The justice system

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! This government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is making the largest investment ever in crime fighting in Sweden. It has been called a paradigm shift, but what does it consist of? Well, the core is this: that from and including the autumn of 2022, the Swedish justice system has focused primarily on supporting, helping, and protecting the law-abiding citizens in our country, ordinary people and crime victims.

Before the Tidö Agreement, during the Social Democrats' time when the old school still prevailed, the Swedish justice system had an unhealthy fixation on the criminals and their well-being. Their well-being was prioritized, and the crime victims were forgotten. It was a dark time. It was an unjust time. It was a time when the state had forgotten its mission. It is a time that we shall never return to again.

The paradigm shift means that we are leaving these dark years behind us. The Swedish justice system is undergoing a total renovation. But it is not finished yet. The levels of violence in our society are still far too high. But our work during these three years has yielded good results.

The shootings in gang environments are half as many today as they were when the Social Democrats were in power. The deadly violence is at its lowest in ten years. The number of thefts has decreased by 30,000 since last year. The number of police officers per capita is the highest since 1980. And, Madam Speaker, the public's trust in the justice system continues to increase and is now, in 2025, the highest ever measured. And it is hardly strange that, for the first time, there are politicians who give the justice system the opportunity to focus on what people expect it to do.

We have removed insane regulations that have prevented the police from stopping serious crime. Before the Tidö Agreement, during the Social Democrats' time, the police had one arm tied behind their back when they tried to stop organized crime—organized crime that itself did not respect any means whatsoever. The police did a fantastic job, but they were constantly at a disadvantage. The Tidö Agreement means that we untie this arm. That is why we see results.

We have criminalized the export of stolen goods. We have given the police the opportunity to deport and refuse entry to foreign criminal gangs. This prevents tens of thousands of thefts and burglaries every year. We have given the police the opportunity to wiretap criminals at a much earlier stage, which leads to numerous arrests already in the planning stage. It prevents murders, it prevents shootings, and it saves human lives.

Everything we do in the field of justice results in us having more criminals locked up than we have ever had before in Sweden. That requires that we expand the correctional services significantly. More prison places are needed, and it costs a lot of money. We allocate those funds in this year's budget and in upcoming budgets, because when one locks up gang criminals, crime decreases here and now on the streets all over Sweden. But it also has a very important side effect: It makes it harder to recruit young people into gang criminality.

The Crime Prevention Council notes that a prerequisite for children to be involved in criminal gangs is that there are older active gang criminals in their residential areas. By locking up the older active ones, we also achieve a clear crime-preventing effect.

Another thing that complicates recruitment and reduces the incentives to become a criminal is the new forfeiture law, which means that the police can now seize gang criminals' luxury items directly on the spot, in connection with interventions but also during routine checks such as vehicle checks and others. It concerns watches, jackets, jewelry, cars, and other items that so far this year have been seized to a value of 75 million kronor. This strikes directly at the very incentives to become a criminal: status and money. That is why this is so incredibly effective. It is things like this that must be done if one seriously wants to crush gang criminality.

Madam Speaker! There are also such criminals who are far too dangerous to be released, such as those who kill, rape, and harm others as soon as they get the chance when they are set free. Therefore, we also introduce the security detention sentence, which means that the person whom the court considers too dangerous to be released simply remains in prison.

The new justice system that we are building is tough on the tough, but it is not because one feels hatred toward what stands before them, but because one loves what one protects. By preventing crime and locking up criminals, ordinary people can avoid having their lives shattered by robbery, assault, and sexual abuse. The safety in society, which for so long became worse and worse, now gets a chance to begin increasing again.

The justice system exists for ordinary people who live ordinary lives. Much of the violence that occurs in our society does not occur in gang environments but in close relationships, not least against women and children.

We have done more for the safety of these groups than any previous government has done. We are significantly toughening the penalties, and we have changed the law so that more and more extensive restraining orders will be issued because all people have a right to safety and because the new justice system stands on the side of the crime victims, not on the side of the criminals.

Madam Speaker! How a society handles sexual abuse against children says something about that society's morality. It is something that is difficult to touch, something that is painful and something that for a long time was swept under the rug. The justice system received neither methods nor resources to handle it.

The new justice system that we are building will achieve all of that. We are introducing something that means more and more pedophiles will be discovered, arrested, and imprisoned for a long time. We give the police the possibility of crime provocation, because we can never accept that those who are strong abuse their strength to exploit those who are weak. Children have a right to safety to at least the same extent as all other people.

The new justice system prioritizes the rights of children and women over wife-beaters, rapists, and pedophiles. The time when criminals were allowed to hold the entire society hostage is over. House by house, street by street, and neighborhood by neighborhood, we are taking back Sweden. The new justice system shall stop crimes before they are committed. It shall prosecute and imprison those who commit crimes and deport those who are not citizens. It shall take care of the crime victims, give them redress, and show that society always stands on the side of the law-abiding. That is where Sweden is headed. We are not there yet, but with this budget, we take a big step in the right direction.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties' most important promise to the Swedish people was to get the gang crime under control. Now that the mandate period is nearing its end, we can state that not even the Tidö government has succeeded in this. The bombings and the new recruitment are spiraling out of control, and the underlying organized crime is eating further and further into the body of society.

One thing that we Social Democrats truly lack in the fight against gang crime is a Swedish mafia law. For two years, we Social Democrats have pushed for Sweden to introduce a mafia law. It is about a unifying legislation with a collective criminal liability for all those who maintain the criminal activity. This, therefore, does not only concern participation in a gang but the actual criminality.

Such legislation also contains stronger incentives for the perpetrators to name the gang leaders and a possibility to prosecute legal entities and to confiscate the mafia's companies, where they hide a large part of their criminality. It also means tools for prosecutors to decide on restrictive measures such as restraining orders between gang criminals and prohibitions on traveling and transferring money. It would also mean special mafia units at the police, prosecutors, and the Economic Crime Authority.

I actually find it difficult to understand the Tidö parties' reluctance to take this step. We know that the Sverigedemokraterna are actually in favor of introducing a Swedish mafia law. It is well known – but why is it not happening then, considering that the Sverigedemokraterna have influence over Swedish crime policy? Is it the Justice Minister who is holding back, or what is it about?

I would like to get some clarity on this from Henrik Vinge. Do the Sweden Democrats still stand by that they want to introduce a Swedish mafia law, and if so, why is it not happening? Or have the Sweden Democrats simply changed their minds? This would be relevant consumer information for the voters.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin, one should perhaps remind of something that is quite relevant in this context. During the Social Democrats' time in power, the preceding eight years, we perhaps had the darkest period for Swedish crime development ever. The shootings tripled, and gang violence exploded. We have probably never seen such a chaotic time marked by so much crime as during those eight years. It was probably also why the Social Democrats lost power – because the Swedish people grew tired of the "saft-och-bulle" policy that the Social Democrats stand for.

The Tidö parties took over, and we introduced the Tidö Agreement. What has happened now is that we have seen perhaps the three best years regarding Swedish crime development. Shootings have thus been halved compared to how it looked when the Social Democrats were in power. Deadly violence is at its lowest in ten years. Confidence in the justice system is increasing and is now at the highest level ever measured. We have thus achieved more in three years than the Social Democrats managed in eight years or have even come close to at all.

To listen to this, Madam Speaker, is a bit like hearing a pyromaniac come and complain about the fire brigade and how it puts out the fire. I mean that what the Socialdemokraterna are talking about here is a rural trap. People understand that. One knows that a vote for the Socialdemokraterna is a vote for more crime. It is a vote for chaos, more sexual assaults, anti-Swedish sentiment, and different types of crime in our society.

