The justice system

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate and discuss expenditure area 4 The Judiciary. It is a debate we have had many times before. For those of you following it for the first time, for example you in the gallery, I intend to begin with a summary or a repetition, if you will.

Firstly: Sweden has gone from being one of the world's most homogeneous, safe, and least corrupt countries to being a country where gang crime and organized crime are becoming increasingly predominant. Most parties seem to agree that the situation is very serious. However, it is not enough to agree that we are in a serious situation. Also relevant is why it looks the way it does. This is obviously of importance when we are to discuss what we can do to seriously handle the problems.

Secondly: A large majority of those behind gang crime and organized crime have a different background than the Swedish one. They come, not least, from dysfunctional countries in the Middle East and Africa. This also applies to phenomena such as humiliation robberies, assault and gang rapes, as well as the accelerating Islamization. Many of these people belong to criminal groups that work deliberately to dismantle our institutions and dismantle and combat our open, safe, and democratic society.

For the third: That it has been able to become like this is a direct consequence of a conscious policy that previous governments have pursued and imposed on the Swedish people. It is a consequence of multiculturalism, and it is a consequence of mass immigration. When one receives very many people from countries with a democratic deficit and widespread corruption, and where one does not have the same trust that we have in authorities, in the state, in the police, or in the democracy that the system creates, it obviously creates problems. It becomes problems in the form of exclusion, segregation, violence and insecurity, but also gang crime and organized crime.

For the fourth: Since this is largely an imported problem, immigration must obviously decrease significantly if we are to seriously tackle the problems, as the Sverigedemokraterna often point out. But we must also deport as many grossly criminal foreigners as we can; it doesn't matter which country they come from. If one does not have citizenship in Sweden and commits a crime, one must leave – consistently.

If we do not do this, it doesn't matter how good a crime policy we have; we will fail. That is how serious the situation is today. Since we have also been able to see how gang criminals are recruited into so-called Islamist extremism, as some newspaper described it, the fight against Islamism must, of course, also continue and be taken significantly more seriously than today.

Now we know, for example, that there are gang criminals who have been recruited by the intelligence service in Iran to commit various forms of serious violent crimes here in Sweden. It is completely insane! It is completely insane that a dictatorship can, in this case, turn to Swedish citizens - which many of these people unfortunately are - who share the dictatorship's rotten and anti-democratic views and ask them to carry out acts of violence here in Sweden.

Therefore, we must strike harder against those groups that attempt to use Sweden and our democracy as a playground for their public order disturbances and their criminal and democracy-threatening activities.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties are working hard to achieve the goals that we, despite everything, set out in the report. Briefly, it is about reducing crime and increasing people's safety, both perceived and actual. But it is also about working for high legal certainty and security of law. An important part of this obviously concerns that the person who commits a crime is also convicted for it and that the punishment is in proportion to the act – this while the victim's perspective is, of course, sharpened.

But the situation is serious. The perceived insecurity remains high while we see an increase regarding reported crimes, the number of explosions, and lethal violence in general. It is clear that it is a failure for the entire society.

There are, however, things that are positive. We now see how the number of police officers is finally increasing. We have a somewhat higher clearance rate regarding serious crimes linked to organized crime. The deadly gun violence has decreased, and it seems to be decreasing this year as well. We must hope that this cautiously positive trend holds.

It is also positive that we have a government that cooperates with the Sweden Democrats within the framework of what we call the Tidö cooperation. We agree that it is a priority to combat the gangs and organized crime. We have also had several important legislative changes put in place.

Madam Speaker! In February, the Act on Preventive Stay Bans entered into force, which makes it possible to restrict criminals' ability to stay in certain places even if they have not been convicted of any crime.

It has turned out to be very good that we finally got this legislation in place. Just a few weeks after the law entered into force, we could read in the media about a stay ban in Rågsved, where a number of criminal individuals had been barred from staying at the metro station, in the center, and at a number of schools. We could read that residents and business owners testified to a calmer area and that customers had started coming back.

In September, it was reported that there were 80 such bans in the entire country, primarily aimed at gangs in Stockholm and Gothenburg. Above all, it was also reported that this has had a noticeable effect, as it is expressed, and led to fewer shootings and explosions.

In November, we got new forfeiture legislation in place. In just the first week, the police reported 56 cases of independent forfeiture and seized goods worth over 10 million kronor. It involved motorcycles, cars, watches, bags, and cash. It is fantastic!

In June, the police announced that as a consequence of both a changed way of working and new legislation, they had averted almost 200 serious violent crimes since 2023. The police specifically pointed then to the safety zones and the stay ban, which I have now mentioned, but also to the law on preventive coercive measures which entered into force in October 2023.

Already in February this year, just a few months after the new law came into force, the police announced that they had been able to prevent several serious crimes with the help of precisely those preventive coercive measures. This concerns secret wiretapping and secret data retrieval against persons who can be assumed to be on their way to committing serious crimes, not least then—once again—shootings and bombings.

I know that Customs is not on our table. It is still an important issue, and I just want to briefly mention that uniformed customs personnel will now have the right to carry firearms. Weapons have been purchased, and the training has begun. I believe that this is very important. It is about increasing the staff's safety, as they have been a vulnerable group for many years. But it is also about that Customs must and can be an important part in the fight against gang crime and organized crime. It is a matter of stopping as much as we can before it enters Sweden.

I will also briefly mention the internal immigration control, as it is worth mentioning. In September, the police reported that during a single operation spanning three days, where they checked foreign citizens' right to stay in Sweden, they among other things found 31 people who were taken to the Swedish Migration Agency's detention center.

Here we will probably get significantly better and more efficient legislation in place, which will make a real difference. So there is a great deal of positive, despite all the misery.

I want to conclude by pointing out a proposal that the Sverigedemokraterna have developed and which is now being handled within the framework of the Tidö agreement. It concerns the development of special legislation for gang criminals, which is an important issue for us. We believe that through such legislation, we can direct measures directly at the individuals who seriously threaten our society. Gang criminals could, for example, be monitored with mandatory ankle bracelets and with curfews. Their economic power could be choked through subsidy barriers, business bans, and audits of bank accounts. New recruitment to the gangs could be punished more severely. Prison sentences for the most serious crimes and the most serious criminals could become even longer. We believe that the introduction of such special legislation against gang criminals opens up for a multitude of proposals that could make life very difficult for these individuals. It is there, I believe, that a large part of the fight must be taken.

Despite all the problems we see and all the misery that is happening, there are still positive trends, so I believe that we can still look relatively positively towards the future.

With this said, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposed decision in the report and thank you for the floor.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties promised a strong start against gang crime. But in several respects, it continues to go in the wrong direction. That it is moving in the right direction, as we heard here, I do not believe is what many Swedes recognize themselves in right now.

We Social Democrats have for a year now actively promoted the need for a Swedish mafia law similar to the RICO legislation, which has been very successful in combating the mafia and organized crime in the USA. We have allocated 5 million kronor in our budget alternative to carry out an investigation of the central components that are present in the RICO legislation and are missing in the Tidö Agreement, and simply review how they could be implemented in a Swedish legal tradition.

On October 11, we submitted four concrete points that we believe the government must include in its investigation, namely a collective criminal liability for the crimes committed by a criminal association, obviously with harsher penalties for the crimes, an expanded crown witness system to get more people to report the gang leaders in exchange for lower sentences, to enable prosecution against legal entities to reach the mafia's dealings but also to make it punishable to do business with the mafia and to review how the relevant authorities shall work with the law.

On the same day that we presented these points, the Sweden Democrats, on their part, announced that they were withdrawing their own motion regarding gang crime. I do not know if that was the case, but many interpret it as having to do with the media reports which claimed that there were connections between the Sweden Democrats' party leadership and gangs and gang leaders and that their proposal possibly could backfire on them themselves.

I simply wonder if Rikard Jomshof considers that Sweden needs a Swedish mafia law. If so, why did he vote no to our proposal and withdraw his own motion?

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats entered the Riksdag in 2010. One of the first issues that we began to push hard was precisely a RICO legislation, or as we call it, DIKO legislation – there are many words for it. Already in 2011-2012, we submitted a finished proposal. We developed a program that we presented here in the Riksdag. Everyone voted against it, even the Social Democrats. There was then no interest whatsoever in supporting the proposal.

