The justice system

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! Most parties seem to be quite in agreement today that Sweden is in a very serious situation when it comes to gang crime and serious crime. That is how it has actually looked for several years now. Despite that, the situation has not improved. It is quite the opposite.

It is therefore not enough to agree that the situation is serious. Also relevant is why it looks the way it does, i.e., the explanation for how it could have gone this far and how it could have gone this wrong. That insight is, of course, of the utmost importance when we discuss how we should proceed, i.e., what we must do to seriously address the problems and the very serious situation.

With that said, I shall begin by commenting on the Social Democrats' special statement. The following can be read in this: "We must stop the violence and break the new recruitment to the serious organized crime." That sounds good. But is it credible?

During his time as Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven declared on several occasions that the government would crush gang crime. During his time as Minister of Justice, we could hear Morgan Johansson repeat the same empty phrase. On at least one occasion, he also said, in all seriousness: We are on our way to breaking organized crime.

Madam Speaker! That is not what happened. We all know that it has only become worse. Gang crime and organized crime, with its constantly recurring shootings, explosions, and settlements, is today worse than ever before. We see how insecurity spreads from municipality to municipality as a direct consequence of this. We also see how completely innocent people end up in the line of fire when these grossly criminal individuals settle scores. Morgan Johansson's statement that there is little risk of innocent people being affected tastes and smells really bad.

It is comical when the Social Democrats further write that they are critical of "one-sided initiatives on increased penalties," while simultaneously speaking warmly about crime prevention work. I think like this: There is no party that has governed Sweden for as long a time as the Social Democrats. They have also held government power during the two most recent terms. They have had all the time in the world to work on precisely these preventive measures. Despite that, the situation is worse and more serious than ever before. It is a failure.

Madam Speaker! I agree, in principle, that preventive measures are important - of course, and we also point this out in the Tidö Agreement. There, we highlight the need for a reformed Social Services Act, the establishment of a national social intervention force, a reformed social worker education, and so on. But even if the preventive work can be improved, that is hardly where it has fallen short.

A majority of those behind gang crime and serious organized crime, with its shootings and explosions but also phenomena such as humiliation robberies, assaults and gang rapes and the like, have a different background. They come, not least, from countries in the Middle East and Africa and have many times come to Sweden from very dysfunctional countries.

Well, those here have received a roof over their heads, lifelong benefit support, and access to – despite its shortcomings – one of the world's best welfare societies. They have been given access to school, dental care, healthcare, elderly care, and so on. Despite this, all too many choose to engage in what can be likened to a low-intensity war, even against the surrounding society. I haven't even begun to speak about the Islamization and how the Islamists, moreover with the Social Democrats' good will, work to dismantle our open, equal, and democratic society.

The previous Social Democratic government's total failure, which obviously also includes the parties that have run in their wake, and the failure to crush the criminal gangs and organized crime is due to the fact that they simply did not understand, or do not understand, why it looks the way it does or that the main explanation for why it looks the way it does is de facto a direct consequence of the policy they themselves have pursued - but also a direct consequence of multiculturalism and mass immigration. This is a policy that has created exclusion, segregation, violence, and insecurity.

If one lacks this understanding, it is for obvious reasons difficult to resolve the situation, and those who believe that more social democratic policy is the solution to the problems that, among others, the Social Democrats themselves have created have not understood the gravity of the situation or what it is due to.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement is an attempt to truly and, for the first time, seriously address the problems Sweden grapples with today. The Tidö Agreement's section on crime policy is, moreover, one of the most important and thus most extensive. It is about a crackdown on youth crime and a long series of pattern-breaking measures to stop the gangs. We point out, for example, the need to introduce a system with time-limited visitation zones and that those convicted of crimes should be able to be issued a ban on staying in a certain geographical area.

It is also about expanded opportunities to use preventive coercive measures with the aim of detecting and preventing criminal activity in criminal networks. We also point out the need for double sentences for gang criminals and for the criminalization of participation in such gangs.

It is also about a complete and thorough review of the penal code where the penalties for, for example, violent crimes, sexual crimes, attacks against police, and other criminal activities that threaten the foundations of the rule of law and society shall be tightened. We also point out the need for strengthened criminal law protection for police and that the penalties for violence against public officials shall be tightened. The same applies to the penalty for blue light sabotage.

Madam Speaker! The latter is important and interesting, and it brings me to the question of deportation, which I assert is central in the Tidö Agreement. It is in fact decisive whether we can seriously be able to solve the problem with gang crime and organized crime – this because it is largely an imported problem.

If we look at the much-publicized Easter riots, or the Quran riots as I and several others prefer to call them, which shook Sweden for several days this spring, we see that all those convicted have a different background. But none of the 30 people who have been convicted so far will be deported after serving their sentence – this despite the fact that a majority of them are foreign citizens and have been sentenced to multi-year prison terms for aggravated sabotage against emergency services. Several of them are hardened Islamists who are also previously convicted. It concerns everything from drug offenses to sexual offenses.

This is remarkable, and we will do everything in our power to achieve a change in the issue of deportation. People of this kind, regardless of background, have no business in Sweden.

The question of deportation is central if we are to be able to address the increasingly more severe organized crime. The fact that it is largely an imported problem is reinforced, not least by the fact that more than a third of those serving sentences in Swedish prisons lack Swedish citizenship.

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that we now, as Gunnar Strömmer and the Moderates as well as the other government parties have also stated, see the beginning of a paradigm shift in crime policy and, not least, the largest offensive ever against organized crime. And for the first time, I actually look at the future with confidence.

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

(Applause)

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I can state that Richard Jomshof devoted a non-negligible part of his speech to attacks on the Social Democrats, and even on individual representatives. When he now had the opportunity to speak about the policy they want to implement, he chooses instead to speak about the Social Democrats.

Organized crime and criminal gangs challenge our society and exploit existing weaknesses. The fact is that when criminal gangs instill fear in our residential areas and cities, it is something that threatens the safety of us all. It is about trust in a society, a trust that is undermined when we are pulled apart instead of coming together to build the society strong together.

As Social Democrats, we have in recent years invested everything in reversing this development. It has been an absolute main priority for us during the years that we have now governed Sweden.

The Police Authority is very clear that it is incredibly important that we invest in all parts of the justice chain. We naturally need more uniformed police present in the areas that are hit hard. But we also need more preventive work and social work so that all the people with a different ethnic background, or for that matter with a Swedish background, who live in these areas can feel safety and trust that society also works for them. Not to forget, when one listens to Richard Jomshof, who naturally as usual ethnicizes all social problems, is that it is also incredibly important to emphasize that we have 2 million people in Sweden with a different ethnic background. The absolute majority of them get up every morning, go to their work, ensure that the Swedish welfare is strong, and ensure that our society works. You never hear any Sverigedemokrat stand and talk about that.

We Social Democrats have during our government period had two main priorities for crime policy. It naturally concerns cracking down on gang crime, and I will soon say more about that. But it also concerns the work of stopping men's violence against women, something that was conspicuously absent during Richard Jomshof's presentation.

But criminal policy can never bear the entire solution. Just as important as harsher sentences and more police, just as important is the crime-preventive work. That requires an education policy for a school that lifts all children, a labor market policy with the aim that everyone who can work also shall work, a culture and sports policy for the whole country, a social policy that builds security equally for everyone, and social interventions that quickly catch those children and young people who are heading into crime.

This insight meant that we Social Democrats in the election campaign promised that for every krona we invest in the police, at least as much shall be invested in preventive work. These are investments that exist in other expenditure areas than those we are currently discussing. But despite that, this is absolutely crucial if we are to be able to reverse the development and put a stop to crime.

For an effective crime policy, it is naturally also required that the judicial authorities have sufficient resources. This applies in particular to the Swedish Police Authority. In the government's position, we set a goal of 10,000 more police employees by 2024. It now looks like this can be achieved. Therefore, we also believe that it is high time to take the next step. We therefore went to the election on the basis that the Swedish Police Authority shall have 50,000 employees by 2032, of which at least 34,000 are police officers.