What we in the Tidö constellation are doing now is cleaning up the swamp that the Social Democrats created. We do this by step by step introducing tougher rules and better methods for the police. This includes, among other things, that we criminalize collusion with criminal gangs and that we double the penalty for those who commit crimes in a gang environment. We utilize the police's possibilities for wiretapping in a way that the Social Democrats have never accepted before.

This is, therefore, a step towards dismantling the criminal gangs. We have come a long way in three years, and we will continue that work until we are finished.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! When Henrik Vinge says that we have had the three best years, I wonder what world he is living in. The bombings have increased avalanche-like in our country during these three years, Henrik Vinge. The new recruitment to the criminal gangs has skyrocketed during these three years. The number of children under 15 years old who are involved in murder cases has increased – from low levels – by 500 percent. This did not happen during the Social Democrats' time in power, but during these three years – the best three years, say the Sweden Democrats.

I wonder if Henrik Vinge would say this to any of those who, just this week, have had their homes bombed to pieces. It is an absolutely incredible statement we are getting here from the Sverigedemokraterna, which shows that it is very easy to lose touch with reality when one ends up in a position of power.

I also note that Henrik Vinge did not answer my question at all regarding what position the Sverigedemokraterna have today regarding a Swedish mafia law. This is, therefore, something that the Sverigedemokraterna have usually pointed out that they have thought previously. This is usually the answer when I ask why one does not stand behind our proposal, which we have pushed in this chamber for two years.

We Social Democrats want to introduce a Swedish mafia law. We believe that it is absolutely necessary to dismantle the criminal gangs and to reach the gang leaders. Previously, the Sweden Democrats have said they support this, but they have not wanted to vote for it because the proposal has come from us Social Democrats.

Now the Sweden Democrats cannot even manage to stand up for the proposal as such. I thank you for the information.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Madam Speaker! This is empty rhetoric. It is a witch hunt. Teresa Carvalho comes here to the chamber of the Riksdag and behaves like a peddler trying to sell snake oil. What Teresa Carvalho says is, therefore, not true.

What I mean is that when we took power in 2022, we had eight years of the worst crime development in Sweden's history to sort out – the worst eight years ever. In three years, we have reversed the development. We have halved the shootings and have the lowest level of deadly violence in ten years. It is not the best three years, but it is the best legal development. From an incredibly gloomy and dark situation, we have now turned the development upwards.

It is absolutely not the best three years in Sweden's history, but if you look at the curves, there is no other example of having been able to break a criminal development as we have done. We have point by point data showing that the policy we are driving works. What the Social Democrats did was a complete catastrophe, so do not come and try to lecture us on how to act to break crime. You have failed on every single point.

A Swedish mafia legislation is something the Social Democrats talk about as a purely rhetorical talking point. What does it mean in practice? You did nothing for eight years, and none of your coalition parties are on board with this. What we are doing is that, point by point, we are practically stopping gang crime, reducing the shootings, hindering the recruitments, and in various ways making Sweden safer again.

What we are doing works, so don't come here and try to lecture us on how to do things, when it is obvious who is doing it right and who did it wrong.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Last week, two horrific bombings occurred in my hometown of Norrköping. On the same night that the second bomb exploded, the police arrested a teenager who was about to carry out another bombing a few hundred meters from my house.

I got up that morning and told my primary schooler that he shouldn't be worried if they talked about this at school during the day. I told him that it is about criminals who want to harm each other but that we are not part of their conflicts and that he didn't need to be afraid. I told him that with the knowledge that many innocent people are affected nonetheless – but children in Sweden should not have to know that.

I do not want it to be like this. I do not want this to be a part of our everyday lives. We live in Sweden – a Sweden that should be more like Sweden. Right now, however, it feels as though something else has taken over – dark forces and violence.

I refuse to accept that this is how the society our children grow up in looks. Few other tasks can currently be more pressing than restoring the security that has been lost.

It is regarding this fund that we are debating the government's budget for the justice system today. I will start by saying that I think it is completely okay. Quite honestly: Expenditure area 4, as it is called, is completely okay. It is obviously not here that we have the major conflicts in Swedish politics, and that is, in itself, probably a good thing.

Looking at the details, there are of course things that are missing, for example resources for the crime victim support, which now needs to lay off staff. We Social Democrats also want to ensure schooling at the upcoming youth detention centers, which we therefore want to allocate extra resources to. We also want to provide increased resources to Center against violent extremism to prevent school shootings and get better control over the Nazi activist clubs.

But, as I said, on the whole, the budget is good. There is money. The government is investing in much of what is important, the Prison and Probation Service and the police. It is good.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have two criminal policy priorities. It is about reversing the development when it comes to gang violence and the growing organized crime, and it is about combating men's violence against women. It is on these two areas that we focus. It is here that the violence is most severe and the failure of society is clearest. It is on these two areas that we need increased repression, with precision. It is here we need to allocate the resources to proceed most harshly where the violence is worst. We focus on what clearly steers towards what is truly urgent in the crisis situation that our country finds itself in.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying something about men's violence against women. Men's violence against women is the ultimate expression of inequality. That is why we Social Democrats propose that both psychological and economic violence should be criminalized. That is why we propose that a zero vision and a crisis commission against men's violence against women be established. We further propose that sex buying be made a so-called crime against humanity, with imprisonment as the standard penalty, and that indeterminate prison sentences be introduced for dangerous repeat offenders in cases of serious sexual offenses. These are important reforms and priorities that can contribute to real improvements for women's safety.

We also propose a much stronger repression online both against digital sex buyers and against those who exploit minors or spread various forms of child pornography and abuse material, including the loathsome pedophile dolls that several well-known e-commerce companies have sold, which can trigger real abuse of real children. The police need to be given extended powers to find this material and to act. The companies that live and profit from spreading the material must be shut down so that it becomes inaccessible for Swedish users.

Madam Speaker! Then we come to gang violence, and here the obvious must be said: It has not turned. The shootings have indeed decreased – that is good. But they continue all the same. The bombings have increased. The murder-bomb attacks have increased. More and more innocent people are affected by the violence. The drug trade is flourishing. The underlying organized crime is eating its way into the entire society. The gross violence was committed by ever younger people.

Then it is not enough to do more of the same. We must, of course, continue to train more police officers and toughen the sentences, even double the sentences for gang criminals so that they are in parity with the gravity of the crimes and the damage to society. But we also need new tools. We need real-time camera surveillance with facial recognition. We need restrictive measures to be able to seize the criminals' passports and forbid them from meeting each other and transferring money. We need a completely new approach to break up the criminal structures, reach the gang leaders, and break the new recruitment.

We agree on very much when it comes to crime policy, but it is one thing we Social Democrats really lack, and that is a Swedish mafia law – with a collective criminal liability and a developed witness protection system to give underlings stronger incentives to report the bosses and with the possibility to prosecute the criminals' legal entities and also confiscate the companies where the criminals hide their criminality. A Swedish mafia law would be needed to give the police and prosecutors the right tools in the crime-fighting work.

This has had a documented effect in several of the countries that have had serious organized crime longer than we have. We simply know that it works. But unfortunately, the Sweden Democrats and the government parties have voted no to this. It is difficult to understand that there would be any principled objections to going harder on the gangs in this way. It is easy to suspect that it is rather about the fact that the proposal is driven by us Social Democrats, and I think that is a shame.