It shows once again that the Sweden Democrats have time and again been significantly better at predicting which problems would follow from the policy for which, among others, the Social Democrats bear responsibility for. It is a fact that the Social Democrats voted no to our proposals.

Now we are in the Tidö cooperation. One only has to look at the Tidö Agreement to see that gang crime and organized crime are very high-priority issues. It is completely obvious that the proposals we have agreed upon are significantly more far-reaching than those the Social Democrats have ever previously presented. We are therefore at the forefront even there. We are already working on this.

Regarding the motion, we withdrew it in order to instead handle it within the framework of our cooperation, and that is what we are doing now. We have agreed that separate legislation for gang criminals shall be discussed, and I hope that we go far with that. I believe that we have closer to 50 different proposals that are significantly more far-reaching than the copy-paste product that the Socialdemokrater have produced, where they have looked at what we Sverigedemokrater did more than ten years ago. We want to go significantly further, and we will go significantly further. It only shows that the Socialdemokrater not only have the primary responsibility for the way things look, but that you are always last on the ball. We are already working on this.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that it is a party in Sweden's Riksdag that is now presenting a proposal for a Swedish mafia law, and that is the Social Democrats. And when we do it, the Sweden Democrats vote against it. That is also a fact, Richard Jomshof.

I want to be clear that I think much of what the government is doing against gang crime is good. We agree on a great deal. It would be strange if I didn't think so, because most of what the government has implemented so far during the mandate period is such as we Social Democrats initiated. But it is de facto not any Swedish mafia law.

What has been successful in the USA is the unified grip, but also several central components that are actually missing in the Tidö Agreement.

Richard Jomshof is contradicting himself, because first he says that a Swedish mafia law is already handled within the Tidö Agreement, but in the next breath he says that a Swedish mafia law will come in the next Tidö Agreement. In other words, it is not in the currently applicable Tidö Agreement, is it?

No initiatives have been taken to review the possibility of prosecuting legal entities or imposing collective criminal liability for everyone in a criminal organization. But if it is indeed the case that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have complied with the Socialdemokraterna's proposal, that is good. It may only seem a bit childish that one is unable to admit it. But it is good if it comes. If Richard Jomshof can promise that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna will begin work on introducing a Swedish mafia law, I promise that I will welcome it.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can also state many things, Madam Speaker. I can state once again that we submitted a proposal for RICO legislation as early as 2011-2012. Everyone voted against it, even the Social Democrats.

I can state that there is no party that has gone as hard against the gangs as we are now doing within the framework of the Tidö Agreement. I can also state that we have special legislation for gang criminals, as we call it. There are nearly 50 proposals that the Sverigedemokraterna have developed and which we are currently discussing within the framework of our cooperation. This work is, therefore, already underway.

We can go back to the previous parliamentary term, and this is interesting. The opposition, namely the government and the Sverigedemokraterna who are now cooperating with the government, forced through a long series of announcements. It was because of these announcements that it then began to happen, a few small things from the Social Democratic government's side, which then led to a number of proposals, but many were watered down. We then had to take hold of these and make them significantly better, because they were not particularly good. We are therefore doing significantly more, and I can state that the Sverigedemokraterna are usually first and the Socialdemokraterna are last on the ball.

Just a small concluding comment on this regarding connections to gangs. It is interesting, because there is probably no party that has such connections to criminal gangs as the Social Democrats. There is a long series of revelations even on a personal level. We have Social Democratic members here in the Riksdag today who have close relatives who are grossly criminal. We know, for example, that there are Social Democrats who have had close connections to various forms of criminal gangs, not least MC gangs. If there is any party that has enormous problems, I want to assert that it is the Social Democrats. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about lottery activities or individual scandals in the Stockholm municipality. It is not only the Islamists who have managed to infiltrate the party, but also the gang criminals.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I come from Norrköping, a city that has been hit hard by the wave of violence over the past year. To be honest, I have lost count of the number of shootings and explosions. We have grown accustomed to the helicopters over the rooftops. My neighbors and I have personally experienced what it feels like to wake up to the news of a live bomb at the playground where our children usually play. We have read in the local press about death lists of junior high school students – lists that circulate on social media as part of the gang wars, where, among other things, a boy was executed in the middle of a terraced housing area. A little over a month ago, another shooting occurred where the shooter was 14 years old and an 18-year-old was taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries. In the spring, a brutal shooting took place in one of our shopping malls.

The ruthless violence, which also affects so many innocent Swedes, has become commonplace. The night's shootings and explosions make headlines in the morning newspaper but are already passé by the evening news. But across our entire country, ordinary people live today with a fear of violence in their absolute proximity. Sweden has become unsafe.

In the same month as the shooting at Mirum Galleria in Norrköping, 40-year-old Nora was found dead in her apartment in the neighboring city of Linköping. A man she had been in a relationship with is suspected of murdering her. For more than one woman a month, a relationship ends in murder, often in connection with her attempting to leave the man.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democratic crime policy rests on two main priorities: to stop gang crime and to stop men's violence against women.

Every 20 minutes, around the clock, a report of a woman being assaulted is made. Far more are subjected to physical, psychological, sexual, and economic violence. It is unacceptable. This violence must both be prevented and punished.

For many years, the Social Democrats have step by step ensured that we have received more police, better tools and stricter penalties, including in the area of women's peace. The consent law, which makes it clearer that sex that is not voluntary is prohibited, constitutes one of the milestones and a paradigm shift in the view on rape. In government position, we tightened the penalties for several sexual offenses, violation of restraining orders and aggravated violation of women's peace. We criminalized honor-based oppression, and the girls' and women's shelters received increased support.

They were good reforms, but it is not enough. The Social Democrats want to see a zero vision and a crisis commission against men's violence against women. We want to introduce an indefinite sentence with a special release review for repeat sex offenders who are judged to be prone to committing new assaults. We want the government to stop dragging its feet when it comes to getting a new crime victim law in place and criminalizing psychological violence. We also assume that the government will promptly ensure that a government bill is produced to make it easier to issue restraining orders in accordance with the proposals from the investigation that we Social Democrats appointed while in government. As long as women are subjected to violence, we have not done enough.

Madam Speaker! Week after week we wake up to reports of new shootings and explosions. Parents have had to run in panic with children under their arms from places where shootings have occurred in broad daylight. In shopping malls and shopping centers, employees no longer feel safe at work. Honest citizens in vulnerable areas lie sleepless with worry that their children will be drawn into the gangs' vile clutches. This is Sweden today. We are in a national crisis. It is obvious that no government, neither the previous, the one before that, nor the current, has succeeded in breaking the progress of gang crime.

The Swedish people rightly place high demands on politics to act and solve the problem. Many have also had high hopes that a turnaround would come quickly with the Tidöre Government, given the high tone and the promises that were made before the election.

When half of the parliamentary term has passed, it is however painfully clear that the Sweden Democrats and the government have failed to reverse the development. In several respects, it is even going in the wrong direction: More innocent Swedes are affected and impacted in their daily lives. The violence is becoming increasingly crude and is creeping further down into the age groups. In the last year alone, the number of children under 15 suspected of being involved in murder cases has increased by 200 percent.

We cannot have it this way. It cannot continue in this manner. Politics must continue to move society's positions forward and act quickly and resolutely.

Some say that we Social Democrats did nothing during eight years. Do we really have the right to say anything now? I really do not want to get stuck in what has been. I think it is our duty to look forward and solve the problems. But I still just want to briefly bring to the record that we actually did quite a lot. We tightened about eighty penalties, criminalized about thirty new acts, invested historically much in the police, introduced mandatory detention for serious weapon crimes and initiated the largest reform in 60 years, to quote the Minister of Justice, with the forfeiture law which now gives the police a better opportunity to seize the gangs' criminal profits - to mention a few things.

Nevertheless, I am the first to admit that we should have done even more, even earlier and even faster. It was obviously not enough.