It is clear that it is worrying that the government does not seem particularly interested in how the Police Authority should be developed after the goal of 10,000 more employees has been achieved. There need to be more police officers and other employees at the authority, and they need to get better conditions and more tools. But the investments in the Police Authority must also be followed up with investments in other law enforcement agencies. Not least the Prison and Probation Service faces major challenges.

If the proposals in the Tidö Agreement are to be implemented, it will significantly increase the need for places in detention centers and at institutions. It is of course worrying that the government does not seem to have a clear conception of how many more places will be needed and how this expansion is to take place. From experience, we know that expansion takes time, both the construction itself and, to at least the same extent, the recruitment and training of staff. The government should have presented a plan for, or at least a thought on, this expansion that will be required if the Tidö Agreement is to be implemented.

We naturally think it is pleasing that the government now continues with the offensive initiatives to break crime that we carried out in government. It is well known that a number of investigations have been commissioned. Some of them have recently submitted their reports. These concern preventive wiretapping, the criminalization of psychological violence, the Gang Crime Investigation, and the investigation into multiple criminality. We expect the government to maintain the high pace in the legislative work that, among others in the opposition, referred to all the time.

Criminal policy must naturally be both legally secure and effective. And as Richard Jomshof mentioned, some of the proposals in the Tidö Agreement are at least uncertain when it comes to precisely this. One can take the visitation zones as an example. In the best-case scenario, they may risk being legally insecure. In the worst-case scenario, they can be directly counterproductive. If the police are given the right to search people, not depending on whether there is a suspicion against them but simply based on where they happen to live, we see how a trust that needs to be strengthened, not least among these citizens in our country, instead risks decreasing. It will probably result in people being less able than today to ensure that the police receive the information needed to be able to solve crime.

Let me however take up something more. Every day, girls and women are subjected to harassment, violence, and sexual crimes. This is violence that causes great suffering. It violates and restricts the victim's fundamental free and basic rights. But the violence also affects the children who are forced to witness the abuses. To fall victim to violence in the home as a child can also lead to subjecting others or becoming a victim oneself in adulthood.

These are perpetrators who exist in all social groups and have all different backgrounds, and it is violence that has occurred in all times. Every form of violence or threat of violence against women limits the safety and freedom even for those women who are not subjected to it themselves. As long as a single woman is harmed by her partner or former partner, we have not done enough. We will turn over every stone to put an end to men's violence against women.

We see that the cooperation between the involved authorities must become much better. Women who are subjected to crimes must receive the help they need, and the men who commit the crimes must be punished. The social and physical security for those who report this type of crime must be strengthened, and society must be present all the way.

In the government position, we Social Democrats presented a 99-point program to combat men's violence against women. It contains proposals in many different areas, and it must be implemented in its entirety while new measures also need to be added.

Despite the serious crimes being committed, violence against women by men is often made invisible. As politicians, we have a responsibility to lift up and make visible these issues even when media requests are conspicuously absent. I expect the Minister for Justice to devote at least as much attention to these issues as he devotes to gang-related violence. Sweden needs to have a zero-vision when it comes to violence against women by men.

Being subjected to a crime is a violation that leaves deep marks, and crime victims must be able to feel confidence in the justice system. This requires that all actors who meet crime victims and witnesses have knowledge of their rights and what support and protection society can offer.

The Police Authority is often the first organization a crime victim comes into contact with, and therefore it is extra important that that contact functions. But municipalities and regions also have a great responsibility to ensure that people receive the help and support that is needed. We also know that the voluntary organizations that carry out interventions are very valuable and must be given continued support. In addition to providing support to voluntary organizations, the Crime Victim Authority also provides information to crime victims and witnesses about their rights. This work also must continue and be developed. It is time to investigate a specific crime victim law.

The Social Democrats' budget alternative should be seen as a coherent package where some or some parts cannot be broken out and treated in isolation. Therefore, we choose to refrain from taking a position and have instead submitted a specific statement on the Social Democratic policy in this expenditure area.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Annika Strandhäll for her speech, and then perhaps especially for her highlighting men's violence against women. I agree with what Annika said about the fact that we politicians have a responsibility to raise that issue even when the media interest is low.

With that said, I have some questions regarding the Social Democratic justice policy. I think first and foremost that everyone in here, everyone listening and everyone who has an interest in law and order here in Sweden should note that from the Social Democrats' side, there is no other proposal for the budget in expenditure area 4, that is, the budget area that deals with the justice system and crime policy.

The Social Democrats therefore agree with the government's and the coalition parties' proposals regarding how the funds for the justice system shall be allocated in the coming years. This is very pleasing, but at the same time, certain questions arise as a result of this. The Social Democrats say that they have invested everything and turned over every stone. This is, however, the bloodiest year Sweden has seen, with 60 people killed so far. They want to break the gangs, but the development has gone in precisely the opposite direction.

Therefore, I must ask a question to the Social Democrats. In addition to agreeing with us on our budget allocation, I wonder if there is a single proposal in the Social Democrats' budget motion in the area of crime policy that the Moderates and the coalition parties have not already put forward. Is there any proposal in the area of crime policy that the Social Democrats are alone on and which is therefore not shared by the Moderates and the coalition parties?

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the great commitment, Louise Meijer, and for your question!

In the speech I just gave, I was very clear regarding the Social Democrats' view on crime policy, that is to say that it is a coherent policy. If we are to be able to address the concerns we see today in many of our vulnerable areas - if we are truly to be able to reverse the development - interventions must be made in many different areas. I listed them in my speech.

It concerns not least the social area. It is about building opportunities for people to break the segregation and get into work. It is about having a school policy that ensures one can expect a safe, secure, and equal schooling regardless of where in our country one grows up. The Moderates are well aware that we, for example, want to stop the profit-seeking in the Swedish school. Unfortunately, it has contributed to our school system being pulled apart, which has meant grade inflation and an increasingly unequal school. This contributes to children not receiving equal conditions.

This attitude is also something shared by the judicial authorities, that is to say, that the preventive work must be prioritized in a completely different way.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! I heard no answer to the question.

I have read through the Social Democrats' 72 different proposals regarding the justice system in the party's budget motion, that is, the criminal policy that the Social Democrats want to pursue over the next four years, and I cannot find a single proposal that has not already been put forward by the Moderates and the coalition parties.

Annika Strandhäll chose to say that the conflict does not lie there, but instead lies in the welfare area. We can very well have that debate, but it is not the debate we are to have here today. Today, we are discussing expenditure area 4 with associated policy.

I wonder again: Is there a single one of these 72 proposals that the Social Democrats intend to pursue as their policy over the next four years that the Moderates and the coalition parties have not already put forward? Because I cannot find anything.

For me, this means that the Social Democrats have capitulated in crime policy. The Social Democrats no longer care about crime policy. It is great for us to hear that the policy that exists in the Tidö Agreement has very large support in Sweden's Riksdag, which for me leads to the next question.

I can therefore not find any proposals that are the Social Democrats' own. Is it therefore the case that the Social Democrats will say yes to the most important proposals in the Tidö Agreement? It concerns double sentences for gang criminals, anonymous witnesses, criminalization of participation in gangs, residency bans, forfeiture of criminals' assets with a reverse burden of proof, youth prisons, more prison places, expanded restraining orders, and deportation of gang members. Do the Social Democrats say yes to these proposals, which are in the Tidö Agreement?

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! I am somewhat astonished by Louise Meijer's interpretation of this. Naturally, this is not how this should be read. When it comes to the measures that need to be taken in the criminal policy area to deal with organized crime, we can, however, state that there is a breadth in the Swedish Riksdag that agrees on parts of the criminal policy and the picture that makes it necessary to take measures. That is, for God's sake, something that is positive!

