The justice system

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If we take a look at the objectives for crime policy and the justice system, primarily to reduce crime and increase people's safety while simultaneously safeguarding the individual's legal certainty and security of law, we can see some positive trends, in any case if we look at the broad strokes.

Trust in the justice system has increased slightly, even though it is only just over half of the population that has a fairly or very large trust in the justice system as a whole. We can also see that the number of reported crimes has decreased slightly, even though the reported property crimes, i.e., theft and robbery, have increased slightly. The self-reported vulnerability, which we can read about in NTU, has also decreased slightly even though it remains high. And even though the perceived insecurity seems to have stabilized, it remains at a continued high level, which is naturally very serious, not least because it restricts people in their everyday lives.

There are thus positive trends. Despite this, we continue to face a very serious situation; I believe we are in agreement on that.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the fight against serious crime, not least all these settlements in the form of shootings and explosions and a serious crime that sinks ever deeper into the ages, but also organized crime and the growing criminal economy, there is much left to do.

The time cooperation is, as we have already noted, a big step in the right direction. There is, as the Minister for Justice has previously noted, a paradigm shift in justice policy, and we are now seeing the largest offensive ever against organized crime. There is not only a broad consensus between the Sweden Democrats and the government parties but also a will to try to achieve a real change.

The Tidös agreement has a large focus on repressive measures, which is not strange since this is a neglected area. We also see how our authorities have received an increasingly clear focus on crime prevention work, which is naturally good. It concerns everything from stopping the new recruitment to the criminal networks, of course, to including the municipalities in the crime prevention work, tearing down secrecy barriers, getting more police officers and an expanded toolbox for the police and so on. We already know all of this.

It is clear that the measures and legislative changes we implement in the fight against the criminal gangs and organized crime will make a real difference. But regardless of how well that work goes, I do not believe it will be enough. I want to emphasize once again - and I have pointed this out previously - that it is not enough to agree that we are in a serious situation. And it is not enough that we are somewhat in agreement on the description of the problem itself. We must once again understand why it looks the way it does and how it could have gone so wrong. That knowledge and understanding is, of course, of the utmost importance when we discuss what we must do to remedy the problems and change the very serious situation we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker! Our entire open, democratic, equal society is under threat - this is no exaggeration. It risks collapsing, imploding, if we do not succeed in our objective. It will require very hard work and extensive resources. It will also require increased cooperation between different agencies if we are to succeed in the task. I see evidence that we have actually understood all this in the Tidö cooperation, and that is good. Cooperation is important.

But let me give a clear example, if anyone has missed this connection, not least among all of you who are sitting and watching this at home, regardless of whether it is live or in retrospect. Since gang crime and organized crime are largely an imported problem, immigration must naturally decrease significantly, while at the same time we begin to seriously deport as many seriously criminal foreigners as we can. It is a self-evident fact. If we do not do this, I am afraid that all the good changes and legislative changes we make will not be enough. It even risks failing. This is connected.

This also applies if we are to succeed in addressing the devastating segregation. If it is to be broken, immigration must naturally decrease, not least from the Muslim world. The latter is in turn important if we are to be able to combat the ongoing Islamization. This is connected. And if we are to seriously combat the Islamization, we must ban foreign funding of religious communities, not least because there is a long line of dictatorships pumping money into our part of the world and into Sweden with the goal of countering our democracy and Islamizing our countries, not least Sweden. We must also dare to deport all those imams and Islamists who work for these countries, with the goal of de-democratizing Sweden. It is important; this is connected.

Mr. Speaker! I am well aware that the Swedish Customs is not under our expenditure area, but I still want to point out a few things - this is also important. The Swedish Customs is one of our most important agencies, not least considering that, as you know, it is responsible for trying to prevent the smuggling of drugs and weapons into Sweden.

That is why the Swedish Customs is also central in the fight against gross and organized crime and the criminal economy with its narcotics sales. All illegal weapons and all narcotics we manage to stop at our borders so that they are not brought into the country are weapons and narcotics that do not benefit the criminals here in the country. The more effective we become when it comes to stopping this at our borders, the more difficult it becomes for the criminals who work with precisely weapons and narcotics. This, if anything, is to work preventatively. The more effective the customs becomes in its work, the more one will be able to relieve the police in the important work that takes place inside our borders. This is connected.

I hope and believe that the government understands this. But I still want to point it out once again. We are doing incredibly much good within the Tidö cooperation. There is an incredibly large amount of good legislation underway. It will make a difference. But if we are to make a real difference, more areas and authorities must cooperate, because that is where I believe we will be able to truly defeat this kind of crime.

With this said, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think anyone was particularly surprised by Richard Jomshofs speech, which started at one end but, as usual, landed in Islamophobia and deportations. But I shall ask about something completely different.

We see clearly that the SD government's paradigm shift in justice policy means that the work for women's peace in Sweden is being deprioritized. The mandates regarding men's violence against women are conspicuously absent in the management of the police and other authorities. Support for civil society's preventive work is being reduced. And Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner warns that there is a lack of funding, for example for protected housing for women and children exposed to violence. The fact is that the only bill in the area that the Committee on Justice has had to handle this autumn was originally submitted by us.

The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the Swedish government support. They are involved in negotiating the state budget. The crisis that we are now seeing in schools, in healthcare, and in elderly care due to lack of funding is the Sweden Democrats' responsibility.

In the area of women's peace, the cuts mean that the municipalities will not be given the opportunity to ensure support and housing for women exposed to violence. For the first time in 17 years, the municipalities will also not receive any development funds for women's peace work.

My questions to Richard Jomshof are: What are the Sverigedemokraterna doing so that the police will prioritize men's violence against women? And how do the Sverigedemokraterna ensure that the municipalities receive the financial conditions to live up to their mandate to protect women and children who are victims of violence?

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties take this incredibly seriously and that violence against women is an important issue. This has also been noticed if one has followed our work both in the committee and here in the chamber.

The situation as it is is so serious as a result of what Strandhäll's own party has done. Behind everything we see today, regardless of whether we are talking about honor-related violence or the incredible vulnerability that many families and women find themselves in, we find a large part of the explanation - not to everything but a very large part - in the politics that the Socialdemokraterna themselves have pursued. It has been more or less open borders, an accelerating segregation, and a creeping [influence] for Islamists. All of that is connected. There we find an important explanation for why it looks the way it does.

It is clear that it is a fight that we take with the utmost seriousness. We will do everything we can to repair the damage that the Socialdemokraterna have caused Sweden.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! Richard Jomshof does not even use his speaking time fully. It is not strange, considering that the government does not take these issues seriously. The only bill in this area that the Committee on Justice has handled this autumn - quite a few Tuesdays have been free from committee work - is a bill that we ourselves have submitted.

As usual, which I must clearly point out, Richard Jomshof and the Sverigedemokraterna land again on that men's violence against women is also the fault of immigration. It is simply not true. There is no evidence in any research whatsoever anywhere that this is the case. All around the world, men's violence against women is an ongoing pandemic, regardless of social class, regardless of ethnicity, and regardless of which country one is in. It is simply not true.