It is also obvious that what is required now is not just more, but an entirely new approach. It is absolutely necessary to continue the work with harsher penalties and investments in the police that we began and that the Tidö Government has carried forward. It is why, for example, we Social Democrats say that we want to continue expanding the police. We have a new goal of 50,000 employees, of which at least 34,000 shall be police-trained with increased local presence. It is also why we say that the government must urgently give the police the opportunity for real-time camera surveillance with facial recognition.

My point, however, is that that type of intervention alone will not be enough. In order for them to have an effect, a broader approach is also required to bring the gang leaders to justice, who all too often go free. Also, new recruitment must be broken. This means that the policy must think bigger, take entirely new measures and - yes, actually - sometimes also reconsider previous positions.

Unfortunately, there is a bit too much business as usual at the Ministry of Justice. Much good is being done. We agree on much within the justice policy. Furthermore, most of what the government has implemented so far is such that we Social Democrats initiated. I truly consider that consensus to be a strength. But it is regrettable that the Tidö parties cannot lift their gaze from their two-year-old agreement and do everything that is required, including things that are not written there.

Madam Speaker! In order to convict the gang leaders, we want a Swedish mafia law to be introduced, inspired by the American RICO legislation. Since we have a legal system that differs from the American one, it must, of course, be investigated thoroughly. We have therefore allocated 5 million kronor in our budget alternative for such an investigation and pointed out some central components in the American legislation that are missing from the Tidö Agreement and which we want the government to investigate.

Some parts concern a joint criminal liability for all members of a criminal association. It also provides stronger incentives for more people to report those higher up in the hierarchy. Another part concerns the crown witness system, which we introduced already during the last parliamentary term but which needs to be even more clearly directed towards the mafia bosses. A third component is better opportunities to go after the mafia's business by reviewing the possibility of prosecuting legal entities but also by making it criminal to do business with criminal actors.

Madam Speaker! More severe sentences also lead to a need for more prison places. But the government lacks a credible prison plan. Double occupancy is already being used, and visiting rooms are being converted into living quarters. Consequently, the risk is obvious that the recidivism prevention work, including both rehabilitation as well as education and employment, will suffer. What we see now is a very worrying and potentially dangerous development.

The expansion of the criminal justice system must proceed at a high pace. At the same time, the time spent in prison must be used to prevent recidivism. One should leave prison as a better person. Therefore, we Social Democrats want to introduce a goal that 90 percent of clients with a prison sentence exceeding one year shall participate in treatment programs.

Madam Speaker! I cannot emphasize enough that tougher measures against the criminal gangs are needed, but it will not be enough. To reverse the development, the tap of recruitment of new children and young people into the gangs must be turned off.

Lately, it has become painfully clear how criminal gangs run HVB homes and furthermore use them as a recruitment base. Alarms are being raised about weapons and drug caches, not to mention all the children who are on the run from HVB homes when they commit horrific crimes. This is not wise.

The Social Democrats want to municipalize HVB care for juvenile criminals and give staff increased powers to search, seize, and restrict the movement of the youths. The government must cast off its ideological blinkers and realize that this activity is not suitable for the profit interests of the private market. Neither gang criminals nor other fortune seekers should cash in taxpayer money. It is money that is needed in the care of these children.

Interventions are also needed even before a placement becomes relevant. Unfortunately, many parents refuse the social services' interventions. Therefore, the social services need more coercive tools. We have proposed 1.5 billion for a point-marking of young people who are entering into serious crime, either with a companion or an ankle monitor. It is about protecting children from picking up that weapon and shooting. But even that is actually acting too late. Society must intervene even earlier.

Earlier this autumn I was in Copenhagen and met my social democratic colleague, who is also Denmark's Minister of Justice. We discussed, among other things, their youth crime boards, which involve early and clear consequences from the side of society when children and young people are drawn into crime.

Even when we Social Democrats were in government, we appointed an inquiry to establish youth crime boards according to the Danish model in Sweden. That proposal is now on the government's desk, but so far it has been very quiet. There is a lot of talk about Danish punishments for Swedish crimes, but the government shows no commitment to Danish measures to break new recruitment in Sweden.

The youth crime boards would involve tough and coercive measures even if they lie outside the criminal justice system. It would obviously cost money. Perhaps that is why the Sweden Democrats and the government are so uninterested. They would rather, demonstrably, burn billions on tax cuts for the richest.

Unfortunately, early crime prevention work is the government's blind spot. The government is not allocating a single krona in increased state grants to the municipalities next year. Instead, it will be a period of austerity that forces the municipalities to save on precisely those interventions to meet youth with a criminal lifestyle. It is as foolish as cutting back on healthcare during a pandemic.

The situation we are in today is comparable to a pandemic. It is not only the violence that is spreading, but also the fear. Sweden must take a holistic approach and settle the score with decades of neglect of vulnerable areas where gang culture has been able to grow strong. We must meet force with force against the gangs, against the gang leaders, and against their new recruitment of children and young people. It is both about protecting society from dangerous individuals and about respect for the crime victims. But it is also about strengthening faith in the future and the sense of community.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Safety is and has always been one of the most important things for us Social Democrats. You have the right to feel safe - in working life, when you retire, and if you have the misfortune of becoming ill. Just as naturally, it must be safe and secure on our streets, in shopping centers, and in our residential areas.

But today, many feel a strong insecurity instead because of the gang violence, which also affects many innocent Swedes in their everyday lives and which destroys the future of children and young people. Not all crime in Sweden is increasing; it is important to add that. But the serious organized crime is eating its way into the entire society, into the business sector and into the welfare system. And when it comes to the deadly gun violence and the explosions, Sweden stands out in a completely horrific way. This must come to an end.

We Social Democrats want to see a strict and fair crime policy, and we are prepared to do everything that is legally sound and effective. We will do what is required to restore the safety that has been lost in our country.

(Applause)

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to correct Teresa Carvalho. It is certainly the case that the Social Democrats' crime policy rests on two legs. I would like to assert that one leg is sluggishness and the other is that one tries to blame others for one's own failures. In the specific statement from the Social Democrats - there is quite a bit in that text - the government is accused of, for example, passivity and it is claimed that they constitute a clear alternative. It becomes a bit laughable.

It is written that there are entire cities and residential areas where existence and safety are shattered into pieces. It is, in fact, the Social Democrats' own fault. I want to remind that no other party has governed Sweden for as long a time as the Social Democrats have. Furthermore, they sat in government during the two preceding terms before we took over. They had all the time in the world to work on prevention and to remedy the problems. That was one thing.

I also want to remind that Stefan Löfven, during his time as Prime Minister, on several occasions declared that the government would crush gang crime, as he said. We could hear Morgan Johansson repeat that very empty phrase during his time as Minister for Justice. On one occasion, he also said in all seriousness – I quote: We are on our way to cracking organized crime.

It went that way. The truth is that when the Tidö parties took over after the 2022 election, the situation was worse than ever. It was a consequence of the total failure that the Social Democrats came to offer the Swedish people with their policy. We find ourselves in a very serious situation. That is how it is. But it is in many ways the Social Democrats' fault.

I have two questions. Why are the Social Democrats always the last to react? And why do the Social Democrats not take responsibility for their own failures?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I begin by stating that Richard Jomshof has not listened particularly well to my speech, given the two questions he asks. I simply have to repeat part of what I said from the rostrum earlier.

Before I get to that, I want to say that I think it is remarkable. We are in a national crisis. We must surely agree that this is what it is when children murder and are murdered, and it continues to go in the wrong direction. This is seen precisely in the number of children involved in this horrific crime. Just in the last year—that is, not during the Social Democrats' time in power but during the time that Richard Jomshof's party has been the largest support for the government—the number of children involved in murder cases has increased by 200 percent.

I think it is remarkable that in such a situation, and when there is also a broad majority in Sweden's Riksdag in favor of tougher measures to push back the criminal gangs, to instead choose to focus on bickering about who has taken responsibility rather than trying to solve the problems and appeal to the consensus that nevertheless exists. It is remarkable.

But above all, it shines through that the Sweden Democrats are not a party like all others. They do not have experience of sitting in a government. We should probably be grateful for that, I should add. But in this situation, the government's largest party should probably be grateful that there is a stable majority for very much of the government's policy in the area.

