react to Ludvig Ceimertz's reactions to several reservations. It began with the comments regarding digital possibility of participation in the legal process, and then it was followed by more comments by Ludvig Ceimertz.

I would like to assert that I am well aware of what came out here regarding the fact that some work is ongoing. But I also see that there is a great division. When it comes to digital access to legal processes, Domstolsverket has wanted to use various service centers to establish good video environments in different places across the country. At the same time, the government is withdrawing the possibility for a number of service centers. This is not good from a democratic point of view at all, and least of all when it concerns the justice system.

When it comes to judges, we from Vänsterpartiet have had contacts that have led to us being concerned about how the situation looks. We think that the work must accelerate and that more support must be given in different ways to recruit judges and relieve those who are under great pressure today. This also applies to the premises, which I will return to in my speech. But let us begin with this.

Do you give with one hand and take back with another?

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it may be appropriate that we begin with the issues that are raised. Member Gudrun Nordborg raises the issue of remote participation. Today, the main rule is that participation shall take place physically on-site. We see good reasons to review this. This should not have to be the main case, but in more cases than today, decisions should be able to be made regarding digital participation via video link from another location for the sake of safety for crime victims and witnesses, for purely logistical reasons, or for other reasons.

That is why the Courts Administration was tasked with looking into the issue to see what changes needed to be made. This is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.

The supply of competence for the courts is a concern. It is a problem when cases get stuck in the flow and queues are created. It is therefore important to be able to change processes, as I described in my speech, with faster proceedings where we can effectively free up resources. It is also important that we work systematically and long-term for the supply of competence, and that is why the government tasked Domstolsverket to review its competence supply plan and then evaluate which measures were implemented and what effect they had.

Furthermore, the government has allocated 1.2 billion kronor so that our courts can work more efficiently, secure the supply of competence, and handle more cases.

The work is therefore underway. It is being taken seriously, and it is important.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I hear what you are saying, Ludvig Ceimertz. Now, the thing is that the practice regarding the possibility of participating digitally in a legal process varies greatly across the country. Some judges are incredibly restrictive with this, which creates concern, anxiety, and fear for many both victims and witnesses. So it must not be that way.

When it comes to making digital presence possible, I also have experience from having worked for a long time both within and outside the justice system, and it requires that one does it under secure conditions. In that regard, the service centers would be excellent to retain to guarantee that.

I also recognize from many reforms back that there has been an attempt to change the possibility of recruiting qualified lawyers to judicial positions. It sometimes moves slowly. More must be done there. This is, however, nothing that the SD-led government has come up with on its own now. It has been a requirement for a very long time.

I refrain from commenting on the question regarding the importance of premises that are protected and non-private and do not risk criminal involvement. It concerns the entire chain of justice, including court premises at times.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Madam Speaker! I must say it is somewhat interesting that the question of premises has now been raised in two replies with the comment that we should not talk about it now. Still, time is being spent on it.

I just want to take the opportunity to say that I share the view that the premises where the courts are located, where the police are located, and where the Prison and Probation Service is located should be safe, secure, and stable. There should be no irregularities. That is why the government has tasked these agencies with mapping out exactly this. The government has, therefore, acted on the issue. I think it is important to get that said because it was nevertheless raised twice, with the accompanying instruction that it should not be raised.

When it comes to the state's service center, it is not the only way to participate digitally during trials. It can be done in many more ways. We have also seen a large increase in the number of occasions where one participates digitally, from quite few occasions. In the vast majority of legal processes, at least the somewhat larger ones, there is now some form of digital element.

We think it is positive and good that that possibility exists and would like it to be expanded and be able to be used much more. It is, in fact, concerning, as Member Nordborg expresses, that it looks so different around the country. It needs to become more equal. That is also why we are looking at removing the principle that the main rule should be physical participation. That investigation is being prepared right now in the Government Offices.

Regarding the supply of competence, it is a concern that is being worked on. The Government has, in two consecutive regulatory letters to Domstolsverket, highlighted that one shall work on, evaluate, and come back to that issue.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 1 from the Social Democrats. There, we clearly state that the expanded coercive measures and powers granted to the police, often at our initiative, shall be time-limited and evaluated. We know, after all, that with greater power comes greater responsibility. It is about defending the rule of law, not eroding it. We shall be tough on crime but never neglect the rule of law.