That was also not an answer to my question. My question was: Why do the Sweden Democrats not ensure, when they negotiate the state budget, that the work against men's violence against women in the municipalities receives the funding required? This also applies to the only legislative proposal in this area that we have managed to handle in the committee during the autumn. The municipalities receive a pittance of what Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has said is needed to implement the legislation.

For the first time in 17 years, the municipalities are also not receiving any development funds for the work on women's peace. It is astonishing. What is the Sweden Democrats' answer to this?

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The answer is that we naturally take the issue with the utmost seriousness. We are four parties who are cooperating and doing everything we can to counteract men's violence against women. We take it with the utmost seriousness. This is seen, not least, in a long series of legislative proposals where we look at repressive measures and increased penalties for men who commit that type of violence. It can be stay-away orders and much more. There is a long series of proposals that will make a real difference.

So that is not correct. Furthermore, I have never said that it would be an imported problem. I do, however, say that it has become much worse due to the policy that the Social Democrats themselves have pursued. I am talking about and specifically pointing to the honor-related issues. We must also fight those, for real and in earnest.

Our policy will make a difference. We do not quite have three years, but almost three years. We will present a long series of different proposals that will make a real difference.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will likely exceed my speaking time slightly.

When I began my speech on this expenditure area in this chamber last year, the Minister for Justice was also present, then relatively newly appointed and with a smoking hot Tidö Agreement in his pocket. During the election campaign, we had also, in the area of criminal policy, been able to hear, to put it mildly, many and extensive election promises pledged by both the Sweden Democrats and the current government parties about how easily one would crack down on gang crime if one was only given the seats of power. Even in this area, therefore, extensive election promises had been made, just as it was regarding nuclear power, fuel prices, and food prices; we all remember Ebba Busch's hot dog. Promises were made all around.

Instead, 2023 goes down in history as a pitch-black year when it comes to gang crime. Children have murdered children, and innocent people have ended up in the line of fire. Entire cities and residential areas have had their existence and safety shattered. Unfortunately, no glimmer of light is yet visible on the horizon.

This is a development that strikes fear in Sweden, especially in our country's vulnerable areas. There, the fear is very great. An enormous majority of the population in these areas get up every morning and go to their jobs in the Swedish service sector and in the Swedish welfare system and help to ensure that Sweden functions. One cannot believe that when one listens to Richard Jomshof and Sverigedemokraterna.

The people who live in the vulnerable areas are afraid. They are afraid of shootings, of explosions, and of being wrongly associated with the gangs. With that fear, suspicion and racism also grow. It fuels prejudice, and it leads to innocent young people being de facto branded as criminals.

Thus, we can conclude that gang crime does not only harm those affected by the gangs' violence; it also harms the trust and our entire social community, which we Social Democrats want our country to rest upon.

In this situation, nothing is more important than reversing the development. The police need, as stated, to receive the tools needed to increase the crime clearance rate and get the criminals off our streets.

We in the Social Democratic government initiated the so-called paradigm shift in crime policy by, during our time in government, toughening eighty penalties and recriminalizing thirty acts. Sweden now also has more police than ever before.

This work must, naturally, continue with further increases in penalties and more police officers who are given better tools – on that, we are in complete agreement. To tackle crime, however, solutions are required in many different areas. Crime policy can never be the entire solution. It is about both crime prevention and crime-fighting measures. It is about harsher penalties and more police as well as a better school system, more social workers, developed psychiatry within primary care and youth psychiatry, and measures to quickly identify children and young people who are at risk of becoming criminals.

It is not enough to fight the crimes. We must also fight the causes of the crimes. Therefore, an education policy is required for a school that lifts all children, a labor market policy aimed at ensuring that everyone who wants to work actually gets the opportunity to do so, and a culture and sports policy that increases social cohesion and is available to everyone in our entire country, regardless of how much money the parents have in their wallets. Not least, a social policy is required that builds security that is equal for everyone.

One of our most important election promises was to invest as much in preventive work as we invest in the police. This government is doing exactly the opposite.

Since the Minister for Justice sat here with the smoking hot Tidö Agreement in his pocket and his government took office, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, the government's priorities have become crystal clear. In second place come deteriorations for those born abroad who live in Sweden; this became very clear when I listened to Richard Jomshof here. In third place comes, thank goodness, the work with tightenings of the crime policy.

What worries me most is what has turned out to be the government's primary priority during this year. In two budgets, it has namely been tax cuts, preferably for those who already have it quite good.

How can the school, social services, health and medical care, the sports movement, Arbetsförmedlingen, and all of Föreningssverige do more to prevent new recruitment if they have less money? This is what the political conversation about gang crime should be about now.

Instead, we hear that the Sweden Democrats, who are now by and large the government's largest party, are seriously proposing things such as life sentences for 13-year-olds. The Sweden Democrats' women's association thinks that people should be put in leg irons that deliver electric shocks. Richard Jomshof usually thinks that Sharia legislation is a bad model of justice, but I must say that this has some similarities with it. There is also talk of patrolling military in our suburbs.

Mr. Speaker! This obviously does not add up.

Politicians from all parties actually, against the background of the seriousness of this, have a responsibility to put aside simple populist solutions and cheap points. Focusing unilaterally on one perspective, whether it is drugs, immigration or economic inequalities, will never solve the problems.

It would also be very pleasant for the Swedish people if the political parties could manage to let go of their prestige and acknowledge that no government, neither the previous nor the current, has succeeded in reversing the development of the escalating gang crime. Instead, Sweden is becoming more dangerous every day.

Society must now take a step forward and take back control, increase cohesion and ensure that belonging to the gangs is replaced with a belonging to our community and to Sweden - our Sweden. It will naturally take time, and it will be intrusive. It will also be expensive, Gunnar Strömmer. But it is necessary, for only then can Sweden become safe again.

Social Democratic crime policy is based on efficiency and legal certainty. During all our years in government, we had two priorities, which still remain: the fight to break gang crime, which I have spoken about quite a bit, and stopping men's violence against women.

It cannot be said often enough. Every day, around the clock, girls and women across our country, regardless of ethnicity and social class, are subjected to harassment, violence, and sexual crimes—not infrequently by a man they have or have had a relationship with. Every twentieth minute of the day, a report of a female assault is filed. For more than one woman a month, the relationship that perhaps started as a love affair ends in murder, often in connection with her attempting to leave the perpetrator.

This violence causes great suffering. It violates and restricts the victims' fundamental freedoms and rights and causes lifelong consequences. Therefore, it is not enough to only talk about honor-related violence, one must see the whole picture.

Every form of violence or threat of violence against women also limits the safety and freedom for those women who are not directly exposed. Our Sweden can be better than this. As long as a single woman is harmed by her partner or former partner, we have not done enough. We will continue to turn over every stone to put an end to men's violence against women. For us, this is a real priority. It is not just something we talk about in panel debates, but something we act to put an end to.

Violence must be prevented, and the men who commit crimes against women must be punished. Women must receive the help they need. In a government position, Gunnar Strömmer, the Social Democrats presented a 99-point program to combat men's violence against women. This program contains proposals in many different areas. It must be implemented in its entirety, but at the same time, new measures must also be introduced. This is an appeal to the Minister of Justice. There are things in your filing cabinets, Gunnar Strömmer. They are fully investigated. Make sure to pull them out!