One could read this as that the crime policy which the Social Democrats have pursued during the last eight years has, in many respects, been copied by the former opposition that now sits in government. In addition to that, we have been very clear that there are parts of the Tidö Agreement that we consider to be at least insecure regarding the rule of law and problematic. We will, of course, continue to pursue you with a spotlight in that area in the form of opposition.

What is astonishing is that the Moderaterna obviously still do not see that it is much more than crackdowns on gangs that is required if the development is to be reversed and new recruitment reduced, even though such crackdowns naturally are also needed.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker!

I fight and keep the body warm A dream of mother's tender embrace An alien's thirst for love A wonder of who betrayed whom first And I would gladly be a martyr We probably need a new one

Exactly 20 years ago, Kent released their album Vapen och ammunition. I hardly believe they themselves knew how accurate their description of reality would be for many, especially for young guys in marginalized areas, 20 years later.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin this budget speech with the most important thing: Young men are dying and killing in large numbers in Sweden. No other country in Europe is anywhere near the development we see here in Sweden. People talk about the Swedish situation, and they look at us with horror.

The biggest and most important question is, of course, how we stop the development. How do we ensure that every child in this country chooses a future with schooling and work instead of quick money, drugs, and weapons?

We know that many of the young gang criminals come from dysfunctional families. It could be a father who has left the family or a mother with many children. Not infrequently, abuse occurs, and sometimes it is about mental illness or a sense of alienation from society.

This is happening at the same time as our youth are at perhaps the most sensitive age, when one makes mistakes, thinks short-term, and does things that are not always what one means and that are not always right. You may perhaps remember yourselves what it was like to be a teenager. Perhaps you have teenage children yourselves and know that it is not so simple.

How then shall society compensate for families that do not function? In other words: How shall society compensate for the absence of unconditional love and an adult who is always there, no matter what happens, and who can provide guidance when everything feels hopeless? Can society compensate for the dream of mother's tender embrace and the alienated thirst for love?

The answer is that it must happen; there is no alternative. But how we do this in the best way is probably something no one has the answer to with a capital S. It can hardly just be about more money to and in the public sector. It is not with more public employees and larger agencies that one builds trust between children and adults.

I am not saying this to point fingers or polarize, but because my party leader, and our Prime Minister, has asked for unity - not division. If all parties in here do their utmost to consider how society compensates for dysfunctional families when our young people need adults the most, I believe we will see more proposals in the right direction than if the question is simply left as it is.

Madam Speaker! The shootings and the escalating gang crime also affect the rest of society. Four out of ten shootings occur near preschools and schools. Now, preschool children are no longer just practicing evacuation but also sheltering in place. Every sixth student attends a school where a shooting has occurred within a radius of 500 meters from the school. In Stockholm and Malmö, nearly half of the students attend a school where a shooting has occurred nearby in recent years.

Madam Speaker! Abdullahi is in the second grade at Fröslundaskolan in Eskilstuna. He was on the schoolyard. He describes how he saw their masks and how they stared a bit at him. Then they fired the weapon twice. Two managed to get away and ran off. One did not manage and fell. Then Abdullahi tried to run as fast as he could.

Madam Speaker! Those who a few years ago said that we were alarmists now appear naive. Organized crime is a threat to the system. They use extortion, corruption, and infiltration. Through threats and violence, they achieve a culture of silence where the rule of the strongest applies. The trust that the Swedish legal system can protect against this is not particularly great.

In law, we often speak of "access to justice", i.e., how accessible the justice system is for the ordinary citizen. Let me say this: in parts of Sweden, the Swedish justice system is not particularly accessible at all. There, Swedish law is set aside in favor of whoever possesses the greatest capacity for violence.

This must change. We must take back control over law and order in Sweden. It is not just a safety issue, but it is also a matter of justice and a matter of equality.

That is why the Moderate-led government has launched the largest offensive in Swedish history against organized crime. Coming generations shall grow up in a Sweden where everyone is actually equal before the law and where no one shall have to run as fast as they can to protect themselves from a shooting at the schoolyard.

Madam Speaker! With the budget that is now being presented for the justice system, we are fulfilling what we went to the election on, namely to regain control over law and order in Sweden. Therefore, over the next three years, we are investing 5 new billion on the justice system. Already next year, the police will receive almost 1 billion in additional funding to enable more police officers and better crime fighting. We are strengthening both the Prison and Probation Service and the Prosecution Authority so that the entire justice system will have a greater capacity. We also provide funds to implement proposals for protected housing and strengthened rights for children who accompany a guardian who has been subjected to violence to such a housing.

Madam Speaker! In the interview that Abdullahi is in, Keynaan also participates. He says that he believes that Rinkeby's next generation will manage well and that they can improve Rinkeby by stopping all crime in Rinkeby and Järva - perhaps all of Sweden. I hope that Keynaan is right. I believe that with the government's budget and with the proposals that are in the Tidö Agreement to combat crime, there are also conditions for Keynaan to be right.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! Crime receives great attention in the public debate. It is justified. It is also justified to be upset about the state of affairs. But it is even more justified that we as politicians strive to handle the problems with the support of facts, research, and proven experience.

It is impossible to escape the fact that crime and violence are largely influenced by two strong power structures in our society: class and gender. Recruitment into serious crime occurs primarily among boys from politically disadvantaged areas in our larger cities. These are boys in exclusion who, in the worst cases, have already left school or want to do so because they have not received enough support to meet the requirements there. Instead, they are welcomed into the gangs.

It is the Left Party's conviction that the best way to prevent crime is to counter the class society and its provocative gaps. It is a weighty reason why we want to see a strong and jointly funded welfare sector with preschool, school, expanded leisure activities and culture, social services, good housing, low unemployment and a robust social insurance system - an equal society that dares to provide security and create hope.

General, preventive measures may need to be reinforced with individual support as early as possible. Many preschool teachers point out that they can see children in risk zones early on. Families sometimes raise the alarm and request support without receiving it.

Research shows with convincing clarity that preventive activities are profitable, especially in the long term. But what do we mean by preventive measures? The government parties argue more about control than about support. It risks creating mistrust and breaking down the trust that certain social actors, for example area police, have managed to build up. The desire for visitation zones is, therefore, intimidating. They risk becoming counterproductive.

At the same time, serious crime and gang criminality must be combated in an effective way, however, with the help of legislation that still respects the basic principles of a rule of law. We must combat both the crimes and the causes of the crimes. In that way, welfare policy and crime policy are very closely linked.

In the Palace Agreement, the parties focus on gangs and gun violence. In the Left Party, we also focus on violence against women. In the Palace Agreement, violence by men against women is mentioned only once, then related to residency bans and mostly for the sake of the gangs. In the government's budget for the justice system, violence by men against women is mentioned nine times. It is a certain improvement. But for both gang violence and shootings as well as violence against women, it applies that men dominate greatly as perpetrators and that the violence has dreadful effects – while at the same time there are connections that many overlook.

Violence against women is the ultimate expression of certain men's need to exercise power and control over "their" woman. Swedish equality hides even darker patriarchal values - discriminatory values that some now also want to strengthen.

Men's violence against women and children is occurring among us and in all social groups, as research has shown time and again, as well as #metoo and the report that Roks recently released. Many of us know that more than one woman per month is killed by a man she has or has had a relationship with. Between 15 and 22 women are killed in that way every year.

Violence echoes. Research shows that children who witness violence may want to follow suit and themselves use violence as a means of power. That inheritance is gender-bound. It is about boys who risk becoming perpetrators of violence and girls who risk subordinating themselves to violence. The boys are often those we see in outward-facing, serious crime.

We must attack both what some consider to be the "small," limited violence in the homes and the violence that many draw more attention to out on the streets and squares. They belong together. Violence echoes.

We can also see that despite the police's large increase in resources, hikes in many penalties and increased use of secret coercive measures, gang-related crimes and shootings have not decreased. The same applies to violence against women. It shows that other, sharper and more accurate measures are needed than those currently being presented as solutions by the four governing parties.