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

Richard Jomshof (SD)

Madam Speaker! To solve the problems, it is also required that one knows why it has become as it has become, which I also pointed out in my speech. There is no party that has governed Sweden as long as the Social Democrats. It is also the Social Democrats' policy that permeates and underlies all the problems we see today. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the Social Democrats also took responsibility for their own failures. Letting the goat in as a gardener, I do not think, is a recipe for success; on the contrary.

It is good that there is a consensus, but in this situation, I think we should keep you Social Democrats away, considering that it is you who, after all, bear the responsibility for the way things look.

It is the Social Democrats' policy that has created many of the problems we see today. It is your fault. You got your multiculturalism. You got your mass immigration. You got your Islamization, segregation and division. This was exactly what you wanted. The alternative is that you have pursued a policy without having any control at all over what it would lead to. I actually do not know whether it is better or worse.

I assume that you have nonetheless been aware of what the political decisions you have made could lead to. We see the result today.

It is not easy to remedy the problems that you have created. It takes time. We are in a very serious situation.

I want to conclude with a question. Today we see how innocent people end up in the line of fire and how innocent women, children and family members are murdered even though they have nothing to do with the criminal gangs other than perhaps having a kinship. Some do not even have that. We see how these are murdered, and we see how it is being shot at schoolyards.

I recall that Morgan Johansson stated on more than one occasion that there is a small risk that innocent people will be affected. He stated this during his time as Minister for Justice, and it is not particularly tasteful.

Does Teresa Carvalho share the view that there is a small risk that innocent people will be affected? Is she willing to apologize to all innocent people for what the past policy has led to?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Some parts here are almost difficult to take seriously, but I will try to untangle some of these claims and questions.

Let me begin with what the last member raised. The question of the risk for innocent people to be affected when the bullets fly is naturally relevant. But I wonder if Richard Jomshof sees that a development has occurred in recent years. The risk of innocent people being affected is today significantly greater than just a few years ago. It was precisely this that I spoke about.

I am not saying that the crisis began exactly two years ago, but Richard Jomshof must also see that in several respects it continues in the wrong direction? I mentioned the number of children involved in murder cases. But it is also about the violence becoming increasingly more severe and that more and more innocent people are affected. Then one must be prepared to reconsider some positions, take responsibility and be prepared to do very much more.

Richard Jomshof and the Sverigedemokraterna are unfortunately far too locked into their Tidö Agreement and are unable to do what is needed to meet the acute demands that pop up here and now.

During the past year, we have seen shootings in shopping malls; it has become a new trend. We Social Democrats therefore submitted a proposal to change the law so that access to shopping malls can be prohibited for certain individuals, but then the Sweden Democrats voted no.

Richard Jomshof spoke about taking responsibility. I stood here at the rostrum just now and said that although we Social Democrats did a lot, I am the first to admit that we did not do enough and that we are prepared to do everything that is required and everything that is legally sound and accurate. I wish more parties had the same attitude.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by commenting on what Teresa Carvalho concluded with, that is, that she wants to extend the access ban to include shopping centers in order to stop shootings and gang criminals. How does Teresa Carvalho think that a law that cannot even manage to exclude shoplifters from grocery stores can manage to exclude gang criminals from shopping centers? We have a stay-away order in place and can do more, but the access ban is completely toothless legislation to use in this case.

I thought I would take the opportunity to talk about the budget. After all, that is what we are dealing with in the report.

At first glance, the differences between the budget alternatives may appear to be relatively small. There is a broad consensus behind the investments in the justice system. But when one looks up, one can observe that there is an abyss within the red-green government alternative regarding the view on fiscal policy.

Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet do not just want massive tax increases, but they also want to borrow 200 billion kronor for their favorite investments over the next three years. Given the agreement that exists between the Socialdemokraterna and the governing parties regarding the fiscal framework, I wonder how Teresa Carvalho views the possibility of reaching an agreement with her red-green comrades on priorities. What will be deprioritized if one cannot borrow 200 billion kronor? Is it the justice system or the aid that is to be deprioritized? Or what is it?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by making Mikael Damsgaard a little disappointed and remind him that unlike the Tidö cooperation, which is a cooperation where one, I assume, gets to give and take and compromise one's way forward, the Social Democrats have no cooperation in that way with any other party in the Swedish Riksdag. We are happy to cooperate with other parties, but we have no formalized government alternative in the middle of the mandate period.

I represent the Social Democrats and the Social Democrats' policies. If Mikael Damsgaard has questions about our budget alternative, he is very welcome to pose them to me. I understood that he has read our budget and noted that there were no major differences regarding the area of the justice system.

There are, however, some differences, which I want to highlight for both Mikael Damsgaard and everyone else listening to the debate. We want to see more money for the justice system than the Tidö government and proposed 145 million kronor more for various measures, including a task force. When explosions occur around our country, the state must be able to be on the spot quickly to help those affected.

We also want to allocate more money to the Center against Violence-Oriented Extremism to give them better conditions to counter the spread of extremism in our country and to be better prepared if the worst should happen. But it is very true that there are no huge differences in this area.

However, there are very large differences in our budget options if one looks up a little. We Social Democrats, for example, propose 1.5 billion for targeted interventions of young people entering gang crime. It is absolutely necessary to break the new recruitment. One must say that this is the government's blind spot. It is a pity that the Moderates have not stood behind this initiative. It would have been needed in the national crisis that prevails.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! If it is as Teresa Carvalho stated, that one wants to be a clear alternative, one must also gather a majority behind one's policy. Otherwise, one is no clear alternative.

We cannot have it as it was during the previous parliamentary term, when we had a paralyzed government that could not push through its policies and where the budgets were voted down. And even though many reforms were introduced within the area of crime policy, they were often toothless – too little and too late.

We know that the Social Democrats are prepared to compromise on most things to get to the seats of power. Magdalena Andersson could abolish the wealth tax and lower the tax for the richest to come to power. What are the Social Democrats prepared to compromise on this time? Is it the investments in the justice system, or is it something else? The Green Party's and the Left Party's money will not be enough.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! It is very true that we Social Democrats are eager to cooperate, not least in justice policy, because we are in a national crisis. I am fully convinced that the voters expect that of us, and by that I do not mean only us Social Democrats but us politicians.

Put down the battle axe and do what is required to solve the problems! At least, that is what I hear when I am out talking to people. Many point out that it would have been better if the Moderaterna and Socialdemokraterna could have been a bit more in agreement on the direction forward so that it holds over time, across changes of government and other things.

I agree with this. It would have been very good with a greater shared responsibility in the center of Swedish politics, which others can of course also join, with a stable direction forward. I believe Sweden would have benefited from that. I regret that the Moderaterna unfortunately have not been interested in this but instead lean entirely towards the Sverigedemokraterna, which is actually a quite extreme party.

I am quite sure that Mikael Damsgaard can also think that the Sweden Democrats are a rather troublesome sore point from time to time. There is still quite a lot that separates the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats. That is what I want to believe, at least.

If we are going to continue talking about changing one's mind, I want to say something. It is apparently popular to play the game of saying that the Social Democrats have changed their opinion on, for example, anonymous witnesses. Yes, I stand by that.

We are not the only ones who have changed our minds about things. The Prime Minister, who was previously in favor of free immigration, has changed his mind about that. The Justice Minister has also changed his mind about anonymous witnesses, which he was previously against. The Sweden Democrats were previously against profits in welfare, but now they are in favor of it. They have also changed their minds about the disclosure law.

I do not think it is strange that political parties change their minds about things. Social development demands it of us. But I am very clear about one thing, and that is that we will not change our position on the question of whether we need to be prepared to do everything that is legally sound and effective to reverse the development and stop the criminal gangs.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! When the Kristersson government took office just over two years ago, serious organized crime had been allowed to spread. The serious violence with shootings and explosions had reached levels that completely lack parallel in countries that we normally see ourselves compared with.

When Magdalena Andersson left the post of Prime Minister, inflation in Sweden was 10 percent. Inflation has eroded the purchasing power of Swedish households, but it has also hollowed out the finances of the municipalities. If you ask any municipal councilor or regional councilor in the country, they can tell you how inflation has increased the pension costs for municipalities and regions, how increased food prices have made school meals more expensive, and how indexed rental agreements erode the budgets of operations.

Now we turn the development around. Step by step, Madam Speaker, the Moderate-led government, in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats, will bring order to Sweden.