The rule of law is not stronger than its weakest link. It is not enough with more police or sharper tools if we do not ensure that the entire chain of justice functions – from police investigation to prosecution, judgment and enforcement.

An often overlooked, but also often completely decisive, part of this chain of justice is our lay judges. They represent the citizens in the court and are a unique part of Swedish legal tradition. Their presence ensures that the administration of justice is carried out not only by lawyers but also with a popular anchoring and common sense.

Today there are great challenges. It is difficult to recruit new lay judges, especially in rural areas and smaller municipalities. Many leave the assignment prematurely due to a lack of support and work environment problems. There is also a lack of systematic continuing education, even though lay judges are often expected to participate in very complex trials.

If the lay judge system is not given better conditions through clearer national responsibility for education, support, and working conditions, we risk this people-anchored element of our rule of law losing both quality and legitimacy.

I also want to highlight two other areas where we must act more forcefully to preserve and strengthen the public's trust in the justice system: the crime of quantity and serious economic crime.

In Dalarna, where I come from, we have recently had two high-profile cases of hit-and-run accidents. There are both photos and videos of those who drove the car, yet the cases have been dropped. It concerns people who were hit, one person with serious injuries. Despite photos and videos of both the car and the driver, one is met with the announcement: The investigation is being dropped.

Unfortunately, this is no exception. The National Audit Office has established that the police handle large-scale crimes inefficiently and that there is a lack of follow-up and analysis. The Swedish Crime Prevention Council points to an alarmingly low clearance rate and that this creates a gap between what crime victims expect and what the justice system actually delivers.

This is a matter of justice. When burglaries, thefts and acts of vandalism do not lead to any reaction, trust in the entire system is undermined. An important explanation is the lack of local police. The Crime Prevention Council states that the presence of local police and their knowledge of the local community is crucial for handling precisely these crimes.

We Social Democrats believe that all municipalities should have a present police force. It is a matter of safety, but it is also a matter of respect – for the municipal citizens, for the crime victims and for justice.

I also want to highlight the serious economic crime, which is a threat both to trust in society and to the welfare state itself. It concerns advanced schemes: systems where companies are emptied of money, companies are hijacked, and tax funds end up in the wrong pockets. These crimes do not occur on a whim but are often planned and deliberate with the aim of enriching oneself at society's expense.

The Director General of the Economic Crime Authority, Rikard Jermsten, has been clear: the penalties are too low, which means that this type of crime risks not being prioritized sufficiently despite the fact that they can cost society billions of kronor.

For us Social Democrats, this is a matter of justice and a crime-preventing effect. Higher penalties play a decisive role in deterring this type of crime. For these planned economic crimes, the risk of punishment must outweigh the profit from the crime.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to increase the penalties for serious economic crimes. We want to introduce Swedish anti-mafia legislation so that we can strike at the entire criminal infrastructure. We want to make it possible to confiscate criminals' assets and return them to society. It is about saying that you cannot cheat your way to success and steal from the welfare state and think that you will get away with it.

We Social Democrats have a clear line. The rule of law shall be strong, just, and rooted in the people. We shall give the police the tools to break up the gangs. We shall strengthen the protection for crime victims. We shall never compromise on legal certainty. We shall say no to a system where crime victims have their cases dropped without action and no to economic criminals getting their way by cheating at the expense of our entire society. Those who behave properly should not be losers. We say yes to a rule of law that works for everyone in the whole country.

(Applause)

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Madam Speaker! From the opposition's side, it is very fragmented in the area of justice policy and also here in the area of procedural law. The Social Democrats have previously said no to visitation zones. Later, they wanted to make all of southern Stockholm a visitation zone. They said no to anonymous witnesses. Then they said yes to anonymous witnesses. They said no to gang criminals losing their citizenship. Then they said yes to that – or did they?