Then we come to the new recruitment, Madam Speaker. Here is the truly great difference between the Social Democrats and the government when it comes to the fight against gang crime. It concerns preventive measures and early actions that are primarily sorted under other expenditure areas than the justice system but which still need to be addressed in this context because they are an important part of the whole.

Gang crime means that Sweden is in an acute crisis situation, which can be compared to a pandemic. And as everyone understands, you do not cut back on vaccination during a pandemic. Yet, that is precisely what the government has done when it comes to crime prevention measures. The municipalities have been put on a slimming-down course, which has had catastrophic consequences. Now we see how it is being cut back on crime prevention and early interventions.

We Social Democrats believe that, in parallel with a repressive crime policy, we need a policy for equality and social justice – to break the segregation. We need a stronger and more present welfare state and a meaningful leisure time. We need stronger protective barriers and must offer young people different contexts where they can grow and find their way through life, which catch the children before the gangs do. We need extra jobs for young people so that they can earn money through honest work instead of performing missions for criminals.

That is why we Social Democrats want that for every extra krona invested in the justice system – and it must be invested in the justice system – a krona should also be invested in preventive and early interventions. We want to see a strategic effort so that Sweden does not have any vulnerable areas. We want to introduce an outreach risk family program with systematic risk assessments and very early support interventions for the entire family. We want to target children and young people with companions or ankle monitors when social services and the police see that a child could be in the risk zone of committing a serious act of violence.

We cannot choose between repressive and preventive measures against gang crime. We must do everything that is required. We must stop the next generation from being drawn into the gangs' heinous circles, while at the same time the justice policy is adapted to the brutal crime we actually see today.

It is a horrible development. Over the last three years, the number of children under 15 years old involved in murder cases has increased by over 500 percent – from low levels, it should be added. The number of children suspected of public mischief has increased by over 4,600 percent during these three years.

That is why we Social Democrats are now prepared to do things that were not actually relevant earlier, for example, to consider a lowered age of criminal responsibility to 14 years for the most serious crimes, such as contract murder, and at the same time move the responsibility for convicted children and young people from the State Institution Board, where the recidivism rate is unfortunately as high as 90 percent, to the Prison and Probation Service.

Of course, children should never be held in prison with adults; that is completely ruled out. But this is about building up a completely new type of youth detention center, adapted for children and young people, where the school functions and the support around it functions in order to break their criminal path.

Madam Speaker! After three years, we can state that the government has failed in its most important promise to the Swedish people: to get a handle on gang violence. I am not saying that it is the government's fault. I am also saying nothing other than that the previous government also failed. I also want to emphasize that the government is doing much that is good and necessary in the fight against gang crime, but evidently, it has not been enough.

The gangs' capital of violence remains, but it has changed form. New recruitment is spiraling out of control. The alarm reports have succeeded one another, but the government has still not released the resources needed for the municipalities' early interventions. The government has not stopped gang criminals' opportunities to run HVB homes. The government has also not given the police tools to take down the gangs' advertisements online. That sluggishness deserves criticism.

Despite this criticism, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude on a different note. What would be best for Sweden is, in fact, more cooperation and less conflict in the issue of gang crime. The fact that we are very close to each other in criminal policy, I see as a strength. I hope that we will also come closer to each other and find common ground when it comes to breaking the new recruitment.

Sweden now needs large and wise investments in safety, because safety is, after all, the prerequisite for freedom. Sweden shall be a country where we protect children and women in their homes, keep young people away from crime, and resolutely combat violence and gangs.

The Social Democrats are prepared to do everything that is required – everything that is legally sound, accurate, and effective – to restore safety and hold our country together. In this issue, we cannot afford political games or maneuvering. This is about who we want to be as a country. It is about standing up for a Sweden that holds together even when the country is tested the most.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have shown their true colors over the past weeks with the mess surrounding the Social Democratic media company Aktuellt in Politiken. There is much to say about this, but I leave that to another debate.

What has once again become clear is the Social Democrats' habit of accusing others of shortcomings while being unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions and their own failings. During eight years of Social Democratic government rule, the problems were denied and downplayed. Morgan Johansson even stated in 2017 that they were on the way to breaking organized crime. As a result of those ways of thinking, they were also sluggish. Not much happened, and the little that did happen occurred thanks to an opposition in the Riksdag that forced the Social Democrats to act.

The current government is on its way to reversing the development, regardless of what Teresa Carvalho stands here and says. We have a long way to go – organized crime is still a serious societal problem, and it will take many years before we have cracked it – but we are on our way to reversing the development.

The Social Democrats often repeat that they will not be "soft on crime," but unfortunately, the credibility is low. The parties they intend to govern with vote no on almost all proposals. Even though we agree on the justice system's budget, there are incredibly large differences when it comes to economic policy otherwise.

My question is quite simply: How has Teresa Carvalho intended to reconcile this with her red-green comrades?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if Mikael Damsgaard was really listening to my speech just now. I was very clear that no government, neither the previous, S-led government nor the current one, has succeeded in combating gang violence. No government has succeeded with this, Mikael Damsgaard, and that is what I was very clear about. I do not understand at all where the claim comes from that we Social Democrats do not want to take responsibility and are just shifting the blame. In any case, it does not come from what I just said from the rostrum.

I am a bit astonished. Mikael Damsgaard said it was completely absurd that Social Democrats during a previous parliamentary term expressed something along the lines of that the gangs were about to be broken. We can see that this was not about to happen, but that it was a long way off. But Mikael Damsgaard himself just said that the development is about to turn. I actually do not understand the difference.

Is it not the case that the Moderaterna are now saying exactly the same thing? At the same time, the bombings are increasing. The shootings continue, even if they occur at a lower level. This is a time when new recruitment is completely spiraling out of control. The number of children under 15 years old who are involved in murder cases has gone from very low levels and developed in completely the wrong direction. It is a horrible development that is happening right now, Mikael Damsgaard.

No, the Social Democratic government did not succeed with this, but the Tidö government clearly does not either. Would it not have been better if we together did more of what we clearly agree on and focused on what is important now?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my previous contribution, there is still a long way to go. Much has been done, and we are also taking clear steps forward. It cannot be ignored that the number of shootings has more than halved since the change of government, but there are many remaining problems. It is also the case that the government has an extensive reform agenda for the development of the justice policy and the strengthening of the preventive work.

What concerns me is that the Social Democrats can claim they are not "soft on crime" but are just as tough as the government. How would this policy be implemented in the next mandate period if the worst were to happen and Magdalena Andersson were to form a government together with Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet? That is a group where half vote no to many of the most important criminal law reforms and to many of the most important reforms to give the police expanded tools. Furthermore, these parties are not at all in agreement on economic policy. This may not apply to the area of the justice system, but it applies to all other areas. One could very well end up compromising away the investments that are made in the justice system.

Will the justice system be equally prioritized in the Left Party's budget, for example, when it is weighed against the Center Party's tax cuts or the Green Party's investments in aid? How will those priorities fit together? How will you make it work? How will you keep the budget balanced?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Mikael Damsgaard says that much has been done but that there is also a long way to go. He and I completely agree – there is a very long way to go. It is not possible to say anything else when we see the development that we are in the middle of. The number of bombings is increasing, and new recruitment is spiraling.

It is obvious that much more must be done, Mikael Damsgaard. On that, we are in complete agreement. That is why we Social Democrats are clear that we want to continue to tighten the penalties and invest in the police. We want to see a Swedish mafia law to break up the criminal structures and reach the gang leaders, and we also want to see an offensive to stop new recruitment. The latter is, unfortunately, the Tidö government's blind spot.