To push back crime, the government is now reforming the crime policy. The Tidö Agreement contains a large number of offensive and pattern-breaking measures. It is about hitting hard against gross violence, strangling the criminal economy, and breaking the recruitment of children and young people.

Preventive exclusion orders, safety zones, and preventive surveillance of gang criminals restrict the criminals' freedom but make ordinary honest residents in our country both safer and freer.

With harsher penalties, both gang criminals and serial rapists will be behind bars for longer. The contact prohibition legislation is tightened to increase the safety of crime victims. With more uniformed police in outer service, crime is prevented, but more crimes can also be investigated and solved.

We are introducing a new Social Services Act where preventive work is a core mandate. The parents' role and responsibility is central, and therefore parental support is strengthened. The state child and youth care is reformed. The correctional services take over the responsibility for young people convicted of serious crimes. Young people cared for with support of LVU due to links to serious crime shall be able to be marked with an ankle bracelet. School social teams, which already exist in many schools today, are further developed. The flow of information from social services and school to law enforcement shall increase.

With a new forfeiture legislation, we can seize the gangs' cars, cash, and luxury items. Business prohibitions shall be able to be issued for persons involved in serious organized crime so that companies cannot be used as tools for crime. A financial intelligence center is established, where the financial police, the banks, and several other actors cooperate to access the criminal economy.

In addition, massive investments are being made in the justice system in the state budget. From 2023 to 2027, the justice system's budget increases from 69 to 100 billion kronor. It is an increase of over 40 percent.

I return to the government's budget initiatives.

Madam Speaker! Tackling inflation has been crucial for strengthening both the municipalities' finances and the households' purchasing power. That the Riksbank's monetary policy and the government's fiscal policy have moved in step, and that the labor market parties have taken their responsibility, has led to inflation in Sweden falling faster than in many comparable countries. We can therefore now see how the households' purchasing power is increasing and that the municipalities' finances are recovering.

A friend of order may ask why I speak about inflation, the municipalities' pension costs and the households' purchasing power when we are to debate the Committee on Justice's report on expenditure area 4 The Judiciary. The reason for this, Madam Speaker, is that everything is connected.

A prerequisite for the historical investments that the government is making in the justice system is that there is a government base that is in sync and that there is a majority here in the chamber for common priorities. For the third year in a row, the government is receiving a majority for its budget in the Riksdag. That was not the case during the previous mandate period.

If we look at the opposition parties' budget proposals for the expenditure area, we can see that they are, in essence, relatively close to the government's budget. Some parties want to allocate a little more to certain appropriations. It may appear that one wants to prioritize something specific, but if one scratches the surface a bit, another picture emerges.

Recently, the government parties, Sverigedemokraterna, Socialdemokraterna, and Centerpartiet, agreed on the fiscal framework – that public finances shall be in balance over a business cycle. Two parties in the red-green government base, however, have a completely different opinion. They want instead a deficit target of 1 ½ percent and let future generations pay for today's expenditures.

This also finds resonance in their proposal for the 2025 budget and the preliminary budget frameworks for 2026 and 2027. Despite the fact that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet want to implement massive tax increases, they will still need to borrow up to 200 billion kronor over the next three years to fund their favorite investments.

The inevitable question that must therefore be asked is: What is it that will have to be sacrificed when the red-green government alternative is to present a joint budget?

Is it the cross-bloc agreement on the fiscal framework - which I hope and believe is not the case? Or is it the Left Party's and Green Party's party on borrowed money?

If it is the Social Democrats who emerge victorious in the battle over the fiscal framework, then the red-green government negotiations will become interesting when the money simply does not suffice.

How much will taxes be raised? Or will the unemployment insurance fund be lowered instead, as the Centerpartiet wants? Will the defense have to take the hit when aid is to be increased? What happens to the investments in the justice system when Miljöpartiet wants to build high-speed rail?

It stands in contrast to Sweden's current government, which not only has the will but also the competence and the decisiveness required to turn words into action.

Sweden is, as is well known, facing serious challenges regarding safety and security. System-threatening crime, the threat of terrorism, and the influence of foreign powers require powerful measures. But we must also not forget the serious societal problem linked to men's violence against women, which must be combated with the exact same force as gang crime. We also have widespread petty crime, ranging from theft to fraud, which must also be taken seriously. These are crimes that must be prosecuted.

All this is the background to why the Moderate-led government is strengthening the justice system with extensive investments in the budget bill for 2025.

The initiative for police growth needs to continue. With the budget bill for 2025, the Police Authority's appropriation is estimated to increase from 37 to 51.9 billion, an increase of over 40 percent over the years 2023-2027. This enables more police officers on our streets and squares, significantly expanded camera surveillance, and better conditions for police aspirants.

The development of crime, more resources and new tools for the police and prosecutors, and harsher sentences mean that the pressure on the prison and probation service is high. The prison and probation service is therefore now undergoing the largest expansion in modern times. With an increase of a full 84 percent, from 14.1 to 26 billion kronor during the budget period, we are creating the economic conditions so that there are places to lock up the criminals.

A well-functioning rule of law requires that the entire chain functions. Therefore, we are strengthening Sveriges Domstolar with 1.7 billion SEK during the period to handle the increased flow of cases and increase security in our courts. The Prosecution Authority is allocated 700 million SEK during the same period to ensure that more crimes can be prosecuted.

In an increasingly uneasy world, we are also strengthening the Security Service's budget, which is necessary to meet the growing threats from foreign powers and to combat terrorism.

Crime victims shall receive redress and support. Therefore, the Moderate-led government is also increasing the appropriations to the Crime Victim Authority. This enables faster processing of cases regarding crime victim compensation and improved support for those who have been affected by crime.

The Moderate-led government is serious in its work to restore safety in Sweden. It is about concrete measures that will make a real difference in people's everyday lives, from more visible police in local communities to safer courts and more prison places.

We will not rest until every citizen can feel safe. With the budget bill's extensive reinforcements of the justice system, we are now taking important steps on the way towards a safer and freer Sweden.

With that, 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)

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! That Mikael Damsgaard and the Moderaterna do not have a grasp of the Miljöpartiets view on the fiscal framework does not, unfortunately, come as a surprise. It is true that we want a different model than the one we have.

We want Sweden to have an investment budget and that we finance things that we benefit from and that have value for a long time ahead, alongside the operating budget. Our view on the fiscal framework means that what constitutes the state's operations should break even over a business cycle. That we, unlike the government, want trains that can be relied upon is also completely correct. Mikael Damsgaard is the one responsible for how his favorite project, for example nuclear power, is to be financed. Is Mikael Damsgaard going to cut 300 billion from the justice system, environmental protection, infrastructure, and in all areas to finance nuclear power, or how has he planned it? Miljöpartiet has an answer. The government and the Moderaterna do not.

Madam Speaker! In a previous exchange of remarks, Mikael Damsgaard tried to make it seem as though it would be difficult for the Social Democrats and the Green Party to agree on what investments in the justice system should look like. I can state that the Green Party wants to see 1.6 billion more for the justice system than what Mikael Damsgaard obviously thinks is sufficient.

Mikael Damsgaard claims that we want to see large tax increases. The truth is that we say no to the tax cuts that the government is making for high-income earners of 3,000-4,000 kronor net per month for those who have 150,000 kronor in monthly salary.

Madam Speaker! Why does Mikael Damsgaard think that tax cuts for high-income earners are a higher priority than investing in the justice system and against gang crime?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! My point is that when Miljöpartiet wants to borrow 200 billion kronor for its favorite expenses, which they call investments, a problem arises if they are to govern with a party that views it a bit differently and thinks that we should have balance in the public finances. Plus and minus must add up. Investments in infrastructure must also fit within that.

It will require very large reprioritizations. Either all future investments will have to be scrapped, or reprioritizations need to be made in what Rasmus Ling describes as the state's operating budget. It is those reprioritizations that I am interested in.