Furthermore, the Social Democrats have an ambition to govern together with parties that say no to much of what we do in the justice policy and procedural law area. I now wonder if everything we have implemented during this mandate period will be torn up if Sweden, against all odds, gets a new government and the Social Democrats are to try to cooperate with those parties that say no to most of it.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Pontus Andersson Garpvall for the question! The answer to the member's question is no. Everything that has been decided here will not be overturned. It would be very foolish of us Social Democrats to do so because seven out of ten propositions that have been developed during the mandate period are initiated by a Social Democratic government. It would therefore be to withdraw the policy we ourselves have put forward. Now we are already in the third year of this mandate period.

Regarding how cooperation should proceed in the future, we Social Democrats will most likely go to the election as a separate party with our own policies. Then there will be an election result. I am used to cooperating with both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. I have good experience with that. We will see what future collaborations look like. The Social Democrats are a party that can cooperate with others.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Lars Isacsson, for the answer!

As I see it, the problem with the Social Democrats is that they say one thing now, but then they are supposed to compromise and try to cooperate with the others on the left side of politics.

In other policy areas, the Social Democrats try to portray it as if they have always been in favor of nuclear power, for example. But then they govern with the Green Party and shut down nuclear power. They also claim that they have always been in favor of controlled immigration. But then they rule together with the Green Party and the Left Party and leave the door to Sweden ajar. They say that they want to tax the rich, but most recently they chose to govern together with the Center Party and abolished the wealth tax for the very richest so that the then Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson could afford another expensive ski trip in the mountains.

How can the voters trust the Social Democrats? Will they be able to keep what they promise when they have had difficulty keeping what they have promised previously?

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Pontus Andersson Garpvall, for the question!

Overall, I believe it is important for all political parties to be prepared to reconsider previous positions. I believe that is how the Social Democrats have been able to be the governing party in Sweden since the introduction of democracy. We keep up, have new solutions for new problems, and do not get stuck.

Regarding nuclear power, we were the initiators in developing an energy agreement, which was then broken by the other parties. We are still reaching out and want a broad energy agreement. I believe this is also being requested by the business community.

Mr. Speaker! A restrictive immigration and a regulated labor immigration is probably nothing new.

Back to the question of who one can cooperate with and who one cannot. I come from a part of Sweden where it is not entirely uncommon for us Social Democrats to govern with our own majority. It is perhaps not entirely likely, but I think that given how the government and SD deliver, it should not be an impossibility that it could be so in 2026.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating procedural law issues. It is an important area that concerns the ability to prosecute, not least the seriously criminal. It is in how one investigates, deprives of liberty, prosecutes and sentences that justice is tested.

The Christian Democrats and the government have together, within the framework of the Tidö agreement, achieved a great deal in criminal procedure in a short time. It concerns measures that should have been taken long ago but which are now being implemented thanks to the Tidö parties' paradigm shift in their view on law and order. It concerns new and more efficient tools for the police and prosecutors – including entirely new forfeiture legislation, which began to apply in the autumn of 2024 and which provides expanded possibilities to seize and forfeit criminals' assets, for example in the form of money, cars, and valuable luxury items.

Through legislative changes that entered into force on 1 October 2023 and 1 September 2024, we have also given the law enforcement authorities expanded possibilities to use secret and preventive coercive measures against gang criminals. This is legislation that has already prevented several shootings and explosions.

We have also expanded the camera surveillance, and on April 1, new simplified rules were introduced to install more cameras. The permit requirement for public activities was then removed, and law enforcement agencies were given the right to conduct camera surveillance in more locations. This is a clear and safety-creating measure that prevents crime and also secures evidence when crimes are committed.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the government are strengthening witness protection and breaking the culture of silence surrounding gangs by making it possible, since January 1, to testify anonymously in criminal cases under certain conditions. The Christian Democrats were the first parliamentary party to propose that anonymous witnesses should be allowed, and now it is finally being implemented.

It is important to point out that the possibility of testifying anonymously only applies if there is a tangible risk that the witness or their relatives will be subjected to serious crime if the witness's identity becomes known. The crime for which the witness is to be heard must correspond to at least two years of imprisonment. The reasons for anonymity must also be weighed against the suspect's possibilities to defend themselves.