If it is indeed the case that everything that has been done and everything that is to be done is sufficient, how can Mikael Damsgaard guarantee that it will suddenly also have an effect on the bombings, which are increasing? That reality does not add up.

I suspect that the Tidö parties at Harpsund decided on the message "Now it turns!" and that one should stick to this message. And that is what has been done, indeed. But at the same time, in the real world, we see others how the gang violence continues, how the bombings increase, and how more and more of our children are drawn into that terrible criminality.

I would have wished that we now, as we stand here and debate one of the most important areas we have ahead of next year in connection with the budget, could stick to how we are to solve the problems, instead of talking about who is to take whom. We actually know nothing about that yet. There are ten months left until the election. Let the voters say their piece, and then we will ensure that we manage this together in a way that breaks up the criminal gangs.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Imagine if someone had told me ten years ago, when I was sitting in a police car on a rainy night: "One day, Martin, you will stand in the Swedish Parliament in front of a high-ranking representative for the Social Democrats and get to ask a question." I would not have believed it then, but now I am doing it. And now I am going to take the chance.

I bounced a bit during the previous exchange with Henrik Vinge. Today we have 15, 16, 17, and 18-year-olds committing serious crimes – shootings, bombings, and murders. But these teenagers did not become criminals yesterday; instead, over the last ten to fifteen years, they have grown up in a society where the Social Democrats have ruled.

My question is quite simply: What mistakes did you make? What were the mistakes you made that led to the fact that society did not see these children, who were then perhaps four, five, six or seven years old? What did the Social Democrats do so that they would not end up in crime? And what do the Social Democrats take with them from these mistakes into the future, into the policy that one wants to pursue moving forward? That is my question.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Martin Melin for taking the opportunity to ask a question. I will do my very best to answer it in a short time, because I think it is a relevant and important issue that is being raised here.

It is a terrible development we see today, with young children committing completely terrible crimes. I understand where the question comes from, that one does not become a criminal overnight. This has, I believe, been close to the truth for a long period, but today we must not forget that the alarm reports actually say the opposite, that many are drawn in precisely overnight.

Today, it takes very little time to recruit a child into a criminal gang to commit heinous acts of violence. Therefore, everyone who commits these crimes today did not at all grow up in a social democratic Sweden, as is portrayed here. That was one part of the answer. The other part is, of course, that such children also exist, and I completely agree that we did far too little for them.

I believe an important reason why we have this situation today is the segregation that has been allowed to accelerate in our country for far too long, which is due to the fact that we have had extensive immigration where many people have ended up in already vulnerable areas while the welfare has rolled back and the gaps have increased in our society. It has become a breeding ground for, among other things, a sordid gang culture where criminals have been able to capitalize on and exploit children. That is why we Social Democrats today are very clear that we need strict migration and a requirement-based integration policy, but also an offensive welfare policy and a policy for reduced gaps and increased social justice.

Then we also have to do a great deal to adapt the crime policy to the appalling development. It is both that needs to be done.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I am, of course, pleased that one can acknowledge mistakes that have been made, perhaps not only in the legal area but also in the social area and when it comes to migration, integration, and everything it involves. It is good that one can take this with one—as has been said, one should learn from mistakes.

Another thing I reflected on was this matter regarding the three best years we have seen in ten years. It is clear that in terms of explosions, the number of young people being drawn into crime, and shootings, they were not good years, but one must not forget that we do not know now how it would have looked if we had had a different government, if the Social Democrats had been allowed to continue after 2022.

I would like to say, based on the cards that were on the table in 2022 and how things look today, in 2025, that an enormous amount has been done. This is what I mean by that we have had three very successful years, considering where we started in 2022. If we had not had the offensive crime policy that we have today, with this government and this Minister of Justice, I actually believe that we would have seen a development that we would not have liked.

I wrote in a debate article in 2016 that the politicians must wake up and that we were heading towards a precipice. I dare say that we have just managed to brake, that we have the front wheels over the edge of the precipice and that we are now backing the car home. I hope that, regardless of which government rules this country from next year onwards, they continue to back the car and continue to do a good job. I truly hope that, because we do not want to go down that precipice.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Martin Melin asked if we would have had the same development if we had had a different government and if we had not had the offensive crime policy. I completely agree that without an offensive crime policy, we would probably have had a worse development than the terrible development we are seeing right now.

When it comes to the question of whether we would have had the same development with an S government, I mean that Martin Melin forgets that the previous S government tightened 80 penalties, criminalized 30 new acts, initiated the offensive investment in the police, and took the initiative for several of the important legislative proposals that this government has launched.

Residence bans and forfeiture possibilities were things that the previous S government initiated, and of course, we would have implemented it if we were in power now. But, Martin Melin, if we were in power now, we would also have introduced a Swedish mafia law and also an offensive to stop new recruitment. That is what one should expect to get with an S government even after the next election.

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are happy to adopt a high tone about taking a hard line against the gangs and also often plead for us to cooperate across party lines. Unfortunately, the experience is that when it really matters, the Social Democrats do not have the stamina. We see this time and again.

During the previous parliamentary term, we wanted to do a lot of things together, but the Social Democrats said no to anonymous witnesses, no to visitation zones, and no to preventive stay bans, and they also blocked the possibility of criminalizing participation in gangs. I naturally welcome the policy shifts during this parliamentary term, which are undoubtedly quite many, but we lost eight years in the fight against the gangs.

As late as January this year, the story repeated itself. Then we had the chance to get a broad consensus on introducing a new possibility to revoke the citizenship of gang leaders. All the prerequisites were there in an ongoing constitutional committee, but the left-wing strength was not sufficient this time either.

Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet said no to every opportunity to revoke citizenship due to crime, including terrorist crimes. Centerpartiet stood in the way and did not want to include system-threatening organized crime. In the end, the Socialdemokrater also chose to protect their split government base rather than look out for Sweden's best interests and blocked the proposal to revoke the citizenship of the gang leaders.

The government has nevertheless been able to continue working to produce a concrete proposal that will make it possible to revoke the citizenship of gang leaders. We intend to table it before the Riksdag in the near future. The question then is: Are the Social Democrats now prepared to do what is required to protect Sweden? Will the Social Democrats change their minds and, this time, stand behind an opportunity to take away Swedish citizenship from the gang leaders?

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing that the Minister for Justice has noted that we Social Democrats have developed our justice policy. We are a new party with a more direct and more action-oriented crime policy than before.

That is not to say that we did not do much that was important during the previous term either. It can sometimes sound as if the Social Democrats did nothing at all from the government representatives. That is obviously not true. But it is true that today we have a policy that means we want to go even harder against the criminal gangs but also against new recruitment than was the case with the policy we had during the previous term.

It is pleasing that the Minister for Justice has noted this, and it hopefully means that the Swedish people have also noted it. I think for myself that it means we should find it even easier to do important things together.

I also believe that the Swedish people would appreciate it if the two major parties on each side of the block boundary could join forces and simply point the way. The Swedish people would appreciate it if we could manifest that, regardless of who wins the election next year, who forms a government with whom, and so on, there is no doubt that we put the safety of the Swedish people first and that we intend to do everything to push back the criminal gangs.

Regarding the issue of citizenship, I want to be very clear. We Social Democrats want to be able to revoke citizenship from gang leaders who have dual citizenship and who commit crimes that threaten the system. Our reservation regarding the Tidö parties' proposals that have appeared previously has never been about protecting gang criminals, but it has been about a legal term whose interpretation our parties in the Constitutional Committee simply did not agree on. But the process is not over, and I hope that we can reach an agreement on that issue as well.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I note, regarding the basis, that the Social Democrats' comrades in Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have completely sat across. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats also did so when it came down to the wire.