If the Green Party cannot borrow 200 billion kronor during the budget period for its favorite investments, what reprioritizations does one want to make in the second part of the budget? Is it the appropriation for defense or the justice system, or what is it that is going to take the hit? That is the question I want an answer to.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am being questioned when I gave a clear answer, but I do not receive answers to my questions. We say no to Mikael Damsgaard's tax cuts for high-income earners. I believe it was clear earlier, and I underline it once more. If one has a monthly salary of 150,000 kronor, one does not need an extra 3,000-4,000 kronor every month.

My question is once again: Why do the Moderates think the tax cut is more important than investing in the justice system? Is one satisfied with the situation we have? Does one think that the police have too much money, that the Prison and Probation Service has too much money, and that the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Courts have too much money? Does too much money go to the preventive work?

I do not think so. Mikael Damsgaard obviously does. He obviously thinks it is more important that people who have very high incomes get even more than that we invest in the most basic in society, namely security for all of us who live here.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! It has been quite a long time now. But once upon a time, a cross-bloc agreement was made regarding taxes. It was a few years ago. There, a principle of "half remaining" was established. One should be able to keep at least half of a wage increase, and the highest marginal tax should be 50 percent. It was a cross-bloc agreement, and I think it was wise.

It hasn't been like that for a long time. We have had both a defense tax and a tapering of the job tax credit which has led to higher marginal taxes. In certain income brackets, the taxes have been well over 50 percent on a salary increase, meaning that one has had to pay more than half of a salary increase in tax.

We do not think it is reasonable. There is some kind of morality in that if you get an income increase, you should still be able to keep at least half of it.

If we come back to the budget and the priorities, it is the Environment Party's initiatives on the justice system. Monopoly money. If one borrows 200 billion kronor to make their favorite investments and what they think is most important, and then will not be able to do so when they actually come to power, what is it then that will be prioritized away? We know nothing about that.

I do not believe that the promise to give more money to the police or the justice system is worth the ink it is written with. It is Monopoly money that Miljöpartiet is using.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! During the past year, several ruthless and risky shootings have occurred among ordinary people in shopping centers around our country. The insecurity is increasing, and both employees and visitors feel a tangible fear.

Not least ahead of the Christmas holidays, it becomes palpable that security needs to be increased. The owners of the country's shopping centers need to check and reinforce security. It could involve expanded camera surveillance, alarm loops, more guards and, most preferably, more present police officers.

We Social Democrats have proposed two things in this regard: firstly, that the police and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency shall be given a specific mandate to support the shopping centers in their risk assessments, and secondly, that the law shall be quickly amended to be able to ban criminals from our shopping centers. More concretely, we therefore propose that the law on access bans to shops, swimming pools, and libraries be adjusted so that the ban can also apply to access to shopping centers.

The Moderates and the other parties in the government base voted no to this in the Committee on Justice today. Had the government parties said yes to initiating a process regarding this proposal, we could have fairly soon obtained increased security in our corridors.

I think it is completely incomprehensible. How do the Moderaterna justify saying no to concrete and urgent proposals that could actually prevent innocent people from falling victim to more shootings in shopping centers in our country?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats surprised me in connection with this committee initiative. We must remember that the Social Democrats stood alone behind this. I believe that the other parties realized that this might not be the way forward.

People want fast legislation. They wanted to legislate directly in the committee, from start to finish. They said that this is just a simple change in the law and that we would only have to change one word and strike a sentence - quickly done in the committee. We might even be able to vote before Christmas!

But that is not how it works. We have requirements for preparation in the Swedish constitution when we enact laws. We need to investigate and refer. We may think it goes slowly, but that is actually the case. The Social Democrats therefore surprise me.

When it comes to the issue at hand, one can ask how sharp the proposal really was. It was concrete, but was it effective? We know that the reform with the ban on entry to stores is a prime example of ineffective Social Democratic justice policy. They pushed through legislation that has proven to be completely toothless and difficult to apply, and which shop owners have torn their hair out over. They had great hopes, but the law has not functioned particularly well in reality.

How is that legislation supposed to work to stop gang criminals in shopping centers? It defies my understanding.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Moderates had the chance to say yes to a proposal to expand the basis for the access ban that applies to individual stores to also apply to shopping centers, in order to increase security in our shopping centers where several shootings have taken place during the year. That chance was not taken.

Now we hear from the Moderates that it was, among other things, about that it is not possible and that it cannot go that fast. It is fascinating that when the Social Democrats put forward proposals, it cannot go too fast, but when the Moderates put forward proposals, it should go very fast. We do not need to get stuck there; I am just stating it.

I also note that Mikael Damsgaard knows very well that we were completely open to discussing alternative courses of action, as I argued for in the committee today. We could have been satisfied with the committee agreeing to issue a notification to the government so that the government could take care of the details and the legislative process.

But the Moderates did not want that. The Moderates argued against the proposal and voted against it.

We also hear how Mikael Damsgaard argues that what exists today is toothless. It is very possible that individual stores have not, in particularly many cases, applied to be able to ban youths who shoplift. I meet significantly more who think it would have been important for gallery owners to be able to ban gang criminals who not only shoot in the galleries but hang around there and spread insecurity, sell drugs and other things. But it is not the Moderaterna and the government prepared to even test this at all.

We Social Democrats are ready to test new tools. I regret that the Moderates do not have the strength to lift their eyes from the Tidö Agreement and do everything that is required.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I had the privilege of debating this issue when we addressed it in the chamber. At that time, we had proposals to expand the basis for entry bans to include, for example, disturbances of public order. Such instances are not covered by the law for shops. Shops cannot apply for entry bans for young people who disturb the order in the shop. It is required that they have committed a crime in the shop and that there is a risk of repeated crime in order for an entry ban to be granted by a prosecutor.

There are many shops that apply for entry bans, but they are rejected to a very high extent. That legislation has therefore not functioned as many had hoped. That it would work to keep gang criminals out of shopping centers - yes, Teresa Carvalho can repeat that as many times as she likes, but it is not an effective tool.

On the other hand, we have something else that has proven to be effective when it comes to neighborhood centers and so on, namely the preventive stay bans which mean that the police can decide to forbid certain persons from staying in certain places. It can absolutely be an effective measure, and I absolutely think that the police should use that tool when they find it appropriate.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member, and I appreciate that in a budget debate we raise the government's economic policy.

I want to mention that in the third year of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas mandate period, Sweden has one of the EU's lowest levels of economic growth, but on the other hand, one of the highest levels of unemployment. It is good that we talk about inflation. It has been and is important. And it is also important to talk about priorities, as the member does, but we are talking about a cake that hardly grows.

We need to talk about growth and about more people in jobs. Therefore, I wonder how the Moderate member considers that increased costs to employ young people, to get more young people into jobs, would benefit the fight against youth crime or, for that matter, benefit the country's growth.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question, and it is nice to be able to talk about the budget.

I completely agree with the member regarding the importance of economic growth. For a long time, we have had weak economic growth and low productivity development in the Swedish economy, which has meant that the cake has grown too little. More must be done here, and the government is doing a lot in that area.

But it has been some tough years with high inflation where we have had to conduct a restrained policy in order to be able to push down inflation, so that we do not end up in the same situation that France finds itself in now with a government crisis and where extensive savings programs must be presented. We have conducted a responsible and restrained policy to push down inflation. Now we have won that battle against inflation, and now the government is presenting an offensive budget with significant investments and tax cuts. It will increase households' purchasing power and stimulate the economy. In addition, opportunities are created for the Riksbank to lower interest rates, which further strengthens households' purchasing power.

Regarding the forecasts ahead, we can see that the growth is significantly better, and Sweden looks set to get better growth than most other EU countries. But it remains to be seen. We can see that the development turns around moving forward.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! It is good that we see that perhaps things are happening, but we need to act right now. We have given the Center Party's budget motion for 2025 the title Jobs Jobs Jobs. We are aware that they are not the solution for everything, but they are, I swear, an important start to get money to do important things.

Inflation will hopefully be defeated, but it is pointed out that the municipalities' finances are affected by the cost increases. There, the state could have taken greater responsibility for the cost crisis in the municipalities because they have completely different budget tools than the municipal economic regulatory framework allows. Centerpartiet proposes 5 billion in sector grants to the school, reduced employer contributions for starting salaries, the first ten employees becoming tax-free, and a high-cost protection for sick pay costs in small businesses. It is in small and medium-sized companies that growth occurs, and it is there that the cake is located that we want to distribute. We agree on much of what is needed, including in the area of the justice system.