We Christian Democrats also want to see measures to strengthen the important work of the Crime Victim Service through expanded resources. We also want to see an increase in the income limit for legal aid so that more people can benefit from it. The question of cost and the fact that one cannot afford a legal representative at all should not constitute an obstacle to initiating a legal process and having one's case examined.

Mr. Speaker! Step by step, we are reclaiming the safety that has been lost in Sweden. In this, our priority is clear: safety and the crime victim shall be put first. I therefore also want to highlight the government's work in reviewing the issue of compensation to those deprived of liberty, the Chancellor of Justice's practice, and the legislation in this area. It is completely unreasonable that perpetrators in some cases can receive many times more in damages than their victims.

In Malmö, a rapist received 840,000 kronor in compensation for deprivation of liberty, not because he was innocent but because he turned out to be younger than the court first thought and therefore had been deprived of liberty for too long. This type of compensation to perpetrators should only be payable when it is reasonable and then in reasonable amounts. It is high time to stop similar compensations, and now we have a government that is taking action on this.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now nearly three years into the parliamentary term, and in the justice policy area, our measures are beginning to be seen more and more in reality. Enacting laws in Sweden is an extensive process which, even though we want to rush forward with new measures, takes time. The Social Democrats have during the parliamentary term criticized us for the measures coming too fast, but for the Sweden Democrats and the government, there is no time to wait.

Also, breaking down the gang-related and organized crime is something that will take time. The Prime Minister warned early on that it might even get worse before it gets better, but so far the worst fears have not materialized – on the contrary.

Regarding the fatal firearm violence, we have seen a decrease during both 2023 and 2024, this following the Social Democrats' record year with 62 fatal shootings during 2022, which was an increase of 232 percent during their last eight years in power. During our first two years of government, the shootings instead decreased by approximately one-third, and the fatal violence is now down to the same level as in 2014. In March, there were fewer shootings in Sweden than in almost ten years. This can, of course, have many different explanations, but let me point out a few.

On 1 January 2023, the youth discount for serious crimes was abolished. This means, among other things, that everyone over 18 can be sentenced to life imprisonment. With the previous Social Democratic sentences, many young people convicted of murder were released long before their 30th birthday. The change raised the stakes for those who previously were prepared to take another person's life and only risk a smaller number of years in a Swedish institution.

A year later, we doubled the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses. This means that persons who carry weapons in public places will have to spend at least four years in prison, and it will become even tougher for them when we later in the term will introduce double sentences for gang criminals. Then they can expect at least eight years in prison, perhaps in a facility in the Baltics. It is a big difference from the minimum sentence of one year, which was the case just a few years ago when the Social Democrats still held power.

This, in combination with perhaps the most important factor in the context, that the clearance of gang murders has gone from approximately 20 percent to over 70 percent, puts even more pressure on the criminal gangs. You do not only risk a long prison sentence for carrying a weapon in a public place and a life sentence if you are caught, but the probability that you actually get caught is now also significantly greater than before.

This is explained by the police, not least by the changes that the Sweden Democrats and the government have made in the area of procedural law, above all the possibility of preventive wiretapping of gang criminals. Many crimes are prevented before they are even committed, and even more are solved afterwards.

In addition to the possibility of preventive surveillance, during the mandate period we will also make it possible to use these types of secret coercive measures against minors as well. In the area of procedural law, we have introduced a possibility for the police to establish search zones and issue stay bans, while we have also implemented relaxations regarding camera surveillance and extended prescription periods. In short, it is significantly more difficult to be a criminal today than it was three years ago.

Maintaining safety in a country is the state's most important task. Our defense forces are responsible for keeping Swedes safe from external threats, and our law enforcement agencies are responsible for keeping us safe from internal threats. Sweden is the Swedes' place on earth. It is our only home, and in our home, we shall not welcome people who misbehave or do not want to contribute to the common good, those who exploit us, destroy, or behave badly. They simply must turn around.

That the Sweden Democrats and the government are now tightening penalties, enabling the police to seize more of criminals' assets, increasing the possibilities to wiretap criminals, enabling more camera surveillance, ensuring that more criminals are deported from the country and ensuring that gang criminals lose their citizenship is carried out primarily because it is both right and necessary. Years of dismantling of Sweden have put us in a situation where these changes to the legislation are not only necessary, but they should have been implemented decades ago.

