The National Audit Office's report on the state's measures for children suspected of serious crimes

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are going to discuss an issue that is perhaps one of the most important that we have to deal with at all during the parliamentary term – the recruitment of children into serious criminal activity.

I believe that few of us have remained unaffected by the reports we receive. We see that children are being recruited at a young age on social media and even in our schools to commit violent crimes and murder other people for money.

Many of us, not least myself, were particularly affected by the report we received from the police earlier this year. There, the police stated that one of the biggest problems, one of the greatest difficulties and one of the biggest obstacles to breaking gang crime is that there is a nearly inexhaustible source of young people, children, who are ready to be recruited into gang crime and commit the most serious violent crimes for money.

Not least as a father of two boys, one is touched by this. It is one of our time's darkest and most serious problems. For many of us, it probably appears almost unreal; one finds it difficult to believe that it can even be in this way. But it is in this way.

We are obligated – we who sit in here and our entire society – to do everything we can, gather society's resources and take decisive action to break the trend. I mean that this is something that lies on the responsibility of all our parties, regardless of whether one is part of the government base or the opposition. It is a responsibility that lies with the authorities working with these issues. It is a responsibility that lies on civil society and not least on the parents. We must together mobilize society's resources to break the recruitment of children into serious crime.

The government is now implementing a number of things in this area, precisely because it is so important. The Tidö Agreement contains the most comprehensive program in the field of justice that has ever been implemented in our country, in any case in modern times. It is the largest investment in the justice system that we have ever implemented.

In the work, we have three priorities. It is about striking against violence, i.e., stopping the violence to the greatest extent possible in order to protect people, potential crime victims, from being affected. It is also about strangling the criminal economy. That is what enables this, and it was allowed to grow by 100–150 billion during the previous government. We must break it, because that is where the money is, and that is what drives much of the crime. The third priority is therefore to break the recruitment of children into serious crime.

We think it is very good that the Swedish National Audit Office has conducted this review and gone through and looked at how society works with these issues. Are we doing enough? Are we sufficiently effective? Not surprisingly, the Swedish National Audit Office concludes that it is not so. It is clear that we must do more in this matter. There is a long series of questions and a long series of measures that we must take. There is no quick fix for this, but rather a lot of different things that must be put in place.

If one is to choose one thing that is particularly important – even though I think it is difficult – it is breaking the secrecy between different authorities. Police, social services, and school must talk to each other to be able to break a criminal career as early as possible, preferably before it has even begun.

That is why we are now introducing a number of different new rules linked to this, where we ensure that the thresholds are lowered. The authorities will be able to speak with each other in a completely different way. It will even become an obligation in certain cases, not least for principals, to contact the police and inform them if, for example, recruitment to gang crime is taking place at a school or if people are committing crimes on the school grounds.

One might actually think this is a self-evident matter. It is perhaps one of the most important tasks a principal has to maintain order and safety at a school. It is clear that a principal must have contact with the police if serious crimes are committed at the school. Why has this not been a self-evident matter previously?

The answer to that question is that there is no consensus here in the chamber on this. There are several opposition parties that oppose this. They do not think at all that the principals should have any obligation to have a dialogue with the police. Now that we are discussing specifically the recruitment of children into serious crime, it would be very interesting to hear from the parties that are against this what they think should be done instead. Should we not, then, have open doors between school, social services, and the police so that we can break criminal careers as quickly as possible? I believe that it is one of the most important measures that we can carry out at all.

Other things we have done involve, for example, enabling the interception of people who are younger than 15 years old. There are those who have raised their voices that it is an infringement of privacy and that it should therefore not be done. We should not intercept children, they believe. But the fact is that it helps us to catch, at as early a stage as possible, those people who would otherwise have ended up in crime.

One can talk about privacy in these cases. But what is actually more of a violation of privacy than being—as a child, when one perhaps does not really have a sense of consequences and understands what one is doing—entangled by a criminal gang and committing acts that one can never undo? One more or less has one's life ruined because one either eventually becomes a victim of the gangs or does things for which one will be punished and which will affect one's life for many years to come. What is more of a violation of privacy than this? It cannot be more of a violation of privacy that society and the adult world take their responsibility and step in with full force as soon as possible and do something about this.

The police write on their website that children and young people are used as perpetrators within serious organized crime because they risk lower or no penalties due to their low age.

That is why it is so important that we review both the age of criminal responsibility and sentencing discounts. It is, after all, the case that young people commit very serious crimes, and many times the full resources of society can be deployed only when a young person ends up with the police. Then, one can use force, and consent is no longer required. Often, it is this that is required to break a criminal career.

We are also making changes to the Social Services Act and in other ways that mean that, from the social services side as well, one will also be able to use what is called intermediate coercion, i.e., not needing consent from either the guardian or the child. As a result of this, it will be possible to take measures in a much more powerful way than before.

Preventive work and repressive work are not different things here, but they must go hand in hand. We must mobilize both the rule of law, the criminal justice system and the welfare state, as well as naturally the parents, against this. The family has an enormously great significance when it comes to preventing crime.