With this, I move for approval of our special statement.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! From the long speech that Member Strandhäll gave in the rostrum, one could easily get the impression that the Social Democrats are presenting a diametrically different budget for Sweden and the cohesion in the country. But that is not the case. The major conflict lies in the 10 billion extra that the Social Democrats claim they are adding to welfare in their budget.

Strandhäll was arguing that the policy does not add up. Let me pin that down. Those 10 billion do not exist. The Social Democrats' major conflict with the so-called SD government is about 10 billion in welfare funds that do not exist. It is a bluff and a sham. There are no such funds for welfare to finance schools, nursing assistants, preschool teachers, and elderly care. They do not exist. If the Social Democrats' budget had passed in the chamber, these funds would not have existed. It is deceiving the people.

The reason they do not exist is that the Social Democrats' budget is underfunded. The money was supposed to come from a bank tax that was to be introduced next year. But that bank tax does not exist, and therefore there are no 10 billion.

It was a very long speech about what one would think were major lines of conflict regarding the budget and how we conduct politics to get Sweden back on the right track, so that Sweden stays together and so that Sweden will be a good, modern and safe country. But some such conflicts do not exist. The only conflict concerns welfare billions that the Social Democrats do not have and do not finance. It is not responsible. How is it that the Social Democrats act in this way?

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is incredibly interesting to listen to Louise Meijer, who represents one of the government parties. In fact, you represent the party that holds the Prime Minister's post.

In the midst of a galloping economic crisis, you are about to completely pull the rug out from under Sweden's municipalities and regions. I do not know if you listened to the question I previously asked Richard Jomshof. Many regions have cuts equivalent to an entire hospital and many people have been laid off and could lose their jobs because your government, Louise Meijer, in plain Swedish completely doesn't give a damn if our municipalities and regions, healthcare, school, and care can function during this crisis. There are children who do not get breakfast at home because the crisis has shattered their parents' finances, and then you ensure that the schools get even worse conditions to support these families. And then you come and criticize us for a policy with a different ambition for Sweden's municipalities and regions!

Do you know what? Swedish citizens, not least those who work in the municipalities and regions, see exactly what your government is doing and what you are prioritizing.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat surprised by the high tone from MP Strandhäll. There were many of us in opposition during the last parliamentary term, and then we submitted budgets that we wanted and hoped would pass, and which also passed in the chamber. We fully financed our proposals to take responsibility so that even the budgets we present in opposition can govern Sweden. Therefore, I am very surprised by the rhetoric. The Social Democrats have submitted a budget where they do not finance their 10 billion for welfare. That is money that does not exist.

I share Annika Strandhäll's emotional outburst and empathy for the families, children, and adults who are now living in a severely pressured economic situation. But the point and the political conflict that is important to highlight is not in this area, because there are no welfare billions that are funded in the Social Democrats' proposal. This is to betray the voters and the public who believe that the political conflict is about the financing of welfare. It is not, because there are no funded billions from the Social Democrats. It is a sloppiness and a type of bluff financing that we have not seen before from Sweden's largest party but which one now indulges in because one is in opposition. We think that is devastating. It is neither good for Sweden, for the economy, nor for the families who are doing poorly.

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

Annika Strandhäll (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that very many Swedes view positively the possibility of taxing a portion of the enormous profits the banks make so that we can support healthcare, schools, care, and households.

But you know, Louise Meijer? It is your budget that applies. After more than a year in government, you still seem not to have understood that. It is you who have presented a state budget that knocks the legs out from under municipalities, regions, and households in Sweden. In this crisis, you have a completely passive fiscal policy.

We took Sweden through a global pandemic without worsening the funding for municipalities and regions, and we added billions in welfare. We gave Swedish companies support, which meant that Sweden had fewer bankruptcies during the pandemic than before the pandemic.

Now Swedish companies are collapsing daily and going bankrupt. Families cannot put food on the table, and municipalities and regions are laying people off by the dozen and by the minute - not because the needs have decreased but because you do not support these parts of our society in your state budget.

Louise Meijer! Ask your questions to Sweden's Prime Minister! His name is Ulf Kristersson, if you didn't know that.

(Applause)

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! On Monday, Hesa Fredrik sounded across Sweden. In normal cases, there is usually nothing special about it. As a child, I thought it was a bit fun that the high signal was heard everywhere, but as an adult, I have not taken much notice of it.

Today I would say that something is different. When the warning system sounded on Monday, it gave me a sense of presence and an insight that the security situation right now is serious and that the warning signal can go from being Hesa Fredrik to being an aircraft alarm.

It is a restless time, both in the world around us and here in Sweden. In the midst of all this, everyday life continues. This morning, the alarm clock rang in many homes. Tired eyes opened, and a new day of work awaited. It was nursing assistants who were going to elderly care, construction workers who were going to their projects in the cold, taxi drivers who were going to ensure we get there by train and bus, school meal staff who were going to ensure there is lunch to serve in our school cafeterias, and doctors who were going to ensure that long-awaited operations are performed.

In Sweden, there are many hard-working people. Some have lived here their entire lives and for several generations back. Others have come here later in life and will have families here for several generations forward.

These hard-working people are not so often represented here in the Riksdag. In this chamber, there are indeed many voices and spokespersons for those who have never worked, for those who do not intend to work, for those who cannot work, and for those who do not want to work. But for those who are currently both figuratively and literally carrying Sweden forward in this difficult time, the Moderaterna conduct politics.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only the value of work that is important for all those people who are currently toiling in our hospitals and in our schools and who trudge through snow and sub-zero temperatures from place to place in elderly care to ensure that the elderly have a good life. They also expect that our society and country should function in a good and secure way. It does not do that right now. The secure, democratic and secular society unfortunately has many enemies: organized crime, gang crime and Islamism, to name a few.

For hard-working people here in Sweden, regardless of whether they have lived here for several generations or have recently arrived, the Moderaterna are currently working to restore both the work principle and security in Sweden. Through our policies, we also ensure that Sweden shall be characterized by Swedish values that have built Sweden strong for a long time and that we oppose separatism and extremism. In short, we Moderaterna work every day to make Sweden a truly good modern country.

Mr. Speaker! In this work, the justice system is crucial. People are aware of the problems. Children shoot children, drugs and weapons flow into our country and stolen goods flow out. There are parallel societies and insecurity. The government has a clear strategy, namely to strike hard against gross violence, choke the criminal economy and break the new recruitment of children and young people.

When it comes to gross violence in general and the fatal shootings in particular, Sweden stands out compared to other European countries, and especially compared to our neighboring countries. Serious Swedish crime was allowed to escalate during the recent terms. Crime fighting was simply insufficient.

That is why we Moderates have now changed the policy to establish effective crime fighting. Already, secret wiretapping of gang criminals is in place, and we have increased the penalties for crimes that are usually committed within the framework of gang crime. Soon we will double the penalties for serious weapons offenses and introduce visitation zones and anonymous witnesses.

With the large criminal law investigation that will be completed in 2025, we are carrying out the systemic shift that we won the election on. We wish it could have gone faster, and we are also doing what we can to make it go faster. For example, we are moving up double sentences for serious weapons offenses by three months. Stay-away orders for gang criminals in certain places are moved up by five months, and visitation zones are moved up by almost an entire year. We are implementing and getting reforms in place faster than any government has ever done in the criminal policy area.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates are currently implementing important crime-fighting policy. We are also carrying out important crime prevention work. That crime prevention work must be conducted as systematically as the crime-fighting. Both parts must be present. Therefore, we are now reforming the policy also in this area.