All responsible politicians who have sung the praises of multiculturalism are responsible for today's situation. It is a naive view of society, and all decisions in the name of mass immigration have put Sweden in an increasingly worse situation. These decisions have never been for Sweden's best interests.

Many of the proposals that we are pushing through during this mandate period are such as those that the Sverigedemokraterna pushed for 15 years ago when we first took our place in this chamber. But it is only now, when the Sverigedemokraterna are in power, that we finally see a turning point, the light at the end of the tunnel. Together with the government, we are now cleaning up after previous governments' failures and conducting a policy that finally puts Swedes' safety and security in the forefront.

I want to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 6, the Sweden Democrats' reservation.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! The subject of procedural law encompasses an enormous amount. I shall only touch upon a few aspects. For safety's sake, I begin by moving for approval of reservation 5.

When we talk about procedural law issues, it is ultimately about access to justice, which is a central principle in a democracy and a rule of law. One should have access to it in a timely manner, and it can very well be about faster prosecution, which the Moderate member raised earlier.

It also needs to be about economics with legal aid possibilities and opportunities for legal assistants without excessively high costs or, preferably, no costs at all. This creates access to justice for real.

I also want to raise a dimension that has been touched upon previously, namely the possibility of attending negotiations via video. It offers very many advantages. It facilitates both for parties and for witnesses in different types of processes not to have to travel long distances.

The Swedish Courts Administration has tried to establish this in a stronger and more secure way by using the state's service centers. I would really wish that these service centers were allowed to remain, because there one can have facilities that make it safe even in that situation. It is not certain that it is possible to escape fear and anxiety solely by leaving the court premises or that one can achieve legal certainty if video interrogations are conducted just anywhere.

There is also varying practice between different courts. The intention is that we should at least receive guidelines where one should specifically try to assess what it entails in terms of costs or other inconveniences if a party or a witness needs to appear physically in a court building. It can also, of course, be about handling fears and whether there may be a risk of pressure otherwise. It is therefore also about security.

Several proceedings today offer the possibility of presence via video link. This is particularly important in cases of, for example, aggravated violation of a woman's integrity, where the women may have a well-founded fear of meeting a perpetrator in the courtroom. In other cases, there may also be a fear of being subjected to persecution when leaving the court as a crime victim or witness. That is also a risk factor.

There are, therefore, both efficiency reasons and security reasons to offer video capabilities. I mean that, ultimately, it is about legal certainty. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet argue that presence via video link should be offered as a rule if the victim or a witness, due to fear, does not want to participate on-site in the courtroom.

Then I want to focus primarily on court premises, but also other premises that the judiciary has at its disposal. This was what I refrained from touching upon in my speech and did not take up in the exchange of remarks.

Many of the judiciary's properties are owned – thank goodness, I would like to say – by Specialfastigheter Sverige Aktiebolag. It is a company owned by the Swedish state. It concerns different types of premises and buildings, such as correctional facilities, youth homes, court buildings, and police properties. These are activities that are extremely important societal functions, which places high demands, not least on security. But there are also private property owners that the judiciary rents from, and unfortunately, there are examples of socially important properties being owned by companies with links to serious crime.

It is reasonable that we try to find another arrangement. It is not reasonable for public properties to stand outside democratic control. We request a proper mapping of what proportion of the judicial system's premises are owned by private companies and how many of those companies have links to serious crime.

There are now proposals that may be implemented. It is authorities that have collaborated and discussed these issues. This concerns the Swedish Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Security Service, the Swedish Prosecution Authority and other relevant actors and authorities. This was recently reported, and there are proposals on how the problem can be handled that seem very positive.

What is being emphasized is that we may be able to have control in connection with the sale of a property, but when it comes to ownership changes occurring later, we are bound by lease agreements and therefore cannot manage power shifts there. One can, however, do as the authorities now suggest and create a system for controlling ownership changes where acquisition permits are required and where state right of first refusal is an instrument to manage the risk of premises being owned by illegal actors. It is something that I believe needs to be seriously considered. In that way, we can also contribute to good access to justice – and that in secure premises.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's courts are the place where Sweden's future and development lie and wait. I say it once more: Sweden's courts are the place where Sweden's future and development lie and wait.