Violence-promoting and destructive masculine norms must be fundamentally changed. Vänsterpartiet is a feminist party that wants to shake up the prevailing gender power structure and the prevailing class society. Within the justice system, we push for, among other things, competence development. It is about a femicide package for police, prosecutors, and court staff so that men's violence against women in all its forms, including prostitution and human trafficking, can be handled with sharpened violence competence throughout the entire justice chain. Without it, harsher penalties become meaningless. The guilty must be prosecuted and punished, otherwise, it is hitting the air.

Competence development also needs to include the handling of the new, important classification of crimes against children. Vänsterpartiet also wants to establish a special helpline for women in acute situations so that competent help and a sharp risk assessment can be obtained quickly.

Vänsterpartiet dares to see that the overarching problems with crime and violence relate to class and gender. We want to limit class inequalities and counteract the destructive parts of masculinity in everything, with measures from preschool through the entire education system including the vocational training and with continuing education for those active in professions that come close to victims.

We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to class. We cannot afford to continue to be gender-blind. We cannot afford men's violence. Nor can we afford to focus solely on stricter punishments. This is something that research truly emphasizes both internationally and in Sweden. It is both ineffective and extremely expensive. Focus must be placed on preventive, effective measures concerning welfare.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party's budget motion should be seen as a whole. We abstain from proposing. We have described this in a separate statement regarding this matter.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! I turn to the image that the Tidö Agreement does not contain proposals to combat men's violence against women. It is difficult to see that anything could be more wrong. We have several proposals. I do not know if those who claim otherwise or Member Nordborg have read the Tidö Agreement carefully enough. But let me tell you which proposals we have in the Tidö Agreement when it comes to men's violence against women.

It will become easier to obtain damages from the perpetrator. This is something that many women point to as a major problem today.

We want to expand the geographical area for restraining orders. It is also an important reform. The perpetrator's privacy and right to be in a certain place shall no longer weigh more heavily. It shall be the woman's protection interests that do.

There shall be an opportunity to carry out service of process through a house search. In that case, with the police's use of force and monopoly on violence at one's back, one can enter to serve men who refuse to appear and be served. In that way, a restraining order can be issued and upheld.

We want to see more restraining orders with ankle bracelets. During 2023, we will issue a supplementary directive on exactly that to the ongoing investigation, which is currently conducting a review of restraining orders.

We want to criminalize controlling behavior.

We want to criminalize innocence checks, innocence operations, and innocence certificates. We want to criminalize branding and attempts to mislead into a forced marriage trip. And we want to tighten the sentencing scale for honor-based oppression, forced marriage, and misleading into a forced marriage trip.

It is only some of the proposals that are in the Tidö Agreement. I wonder if Vänsterpartiet and Gudrun Nordborg agree with those proposals.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker and Louise Meijer! I have read the Tidö Agreement, or the Palace Agreement as I prefer to call it, carefully and searched for markers. I do not find that it apostrophizes that it is about men's violence against women or patriarchal structures of violence that affect women and which we need to address.

However, I can see that the possibility of obtaining damages is mentioned among those things you are now listing. It is important for all crime victims, including women and children. I agree there. I have myself experience of working extensively with those issues at the Crime Victim Authority and consider it extremely important. I also know it via the women's shelters.

The restraining orders are mentioned several times, but more often in connection with gang crime than men's violence against women. A positive side effect is that women can also receive stronger protection. It is really needed. I also agree there.

When it comes to service of process, it is the same thing. It is a problem that applies to all crime categories. Women can benefit from it also being addressed.

Regarding the question of the ankle bracelet, we naturally agree.

Controlling behavior is also a form of violence against women. It has long been argued, actually since 1995, that it should be included in the criminalized group of crimes against women. That was the original proposal in the Women's Violence Commission's report on Women's Peace, which the Left Party (V) supports.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Madam Speaker! Very good! It seems that Gudrun Nordborg and I are in agreement. Just because one cannot search for a specific phrase in a document does not mean that the policy is not there. Now that I have listed at least some of all the proposals in the Tidö Agreement regarding the fight against men's violence against women, we seem to be reasonably in agreement.

Since there was such a positive response to the first proposals I listed, I intend to continue by reading out even more proposals in the Tidö Agreement regarding the fight against men's violence against women and sexual crimes.

We want the prescription period for honor-related crimes to be extended. We want to ban cousin marriage. And we want to consider a basis for increased penalties for crimes with hate crime motives against women.

We are going to develop a new action program regarding men's violence against women for 2024-2026, as the current program expires in 2023. We are going to develop a new strategy to prevent and combat men's violence against women. It shall enter into force from 2026.

We also propose a lowered limit for mandatory detention, from two years to one and a half years. But we are considering proceeding with it to lower it further, so that even more perpetrators and offenders can be detained directly.

We are tightening the sentences for violence and sexual offenses. We are changing the discount system. We ensure that there are harsher sentences in cases of recidivism and limited opportunities for parole when there is a risk of recidivism. It is very important. It cannot be that someone is released on parole at the same time as there is a very great risk that they go home to their former partner and continue the assault or terror that they have subjected the woman to.

We want to see limitations of permissions, in the same way as with conditional release. We also want to see residency bans. And we want to remove the prescription period for sexual offenses against children.

What do Vänsterpartiet and Gudrun Nordborg think about those proposals?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker and Louise Meijer! You are loading up with a battery of solely repressive measures. Some of them I can appreciate. But constantly arguing for harsher punishments and sharper measures does not reduce what is a destructive masculinity and which, in many cases, is allowed to grow from below and express new forms of violence.

We must find ways to limit the destructive masculinity, which manifests as violence against women and children but also out in society. In that regard, I think you are completely empty of solutions and proposals. Stricter punishments do not limit this in the long run.

If we do not also achieve insights into the violence and the mechanisms of violence, it does not help that we can in a reasonable way prosecute those who commit abuses already now.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The budget bill now presented contains funding increases for all sectors within the justice system and several good proposals for welcome reforms. The Government is increasing the justice system's appropriations by five billion for the coming years. It is an investment that will strengthen the entire justice chain. The law enforcement authorities need to be better equipped to handle increasingly more serious, extensive, and more challenging crime.

We all know in this chamber that Sweden has had a crime development that in many respects is unparalleled in our neighboring countries and even in some respects stands out in a European perspective – especially regarding fatal shootings and explosions, where Sweden actually ranks at the top. While shootings are decreasing in the rest of Europe, they are increasing in Sweden. It was mentioned here that there have been 60 fatal shootings so far this year. That is a record and a high level that is remarkable.

These violent crimes are actually just a visible and tangible sign of an organized crime that, like a cancerous tumor, is spreading in our country and has a close connection to immigration and lack of integration. The acts of violence are what we see and what creates headlines. These are events that to a large extent affect the feeling of insecurity among us.

But there is more beneath the surface. If we speak with the police, we can state that children are being recruited into the criminal environment and that well-educated individuals with criminal connections infiltrate authorities, banks, and companies. At the top of it all reside individuals with great influence in criminal circles, who systematically, with their networks, attack individuals, companies, society, and our welfare systems. In the long run, this constitutes not only a threat to people's safety and the Swedish rule of law but also a real threat to our welfare.

It was mentioned that we have 60 vulnerable areas spread across the country. In those areas, a shadow society is now expanding, and criminals have an influence on the local community. Those who commit crimes are not so many in relation to the people who live there, but they have a very large and negative impact and create insecurity.

The initiative regarding the justice system is therefore both welcome and necessary. A complete and thorough review of criminal law and the regulatory framework for the selection of penalties was needed. The penalties must become more just and be in proportion to the violation of human dignity.

This also requires cooperation with other actors. A joint agency effort against organized crime must be supported and facilitated. The exchange of information between the actors must be improved through changed secrecy legislation. It is therefore important that the public employees concerned receive a strengthened criminal law protection, which is also a part of the policy direction for the coming years.