For everyone who seriously wants to reduce the socialization and recruitment of children into crime, the crime prevention work must shift perspectives. For a long time, however, the debate has been characterized by a focus on socioeconomic conditions and inequality as explanations for crime. In the national crime prevention program that the left-wing government presented in 2016, it was pointed out that welfare policy for reduced inequalities was the basis for countering the causes of crime.

But it is not the same old ordinary socialist redistribution that will stop children and young people from being drawn into crime. Even the Social Democrats themselves admit this now. In a report they write: "At the same time, there has probably been an over-reliance on the positive effects of the general welfare in this regard."

We must now instead begin to work focused on at-risk families, at-risk individuals, and risk factors. The preventive work must simply start focusing on influencing individual characteristics. The research provides broad support for this. A few days ago, a new report was released which, for example, shows that skills training in conflict resolution in school for students in middle school can prevent membership in gangs.

We Moderates see that the preventive work must begin earlier and be clearer. When it concerns children who at an early age exhibit outward-acting behaviors, such as hyperactivity and impulsivity, there is a particular risk that they will commit crimes in the future. These characteristics often develop before the age of five and sometimes also before the age of two. We therefore need to expand the home visit programs within the framework of child healthcare, and we need to ensure that there are home visit programs already during pregnancy.

Most of the social services' preventive measures are not evaluated in such a way that it is possible to assess their effects. It is a betrayal of our children. We want to change this. The municipalities need research support for their crime prevention work. We therefore want Brå's mandate to be developed and that Brå should be able to evaluate crime prevention reforms and measures and support our municipalities with evidence-based methods.

Mr. Speaker! Crime fighting and crime prevention – the Moderates do both. The Social Democrats do neither. The Moderates are the party for those who work, behave correctly, follow the law, and share our democratic values and our secular Swedish values.

We put Sweden first. We are building a modern country.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mikael Damsgaard and Fredrik Kärrholm (both M) agreed.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I was struck by what was said in the previous exchange between Annika Strandhäll and Louise Meijer and wanted to take that ball further. I thought it was interesting to hear that what is an underfunding of 10 billion are bluff money.

Mr. Speaker! The state budget is over 1,300 billion. State revenues are estimated at 1,324 and expenditures at 1,331. This is not set in stone and can become both more and less, but that is how the budget is laid out. The budget is therefore underfunded by 7 billion. Then the question arises whether these 7 billion are bluff money because they are not financed.

Another question I would like to ask Louise Meijer, Mr. Speaker, is whether Louise Meijer can guarantee that the budget will not be underfunded in the coming years during the mandate period. I hope the answer is no, because I do not think one should have the attitude that one can never, regardless of what happens, present an underfunded budget. And on the contrary – in this situation, there is money to be used for both social investments and for other investments.

Mr. Speaker! It was last week that Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch said that she was not the most pure market liberal in the government. She herself suggested that the government should present proposals for investments that increase the state's debt. A third question is therefore whether even Ebba Busch, according to Louise Meijer, uses bluff money.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the question.

It is important that we clarify the conflict lines in the Swedish economy right now. It is there that we see that many families who are currently living under pressured economic conditions have much to expect from us in here.

To one of Rasmus Ling's questions, I can answer that the Moderaterna, just as during the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, is the guarantor of a responsible policy for Sweden's economy and households. Therefore, we finance our budget, and we ensure that it does not drive up inflation. This means that we present a budget that does not make our kronor less valuable. How does one present a budget that would make our kronor less valuable and harder for households? In this situation, one does it by debt-financing their reforms. That is something that both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet do. There is no fully negotiated budget from the opposition's side, and that is why it is unclear what another government alternative would mean for Swedish households. But what we can say with certainty is that it would be devastating for Swedish families' finances.

I said that 10 billion are unfunded funds in the Social Democrats' budget. It is remarkable because these are revenues that do not exist. They have also intended to borrow them. We have to add an additional 10 billion to the debt burden that the Left Party and the Green Party are putting forward. It will be an expansive budget that destroys and worsens the economic reality for our families with children in Sweden, and it is very problematic.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive it as that Louise Meijer means that Ebba Busch uses bluff money when she presents proposals. I would not use that description.

Without going into detail about what happened during the period 2006-2010, I can state that the government presented an underfunded budget in 2010 with tax cuts. They borrowed money to lower the tax. That is a fact, not an opinion, and one can judge it as one wishes.

Mr. Speaker! I have a concrete question. I interpret Louise Meijer as—and I hope I am wrong—meaning that it is more important for Sweden to have Europe's lowest public debt than that we invest so that children do not end up in crime, that we invest in school and education, that we equip people who grow up in Sweden for a future where they can be self-sufficient, honest adults. It is a strange prioritization, and it would be better to have a certainly low—but not as low as today—public debt and be able to invest in the future.

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

Louise Meijer (M)

Mr. Speaker! What Rasmus Ling says about investing in the future sounds good. The problem is only the policy that Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and now also Socialdemokraterna are joining in a difficult economic time. It would mean saddling future generations with debt, not investing in future generations. We saddle future generations with debt and pass the burden on to them. It is not responsible.

Above all, it is not responsible to present a budget that is not funded and deceive voters, families with children, nursing assistants, and educators into believing that there is more money to spend. But there are no 10 billion for welfare in the largest party's budget. It is a deception! In that case, I think the Social Democrats can be honest. The Green Party and MP Ling are honest when one says that it should be stoked, that the loans should be increased. Go ahead and gas us through the crisis!

No, we say. Stop and block! We cannot do that. It will be complete chaos, and it will get worse. We take responsibility.

The Social Democrats should do as you do, that is, borrow us out of the economic inflation. It goes directly against what all other research suggests regarding how to get out of this in an appropriate and responsible manner.

It is good that Miljöpartiet is honest about what it wants, namely to borrow and fuel inflation, to make money worth even less than it is today, so that it becomes even harder for families to strengthen their purchasing power. The Social Democrats should also be honest that their budget is underfunded, that the 10 billion do not exist, that the welfare money is a bluff, where the idea is to borrow—or else they simply will not exist. One can be honest about that.

(Applause)

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Since the Left Party does not actually agree with the submitted budget, but our proposals for appropriations exceed the maximum that the Riksdag has determined as a limit, I cannot reserve myself in favor of our proposals. However, we have a special statement.

It is my and the Left Party's conviction that equality is what best prevents crime. Research is also based on this, even if this is not sufficient. But to achieve equality, we in politics must prioritize so that we counteract both class divides and prejudices, which in turn nourish racism and sexism.

This requires welfare initiatives for a functioning preschool and school, enriching leisure activities with, for example, sports and culture, good healthcare, and a strong social insurance system. For children in risk groups, this general base must be reinforced with individual interventions. The earlier they arrive, the better.

At the same time, we must manage and counter crime and, of course, particularly mark against gang crime. We must fight it with legislation. But constantly legislating for harsher penalties will never be the best or most sufficient solution. The research is also clear on that.