The legal term that Teresa Carvalho refers to is therefore the system that exists in international law and that our Nordic neighboring countries utilize, that is, the predictable order for handling such matters. I cannot interpret the opposition in the committee in any other way than that the divided government side had to hold together when it came down to it.

That leads me to an interesting question. It is often said that we should cooperate to create predictability moving forward. I look around the chamber and wonder: Is it the Liberals who are to undermine an offensive crime policy? Is it the Moderates who are to do it? Is it the Christian Democrats who are to do it? Is it the Sweden Democrats who are to do it? Or which parties is it that we are to protect the crime policy from?

What it is about is that there are some parties in the chamber that want to undermine this course. They are your own comrades, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. I think we should say exactly what it is: the Socialdemokrater want the Moderaterna and others to save the Socialdemokrater from their own support base. The only ones who really seriously want to undermine the course we have now embarked on are large parts of the Socialdemokrater's own government support.

When we soon meet the voters during the election year, this will become one of the most important discussions. Behind the broad brushstrokes about broad agreements lies a genuine concern that the government's own base will not stand by the Social Democrats' shift on a number of issues, even if far from all of them.

I believe that the citizens will truly notice this, and I also believe that it is what will ultimately determine whether this side of politics continues to receive the trust to continue on the path that we have now finally embarked upon.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister of Justice insists on referring to our basis. There is no opposition basis in the way that the Tidö parties constitute a basis. I insist on continuing to assert that we do not even know which parties will be sitting in this chamber after the next election, let alone which will be sitting in government.

For example, we do not know whether the Liberals, whom the Minister for Justice referred to, will enter the Riksdag. And who will then guarantee the Minister for Justice's policy – if the Minister for Justice cannot open up to also find other collaborations that hold over time and across changes of government?

There is a broad majority in this chamber to go harder against the criminal gangs. There is a broad consensus to continue investing in the police, toughening sentences, tearing down secrecy barriers, and developing more crime-fighting tools. Let us continue with that work together!

There is no lack of political conflict in other areas, for example, regarding how we should reduce the record-high unemployment, shorten the record-long healthcare queues, and combat the pursuit of profit in schools. Let us take the conflicts that actually exist! But in this issue, Gunnar Strömmer, we are almost entirely in agreement. Why should you insist on making this a political battle issue when the conflict hardly exists?

I am personally completely convinced that we can do more together if we only want to, and that is also what the Swedish people are asking for.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! When Ulf Kristersson was able to form a government just over three years ago with the Tidö Agreement as the basis, it was done with the mandate to get Sweden in order.

Serious organized crime had been allowed to spread, with serious violence in its wake. In the election year 2022, more than one shooting occurred per day, which claimed more than one human life per week. But the Social Democratic Minister of Justice, who already in 2017 stated that the government was on its way to breaking organized crime, did not see the seriousness in time, and the political response was all too weak.

The youth robberies spread fear among young people and their parents. International theft gangs were allowed to roam freely without the government being able to stop them at the border.

The voters had, quite simply, had enough of a red-green government that lacked the will, ability, and power to move from words to action.

Madam Speaker! Step by step, 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 zones, security 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 sentences, both gang criminals and serial rapists will sit behind bars for longer.

The legislation on restraining orders has been expanded to increase the safety of crime victims. The criminalization of psychological violence strengthens the protection for vulnerable women. The criminalization of virginity checks, certificates of virginity, and virginity interventions strengthens the protection for women and girls living in a context of honor.

With 1,800 more police officers in uniformed service, crime is prevented, but more crimes can also be investigated and solved. To reach the goal of a police density in line with the EU average, the government has decided that police training shall be expanded with more places and that a new police training shall be started in Uppsala. In addition, preparations are being made to introduce a paid police training to further increase the conditions for recruiting to the police profession.

We have introduced a new Social Services Act where preventive work is a core mission. The parents' role and responsibility are central, and therefore parental support is strengthened. The state child and youth care is being reformed. This summer, the Prison and Probation Service takes over the responsibility for young people convicted of serious crimes.

Young people cared for with the support of LVU due to links to serious crime shall be able to be marked with an ankle bracelet. School social teams, something that already exists in many schools today, are further developed. With far-reaching reforms of the secrecy legislation, the authorities will receive new tools to both stifle the criminal economy and break the recruitment of children and young people into the criminal gangs.

Madam Speaker! With the new forfeiture legislation, we will target the gangs' cars, cash, luxury items, and even real estate. As recently as two weeks ago, we stood here in the chamber behind the government's bill on expanded possibilities to issue business prohibitions due to crime in order to make it harder to use companies as criminal tools. A financial intelligence center has been established where the 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.

Madam Speaker! 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 same force as gang crime. We also have widespread petty crime, ranging from crimes of violation to fraud, which also needs to be prosecuted.

Madam Speaker! All this is the background to why the Moderate-led government is strengthening the justice system with extensive investments in the budget bill for 2026 and coming years. For the period 2023–2028, the budget for the justice system increases from 69 billion to 108 billion kronor. For 2026, all agencies within the justice system receive increased appropriations.

The commitment to police growth needs to continue, with a locally visible and present police force throughout the country.

The development of crime, more resources and new tools for the police and prosecutors, as well as harsher penalties, mean that the pressure on the Prison and Probation Service is high. The Prison and Probation Service is therefore now carrying out the largest expansion in modern times. With increased appropriations, we create the conditions for the growth to continue.

Madam Speaker! A well-functioning rule of law requires that the entire chain functions. Therefore, we are strengthening Sveriges Domstolar, Åklagarmyndigheten, Ekobrottsmyndigheten, and Rättsmedicinalverket.

Crime victims shall receive redress and support. We are strengthening the Crime Victim Authority to strengthen the work in that area.

In an increasingly anxious world, we are also strengthening the Swedish Security Service, which is necessary to meet the growing threats from both foreign powers and violent extremism. The Swedish Security Service also has an important role in protecting the central state leadership and Swedish democracy.

Madam Speaker! Upon a superficial review of the various budget proposals regarding the justice system that are on the table today, one can easily conclude that there is broad consensus regarding justice policy. What we see is a government budget bill where clear and offensive investments are made to strengthen the entire justice system, and the opposition is following suit in their budget motions, with some minor additions.

If one scratches a little below the surface, Madam Speaker, another picture emerges, namely that the red-green opposition consisting of Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Centerpartiet is deeply divided. This may apply to the direction of justice policy, where Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet in most cases vote against both increased penalties and new tools for the police. But the red-green parties are also deeply divided when it comes to economic policy. When a red-green government negotiation is to compromise on a significantly increased aid, lowered taxes, and increased benefits, it is not at all guaranteed that the promised investments in the justice system are protected.

The history of a red-green majority here in the chamber, where the only thing that unites is keeping one party away from influence, is frightening. In a constellation where all agreements are transactional, the outcome can largely be anything. Last time, Swedish foreign policy interests were sold out to get support from a former left-wing wild card. The question remains unanswered as to which Swedish interests will suffer if Magdalena Andersson, if misfortune strikes, gets the opportunity to form a government after the next election.

Madam Speaker! The inevitable question that must therefore be asked and receive an answer 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 Environment Party's massive increases in aid? Is it the Left Party's contribution increases? Is it the Social Democrats' abolition of the quarantine deduction? Is it the Center Party's tax cuts? Or is it the investments in the justice system that ultimately will have to be sacrificed when they are to reach an agreement?