Basically, victims of crime have largely positive experiences regarding the treatment by the police and the judicial system. When it comes to victims' views on the police's effectiveness, however, it is worryingly lacking. Only one in five feels satisfied with the police's effectiveness. There is more to be done now that the focus is shifting from the perpetrator to the crime victim. Crime clearance must increase, and crime victims must receive better support. The Crime Victim Authority and the Crime Victim Helpline have an important role there and have received increased appropriations for it.

It was also mentioned earlier that there are problems within the Prison and Probation Service. We need to expand our prisons and increase capacity. Sweden currently has nearly 2,600 prison sentences who are at large due to a lack of space. A convicted person can wait up to 100 days for detention - 100 days with the risk of recidivism and more ruined lives for crime victims.

At least as important as increased prosecution and harsher penalties is the crime-preventive work. It is absolutely crucial to not only reverse the development but also solve the root of the problems. Preventive measures are required so that fewer end up in crime. Safe families with good values constitute the very foundation for a good society. Parents must receive support in their parenting, and more needs to be done so that young people can succeed in school. We also need to strengthen civil society and community life, so that children and young people can have a meaningful leisure time.

It is also about values and about combating honor structures. Far too many live in silence and are subjected daily to abuse such as threats, assault, forced marriage and child marriage. A report from my hometown Malmö shows that honor norms occur among children already in preschool in 12 out of 13 preschools. This is very serious and noteworthy.

Parallel to an investment in crime fighting with increased crime clearance and prosecution, effective crime prevention work can have a long-term effect. Removing parallel social structures in vulnerable areas must be given high priority. Good crime prevention work is based on local presence, high accessibility, good local knowledge, good personal knowledge, good cooperation with the municipality and, not least, continuity.

It is therefore pleasing that the government intends to undertake ambitious work to improve the Police Authority's efficiency and results as well as to work for a strong local police presence throughout the country. Today, we have the third lowest police density in Europe. It is not sufficient. Everyone realizes this. Through more police officers and improved efficiency, we can break patterns and take back safety. The rule of law shall no longer be allowed to be pushed back in our vulnerable areas. Sweden shall be a safe country to live in.

Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges daily. As an elected representative, one is proud of the professional employees who every day, all year round, make contributions for the common good and the public sector. This happens in many areas, but today I want to extend a special thanks to everyone who works in the so-called blue-light professions and within the justice system.

The justice system is a fundamental pillar of our rule of law and in our liberal democracy. The primary task is the protection of all people's freedoms and rights, protection for everyone from crimes committed by individuals and protection from the state's arbitrariness and abuse of power.

In recent years, we have seen a very problematic development of safety in Sweden. We see gang crime and violence in close relationships. We see human trafficking, weapons and drugs. We see fraud against the elderly and against the welfare system.

Ensuring that all people are and feel safe and secure is, as mentioned, one of the state's core tasks. I want to highlight some aspects of this.

The police must be present, available, and visible for people in the entire country. In the same way that the fire brigade and the ambulance come when one calls, the police must do so to a greater extent than today. It is crucial for people to feel safe, but we also know that the risk of getting caught normally strongly affects the propensity to commit a crime in the first place.

Just as we are to have specialized IT forensics experts, special interviewers for children, eco-police, a developed international cooperation and so on, we need a strong local presence of police in all municipalities. We share in many ways the government's view and investments in the police and its important role. But we also hear, for example, that the National Forensic Centre, which plays an increasingly important role with the increased focus on technical evidence that exists, is a bottleneck and that it often takes far too long before crime victims and suspects have their case examined by the court. We will follow this carefully, as it is important that we have a strong focus on the crime victim.

That is why we need to work even more preventatively to prevent crime by working preventively with individual individuals and by minimizing motives, as well as the places and situations where crimes are committed. Sometimes we forget that the biggest winner of crime prevention work is not the one who does not become a criminal, but the one who avoids being subjected to crime.

Today we are here to debate the resource allocation within the justice system. The Centre Party, as stated, shares both the government's and the rest of the opposition's view on many of the proposals we are addressing here today. We see that there is a much-needed focus on crime policy with more resources, new tools, and harsher penalties, but we believe that one also needs to focus on administrative law cases where agency decisions regarding building permits and detailed plans, sickness benefit, disability support, and other matters are appealed to court and awaiting a ruling.

Too many people are forced to wait far too long for important judgments and decisions for society and for individuals. We in Centerpartiet are therefore, among other things, making an extra investment with a redistribution of 50 million kronor to Sweden's courts so that they can begin the expansion of operations that is necessary to meet the increased number of cases, shorten processing times, and manage the large number of retirements that will occur in the near future. Otherwise, I refer to Center's specific statement.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying a few words about the government's plans for new reforms and new legislation, which we have been able to read about in the Tidö Agreement, the government statement, and the budget bill. We see that several of the proposals are necessary and desirable.

We welcome a reformed forfeiture legislation and punishment for participation in terrorist organizations. We see the needs and how urgent it is to combat criminal networks and violent extremism. We would welcome an update of the secrecy legislation and a development of how central authorities and municipalities cooperate.

We look forward to the consideration of the proposals on secret and preventive measures as well as the announced full review of the penal code and the weapons legislation.

Centerpartiet will be an active and constructive party in developing new legislation to meet today's crime with agreements that are as broad and long-term sustainable as possible. You can count on that.

But you can also count on us to hold liberal values and legal principles in high regard. These are principles that one is innocent until proven otherwise. It is that some kind of degree of suspicion or control function is required for us, as a state, to be able to take coercive measures, such as searching people.

We believe that one must know who is accusing or testifying against them in order to be able to defend oneself in a reasonable manner. We believe that after serving a sentence, one should be free and not be able to remain in detention without any new circumstances or crimes. We believe that it is a matter of decency that one should be able to take part in accusations against them in a language they understand.

It is not that we cannot see certain short-term advantages with some of the proposals. But the legal insecurity and the lack of legal certainty that we as a society will have to pay for in the long run is too high a price. It is when no one wants to testify without being anonymous, and when our citizens worry about being randomly searched in public places without any suspicion of any crime.

We need to take action, but not at any cost. We must be able to be both effective and professional, but not at the expense of important legal principles. It does not suit us as a country to diminish our ability or our ambition to prevent and solve crimes with a high level of integrity, transparency, and legal certainty.

(Applause)

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! During my 32 years as a police officer, I have always closely followed how the governing politicians in this country have valued the police and how they have wanted to see the police carry out their mission. Believe me: It has been mixed feelings.

Regardless of which party the government has had, the police and the justice system have not been managed very well from a political standpoint over the last 25 years. The result of this we see today with a certain criminality that year by year has built itself ever stronger. I am, of course, talking about the so-called gang crime.

I know that it is not only the crime policy that bears the blame, far from it. We have had a less than good integration policy and cuts in the school system. We have also had, which is important, the view that it is a pity for those who commit crimes. Who knows what they have been through, as a head of an authority expressed a few years ago.

The situation with shootings every week and innocent people being affected is not just a police failure. It is also a political failure. But now, for the first time, I see a government presenting a policy that makes me react positively.

It is a criminal policy that shifts the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim, from the man who hits to the woman who is hit. It is a policy that breathes: Now enough is enough, now something must happen.

Let me, by reason of the new legal policy, speak a little about privacy. Not infrequently we hear the word privacy when new tools for the police are presented. It can be camera surveillance or secret wiretapping. Critics of such tools argue that coercive measures and surveillance violate people's privacy. Yes, that is the case.

But even crime victims have their privacy violated. A woman who is raped, shop staff who are robbed, or a child who is exploited have their privacy violated through the actions they are subjected to.

We must start thinking about these people. It is the residents who do not dare to let their children out on playgrounds, business owners who are being extorted, and witnesses who do not dare to testify. It is time that we start to see them. It is time that we start to think about them. It is time that we start to protect them. We can do that if we want to.

Let me take an example. The police set up a camera in a park where there have previously been assaults or perhaps drug sales. The camera is installed to create safety and hopefully to prevent an assault or, in the worst case, to help investigate a crime.