The focus of the Sweden Democrats and the government is clear. Crime is linked to immigration. The methods are described in the Tidö Agreement with proposals for mandatory reporting, anonymous witnesses, visitation zones, preventive coercive measures – also without suspicion of a crime – internal border control and further proposals for harsher sentences, juvenile prison, etc. Vänsterpartiet is concerned about how these proposals affect democracy, the rule of law and trust in our society.

According to a survey from Novus, conducted on behalf of Civil Rights Defenders, two out of three respondents in Sweden experience that our democratic basic principles have been threatened.

Now the measures are directed at serious crime. But tomorrow they might be used to prevent differences of opinion and to lock up activists. Examples of such developments exist both historically and in our present time.

I also mean that the Sweden Democrats and the government are acting cunningly counterproductively. Welfare is being put on a low flame, while at the same time decisions are made on tax cuts and deductions for those who already have more than enough. The gaps are increasing. One has also withdrawn a third of the funds for folkbildningen (popular education). Within folkbildningen, people regardless of background can meet to acquire knowledge, not infrequently about democracy and social studies. This should be developed and not dismantled.

There is much that causes concern. Today's education system in large part with profit-driven schools, increasing inequalities, the dismantling of the social safety nets and increased residential segregation lead to many being discriminated against and pushed out of society's community. This development leads to an increased recruitment base for, among other things, gang criminals and towards violent extremism. The budget for 2024 that has been decided upon has been labeled by some as a Christmas present to the gangs.

Vänsterpartiet wants to reverse this. We are pushing for political initiatives and legislation that strengthen the preventive work of municipalities, civil society actors, and other actors. We want to see meeting places in the form of public libraries, youth centers, and parks. We want to see an active civil society. We want to see preschools and schools where the staff have the resources and time to see every child. We want to see present community police officers who inspire the residents' trust. We want to see police also in rural areas. We want to see a society where people, and not least the children, thrive and have reason to feel optimism and hope for the future.

The Left Party's budget alternative for the justice system also contains some important investments.

We want, first and foremost, to invest in violence competence, especially when it concerns men's violence against women and children. We also want to introduce a femicide package, where the entire justice chain shall have a relevant violence competence so that legal certainty and seriousness exist in the entire justice chain from beginning to end. Here, it is important to see that there are connections between violence in what many call close relationships – men's violence against women – and the violence that escalates out in society.

The children who experience and see father hitting mother in the home learn violence as a means of power. This must be broken early. There, I would like to give my support for the strong words that Annika Strandhäll just delivered from the rostrum. It is extremely important that we see violence as a large coherent problem and do not solely focus on the most serious forms.

It is also important that we invest in emergency assistance for women who are trying to leave violent men and violence in close relationships. We want an emergency telephone line where urgent risk assessments can be made in the hope that we can put a stop to the deadly violence that occurs regarding men's violence against women.

We also want to strengthen something that is a general bottleneck in the justice system today, namely the National Forensic Centre, with increased funds. We also believe that it would be successful if it were to become its own agency.

We want to strengthen the borders and the police's customs operations, so that we prevent the smuggling of drugs, weapons and explosives.

We also want to strengthen Center against violence-promoting extremism, which performs an incredibly important violence-prevention work directed towards, among other things, schools and municipalities. It is becoming increasingly important in the societal development that we are now seeing.

Another problem area that is growing a bit in the shadow of the problems perceived as large but which also affect very many, and also very many young people, is sexual violence online. There, we would like a mandate to be given to the Crime Victim Authority, which could address this, so that training can be initiated so that people realize how serious this is.

We want to support the work of the crime victim helplines, which no one has mentioned here earlier today. They perform very important voluntary efforts and need funds to be able to organize their efforts. We want to increase their funds beyond what they manage to get from, for example, the Crime Victim Fund today and which are actually important perpetrator funds paid in by convicted persons.

I also want to mention something that should be important for many more, and that is that we need to look further into legal aid. The income ceiling for receiving legal aid has not been raised since the 90s. It is extremely urgent that this is done if we are to be able to say that we have a justice system that tries to give everyone, regardless of finances, the opportunity for some form of justice. It is an important vision. But we shall try to approach it as much as we can.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Last weekend, people in a residential area in Uppsala woke up to a powerful detonation. It was a real explosion. There were no personal injuries, but extensive destruction and property damage in the area. Naturally, the residents in the area were frightened. This is just one example of a series of countless explosions and shootings that we have seen over the last decade.

I will not review previous governments. I actually leave it to the voters to be the jury in this regard. But we can state that the development we have witnessed during the last decade is unparalleled. Organized crime - gang crime and criminal networks - has advanced its positions and strengthened its standing. And the acts of violence that we are now witnessing are actually just an expression of the crime that is ongoing and the conflicts that exist in this environment.

What is truly alarming is that children and young people are drawn into gang crime daily. Some of the children who lack faith in the future enter into this with their eyes wide open, believing that they will make a career in the criminal path, and they are captivated by these guys who go around and flash fancy cars, lots of money, and so on.

Other young people who are drawn into this are lured with quick rewards, but more and more are also forced in under threat. A growing number of young people are drawn into this out of fear of being subjected to violence or other types of reprisals. Kristdemokraterna and the government are doing what is required to break the development and are pushing forward both preventive and repressive measures.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has many challenges now and a pressured economic situation. But when it comes to safety issues, voter polls and so on show that the voters consider issues concerning law and order to be of the highest priority. They want a safer Sweden. For far too long, this has been overlooked. Sufficient resources have not been given to the law enforcement authorities, and now we see the result.

The government is now making a historic investment in the entire justice system, and it is visible in the budget that it is moving from 69 to 90 billion between 2023 and 2026. These are record-breaking resources to upgrade the entire justice system, prevent crime, and push back criminality. Special investments are made in the police, correctional services, and the security police, but also in prosecutors and courts. The important thing is that the government strengthens all parts of the justice system. There must not be bottlenecks that make the additions less valuable.

The Christian Democrats and the government also strengthen the crime prevention work. We believe that nothing is as important as stopping children and young people from being drawn into crime. The government's preventive measures are many. They involve putting the family at the center, investing in a new Social Services Act with a focus on proactive measures, improving the exchange of information between authorities, strengthening parental support, investing in schools and civil society, and not least providing a leisure card to young people so that they can engage in good activities.

It is also about increased local police presence throughout the country. The police authority has extensive work to do here. We now have a new national police commissioner with a clear mandate from the government to specifically increase the local presence and improve the investigative work. The National Audit Office and others have directed criticism toward those parts. There, we strengthen the Police Authority's work.

Mr. Speaker! Together with the other Tidö parties, we are taking a holistic approach to law and order for a safer Sweden. We are implementing a full battery of measures in what can be described as a paradigm shift. It concerns the view on law and order, the redress of crime victims, the importance of the family for children and young people, and migration and integration.

We also ensure that crime fighting is sharpened with more tools. Some new legislation is already in place, such as preventive wiretapping and new powers for police work in border areas. Other things are in the works, for example regarding camera surveillance, stay-away orders, search zones, new rules on forfeiture, and new secrecy legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Efforts are also being made to expand the criminal justice system. The needs are great, and more places and institutions must be established. This requires intensive work. The shortage of places today is palpable. It is so extensive that criminals are being released from prisons prematurely. We also hear reports of overcrowded women's prisons, so places are needed there as well. It is long-awaited that the government takes action on this.