I appreciate the economic-political debate, and I welcome more of such debates with the moderate-led government to regain a work line, create jobs and growth, and thereby an increased security.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe there are good conditions to reach an agreement on economic policy with the Center Party. Then, in individual priorities, different assessments can be made, but I would say that there are good opportunities.

We agree on the importance of economic growth so that the total cake grows. In this way, we can strengthen the purchasing power of households and reinforce the resources for everything we want to do in the public sector at the state level, in regions, and in municipalities.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I begin by saying that I am glad that I have my home in the north. I have lived in Umeå since 1970. At that time, the city had about 60,000 inhabitants. By the last turn of the year, the figure had grown to more than 133,000.

The city has had a motto that Umeå shall grow safely and securely. This has been achieved under a red-green regime during these years, and it has, among other things, involved a very conscious urban planning where different types of housing are mixed; rental apartments, condominiums, villas and terraced houses. It automatically results in good integration.

Umeå has a mixed population with many different colors. There have also been many feminist initiatives, and the city has even been named the world's most feminist city in the foreign press, including in France and England, among others.

With this said, I have a somewhat different perspective. I am naturally outraged, just like everyone else, by the serious crime, but I see differently, both because of my background and my party-political stance, on how we should tackle it. We talk a lot here about criminal law reforms, but I believe we must look much more broadly at the problems and reflect on what cornerstones we want in a society, beyond wanting to get rid of the crime.

Sweden has also been a pioneer in many areas; in criminal policy when it comes to equality and gender equality. We have significantly reduced class inequalities for many years, but now it is rolling back and the gaps are increasing. They become triggers for a will to commit crimes.

We have also implemented groundbreaking reforms concerning the protection of women and children against abuse. They are extremely important, and they have contributed to our desire to cut off the violence so that it does not spread from generation to generation. We must not let young boys learn violence as a means of power, which still happens today. We must see that these problem areas are truly interconnected, and I am glad that there are more than just me who have highlighted this from the rostrum today.

We have long built upon fundamental principles in our form of government and the rule of law guaranteed therein and in international conventions on human rights. There, I see that we risk compromising the rules.

The SD-government divides and marks differences between us and them. One governs from above and looks down. The class divides are increasing and women's subordination is sharpened. The rhetoric is also characterized by contempt towards immigrants, not least Muslims. In mistrust, more control, surveillance, and constantly harsher punishments are demanded. I will return to that.

I mean that it is actually too late if we only focus on the punishments. We must reduce serious crime. The most important thing then, many researchers argue now, is that we focus on preventing the recruitment of children and young people.

The crime prevention work must begin with a well-developed welfare, not least in politically neglected areas. If school, leisure activities and society in general function well together with a vibrant civil society, the opportunities to recruit are reduced. It requires increased resources, which I unfortunately do not see the majority are prepared to invest in today. They would rather save.

There is evidence that harsher punishments do not work. One is locked up for a period, but what happens then? And what happens when we have a situation in the prisons in Sweden today where there is overcrowding? One does not have the space to always invest as one should in treatment interventions and activities, and the overcrowding will increase even more.

Other measures that have been introduced and have been raised here are visitation zones. I am critical of them, as several evaluations show that they are primarily targeted at those who have a different skin color and ethnicity.

Vänsterpartiet wants to invest in safety zones in politically neglected areas instead. What do we mean by safety zones? Yes, actually what we have seen Denmark do. They invested very broadly in school, social services and police together with other authorities and civil organizations to build new alliances and build trust and confidence together, truly together, with and for the people in the area. We want to allocate additional resources for such initiatives.

I have also received presentations from those who work in what is called Rätt Kurva, a project form taken from Germany. In Sweden, this has been implemented in a number of locations. It is currently ongoing and will be evaluated by the University of Gothenburg. It is being carried out with the support of the business sector and the non-profit organization Beredskapslyftet. It targets children between 8 and 15 years old who have already entered the risk zone such that the police have noticed them, and the aim is to break the recruitment into criminal gangs.

What is done is that one does not focus solely on the child, but one also looks at the family. What are the basic prerequisites? Is it a parent who works many miles away and does not have time to be a parent beyond securing the livelihood? Can one help with a job that is located closer? Can one help with an internship, summer job, or a few extra hours, even during school time, for some children so that they can earn white money and can be proud of it? We believe that this would need to be expanded, and it could be a good example in many other areas.

We want to invest further when it comes to violence against women and children. We call it a femicide package. Femicide is the term for the murder of women.

One would absolutely want that not a single woman should be killed in Sweden, but unfortunately, it happens. We see in evaluation after evaluation that in the interventions made when women have sought help or when neighbors have raised the alarm, one has sometimes failed completely to conduct risk assessments. There is not sufficient competence regarding this violence in the different stages of the legal chain, from those who receive reports to the police and prosecutors and eventually in the court. That work absolutely needs to be re-evaluated.

We want to invest further against environmental crimes. The privatization that Sweden has made itself guilty of, I would like to assert, where our tax funds are used in an incorrect way within the welfare system, also makes it attractive to act in for the criminal gangs.

I would also like to mention a sector that is not mentioned as often when we talk about the justice system. It concerns the many civil processes, or administrative processes, where an individual would need legal aid. The threshold for receiving legal aid compensation has not been raised since the end of the 1990s. We find that to be outrageous. There is much within family law and administrative law that has a decisive significance in many people's lives, and we should invest much more. I hope that we can return to this more often and that there will be real reforms in that area.

I would like that more of us would take notice of what will happen in June here in Stockholm. That is when they award what is sometimes called the Nobel Prize in criminology, the Stockholm Prize in criminology. Two people will share the prize money this year.

The one who is to receive at least half a million for her contributions, Frances Crook, has worked for a long time as the executive director of a well-known institute in England. She warns against focusing unilaterally on prison sentences and argues that we must break that trend, that it is an illusion that harsher punishments provide safety and a safer society. Research proves the opposite, she claims and has references for it.

The rhetoric that praises imprisonment as an effective solution creates a spiral where we constantly want longer and longer sentences. I believe that we need prisons, but we do not always need longer and longer sentences. We need to find other types of reforms. We need to start reacting to crime in a clearer way but not react through crime and sometimes create unnecessarily great fear. We shall do it based on concrete knowledge, research results, and with seriousness based on proven experience.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the liberty of looking back a little before we move on to how things look today and why we find ourselves where we do right now, partly based on my own experiences as head of intelligence operations in southern Sweden for a number of years.

Already in the 90s, 30 years ago, there were signs that organized crime and gang criminality began to take hold in our country. The motorcycle gangs Hells Angels and Bandidos were perhaps the clearest sign, but it was also noted that there were a number of criminal groups with roots in and connections to primarily the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa.

Unfortunately, we must conclude that we allowed these criminal groups to grow ever stronger despite early warnings from the police and other law enforcement agencies. A failed migration and integration policy in combination with a crime policy that had a forgiving and smoothing view of criminals rather than a focus on protecting crime victims laid the foundation for a growth. The consequences were also ridiculously low, with the aim of avoiding prison sentences as much as possible, something that certainly contributed to Sweden being attractive.

Clear and well-substantiated reports were brushed aside, and the messengers were accused of xenophobia and racism, which in turn contributed to a culture of silence. It was perceived as better to remain silent than to be ostracized or frozen out by managers, the media, or politicians.

It was actually only when the then head of the police's national operational department, Mats Löfving, spoke out and stated that there are at least 40 criminal clans in Sweden that have established themselves here solely for the purpose of committing crimes that more people realized the extent and the serious situation.

What we are now witnessing in the form of violent crimes, cross-border crime, attacks on our welfare systems, infiltration and undue influence in business and public administration is the result of an inability and/or unwillingness from previous governments to tackle the actors.

We have today heard from this rostrum that the Social Democrats have performed a complete about-face regarding the view on this. But I can also state that the Social Democrats have hardly been those who have stood on the front line when it comes to combating it.