The government is now allocating 400 million per year to support parents who may have children who have gone astray or off track. I believe it is a measure that will have a very great significance, because the family is perhaps the most important factor for preventing the crimes that we have at all.

We are making a huge investment in this. We are going to break the trend, and we are already seeing results. We see that the fatal shootings are decreasing. We see that the clearance rate of serious shootings in gang environments has increased from 25–30 percent two years ago to 70 percent today. This is very pleasing, and we will continue in that manner. It is our responsibility to break this development, and we can do that if we do it powerfully together.

(Applause)

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is about children – children who commit serious crimes, children who are recruited by gangs, children who commit explosions and children who murder children.

Yes, it is heavy and painful to speak about children in that way. But it is also heavy to read the National Audit Office's report, because it confirms something we have long sensed and seen: that our collective systems do not hang together, that children who should be identified in time do not receive the right support, and that it does not matter how well individual police officers, social workers, or teachers do their jobs if the whole is flawed.

The National Audit Office's report is clear: The state's collective efforts to break children's serious crime are not fully effective. Cooperation between different actors falters, reports of concern fall through the cracks, social services lack the right tools, and the differences between municipalities are far too large.

This is not just a sign of systemic failure. It is a betrayal of the children who could have had a different future.

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear at the same time that we Social Democrats welcome the communication that the government has submitted to the Riksdag. We see that they agree with much of the National Audit Office's criticism and that several reforms are underway.

However, we mean that it is not enough. If we are to reverse this development, even more is required. Therefore, we Social Democrats have submitted a follow-up motion on the subject with six concrete proposals.

Firstly, we must strengthen social care for young people. This concerns children and young people who, for various reasons, cannot live at home. There is an investigation titled "For children and young people in social care." It contains many good proposals that were positively received during the consultation process but which have not yet become a reality. We want the government to promptly proceed with some of these proposals.

Secondly, the public sector must take back control of the HVB homes for youths who have fallen into crime. The HVB homes are currently operated in a market where we see how private actors, even actors with links to serious organized crime, run homes where children are both exposed to and recruited into even more serious crime. This is completely unacceptable. The HVB homes shall be a protection for children who have fallen off track, not risk making them even more serious criminals.

Thirdly, we want the staff at the HVB homes to be given the right tools, but of course only if these tools are used in the right way. It could involve drug tests, searches, and the possibility to search rooms. But those powers must also be combined with competence, security, and respect. That is why we believe that the public sector must take responsibility for the HVB homes, not private actors.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we have proposed that the social services should be able to flag young people entering into crime. Flagging is not a fun word, but it is a necessary tool. Sometimes it is about an adult actually accompanying them, being there, seeing and acting – every day, every waking hour if necessary. We Social Democrats have also allocated funds so that this can become a reality in the municipalities.

For the fifth, we propose that youth crime boards be introduced, similar to the model we see in Denmark. In such a board, there shall be a judge, a police officer, and a municipal representative who together decide on an individual plan with interventions, requirements, and follow-up. This is also something that should be able to target very young children – before they enter the justice system, before it has gone too far. Our goal must, of course, be to catch children who are drifting before they end up in the gangs' claws.

Youth crime boards are a way to give the child direction, but there must also be clear consequences if one does not follow the plan they have received. The investigation is complete. The referral process is finished. Now, it is only an implementation committee that is missing. It is not more complicated than that.

For the sixth, it has been, following a Social Democratic initiative, since July 1, 2023, punishable to involve persons under 18 years of age in criminal activity. This is a way to reach the leaders who exploit our children. We Social Democrats now want to take this further and argue that also those who purchase drugs from children should risk imprisonment. The person who purchases drugs from a child maintains a system where children are exploited by the gangs and then forced into even more serious crime. With our proposal, it will become harder for the gangs to exploit innocent children who risk ending up on the wrong path.

Mr. Speaker! At its core, it is about what responsibility we adults take. We must choose: Do we see children as a threat, or do we see them as human beings whom we have a duty to protect?

The truth is that children are children – when we allow them to be. When society hardens, when the outside world hardens, when the rhetoric on social media and even here in the chamber hardens, then it is the actions of adults that lead to children losing the right to their childhood.

That is why we must also dare to speak about the most fundamental prerequisites. None of what we are talking about, whether it concerns early interventions, point marking, coordination, or HVB in public administration, is possible if we do not have strong municipalities and regions that have the capacity to bear the responsibility.

Here we believe that the government is failing. They say they want to invest in preventive work, but at the same time, schools, social services, and child and adolescent psychiatry are currently forced to make cuts. How are we to reverse the development when those who are supposed to do the work lack resources?

We Social Democrats have, in our budget motion, presented powerful investments so that the preventive work can begin where the children are – in preschool, in school, in extracurricular activities, in the family, and in the municipality.

We must never forget that it is we adults who set the framework. It is we who shape the expectations, the environment and the opportunities – but also the limitations. If we do not stand up for children's right to protection, support and security, it is we who fail, not the children.