The expansion of the correctional services should have occurred several years ago, and for that, the previous Social Democratic government bears a heavy responsibility. In fact, every year during their tenure, more and more criminals were released on parole while awaiting a placement in a facility. It was something that we Christian Democrats also pointed out time and again.

The signals were there for the previous government, but the budget allocations for more facilities remained absent. The government is now taking action on this. Work is also being done intensively on being able to rent prison places abroad, something we Christian Democrats have requested. It is necessary to solve the acute shortage of places, but it is also something that the Social Democrats oppose. We also advocate for youth prisons for young people who commit acts of serious violence.

Mr. Speaker! Let me finally mention the crime prevention work. Severe sentences in all their glory - that is important - but the glue in all work surrounding law and order is the crime prevention work. This government understands that, and we Christian Democrats have been particularly clear and insistent in this part. Young people who commit crimes run a great risk of ending up in continued criminality. Therefore, early interventions are important.

Children and young people are Sweden's future, but today all too many grow up in split families and in environments where they lose freedom, hope, and dreams. Lack of integration, shadow societies that have been allowed to grow, and difficult family conditions as a result of that are contributing factors. Society must support families more and at an earlier stage. At the same time, we need to continue to have a strict migration policy over time and a more requirement-based integration policy. That is what we Christian Democrats and this government stand for.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats are a value-driven party and have always highlighted the family as the cornerstone in crime prevention work. It is there that good values and a sense of right and wrong are built. We have many lost years behind us, but the development can be reversed. The Christian Democrats are nation-builders and have just started the reform machinery in a government position.

We are now doing everything that will be required to begin turning the development around. We will build a safe Sweden again. Step by step and budget by budget, we are investing in the police, the correctional services, crime prevention work, and supporting the families. But we must have the strength to maintain the priorities over time and across generations.

I vote in favor of the proposals in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! As several have said here today, the justice system is a fundamental prerequisite for our liberal democracy. Its primary task is to protect all people's civil and civil rights and to protect everyone from crimes committed by individuals, but also to protect against the public power's arbitrariness or abuse of power. To uphold the rule of law and the security for all individuals - men and women, old and young - in the entire country is one of the state's core tasks.

In a world of increased polarization and focus on differences, not similarities, I want to begin by saying that the Center Party has, during the year, voted yes to all legislative proposals from the government's side concerning crime and crime fighting within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Justice. Sometimes we have had supplementary proposals, but we have never been opposed.

We are in complete agreement with the government that the situation of crime victims and those affected by crime needs to be prioritized, that the justice system needs more tools and more resources, and that significantly more authorities and actors in broad cooperation need to prevent, deter, and investigate crime.

Centerpartiet's budget proposal within this expenditure area for the coming years is by over 500 million more than the government's. I will return to some of the initiatives we propose.

It is necessary to have a focus on organized crime and on the gangs' shootings and explosions that challenge the society we cherish. But the committee's report echoes rather hollowly regarding larger ambitions or initiatives from the government concerning violence against women and children, drug crimes, and police presence throughout the country. What is included from the government is necessary, but not sufficient. It shames us as a rule of law state to do more and to take better responsibility.

We often hear, for example, the government's representatives talk about more patrolling police on streets and squares as something that creates safety and prevents crime. We agree, but we believe it is a bit one-dimensional, when so many crimes are committed partly in homes and partly on the internet, in "cybern".

The police therefore need to be present and patrol to a greater extent also on the internet. Among other things, children and young people, often girls, are subjected to crimes and abuse specifically on the internet. Now, the police, prosecutors, and courts need extra resources to update themselves on the new situation - all so that the internet does not become a lawless land. Centerpartiet is investing an extra 45 million on this during the coming year.

To safeguard and strengthen the citizens' trust in the police, it is also required that one does not solely focus on serious crime but also prioritizes petty crimes, which are sometimes called everyday crimes - vandalism, thefts, frauds and reckless driving. We will here particularly follow the work with so-called direct write-offs of petty crimes, which many individuals and small business owners testify to day in and day out. One reports it - and then it is dropped immediately, even though the cases many times are almost fully investigated at the time of the police report. This affects both the victim of the crime and society at large.

Yes, it is a question of resources, and we stand behind the increases that are proposed. But it is also a question of leadership and delivery from the government's side.

Mr. Speaker! In recent years, the number of cases in Sweden's courts has increased. The cases have also become more complex, largely as a result of the reforms already undertaken to tackle increasingly more serious crime. It is a development that will only continue.

This has led to long processing times for all cases that are not prioritized. In the committee report, it is mentioned in five short lines that judicial activity that does not concern criminal cases or migration cases accounts for 70 percent of all cases in Sweden's courts. These cases, 70 percent of all cases, have far too long processing times. It concerns civil cases and administrative law cases and matters. It concerns social insurance cases, tax cases and matters concerning building permits, detailed plans and construction of infrastructure, such as roads, in our entire country. It also concerns the expansion of the green transition with new energy and new power grids. It may involve reviews of municipal decisions. It is therefore important social development and personal life destinies that are piled up and waiting in our courts.

In the upcoming reform work, it is important to provide Sweden's courts with additional resources. Training judges is a task that takes time, and we already have a very aging judiciary.

The Center Party has, as I have mentioned, stood behind the new laws that give the judiciary greater powers to use secret coercive measures in order to be able to prevent and solve more crimes. But we have also highlighted the importance of the courts and authorities that have to review, monitor, and decide on these matters having sufficient resources to fulfill their very important mission. We have mentioned the courts, but I also want to specifically mention SIN, the Security and Integrity Protection Board, which we propose should receive an extra 30 million to be able to meet more and more complex cases regarding secret coercive measures.

In conclusion, I want to address this issue of informant work. We see the need for expanded informant work for both young people and adults. In the same way that gangs recruit, we need to recruit, from society, virtually all young people into ordinary society. An evil force must be met by a good force and not by a vacuum. We propose a doubling of the appropriations for the police's informant work, which entails an addition of 75 million.

Sometimes it is forgotten that the biggest winner in crime prevention work is not the one who does not become a criminal or the one who gets help to quit, but the one who avoids being subjected to crime.

I refer to our specific statement in this part of the budget. There, our entire proposal is presented. We agree with the proposal in the committee's report regarding the amendment of the Penal Code, which is also up for consideration.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! To tackle gang crime, significantly earlier social measures are required for the children who are in the risk zone, as many talk about. It is interesting that we stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and talk about children who commit serious violent crimes against other children and how we should prevent it. Sweden is one of the world's strongest welfare societies. How did we end up in this situation, with children shooting children with automatic weapons? It is something that we must look much more at, I think.

To increase the accuracy of crime prevention work, we must lift our gaze and look beyond the socioeconomic causes, which have been used all too one-sidedly to explain this gross violence. The vast majority of children growing up in vulnerable areas do not commit crimes and will also never commit crimes.