Madam Speaker! We are now three years into a ten-year journey to push back the gross organized crime. We are now clearly seeing results in several areas. The shootings have more than halved since Gunnar Strömmer took office as Minister of Justice. The crime profits from fraud are now decreasing after having increased sharply for several years. The international theft gangs are being stopped to a greater extent at the border, and the theft crimes are decreasing as a result.

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

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Damsgaard for the speech. However, I heard very little about the preventive work. Do the Moderates not consider that the most important measure to stop new recruitment to the gangs, especially of young people and children, is to invest in effective preventive measures such as a good welfare system, a well-functioning school, and good leisure activities?

We know that many children – the vast majority – who are recruited into criminal gangs have an inadequate education. To address this, large investments are needed in welfare, in civil society, in social services, in schools, and in leisure activities. We must strengthen the municipalities' and regions' opportunities to invest in a good school so that one can employ teachers, counselors, and so on who can support and help especially these children who are vulnerable and in the risk zone.

Don't the Moderaterna believe that powerful investments need to be made in these areas to reduce the recruitment of children and young people into the criminal gangs?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates naturally consider that the preventive measures taken within many other policy areas are of great importance for the upbringing of children and young people, not least to counter recruitment into crime. The fact that I perhaps did not speak so much about it today is because many of those parts are debated and decided within the framework of other expenditure areas than the one we have to deal with here today.

It is about different areas moving in sync. That is why we have launched the new Social Services Act, which puts preventive work at the center. That is why we are implementing reinforcements within the school so that more students can succeed in school. That is why we have made investments in school social teams to better be able to support where there are social problems surrounding students in school.

The question of recruitment has been touched upon previously, and we can see that much of the recruitment does not proceed as it did in the past. Back then, it started with petty crimes, and it was a gradual process before one entered into serious crime. Today, it happens quickly and often occurs digitally.

The legislation we recently voted on, secret coercive measures against children and young people under 15 years of age, means that it will be possible to wiretap phones, perform secret data retrieval, and so on. The Left Party voted against that law. One of the most powerful tools for preventing and deterring the recruitment of children and young people, the Left Party voted against.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Damsgaard for the answer.

Yes, we did that. But we mean that there are other tools to reach the new recruitment on the internet. It is about giving the police more resources so that they can patrol online to find those who recruit children and young people into crime. Both education and more resources must be given to the police to patrol online. We believe that is more effective.

To truly address the recruitment to the gangs, we must create a safe society. That is the foundation, and it begins with a safe welfare society with a good school. If the children succeed in school and upper secondary school, it will become incredibly much harder to recruit them into the criminal gangs. Therefore, we must make massive efforts when it comes to welfare, school, and leisure activities. But you are cutting back on welfare. It is a fact that makes municipalities and regions not have the resources they need to employ the teachers, the counselors, and the social workers who are needed to meet the children who are in the risk zone.

Instead, you prioritize large tax cuts for those who already have the thickest wallets. It is they who are primarily benefited by your tax cuts. This only contributes to increasing the economic gaps in society. You should instead invest in the children. You should instead invest in increased child benefits. That is something that would truly benefit the most vulnerable families and strengthen security in society. But you do exactly the opposite. Those who pay the high price are children and young people, especially in vulnerable areas.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, there is no disagreement on the view that many important preventive measures must be made within different sectors of society.

It is also important to remember where we come from. When this government took over in the autumn of 2022, inflation in Sweden was 10 percent. It eroded household budgets, but it also eroded the municipalities' budgets. Pension costs skyrocketed, school meals became more expensive, and rents for premises rose. This means that both households and municipalities have had a tough time as a result of this.

Now we have dealt with inflation. New inflation figures were released today – 2.1 percent. We have gone from 10 percent to 2.1 percent. This creates conditions for both increased real incomes and stronger household economies, and even the public sector and the municipalities have successively strengthened their finances to be able to make the investments they need.

It is in that context that we must look at the tax cuts we are making to strengthen household finances. The job tax credit primarily benefits low- and middle-income earners. Furthermore, it is the reduced food VAT. It is simply a matter of inflation having been pushed back and that we can now focus on strengthening household finances.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! Crime victims deserve redress. I understand that the Social Democrats and the Moderates are in complete agreement on that. In that work, Brottsofferjouren plays an absolutely crucial role. Every year they provide support to over 60,000 crime victims, witnesses, and relatives, and they run the national support line with over 100 employees and more than 1,000 volunteers. It is difficult to overstate the value of the work they do.

That is why I was both saddened and surprised when I received the reports about the reduced appropriations and that Brottsofferjouren must lay off staff if the funds are not provided. For us Social Democrats, it is obvious to provide the 15 million in question. It is, after all, a fraction in an expenditure area that covers 95 billion.

Despite the fact that Brottsofferjouren has approached the government regarding the reduced appropriations over time and the need for additional funds, and despite the fact that the consequences have been known for months, the government has not acted. They simply are not allocating the 15 million in the budget.

Madam Speaker! I wonder how the Moderaterna intend for this to rhyme with the rhetoric about a paradigm shift that is to provide more redress for crime victims. How can the government parties defend that Brottsofferjouren is forced to lay off staff who provide just that support which the government says it wants to prioritize?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! Our policy for providing redress to crime victims spans a long range of different areas. It concerns everything from criminal law, where we want the penalties to be just and reflect the severity of the crimes, to ensuring that the crime victims themselves do not have to demand damages from the perpetrators without receiving help with that matter.

Then there are a number of initiatives where different actors are significant. This can involve municipalities, crime victim authorities, and the crime victim helplines. The crime victim helplines fulfill an important function in the work. Just as Teresa Carvalho pointed out, it is not about large amounts, and we will closely monitor the development of the helplines' activities going forward.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates are happy to talk about protecting crime victims and that the crime victim perspective is prioritized. But the reality is that Brottsofferjouren is now forced to lay off staff, and it is a consequence of the government not having fully prioritized the crime victim perspective. It is rather a consequence of the government, on the contrary, having allowed a central part of the crime victim support to be weakened. This becomes strange in light of the government's rhetoric about a paradigm shift, where the crime victim perspective is to be put in focus.

I do not doubt at all that this is genuinely intended by Mikael Damsgaard or any other government representative, but if one truly wants to strengthen the position of crime victims, one must also protect the organization that actually meets crime victims every day on the phone, in chats, and in witness support.

I completely agree with Mikael Damsgaard that broad initiatives in the justice system are also important to strengthen the crime victim perspective and, not least, so that crime victims can receive redress. That is something we completely agree on.

But that does not answer the question I asked about what happens to the support for crime victims when Brottsofferjouren is forced to make cuts, which they now must. I wonder what the Moderaterna mean by this. Who is it intended that bears the responsibility that the crime victims will now receive reduced support? And is there another plan to compensate for this loss?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Madam Speaker! As I concluded by saying, we are closely following how the crime victims' support centers' opportunities to carry out their mission are developing. They fulfill an important function.

We must, however, remember that the differences in the budget proposals linked to the justice system are relatively small. But there are massive differences in the red-green budget alternatives in general. The question of how one reconciles these things remains. I have also not received an answer to that from Teresa Carvalho.

How do they think they will make the red-green alternative work when aid, increased grants, tax cuts, and abolished quarantine deductions are to be weighed against each other? Will the justice system be prioritized? And what happens to the 15 million for Brottsofferjouren? It is written in the stars.