But the critics argue that the camera violates privacy. As a liberal, I absolutely understand that thought. But when I hear the argument "I don't want to be filmed," I usually think: How do you feel when you park your car, when you enter a grocery store, when you ride the subway or when you fly? How do you feel then? What is it that makes you not want to be filmed specifically in the park?

I want to speak about the preventive work. The police work in three ways: preventive, intervention, and investigative. The more the police can prevent crime, the less we need to investigate crime. In this way, we can shift resources increasingly towards the preventive work.

There are many ways in which the police can work preventatively. One winning concept is, of course, a high presence of uniformed police personnel in areas of concern. But the police do not yet have those numbers.

Another way is the proposal that the government is now putting forward in its ambition to reduce deadly violence in gang environments. It is to introduce preventive coercive measures such as secret wiretapping of persons who are not yet suspected of a crime. I want to emphasize that it is something that must be investigated. It is important that we get clear directives on when and how such a measure may be used.

Madam Speaker! Crime is also evolving. We must not forget that. In the past, criminals spoke to each other on the phone. Now they do not. Now they use secret apps. If we want the police to become more effective and work more effectively on prevention, we must also give the police the tools so that they can do so.

There is criticism regarding the proposal on temporary visitation zones. Let me speak about that. I want to emphasize that at the Liberals' national convention last year, or if it was two years ago, I was against that proposal. It was probably a strongly contributing reason why the Liberals did not want to vote through that proposal. But that was then. It was because the proposal that was presented then was not a good proposal. Now, it has been reconsidered and it has been decided that under limited forms in time and place, the police shall be given the opportunity to search for weapons on and of persons who can be suspected of carrying weapons without reasonable suspicion.

This is a good tool for getting weapons off the streets. And it is not about anyone being harassed - yes, I said "harassed", because I actually get provoked when I hear the argument that people do not trust the Swedish police. People believe that the Swedish police will use visitation zones to harass young men with a foreign background. I get provoked when I hear this, and I urge those who believe that to go and visit a police station and talk to some police officers. Sweden has the world's best-trained police. The vast majority of police officers have a good and kind view of humanity - believe nothing else!

So much has been said here today, so I am skipping over a lot of things that I had intended to say.

Finally, I turn to the Riksdag and also to the Minister for Justice, who is here today: It doesn't matter how many new laws we enact, how many laws we tighten, or how many new tools the police receive as long as Sweden is one of the countries with the fewest police officers per capita. It doesn't matter, because then we will not be able to arrest people who commit crimes, investigate crimes, or work preventatively.

That is why it is important that we prioritize the work of increasing the number of police officers. I want to say to the Minister for Justice that I want to be able to look my colleagues in the eye and stand by my words when I tell them that the governing politicians are taking this seriously.

(Applause)

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

Bassem Nasr (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is an honor for me to represent the Swedish people and make my voice heard in the Swedish Riksdag.

When I was young, a future position of trust was not something I envisioned. I grew up in Seved and Rosengård – two so-called particularly vulnerable areas in Malmö characterized by warmth and solidarity but also by social problems and crime. At 19, I had just been expelled from my high school. I hung out with the wrong people, and I lacked plans for the future. It was more likely that I would have a future where I break laws than one where I enact laws.

Eventually, it turned for me – perhaps because my mother stayed awake late at night by the window until I came home, or because my father raised me and my siblings to be responsible, honest, and dutiful people. It also depends on my teacher, who transformed my frustration over being an outsider into a will to learn and change. And of course, it depends on my own effort.

My childhood friends' lives were pulled in different directions. Some chose an honest life as assemblers, labor market secretaries, or taxi drivers. Others were drawn to a criminal career.

One can describe what is still ongoing in our marginalized areas as a tug-of-war over young boys. In the boy's one arm, the good forces are pulling: teachers who inspire knowledge, social workers who guide, and youth leaders who are passionate about providing the youth with positive role models. These are people with passion who see the child's potential and who want him to grow up, strive in school, and become an honest, decent, and empathetic young man.

In the boys' other arm, the criminal gangs pull. They are unscrupulous men who commit brutal violent crimes. They steal, extort, shoot, and murder. They plunge communities into fear and lure children into criminality. To win the tug-of-war over these young guys, parties, cars, money, and the "respect" of their surroundings are promised. The children fulfill several functions for the criminal gangs. Since they are not of legal age, it is about performing commissioned jobs for the gangs. They become apprentices to the older gang members, and above all, they secure the gangs' growth.

To stop the criminal gangs, an effective and strong justice system is required. But every time we remove a gang criminal from the street, ten others are in line to take his place. To break the recruitment to the gangs in the long term, it is therefore absolutely necessary to invest in the preventive work. The good forces must be given the conditions to win the tug-of-war.

Madam Speaker! It is in the light of this tug-of-war that politics needs to be judged. Every political proposal must be valued based on whether it strengthens the good or the evil forces in the tug-of-war. When one reads the government's proposal, one sees that there are parts that the Green Party views positively, for example, reduced secrecy between authorities and an obligation for social services to quickly, after a child has been apprehended for a crime, call for talks with the parents.

But there are also proposals that risk favoring the evil forces. One example is the visitation zones that have been mentioned several times today. They mean that it will no longer be required to have suspicion of a crime to search persons in a certain area. The obvious risk is that the zones are mostly introduced in areas of exclusion and are thus directed towards people with a foreign background.

Another example is the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility. The criminal gangs specifically target children under 15 years of age, who are therefore not punished if they commit crimes. But if the age of criminal responsibility is lowered, there is a risk that the gangs will start hunting their prey among even younger children.

A third example is this punishing the parents for the children's crimes, as if the areas with high immigrant populations were characterized by poor parenting and not by social vulnerability.

A fourth example is the introduction of a reporting society, where the ten-year-old boy does not dare to go to school, where the battered woman does not dare to seek care, and where the family with children does not dare to seek shelter for the night.

All this is topped off by limiting the right to publicly funded interpretation, which inevitably leads to increased exclusion.

The government's policy in the field of justice, in combination with the rest of the proposals in the Tidö Agreement, is a policy that divides society, increases tensions, and builds a structural racism. It causes young guys in marginalized areas to lose trust in public Sweden. They lose faith in the future and allow themselves to be lost in the tug-of-war.

Madam Speaker! What is needed instead is politics that strengthens society's good forces and prevents crime. The most important preventive work is that we have a generally strong welfare that people have access to. In that regard, the school has a central role. Every child should encounter expectations, challenges, and support. Miljöpartiet prioritizes the strengthening of an equal school. This will be highlighted by my party colleague Camilla Hansén during Monday's budget debate on the education area.

Another part of the preventive work is carried out through targeted interventions. It is about identifying successful initiatives and spreading lessons learned from these. Some examples are the Rinkeby model in Stockholm, the Sluta skjut program in Malmö, or De Aktive Drenge in Copenhagen. For local preventive interventions, Miljöpartiet has allocated 1 billion kronor. These funds are to co-finance interventions together with regions and municipalities.

I also want to mention an issue that I am particularly passionate about. It concerns how society should counteract destructive machonorms. Many young boys grow up with distorted perceptions of what it means to be a man, where one's value is linked to things such as the number of girlfriends, the car's horsepower, or the thickness of the wad of banknotes. It is no coincidence that over 90 percent of those detained by the Prison and Probation Service are men.

When we in the public debate talk about factors behind crime, such as where one lives, overcrowding, and household income, these are things that affect entire families. Yet it is the brothers who run a greater risk of ending up in crime, while the sisters in the same families have greater chances of succeeding in school and work life. Here, society needs to do much more to early and continuously counteract destructive machonorms.

In conclusion: Sweden must not lose any more tug-of-war matches over young guys in Rosengård, Rinkeby or Ronna.