In the large sense, all growth – new jobs, new infrastructure, new housing and new energy – requires building permits, detailed plans, environmental permits or other decisions. These are decisions that are often appealed, which are reviewed on the merits or procedurally. Legality reviews are conducted of political decisions. But the processing times in our agencies, courts and appellate instances are far too long, and it is a major problem for individuals and for society.

As we have heard, the government has a goal of reasonable processing times. In the government's regulatory letter for Sweden's courts, it is stated that the processing of cases other than priority cases shall take between five and seven months for 75 percent of the cases. This applies to both criminal cases and civil cases, in both district courts and administrative courts, and in both lower and appellate courts. For 25 percent of the cases, it can take longer, and it does not even state how long. This applies, therefore, in every single instance. One should also know that before that, the cases have been with an authority or municipality for processing and potential decision. We are, therefore, talking about years of processing – entirely in accordance with the mandate.

We in the Center Party think these are too low ambitions. Furthermore, the processing time is often exceeded, as several JO decisions show. The government's responsibility and work do not end with the regulatory letter; the responsibility is to ensure that individuals and companies get access to justice in good time. The responsibility is to govern and lead the country so that this is implemented, not merely to write down assignments.

We in Centerpartiet are aware that the influx of cases and the complexity of the cases in Sweden's courts have increased in recent years. We know that. This has led to all too long processing times for all cases that are not prioritized. I particularly want to highlight crimes against children, which in several cases are not priority cases. There, it is literally the country's future that is lying and waiting for a decision.

It is therefore crucial that Sweden's courts now actually get the opportunity to expand their operations in a sustainable and long-term way. Recruiting, training, and further educating judges is a task that takes time. The notary training is one aspect of this, and the recruitment of lawyers with experiences other than the justice system is another – but also getting judges to want to be active throughout our entire country.

We know that in addition to lawyers, there are many other qualified necessary employees within the country's courts, where we must also be a good employer. Courts throughout our country, with their employees, are also part of the intellectual infrastructure that builds sustainable societies. In order to both be an attractive workplace for qualified lawyers and fulfill the role as the rule of law's ultimate guardians, the courts must have good opportunities to continuously recruit and train judges. We also need to review the protection of judges and employees to be able to ensure that they have adequate protection in the vulnerable situation they often find themselves in.

All of this is collectively crucial for us to have independent courts that represent the important part of our separation of powers. Today's courts rely heavily on judges over the age of 60 remaining in their positions. We are very grateful for that, but it is not sustainable in the long term, for many reasons. Therefore, it is welcome that the government has finally allocated more money to the country's courts.

We know that the police and the Prison and Probation Service have received significant and much-needed additions. But in a justice system, every link must be strong enough for the whole to hold. Here I want to mention the State Service Center, which is emphasized as a place that can be used for, for example, giving testimony. But in that case, it is not a step in the right direction to close down 35 of the 150 offices.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying that the evaluation of privacy-sensitive legislation involving coercive measures, the protection of actors in the court process, and legal aid that gives more people the opportunity to receive a fair trial are very important issues. We agree with many parts of what has been said by members of other parties regarding this. But I will content myself with moving for approval of the Center Party's reservation 3, which concerns precisely personnel supply.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Dear colleagues! Now I intended to touch upon a subject that I do not believe has been raised until now. The Green Party has, however, raised it several times, and therefore I believe it ended up in a simplified treatment this time.

It is about an independent judiciary and the importance of this. Independent courts are one of the foundations of the Swedish constitutional system. That there is a distance between the Riksdag and the government in relation to the courts is crucial, but it should also be the case between the political parties and the judiciary. Today, it is the parties that nominate and in the country's municipal councils practically appoint lay judges who then judge in the country's district courts. Lay judges to the Court of Appeal, Administrative Court, and Chamber Court are elected by regional councils in the same manner.

Miljöpartiet considers it a major problem that the parties appoint the lay judges that exist. In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases that have shown that party politics can have influenced how lay judges act in our courts. It has occurred across the entire political spectrum. It is unacceptable, we believe, regardless of which party nominated a lay judge.