Support for crime victims is, as has been said, a broad issue. It concerns everything from criminal law to the police's ability to investigate crimes and reinforced restraining order legislation that creates better protection for those who have been subjected to, for example, crimes in close relationships. But Brottsofferjouren also fulfills an important function there.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Despite harsher penalties, more secret coercive measures and extensive and offensive police work, the shootings and explosions continue to remain at a high level in our country. More and more young people are being recruited into the criminal gangs. It is deeply worrying. At the same time, there is a crisis in the correctional services with overcrowded detention centers and prisons. It is obvious that the government's measures are not working particularly well.

Persons who commit crimes must, of course, be prosecuted and held accountable. There may also be penalties that need to be tightened, for example in cases of weapons offenses, drug smuggling or sexual offenses. The penalties must, however, always be well-founded based on necessity, effectiveness and proportionality.

The chain of justice also needs to hang together, so that the investments in, for example, the police, which lead to an increased number of cases, also mean that these can be investigated by prosecutors and decided in the courts in an efficient way and within a reasonable time. That is not the case today.

The right-wing parties unfortunately often let emotions, opinions, and pure populism serve as the basis for crime policy measures instead of research and proven experience. Longer sentences, detention sentences, a lowered age of criminal responsibility, and special youth prisons will not lead to reduced crime. The measures risk, on the contrary, becoming counterproductive. That is what research in the field shows.

Particularly serious is the proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years. Researchers and major authorities, such as the Prosecution Authority, the police, the Prison and Probation Service, and several others, are very critical of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years and putting children in prison. It is a criticism that they share with the Children's Ombudsman, Save the Children, and the Parliamentary Ombudsmand, to name a few on the long list. The proposal violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Sweden was one of the first countries to sign.

Research and examples from Denmark show that the proposal could have the opposite effect and instead increase youth crime. Instead, gangs are beginning to recruit even younger children. The government should listen to experts, authorities, and research and withdraw the proposal.

To truly reduce serious crime and strengthen people's sense of security, especially in politically neglected areas, a common political will to reduce class inequalities in society is required. In a society with a well-developed welfare state, where economic inequalities are leveled and where people have a good home and a job to go to, security increases and crime decreases.

But instead of investing in a safer society, the government prioritizes large tax cuts, which primarily benefit those with the largest wallets. After three years of the Tidö parties' austerity measures, the government is emptying the state treasury and letting the welfare system foot the bill. That policy further increases economic inequalities while we have one of Europe's highest unemployment figures and growing child poverty. Sweden is among the countries in the OECD where economic inequality has increased the most since the mid-1980s.

In the Left Party's budget alternative, there is a different direction. We build Sweden stronger while simultaneously leveling the economic gaps. To reduce serious crime, more focus must be directed towards preventing the recruitment of children and young people into gang criminality. That crime prevention work begins with a well-developed welfare for all.

If school, leisure activities, and society in general function well, the chances of recruiting children and young people into crime decrease. We know that the overwhelming majority of children who are drawn into crime have a deficient schooling. School, leisure activities, and civil society organizations as well as social services need to receive better resources. It is also about short-term interventions, for example, spreading projects such as the Sluta skjut project throughout the country and the successful concept from Sundsvall where young people are given the opportunity to work.

Vänsterpartiet argues that the government must take a holistic approach and appoint a commission of inquiry to, based on research and proven experience, reduce shootings, explosions, deadly violence, and gang crime. All relevant actors and authorities, such as the police, the correctional services and the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, and social services, schools, civil society organizations, relevant researchers and several others, need to be gathered to develop a concrete action plan with both acute measures and long-term measures.

Vänsterpartiet has, in addition to this, a long series of proposals within the area of criminal justice policy. They are included in our budget proposal. I intend to account for some of them.

To seriously ensure safety in society and in politically neglected areas, we want to introduce safety zones instead of visitation zones. In a safety zone, schools, social services, the police, and other authorities and civil organizations shall receive extra resources over a longer period. The purpose is to strengthen crime prevention work through, among other things, increased presence and increased social engagement to build local trust together with and for the people in the area.

Vänsterpartiet allocates 200 million kronor to the Swedish Police Authority for that purpose, but the total investment amounts to 500 million and is distributed, in addition to expenditure area 4, also across three other expenditure areas.

The police and customs operations need to receive increased resources in order to be able to stop drugs, weapons, and explosives to a greater extent already at the country's borders. For this purpose, Vänsterpartiet proposes an increase of the appropriation to Polismyndigheten by 50 million compared to the government's proposal.

The government would like to focus more on crime victims, but then the support for crime victims must be targeted correctly. We are the first to agree that this support really needs to be strengthened. The Left Party therefore presents two concrete proposals in our budget on how this can happen: increase the support for women exposed to violence and also increase the support for legal aid.

Every fifth adult woman in Sweden has at some point in her life been subjected to serious sexual violence, most often by a man she had a relationship with. Combating men's violence against women is one of the most important feminist issues. Vänsterpartiet wants to introduce a package to address all forms of violence against women. This shall include police, prosecutors and judges. The aim is that men's violence against women, sex trafficking and human trafficking for sexual purposes shall be handled with increased competence, legal certainty and seriousness throughout the entire justice chain.

The Left Party therefore allocates 30 million kronor, which is distributed with 10 million kronor each to the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Swedish Courts. We also want to increase the support to the women's shelters, which do an incredibly important job in supporting women and children who are victims of violence.

The income ceiling for legal aid has not been raised since the end of the 90s. Vänsterpartiet therefore wants to raise the income ceiling in order to give more people access to support and a fair trial in court. The problem is particularly large in administrative cases and family cases. Vänsterpartiet allocates 35 million kronor more than the government to legal aid.

We want to address welfare crime. It should not be possible for private companies run by criminal gangs to start and operate, for example, health centers, vaccination clinics, and HVB homes. Vänsterpartiet therefore invests 60 million kronor more than the government in the Economic Crime Authority in order to, on the one hand, establish a special unit to combat crime in welfare, and on the other hand, introduce an analysis group or hub with experts in the field so that investigations and future legislative proposals will have better resistance against welfare crime and organized crime.

The Left Party's budget alternative should be seen as a whole. Therefore, I choose to refrain from taking a position and instead refer to the specific statement on the Left Party's policy within expenditure area 4.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! The Left Party is a cornerstone of the Social Democrats' government alternative. I must unfortunately state that the Left Party is probably Sweden's most destructive political force when it comes to combating and preventing crime, especially organized crime.

During this parliamentary term, the Left Party has voted no to most of what we have placed on the Riksdag's table so that the police and other central actors can seriously be able to prevent and stop children from being drawn into serious crime. This concerns confidentiality relaxations aimed at ensuring that the police, school, and social services can work together to prevent children from being drawn into serious crime. It also concerns the possibility of using secret coercive measures against children under 15 years of age to access the gang leaders who rule and command in their mobile phones. Even when it comes to preventive stay bans, security zones, security guards, camera surveillance, anonymous witnesses, secret data reading, and harsher penalties for crimes in criminal networks, it becomes no, no, no, no from the Left Party.

Thankfully, in the current situation, Vänsterpartiet has no influence over the justice policy and the social policy. But if, by some chance, the left side were to obtain a majority after the election, the situation would be different, because then Vänsterpartiet is, as said, a cornerstone in the Socialdemokraternas government construction. Then I wonder – as pure clarification for the voters: Does Vänsterpartiet intend to lie flat for the Socialdemokraternas during the next mandate period? If the answer is no to that question, which of all the new resources, new tools, and new punishments that have been introduced during this mandate period to prevent and combat crime will Vänsterpartiet demand be torn up?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister of Justice for the questions.