We must understand much better what it is that makes children choose the gangs over school, what makes some children become easy victims for cynical gang criminals, and what makes children take Tramadol and recklessly fire automatic fire into an apartment. What is it that makes children seek out criminality? We know that children living in families where the adults have their own problems, such as criminality or substance abuse, have an increased risk of developing psychosocial problems, which in turn increase the risk of ending up in criminality. We know that everything starts at home. Violence breeds violence.

I myself, as a police officer, have stepped into homes where small children with very terrified eyes have hidden behind sofas, under beds, and in wardrobes. They are afraid when dad is drunk and threatening. They are afraid when mom screams and when they hear thuds and blows. Consider how it affects a child to grow up in a family where dad is violent towards everyone! Consider that there are families who demand that the son should control his sisters and families where sons are encouraged to resort to violence as early as preschool! Realize how the norms and values that parents convey affect the children!

Society has much left to do that can prevent and stop children from ending up in crime. We politicians must have a clear backbone when the opposition comes. Opposition will come when we dare to challenge and question norms, values, and parental rights. We must clearly take a stand for the individual vulnerable child. Adults' discomfort and fear of questioning other adults must never weigh more heavily than children's right to support and protection.

I have heard many children and young people express that they wished the adult world had reacted and seen how bad it was, that their early actions had been noticed much earlier, that someone had dared to ask how they were doing at home, that someone had shown that they wanted to know and that someone had acted. Someone should have resisted those who subjected the child, who betrayed the child, and in other cases supported the parent who wanted to but lacked the ability.

But we can start now. We can start seeing the child, taking a stand for the child and making early and clear interventions based on the individual child's needs and reality. I believe that is where we have much to gain in the crime prevention work.

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals know about this and fight for it. We stand at the forefront when it comes to children's rights issues. Everyone who has heard my party colleague Juno Blom stand here in the chamber and speak knows that she is passionate about the children. To always ensure the best interests of the children is the Liberals' policy.

Early social interventions are the key to stopping new recruitment. Most criminologists today agree on this, and I believe most in the Justice Committee also agree on this. What we do not agree on is how and by whom these measures shall be implemented and how they shall be financed. But that is a completely different debate.

Mr. Speaker! I also intended to speak a little about the police and its role in crime prevention work, not least against the violence that we are fed daily in the media – shootings and explosions by gangs and the criminal networks. There will always be those who fall through the social safety nets, and then the police must be there to be able to detect and, at best, prevent crimes from being committed and young people from dying.

The gang structure that we see today will not disappear in a few weeks. It will probably take years, perhaps 10 or even 15 years, before it is so battered and damaged by effective police work and successful preventive work that it cannot function as it does today. It is a matter of slowing down new recruitment so much that the gangs cannot be replenished by new young men.

I am therefore glad that we now, for once, have a government that takes this seriously. We have a Ministry of Justice and a Minister for Justice who see solutions and not the obstacles. They dare to put forward new reforms, dare to challenge, and do not shrink from saying: We believe in this.

For over 30 years, in police cars and at coffee tables, just like many other police officers, I have shaken my head, sworn, complained and not understood the decisions that have been made. I have perhaps been more astonished by the decisions that have not been made regarding laws and regulations and how the police should work, despite that we have pointed out how much of a difference it would make if it did make a difference. Now we have a government that listens and that makes a difference.

If the police are to work preventatively, preventative reforms are required. How else is the preventative work supposed to proceed? We can absolutely place a couple of police officers on a street corner. Definitely no drugs will be sold on that street corner, probably no thefts will be committed either, and no one will punch each other in the face. That much is clear.

A present uniformed police officer usually has a quite calming effect on crime when the police are on site. More police in restless areas is also crime-preventing. But the preventive work becomes even better if the police also get better tools and more efficient laws.

Being able to wiretap a person before the person has committed a crime is preventive work. It does not get any more preventive than that. Intervene before the crime is committed! Prevent murder, manslaughter, public endangerment, and other serious crimes! Stop them before it happens!

It can be about searching persons suspected of carrying weapons in order to find the weapon and seize it from the individual before someone is shot with it. It is preventive work. Furthermore, the government is now increasing the penalties for those who carry weapons. The penalty for aggravated weapons crime is increased from two years to four years. I believe that it will make a difference.

The police now get the opportunity to ensure that gang criminals who try to recruit young people into their activities can no longer do this. They are removed from areas where there are many young people at schools and sports venues. They should not be there.

We have already seen how effective camera surveillance is. The police testify in their report, which arrived the other day, that they see how drug trafficking is decreasing and in some cases also disappearing where they have installed cameras for preventive purposes.

These are four examples of reforms regarding crime prevention measures that the government has developed and opportunities that the police now have or will receive.

Mr. Speaker! There are those who are against this and who distrust those who have the task of carrying out the wiretapping, the searches, and the restrictions of freedom in the crime prevention work. I find it very difficult to understand why they are distrusted. I am, of course, speaking about police officers.

I think it is tragic in some ways. I have said it before in this speaker's chair: People should visit a police station, meet and talk to some police officers. Then I think they will get a completely different picture of the Swedish police.

There are those who believe that the police will search anyone at any time. They believe that the police will wiretap anyone at any time. One critic wrote: It won't be long before the police start wiretapping their partners and ex-partners. The next step will be that they start wiretapping troublesome politicians and journalists.

If one believes that, one has no idea how it works and what rules exist. Then one lives in a world that belongs on a large white canvas in front of a group of cinema-goers. People can trust the Swedish police and prosecutors.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was interesting to hear Martin Melin's speech. He said: We believe in this, and he highlighted various reforms. Martin Melin did not say it outright, but it was about visitations. My thoughts went, in any case, to the proposal on visitation zones which is indeed topical.

It is not common, but I was in and looked at the Liberals' website this morning to read about the party's policy. Sometimes the established policy is not the same as what it sounds like all the time.

When it comes to search zones and anonymous witnesses, two proposals that are very current in the debate, it stated at least very clearly on the website that the Liberals' opinion is that they are not good proposals. One has national convention decisions to say no to search zones and anonymous witnesses. Otherwise, they argued very well on the website, and I accept the arguments straight out.

Mr. Speaker! I know that parties sometimes need to compromise with other parties. I have full understanding that a smaller party in cooperation with others does not get 100 percent of its policy through. That is how it is. One has to give and take.

I still became curious in this context. I want to ask Martin Melin how the Liberals work with these two specific issues, anonymous witnesses and visitation zones, to make the proposals as good or at least as little harmful as possible.

I would, for example, like to know if it will be ensured that the preparation of the matters will take place in a thorough and proper manner.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the questions!

We take it from the beginning. It was a national convention decision in 2019 or 2020, so not the last national convention but the one before that. Then visitation zones were brought up. There was a majority to make a decision on visitation zones.

I stood up in the rostrum and spoke negatively about it. I said no to that proposal as the proposal looked then. The proposal on visitation zones, how they shall be used and how they shall function, has been reworked in recent years.

I stand behind the proposal on visitation zones and how they are to be used as it currently stands, one hundred percent. This includes, among other things, that it applies to a limited time and a limited place. That is not how the proposal looked when it was discussed three or four years ago.

That is why I have changed my mind, and the Liberals have changed their mind. We now see it as an effective crime-fighting and crime-preventing measure and reform. We stand behind this one hundred percent.