Miljöpartiet wants to strengthen the good forces. To Sweden's teachers, association leaders, social workers, counselors, police officers, youth leaders, parents, and all others who every day fight to steer the children in the right direction, I want to say: I see you, and Miljöpartiet sees and understands that your work is what makes a real difference. Politics must provide you with a tow and ensure that every child's talent is nurtured in a workplace, not at a crime scene.

Miljöpartiet has presented a budget proposal that fell in the chamber when the frameworks were adopted. We have therefore submitted a special statement describing our policy in the field of justice.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that security has come to be our time's great issue of freedom. The new government has inherited a security crisis which is, to a large extent, also a crisis for the free and open society.

In recent years, criminal networks have gained new ground in large parts of our society. The sharp increase in lethal gun violence is, of course, the most brutal expression of this. As several have already pointed out in today's debate, 2022, that is, this year, is the bloodiest year since the number of fatal shootings began to be measured in our country - 60 fatal shootings so far. Perhaps more people saw the rather striking graphics in a news segment on SVT the other day, where the 60 fatal shootings in Sweden were contrasted with the corresponding figures in our Nordic neighboring countries: in Denmark 4, in Norway 4, and in Finland 2.

At the same time, of course, the fatal shootings are just the tip of the iceberg. The brutal gang violence affects the entire society. It means enormous losses of integrity for the crime victims. It makes people in vulnerable areas feel unsafe, and it restricts their freedom of movement. It pushes its way in with threats and extortion in the public administration. It results in a culture of silence that makes it harder to solve the crimes. It is this that makes this crime precisely system-threatening, because ultimately this risks jeopardizing the citizens' trust in the entire democratic rule of law.

It is against this background that it is stated in the autumn government statement that the first task for the new government is that the fight against serious crime must be won and that safety in our entire country must be restored.

Of course, the mission is broader than the admittedly very serious gang crime; it is about men's violence against women, youth robberies, and the brutal frauds against our elderly. To succeed with all of this, a fundamental shift in perspective is required. For far too long, the perpetrator has been the focus of Swedish crime policy. This must come to an end.

Instead, the government now, together with the Sweden Democrats within the framework of the cooperation behind this government formation, wants to shift focus and put two other extraordinarily central interests in the foreground: firstly, the crime victim and his or her right to redress, and secondly, society's and the good citizens' legitimate interest in protection.

To push back gang crime, increased resources and new tools for our law enforcement agencies are required. Pattern-breaking criminal justice measures are also required. That is where we talk about Danish punishments for Swedish crimes. And not least, it is required that the crime prevention work is conducted as systematically as the crime-fighting work.

Already last year, the historical offensive against crime began when the Riksdag voted through the M, KD, and SD budget, which included, among other things, extensive targeted investments in increased police salaries, more cameras, and better technical capabilities for the police.

The initiatives continue now with a basis in the Tidö Agreement. For the upcoming three-year period, the government, in cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, has proposals for additional reforms amounting to 5 billion kronor to combat crime and increase safety in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Let me, since today's debate is precisely a budget debate, briefly account for some of these investments.

The Swedish Police Authority shall grow with the goal that the police density shall at least correspond to the average in the EU. In addition to funds for continued growth, the government provides the Swedish Police Authority with funds in a three-year special initiative for strengthened operational protection. The initiative enables a rapid and powerful reinforcement in this area. The Swedish Police Authority is also provided with funds to ensure purposeful security work during Sweden's presidency of the EU during the spring of 2023.

The government also increases the operational capacity of the Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen) by providing the agency with 165 million kronor starting from 2023. The additions shall be used to meet the increased threat from state actors and violent extremists. The Swedish Security Service shall also carry out security-enhancing measures linked to the central state leadership.

To combat serious crime, the Prosecution Authority and the Economic Crime Authority need increased resources. It is about grave, difficult-to-investigate crimes that are extensive and resource-intensive. Both authorities shall receive the resources they need to be able to recruit new employees and strengthen the ability to tackle organized crime.

In order to be able to decide cases and matters with high quality and within a reasonable time, and to ensure a long-term supply of competence, Sweden's courts will also receive increased resources.

The Government is strengthening the Prison and Probation Service with nearly 2.4 billion SEK from 2025 onwards, all to provide the Prison and Probation Service with the conditions to continue the work with a long-term and permanent expansion of capacity in prison, detention center, and probation.

A series of the various legal reforms that are underway, for example regarding secret coercive measures, also means that we are allocating resources to all the authorities that are to be able to use these measures in an effective manner. This applies to the police, the customs, the Prosecution Authority, the Economic Crime Authority, the Swedish Tax Agency and other authorities.

The Crime Victim Authority receives a 20 percent increase in its appropriations. It is actually the largest increase for any authority in this budget.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to crime prevention measures, that work shall be prioritized and conducted at least as systematically as the crime-fighting work.

I will only mention some of the things that are now receiving funding: Social services will receive more tools and increased knowledge and be reformed with the establishment of a crisis social emergency service. Parental responsibility shall be strengthened, and parental support shall be expanded. The work against honor-related violence is intensified, and funds for the preventive work are made permanent.

When it comes to all the toughened sentences, increased resources and new tools are required for the authorities. Pattern-breaking criminal justice measures are also required.

The Government intends to carry out a complete review of the penal legislation. Measures that are needed are, for example, criminalization of participation in criminal networks, double sentences for gang criminals and harsher sentences for crimes that are typically committed in criminal networks.

I will highlight an incredibly important matter so that crime does not pay, namely that the justice system's ability to seize the criminal proceeds from the criminals must be sharpened properly during the years that now lie ahead of us.

At the same time, civil protection and the safety of crime victims must be strengthened. The Government is now reviewing how the so-called probation period after parole can be extended to ensure support and supervision for a longer period.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: I began by stating that safety is our time's new issue of freedom. To push back the gross organized crime and re-establish the security of the law is ultimately about safeguarding the free and open society.

The four parties behind the Tidö Agreement do not hesitate to speak of a paradigm shift. We are not just talking about turning over every stone; we are actually prepared to do exactly that - try measures that we have not previously seen or taken in Sweden but which are well-tested in other democratic states of law, not least in our Nordic neighboring countries.

One thing is certain: If we do as we have done until now, it will also go as it has gone until now. And that, Madam Speaker, is simply not an option.

(Applause)

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for Justice for joining the debate today! I can state that your government colleagues have not participated in the budget debates to any significant extent, so it is appreciated that you are here to answer questions.

Just as you say, we really must turn over every stone to get to the bottom of organized crime. Much has been done by the Social Democratic-led government over the last eight years, and the outcome of the many investigations that we have commissioned will also be shared with the Minister for Justice.

The Police Authority even tells us when we meet them that it is not resources that are lacking for them right now. Such resources have been added continuously over a long period. But what the newly appointed government is doing now is abandoning the vulnerable areas through the powerful cutback that the very small resources you are adding to the welfare area entail. The 6 billion that you want to describe as an investment means de facto that Sweden's municipalities will have to scale back the coming year. It will mean fewer resources for teachers, social services, and leisure educators - precisely what is needed to break the new recruitment to gang crime in Sweden.

I wonder if the Minister for Justice will take up this issue with his Minister for Finance to ensure that the resources required for the Swedish welfare are provided so that we can manage to break the serious crime.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for this question from Annika Strandhäll!

To begin with, one must also thank the Social Democrats for obviously standing behind the government's budget in this part. One can, of course, choose to see it as that the Social Democrats completely lack their own proposals in this area, but I nevertheless choose to rejoice at the fact that we receive broad support for this part of the government's policy.

As for turning over every stone, that became a so-called slogan from the previous government. It is a laudable approach, even though my experience from the previous mandate was that this was a truth with qualifications. We pointed at very many stones that should be turned over, but when it came to double penalties for gang criminals, visitation zones, anonymous witnesses, or stricter penalties in other respects, they really did not want to turn over any stones. If there is now a higher level of ambition when it comes to the stone-turning, we will welcome support not only for the budget but also for all the reforms that we will place on the Riksdag's table during the coming years.