That Vänsterpartiet has gone against several of the government's proposals regarding harsher penalties and so on is because we simply do not believe that they are effective and efficient. We also see that in the final result. They have not helped, but we see, for example, how the recruitment of young people continues and how ever younger children and young people are drawn into the criminal gangs. It is obviously the case that other measures must be taken.

That is why we have proposed a number of other measures, for example safety zones; one provides support over a long period to the local community so that broad cooperation can be achieved and these young people can be met. We want a commission of inquiry that cooperates and presents an action plan to address the serious crime. We have a number of concrete proposals that we believe are much better than the proposals that the government has put forward.

I believe there are good conditions for government cooperation. But if several parties are to cooperate, no single party can have all its policies pushed through; one must compromise. Exactly which issues we will compromise on, I do not intend to stand here and account for in the Chamber, but that will naturally become a negotiation issue. However, I see that there are good opportunities to cooperate if, for example, we strengthen preventive work and provide more support to municipalities and regions, so that they can invest and commit to schools, social services, and similar measures that are absolutely necessary for us to address crime in the long run.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I am grateful that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve says what is naturally quite obvious: In a cooperation, no one can have their will pushed through entirely. Compromises will be required. This also applies to the Social Democrats and their alleged shift in policy regarding what is being discussed here in the chamber today when we govern. The Social Democrats have the opportunity to vote for that policy when we present it. The problem is that the policy is to be negotiated with the Left Party after the election and that they have said no to all of this during these years.

Then I want to emphasize that it is not just about the penalties. A very soft and strategically significant reform that we have placed on the Riksdag's table and which the Left Party has opposed is to tear down secrecy barriers between school, social services, and the police. It is something that the Crime Prevention Council has pushed for for 50 years and which finally was put in place this spring in a first step and on December 1st in full. There, the Left Party has said: No, no, no!

We can absolutely discuss the Moderates' and the government's most repressive measures. The problem is only that the Left Party says no to everything, even that which is soft and concerns achieving much more effective cooperation between the actors who can actually work preventatively.

Speaking of the Crime Prevention Council: On October 1, it became possible for the police to use secret coercive measures against children under the age of 15. It is not a repressive measure against children. The Crime Prevention Council has pointed out this as perhaps the single most important reform so that the gang leaders do not push their communication through children who are under 15. But there, Vänsterpartiet has said no.

In light of the fact that Vänsterpartiet has during previous parliamentary periods ousted Social Democratic prime ministers when they had not had their policies passed: Of all the things that Vänsterpartiet has said no to and voted no to during this parliamentary period, which ones will you place your veto on in a negotiation with the Social Democrats? This is a question that is even larger than Vänsterpartiet. It is a question about the entire left-wing alternative in Swedish politics. The voters must find out before the election.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the additional questions.

I will not account here and now for whether we will cast any vetoes or not. I do not believe that we will cast any vetoes at all. If we are given the opportunity, we will, of course, enter into a negotiation to see how and where we can reach an agreement. I believe there are good conditions to do so in a number of different areas, for example when it comes to preventive work and investments in welfare. It could involve investments in school, social services and other things that are absolutely necessary to truly tackle serious crime, especially when it comes to the recruitment of children.

When it comes to the internet, I think, as I said earlier, that it is incredibly important to give the police more resources to patrol online to detect those individuals who are trying to recruit children and young people. I believe that is an incredibly much more effective way of working.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Criminal policy has been a high-priority task for the government ever since taking office in 2022. But if one looks at the years before, the criminal groups were allowed to grow ever stronger despite early warnings from the police and other law enforcement agencies.

A failed migration and integration policy, linked to a crime policy that had a forgiving and smoothing view of criminals rather than the protection of crime victims, laid the foundation for a growth. The consequences for crime were ridiculously low. The direction to avoid prison sentences as much as possible certainly contributed.

Clear and well-substantiated reports were waved away, and the messengers were accused of xenophobia and racism, which in turn contributed to a culture of silence. It was better to remain silent than to be publicly shamed or ostracized by managers, the media, and politicians.

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

What we are now witnessing in the form of gross 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 or unwillingness from previous governments to tackle the actors.

Madam Speaker! We now have a government that is doing something about the matter. We have overhauled the criminal justice policy in large parts and continue to make major investments in the justice system.

New legislation has given the police new and better tools to prevent, deter, and solve crimes. More changes are underway, all with the aim of preventing and solving crimes and making life harder for criminals.

We put the crime victim in focus. Penalties are tightened for several crime categories. If you are a gang criminal, there will be a sentence increase.

We are reviewing and modernizing the criminal law with new provisions for stamping, preparation, and attempted serious crimes. Recently, the Criminal Reform Commission was presented, which submitted proposals for a number of changes to the current criminal legislation.

We also have, as was mentioned here earlier in the speaker's chair, forfeiture legislation that increases the possibility of forfeiting assets acquired with proceeds from crime.

We have strengthened the border-adjacent police operations which have been granted extended powers.

The police can issue stay-away orders for gangs that create insecurity in squares and in shopping centers. This is something that has shown very good results in different places in the country.

These are some examples of measures that have had an effect.

Madam Speaker! The measures are yielding 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 crimes of a serious nature. The crime cases regarding stamping, preparation, and attempted crimes also show a tangible increase.

In the budget for 2026, a continued 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 2026. There is more to be done in that area, but the police also need to transition to combating crime that is increasingly moving over to the digital world.

Confidence in the police is increasing, but the Police Authority has also received what I consider to be justified criticism from both crime victims and the business community regarding the low clearance rate of, among other things, theft crimes. Now, the Police Authority has received a clear mandate to safeguard the local presence and increase the investment in solving the types of crimes that I just mentioned.

The measures against gross violence in the form of shootings and explosions continue. We are now seeing a significant reduction in the number of shootings, not least thanks to increased international cooperation where criminals in leading positions have been deprived of their liberty.

The number of explosions has previously been at an unacceptably high level. But if one looks at the latest statistics, one sees that it shows a declining scale. It looks better.

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

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

The continued investment involves increased appropriations of three billion to a total of 48 billion for the Swedish Police Authority.

The Prosecution Authority and the courts also receive increased appropriations to manage the expected increase in the number of criminal cases.

Madam Speaker! Increased detection and longer sentences for serious crimes have a crime-preventing effect but also lead to increased occupancy at Kriminalvården's facilities. Kriminalvården is already making major efforts today to manage the reception and treatment of persons who are to serve sentences. Capacity has increased by having inmates share cells. But a capacity reinforcement is required to maintain quality, efficiency, and security. This applies to both ordinary facilities as well as women's and youth prisons.

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 2025, the appropriations amounted to 20.9 billion. They are now being increased to 24.2 billion. That sum also includes funds for the rental of 600 prison places in Estonia.

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

An important component in this that I particularly want to highlight is the border-related police work. Increased cooperation within the EU and increased efforts from the border police with more rejections with re-entry bans have resulted in a significant reduction in cross-border theft. I think it is a good example of good and effective crime prevention work.

Madam Speaker! 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 prevention. We provide strengthened legal support for social services, parents, and schools. We are breaking down the secrecy, which was mentioned, which has constituted a major obstacle to good and effective cooperation.

We have introduced a new Social Services Act with a larger and better toolbox, where the social services shall work with early interventions, and there is a greater focus on crime prevention work.

Madam Speaker! The Government has made and is making major efforts to push back crime, and particularly the serious and organized crime which in itself is a threat to the system. But I believe that everyone here in the chamber realizes that this is not a quick fix. There are bright spots, but we are still in a serious situation. The increased appropriations and the continued investment in the justice system are therefore well-justified.

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

(Applause)

(cont. § 7)

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