Rasmus Ling wondered how we would reduce how harmful it would be and so on during the preparation. Visitation zones are not harmful. What it is about, in that case, is precisely what I spoke about.

It concerns the mistrust. People believe that it will be abused. I am almost provoked when I hear representatives in the Swedish Riksdag who believe that police run around and search people just because it is fun.

Swedish police risk their lives out in what is called reality. Out in this reality, people with enormous amounts of violence carry weapons that they shoot people in the back of the head with and that they shoot police with. Those weapons must be removed, and that requires this reform.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are in complete agreement that weapons should be removed from the streets. We have been in agreement on the increased penalties for weapons offenses that have occurred and the possibilities to search for weapons that have been implemented so far. I am very pleased about that. Ten years ago, it was not mandatory detention if one took a person with a loaded weapon. We are fortunately very far from that now.

Mr. Speaker! There are extensive possibilities for the police today. If there is a suspicion that there are weapons somewhere, it is permitted to search persons or premises. That possibility exists, and that possibility shall exist. The proposal on search zones is something else. It is that it should be done without there being any suspicion whatsoever. It is a very big difference.

Mr. Speaker! I regret that the Liberals have made a new national convention decision on this. It is time to update the website. Those who, God forbid, should visit the Liberals' website to see what the party wants can easily be confused when one argues against introducing this in a very good way there.

Martin Melin thinks that what is written on his own website is so provoking that it almost makes him boil.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is my words that are on that website. I will see to it that it is updated and that adequate information is posted there - I promise!

However, I would like to explain to Rasmus Ling how it works, once again, out in reality. If the police suspect that there are weapons—one has reasonable suspicion—one can obtain a decision for a house search and search for that weapon. That is no problem. The thing is that the people who carry weapons ensure that others carry these weapons, people who are not on the police's radar. They can be young, even children. If the police are then to find the weapons, one must look where they are, that is, on these people.

The police in these areas, those who work against the criminal gangs, have a firm grip on which children are being recruited into and drawn into criminal activity. They will not go to the first preschool or upper secondary school they see and start searching kids just like that. That will not happen. To begin with, it must involve a limited location where there is a lot of unrest and disorder. It could be an outdoor center or something else. Those who are there know: Here, the police can check me. It will probably result in that no one carries weapons there.

I was in New York in 1995 when they introduced stop-and-search zones there. They halved the lethal crime in four years. Criminals testified that they did not dare to carry weapons anymore, because the police were on them and took them away from them. In other words: I have seen that stop-and-search zones work. I have also spoken with Danish police, who testify to how effective it is.

Why should the Swedish police not have effective laws? I think that is very strange. How can one oppose that? It is incomprehensible.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The applause and ovations never wanted to end at the Moderate party convention in Umeå a few weeks ago when Elisabeth Svantesson announced that the tax ratio was the lowest since 1975. Nothing can make a Moderate happier and more energized than lower taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a dark year, 2023, behind us. We have witnessed pure mafia wars where boundaries have been crossed far beyond what can be accepted in a society. There have been shootings and explosions. The gross violence has shifted even further down in age. Neighbors have become targets. It has been a purely horrific situation. This development must be reversed. It should be more prioritized than a low tax burden.

It is obvious that new and more consequences are needed for young perpetrators of violence. The investigation reviewing youth crime boards, which was commissioned by the previous government, is to submit proposals during the spring, the current government has said. From Miljöpartiet, we are positive about the direction, even if we should not get ahead of events. We will, of course, read the proposals when they arrive. But that more and more flexible consequences are needed – even, as in this case, for very young people – is obvious. More was needed from society so that boys in risk environments do not become criminals – or girls, for that matter. It is a responsibility that the whole society needs to take.

Mr. Speaker! Strengthening support for crime victims is incredibly important from many aspects. There is, of course, a moral dimension, but an aspect that is talked about too little is that measures to support crime victims are also important for crime prevention work in the long run. Of those who commit crimes, indeed the vast majority have been crime victims – in the home, in school, in the local area. Those who rob have almost always been robbed themselves. Those who hit have been hit. No one is born criminal. When small children commit serious crimes, society has failed.

Mr. Speaker! Youth prisons will be introduced and there will be changes in sentences for young people. It is a question that we will return to later here, but I still want to say something about it. The investigation is out for consultation, and we are reading the consultation responses with great interest and for discussions on the issues generally with different actors.

When it comes to youth prisons, we as a party have not yet landed on a position. We have previously been critical and still see objections, but we can also see advantages with it. It is obvious that there are major problems within Statens institutionsstyrelse. It is not that we have a situation that we are satisfied with and see no potential for improvement, on the contrary, but we also see major challenges in the correctional services being given additional responsibility. We are also concerned that the deadline the government has set, namely that the takeover should occur in only three years, is very short.

The situation within the correctional services is extremely strained. There is a major shortage of space. It is difficult to recruit staff. It is a very worrying situation.

The Minister of Justice was in the committee last week and accounted for the situation and the government's view on it. He announced that double occupancy will be the new normal for the foreseeable future. It is risky. Prison should be a place where the inmate serves their sentence but also gets the opportunity to leave with better conditions for an honest life. With shared cells, the risk of recruitment to gangs, in cases where there was no gang affiliation previously, of radicalization, and of continued crime increases.

Mr. Speaker! The Prison and Probation Service's management has requested alternatives to imprisonment when the sentence is up to one year. In our law enforcement motion and in the budget, we have proposed that it should apply to prison sentences up to six months, i.e., half that time. It would facilitate the Prison and Probation Service, reduce the risk of increased crime, and provide better opportunities to prevent crime.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet will act as a constructive opposition party. We will be devoid of prestige. We welcome the government's further proposals that we have put forward. We will be in favor of proposals that we think are good, regardless of where they come from. In every case, we will examine the details. Even in proposals where the direction is correct, there may be parts where we think something should be adjusted. Nor will we be afraid to say no when proposals are put forward that we do not believe in and think are bad. Visitation zones, anonymous witnesses, and a lowered age of criminal responsibility are some such examples.

Mr. Speaker! This expenditure area is large: 76 billion. It is positive, we believe, that there is a broad consensus that the area needs economic reinforcements and that it has also received this over time.

I would particularly like to mention some initiatives that we from Miljöpartiet would have liked to see in addition to the initiatives that the government is making.

The justice system

We propose 80 million more than the government for the Swedish Economic Crime Authority to strengthen the work against companies run by individuals within organized crime and to enable authorities to carry out raids together and cooperate against, for example, black clubs, guest worker housing without building permits, restaurants that neglect their responsibilities, illegal slot machines, and so on. There is more to be done here than what is happening today.

We also want to see an investment of 1 billion on local crime prevention work to curb the new recruitment to criminal gangs. Investments of that caliber could make an impact and have an effect, and they could also, purely economically, save money in the future.

We want to increase the compensation to crime victims by 130 million. We want to introduce a national support line for people who have relatives who are in the risk zone of being recruited into gangs. This exists in some municipalities but would be needed nationally.

Mr. Speaker! In total, Miljöpartiet invests almost 1.3 billion more than the government in this area. Since the frameworks have been set and adopted by the Chamber, we cannot, however, move for approval of this today, but we refer to our special opinion.

(cont. § 9)

The justice system

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