Regarding resources for welfare, the government is allocating 12 billion to the municipalities - 6 general billion and 6 targeted billion. There is no doubt that not only the municipalities and regions but also the entire country are in an extraordinarily vulnerable economic situation. The Finance Minister has also repeatedly signaled that the government is monitoring the development and is also prepared to take new measures if the emergency or the situation should require it.

Regarding the somewhat more general point from the opposition's side that the Tidö Agreement does not focus on crime prevention measures, I gladly refer to other previous entries here. It is an enormously ambitious and systematic work with the crime prevention that appears in this agreement. I have not written it myself; I will just take care of it. But I feel that I can still assert this with some independence.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Madam Speaker! When one listens to the Minister for Justice, one gets that feeling that one may have had in relation to this government ever since he took office, that is, that he is somewhat careless with the truth. It is well highlighted by this point that the so-called supplement to welfare that the government speaks of is de facto a cut. You are not even providing sufficient funds to account for the wage increases that will occur in the coming year in municipalities and regions. Your funds will not even come close to covering the increased wage costs. De facto, it is therefore cuts to welfare.

One can have as many heart-felt proposals as one likes in the area of prevention, which you actually do not have, but it doesn't matter if no resources are added for them to be able to be implemented.

Even the judicial authorities and the Police Authority say, as they do, that if we are to be able to break the development, investments must be made in all areas - for example in social services, for example to ensure that we get a more equal school, for example so that children growing up in the vulnerable areas can get a summer job.

We Social Democrats are investing more than twice as much as the government does in welfare over the coming year. The question remains: How are you going to patch and repair with the insufficient resources that you are adding to welfare?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that Annika Strandhäll is listening to the government. She perhaps should listen even a little better, in any case to what I have to say about this matter.

The supplementary funds to municipalities and regions that the Social Democrats provide will also not do the whole job in all the aspects we are now discussing. Despite everything, municipalities and regions are above all themselves responsible for their finances. On top of that, the state can contribute a part. This government does so, and the opposition obviously does as well. The government has also said that it may be a question of further trade-offs if it is required in the future.

It is perfectly obvious that the economic situation we are currently in, not least with inflation and its effects on, for example, rental costs, will affect not only municipalities and regions but also the state. Naturally, this development must be followed very closely.

Annika Strandhäll repeats that no special initiatives, let alone funded ones, are included in the government's budget regarding crime prevention work. I therefore only want to bring up a couple of such examples.

In the budget, an initiative for social teams in schools is implemented. Funds are allocated to enable the establishment of emergency duty schools in more locations across the country. Parental support is expanded and strengthened. Regarding early interventions for children who commit crimes and are in the risk zone, there are also several different proposals, for example, that funds are allocated to subsidize LVU placements at the State Institution Board.

I do not, therefore, agree with Annika Strandhäll regarding the general description of the government's policy concerning investments in welfare and, to an even lesser extent, regarding the criticism of the part of the budget that we are now discussing, which on the contrary contains a major offensive regarding the preventive work, which is also largely financed with state funds.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Minister for Justice a few things. I was also curious about what Annika Strandhäll just asked about.

I am concerned about the welfare sector because I see that it is an incredibly important part of the crime prevention work. But let us take up other problems. They exist as well.

I appreciate, of course, that it is said that we should put crime victims in focus. It is extremely important. But sometimes there is a shift between being a victim and a perpetrator. We must not see it as solely black-and-white constructions. The one who has been a victim risks becoming a perpetrator. This also means that it will be important to focus on victims.

I have worked a lot with these issues and met many crime victims. I have not encountered cases where the victims simply want harsher sentences. They want redress, and it is about the legal process providing them with redress. They would prefer to see a conviction, but in any case, a constructive and good treatment, so that they are validated and not constantly questioned, even if such questions must also arise in a criminal investigation.

Why are crime victims linked to demands for harsher sentences? Among others, Save the Children has recently shown in a research report that it is quite incorrect.

I also want to ask about the police. It is easy to say that there should be a specific number of millions in the budget and a specific number of police officers out on the streets and squares, in cars or patrolling online. They are obviously needed. But what I think is missing is an evaluation of what the police have done with the resource reinforcements that have arrived. Both researchers and the Swedish National Audit Office have called for evaluations, reviews, and methodological development.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the final question. Yes, when we allocate large economic resources to the law enforcement authorities, not least the police, there are also legitimate expectations for proper follow-up. I would welcome a dialogue with Gudrun Nordborg on how that follow-up is best designed. But it is a very legitimate expectation from the citizens.

This matter of redress for crime victims is a very central issue. As Gudrun Nordborg is touching upon, it is a number of different factors that determine to what extent a crime victim experiences that they have received redress. From my own experience of being a representative for individuals in court, I can say that very much of what happens in the courtroom plays a major role for the redress. It is about how one is met by the court and their opposing party, to what extent one experiences that they are able to come forward and give their story and that it is respected. Everything is extraordinarily important.

With this said, it is impossible to avoid that the punishment is also an incredibly important part of the restitution. It is, after all, society's consequence and strong statement against the crime that the crime victim has been subjected to. My experience and many others' experience is probably still – now I am not going to go into polemics with Gudrun Nordborg's experience – that the punishment is an incredibly important part of the restitution.

I would also like to say that the punishment is an important part of the motivation for everyone who works with the prosecution. It is about ensuring that all the hard work involved in a police investigation, a preliminary investigation, and a prosecutor's work also leads to a proper consequence. To impose a proper sentence is society's acknowledgment to the crime victim that what has happened is not accepted.

We have spoken here about restraining orders and about a new sanction, a stay-away order, which means that one shall not be allowed to stay in a certain geographical area. This will de facto be a matter of both justice and protection for the crime victim. Lastly, we have the damages, which I heard Gudrun Nordborg speak about earlier. It is an extraordinarily important matter.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I can agree with large parts of the answer. But my point of attack was precisely that the crime victims do not always want ever higher sentences. They want redress, also through the punishment, if possible.

Then, of course, it varies how one is received and what information one receives. Vänsterpartiet would also like to push for that we get a victim's ombudsman linked to the Victim Authority, which we have submitted a motion for, so that one could get a review and a look at what actually happens in the justice chain. We also propose a femicide package, which I mentioned in my speech, with competence development for the entire justice chain, especially when it comes to violence competence. That is lacking today, and a good number of crime victims are seriously violated during the process. It is absolutely not the intention for it to be so.

I wonder if we could get support for this from the Minister of Justice. Does this feel like a good proposal from us?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I would gladly participate in a discussion about all the different kinds of measures that can strengthen the position of crime victims and their perceived and actual redress.

But let me focus on an area where there might still be a certain friction between our descriptions and reality. Then I want to stay with this regarding the penalties and their significance for the restoration.

Many crime victims choose not to report to the police at all because they experience that it does not lead to any consequence. It is incredibly serious in a society that people who are exposed to crime do not even seek redress, because they experience that it does not matter and that it does not have any actual consequence.

One can take the entire model with volume discounts as an example. There, penalties are imposed for the three most serious crimes. If one is subjected to many crimes, it means that many of the crimes one has been subjected to are never punished at all. It is clear that this has consequences for both the actual and the perceived justice.

There are many meanings to a punishment in a society. But precisely the part that concerns retribution is an incredibly central matter. That is my conviction. Therefore, I see this as a very important reason for increased sentences.

The Tidö Agreement involves many sentence increases that this government is putting forward. We know from experience that they are very important for pushing back serious crime. But they are also extraordinarily important for strengthening the redress for crime victims.

Then I want to conclude a bit constructively here during the Advent season and turn to Annika Strandhäll, who in the speaker's chair mentioned a new crime victim law. It is actually another Moderate proposal that the Social Democrats are happy to join. I believe it would be very important for the crime victims that we gather all aspects related to the position of crime victims, both in the legal process and when it comes to redress in other respects, for example compensation, into a unified crime victim law. There, many are welcome to participate in working before Christmas and after Christmas.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 December.)

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