A study from Uppsala University in 2015 showed, for example, that the outcome in the migration cases studied had been influenced by which parties had nominated the serving lay judges. Even just the suspicion that political color can influence how lay judges rule in individual cases constitutes grounds for concern.

Miljöpartiet wants to stop the politicization of the courts and increase the courts' independence from politics. We therefore propose that the political parties shall no longer have any role in the recruitment, nomination, or election of lay judges. That process can be conducted by, for example, Domstolsverket, the courts board, the county administrative boards, or other actors and target candidates in many different parts of society.

Of course, how the model should look must be thoroughly investigated. It is important that the composition of lay judges reflects the whole of society and becomes more representative in terms of, for example, age, occupation, and background. We simply want to appoint an inquiry that shall submit proposals on how a new system can look, where the advantages and disadvantages of different models can be weighed.

It is also important that the economic conditions for lay judges are improved, regardless of whether the current system is maintained or if a better one is introduced. Today, it is difficult for many to take on a role as a lay judge for economic reasons because the compensation is so low. This is one of the reasons why the age composition does not reflect the population and why the proportion of retirees is high.

Mr. Speaker! In a short time, extensive expansions have been carried out regarding the police's ability to use various forms of coercive measures. This includes, among other things, being able to use coercive measures preventively, that is, without there being any concrete suspicion of a crime, to a significantly greater extent than today. The purpose is, of course, to detect and prevent serious crime. Secret coercive measures shall also be allowed to be used to a greater extent than today for more and less serious crimes. Furthermore, the surplus information that emerges in connection with, for example, wiretapping shall also be allowed to be used.

These are tools that are requested by the police and will make a big difference for the possibility to prevent and solve crimes, but at the same time, the extensive expansion entails major privacy infringements. Therefore, this type of legislation should be time-limited and continuously evaluated to see if the purpose of the legislation is actually achieved and is proportionate in relation to the privacy infringement.

Mr. Speaker! There are several reforms of the judicial authorities' work that would facilitate and improve the work. I want to mention some of them here. Some of them have also been raised earlier in this debate. I want to first mention presence at court proceedings via video link. It is pleasing to hear that this is being prepared in the Government Offices, but as we usually do here, the opposition will nevertheless lay its reservations as long as the whole thing is not completed.

Participation via video link has increased significantly in recent years and created more reasonable conditions for crime victims to account for what has happened. This was also mentioned by the colleague from Vänsterpartiet. This has applied, not least, to cases concerning aggravated violation of a woman's integrity.

But it occurs that the court denies the complainant the opportunity to participate via video link. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet argue that this is wrong. We believe that participation via video link should, as a rule, be offered in situations where the complainant and witnesses, as a result of fear, do not want to participate on-site in the courtroom. The Government should therefore task Domstolsverket with developing and disseminating the technology to participate in legal proceedings remotely via video link to all courts.

I also want to mention here what the Center Party emphasized in its speech, namely the importance of working to recruit, train, and further educate judges. In recent years, the influx of cases and the complexity of cases in Sweden's courts have increased. This has led to long processing times for all cases that are not prioritized. Here, the government must take the situation seriously and assist the courts with what they need to handle the entire caseload, not just that which is related to serious organized crime.

It is therefore crucial that Sweden's courts are given an actual opportunity to expand their operations in a sustainable and long-term manner, in order to both be an attractive workplace for qualified lawyers and fulfill the role as the rule of law's ultimate guardian.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the need to introduce house arrest and area arrest as alternatives to detention. This is a very old issue, as I understand it. It concerns certain types of crime, and it was already proposed in 2016 in an investigation called Färre i häkte och minskad isolering. The introduction of these new alternatives to detention can be assumed to reduce the number of people who need to occupy detention places.

As the Prison and Probation Service has pointed out, it is in both the individual's and society's interest to expand the possibility for a crime suspect to retain housing, salary, work, and daily contact with family during the investigation period. As stated, this applies to certain types of crimes. I believe that the government should proceed with the investigation's proposals.

We stand behind all our reservations, but I move for the approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 April.)

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