It is rather the case that the Social Democrats year after year have said no to important decisions that would prevent and deter crime. They said no to a census, so we do not know who lives in the country. It is difficult to deport serious criminals if one has allowed them to stay. We have not been able to prosecute gang leaders who recruit children because this has not been criminal. A culture of silence has prevailed in our courts because they said no to anonymous witnesses. Social services, police, and schools have not been able to speak with each other, because there has been a wall of confidentiality regulations that has prevented this. All of this is being changed now by us Christian Democrats and the other Tidö parties.

Madam Speaker! We finally have a government that is doing something about the matter. We are reforming the justice policy and making major investments in the justice system. New legislation gives the police new and better tools to prevent, deter, and solve crimes. We are putting the crime victim in focus.

The consequences are being tightened for several crime categories. If you are a gang criminal, there will be a sentence increase. We are reviewing and modernizing criminal law with new provisions regarding branding, preparation, and attempted serious crimes. Recently, we received new forfeiture legislation that increases the possibility of forfeiting assets acquired through criminal profits.

We have also strengthened the border-adjacent police operations, which has given the police expanded powers in the border areas.

As mentioned here, the police can now also issue stay-away orders for gangs that create insecurity in squares and shopping centers - listen and be amazed!

These were just a few examples of measures that make life harder for criminals.

Madam Speaker! The measures are now beginning to yield results. The clearance of serious crimes has increased significantly, from a low 20 percent to over 70 percent. Furthermore, the police have prevented a large number of serious crimes. The number of criminal cases regarding stamping and preparation for serious crimes has increased noticeably in the courts.

In the budget for 2025, an increased investment in the Swedish Police Authority is proposed. Increased local police presence and visibility, together with an increased focus on investigating so-called everyday crimes, such as theft, fraud, assault, and property damage, are part of the priorities for 2025. The efforts against serious violence in the form of shootings and explosions continue unabated.

I sit on the Police Authority's oversight council, where we had a meeting the other day and could confirm that the latest safety survey showed good results indicating increased safety. Even though we are still in a serious situation, people who answer the survey apparently notice that things are happening from the government's and the law enforcement agencies' side.

Investigation and preventive measures against serious crimes in close relationships are sharpened with new methodology and an increased use of the restraining order.

Funds are also estimated for increased camera surveillance and the establishment of a financial intelligence center.

The appropriations to the Police Authority will increase to 45 billion, an increase of approximately 4 billion from 2024. We naturally think that these are good investments. The Prosecution Authority and the courts also receive increased appropriations to handle the expected increase in criminal cases.

Madam Speaker! Increased detection and longer sentences for serious crimes lead to increased occupancy at the Prison and Probation Service's facilities. The Prison and Probation Service is already making major efforts today to manage the reception and treatment of those who are to serve their sentences. Capacity has increased by having inmates share cells, but a capacity reinforcement is required to maintain quality, efficiency, and safety. This applies to both ordinary facilities as well as women's and youth prisons - youth prisons do not exist today but will exist in 2026.

Planning for the construction of prisons and detention centers is underway. The Prison and Probation Service needs both an increased number of places and more staff. During 2024, the Prison and Probation Service received 17.8 billion, and now the appropriations are being increased to 20.4 billion.

In addition to what has been mentioned, the government is making extensive efforts regarding crime prevention work, in broad cooperation with other actors. If we are to tackle crime in general and organized crime in particular and prevent recruitment, efforts are required from all sectors of society. A large part of the funds now allocated goes to crime prevention.

We Christian Democrats understand the importance of parents, and the government is acting actively to strengthen the role of families and strengthen the children's perspective in crime fighting. We provide strengthened legal support for social services, parents, and schools. We tear down the secrecy that has prevented them from cooperating. There will also be a new Social Services Act with a larger toolbox. Social services can work with early interventions, and there is a greater focus on crime prevention work.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! The justice system, together with the defense, is the ultimate guarantor of our open, liberal democracy, with the task of protecting people's civil rights and freedoms both against crimes committed by individuals and also against the arbitrariness or abuse of power of public authority. To uphold the rule of law and security for all individuals, regardless of gender and for old and young, throughout the country is one of the state's core tasks.

The catastrophic developments of recent years, with shootings, bombings, and increased insecurity combined with a deteriorated international security situation, place very high demands on the justice system. Many have also highlighted organized crime, which has come to be a threat not only to individuals but also to our general welfare. Enormous violent crimes and trafficking in drugs, weapons, and humans, together with thefts and fraud, challenge the society we cherish - a society built on trust and security. I see an equally unacceptable situation when it comes to honor-related violence and oppression, men's violence against women, and violence against children.

We must also not downplay the damage and suffering that the so-called mass crimes cause for both individuals and small businesses. Simply put, an increased focus is needed on everyone who is subjected to crime.

To solve this task, the entire society must join forces. Expanded powers and crime prevention work are needed in several areas. The Center Party, for example, adds 5 billion more than the government to the school, as a sector grant.

But before I go into that expenditure area that we have to handle, I want to say: In a world of increased polarization and much focus on differences - and not on similarities all the time - I want to say that Centerpartiet during the mandate period has voted yes to the bills from the government concerning crime and crime fighting.

We have been in favor of preventive measures. We have been in favor of stay-away orders. We have been in favor of the forfeiture legislation that is now being enacted. However, we have not been in favor of anonymous witnesses and search zones. Some others say that they are fair and accurate means. But our assessment is that these are not. That is why we are not in favor of them.

Madam Speaker! We can now move on to the budget. We are positive about the government's major reinforcement of the justice system, but we believe that the resource increases so far have not yielded the results they should have. Therefore, the Center Party proposes that funds be redistributed within the Swedish Police Authority, so that the core mission—including the handling of violence against women and children as well as organized crime and ensuring a visible police presence throughout the country—can be carried out. Here, we allocate 500 million kronor.

We also propose a doubling of the appropriations for the police's informant work, which entails an addition of 75 million kronor. The informant work is an important and all too lowly prioritized part of the work against the gangs, where there is a particular lack of a national effort regarding children and young people.

There is rightly talk about more police on the streets and squares, but we must at the same time be reminded that the home is the most common crime scene for violence against relatives and that more and more crimes are committed online, often on the computer or mobile phone. So-called cybercrime is becoming increasingly common and affects more authorities. Centerpartiet therefore proposes that Säkerhetspolisen, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten and Brottsförebyggande rådet should be allocated 5 million kronor each to develop the work against specifically cybercrime.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party sees a great need for more coherent support for women who are victims of violence. I want to take this opportunity to say that we view very positively the work that is now being carried out within the police's national operation Beta, where the focus is on presumptive perpetrators as well as on more unified support for the victims. Every year, far too many women lose their lives because of this violence.

Much depends on the difficulties of finding housing and escaping economic dependence. This causes problems for many women who want to leave a destructive and violent relationship. The Center Party therefore wants to add 100 million kronor to the appropriation concerning grants for crime prevention work. A departure fee is included in that.

Centerpartiet views the reinforcement of Sweden's courts that the government is now finally proposing very positively. We also propose an investment to halve the permit processes in important environmental and energy issues. Therefore, Sweden's courts will receive an addition of 5 million kronor for that—our administrative courts need it.

Much of what concerns the Swedish development of energy, construction, and infrastructure is waiting too long in courts. It is everything from individual building permits to large investment projects.

In conclusion, I shall mention something that we have touched upon before. Now we are dealing with the state budget, and it is therefore not possible to leave this rostrum without saying: Three years into the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas mandate period, we have one of the EU's lowest economic growths but one of the highest levels of unemployment. I have had to mention this in the exchange of remarks, but now I did it again.

Focusing on inflation and how we should prioritize is important, but economic growth with social and environmental sustainability is what Sweden is most in need of right now. That requires a greater focus on an efficient public sector and an even greater focus on getting Sweden to work. Therefore, the Center Party's budget is called: The jobs, the jobs, the jobs.

This benefits us all, including the judiciary and the crime prevention and crime-fighting work.

Many of the posts here relate to previous terms or upcoming terms, but we can be here and now. With power comes a great responsibility. With the economic policy and the budgets that we are now discussing, a heavy responsibility rests on the government when it comes to making the common cake, which is so much needed for, among other things, the crime prevention and crime-fighting work, larger.

The justice system

I have no motion of my own but refer to our special statement in the report.

(cont. § 9)

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