I want more children to have the chance to turn their lives into something positive. I want fewer children to end up in crime. I want us to build a society where safety, trust, and faith in the future triumph over violence, fear, and hopelessness.

That is why we have submitted the motion with our proposals. It is not enough, but it is a good part of the way.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, we stand behind all our proposals, but I choose to conclude by moving for the approval of reservation 3.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share Member Wallentheim's position when she says that this is a betrayal of the children who could have had a better future. It is completely correct. But we must also keep in mind that when we debate this report from the Swedish National Audit Office, it is not just an audit from the Swedish National Audit Office but also an evaluation of eight years of Social Democratic failure in the area. The Swedish National Audit Office shows that the interventions for young people in crime have been too late and too insufficient. These are problems that we have inherited and are now addressing by doing what was not done previously.

We are presenting a new Social Services Act that requires preventive and outreach work, and we are introducing the so-called intermediate detention with ankle bracelets for young people and a strengthened parental responsibility. There will be clear consequences for parents who refuse to cooperate. We are introducing mandatory serious talks to catch young people in risk zones, and we are tightening the requirements for participating in treatment. Through the Bob structure and the strategy Barriers against Crime, we coordinate the authorities and civil society to act and cooperate together to help young people who are about to get stuck in crime.

Mr. Speaker! When the Social Democrats talk about point marking, we can state that we are now ensuring that it becomes a reality. That is positive. And it is positive that the Social Democrats have joined a clearer social preventive line and clearer measures in crime fighting to such a large extent. It is good that we can find a broad consensus in the chamber.

But when we are in agreement, it is at the same time a shame that a change of government would be required before the proposals could become a reality.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the opportunity to speak.

I want to start by reminding that during our years in government, we tightened eighty penalties. We also ensured that there were new police trainings. We reformed the criminal justice policy, which this government has chosen to follow.

At the same time, we must remember that during both of our terms, there was a right-wing majority in the Riksdag. This meant that many of the preventive reforms that we tried to present were voted down by the chamber – by a right-wing majority that did not consider it necessary to expend effort and resources on preventive work. Some of the proposals we presented in the chamber, which I believe would have made a difference, were voted down. This concerned, for example, addressing school failure, that is, the school market. We know that far too many children fall through the cracks and do not succeed in school.

I mean that it is not correct to claim that we did not act. But I will be completely honest and say that we did not do enough. This applies particularly to the preventive work, and we can now see that we should have done significantly more. That is what we are trying to do with the concrete proposals contained in our motion. The proposals are not only tough but also concern the fact that it is better to act preventively.

We have seen an explosion of repressive proposals. But if social services, the school, and BUP do not keep up, there will be no improvements. It is they who must manage the work.

We Social Democrats believe that safety requires both strength against crime and strength to lift up our children. It is proposals regarding this that we have presented in the submission.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many of the proposals in the letter are things that the government is already implementing, is about to implement, or already has in place. It is of course good that you think the proposals should be implemented, and it is of course good that Member Wallentheim and the Social Democratic committee in the Committee on Justice think that the government is doing a good job. I want to encourage the work by saying that it should be done. It is positive and something that we of course welcome.

But it also becomes a bit strange when the criticism is that it is too late and too slow when it concerns things that we should have already had in place.

Regarding the question of increased powers at HVB homes, it is about staff checking if residents use drugs and searching rooms. These are things that should have been in place for a long time, and it is positive that we are now implementing these proposals. It is naturally good that pressure is being exerted in this area.

Member of Parliament Wallentheim is saying, then, that it was the Social Democratic government that initiated the work by appointing a number of inquiries. But it was a direct consequence of the Social Democratic government being in a minority in the Riksdag and that the Riksdag issued a notice to the government to appoint these inquiries. A notice in parliamentary language means that the Riksdag overrides the government so that the work can be done. Yes, the previous government was in a minority in the chamber. It was fortunate, I suppose, because we were then able to get the inquiries in place.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding preventive work and resource allocation, the previous government wanted to make changes to the Social Services Act, and it was written into the investigation directives that the proposals must not be cost-driving. We are allocating 8 billion for the purpose. It is a difference in who is in power.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! This could become a debate where we go back and forth. The fact is that 71 percent of the bills that the bourgeois government has submitted are based on investigations that the Social Democratic government commissioned. Now, the member wants to point out that it was due to the announcements that took place in the Committee on Justice and that it is therefore a bourgeois policy that is actually being implemented. Therefore, I want the member to go back and look at the records. The fact is that we Social Democrats chose to support many of the announcements, precisely because there were populist proposals for things like what you claim we are doing now. The Social Democratic government had in many instances already commissioned investigations and looked at directives.

You want to make populist gestures to show that you are now taking action on this. But the Social Democratic government was already doing much of the work. This is therefore not about us Social Democrats waking up too late, but that we acted and appointed inquiries. The previous government implemented 80 sentencing increases. We have ensured that new police trainings have been started, and we have added more resources. That work continues.

We believe that it is not the sender who is important, but it is the policy that is important. We therefore had no problem saying yes to some of the announcements that you directed. It is unfortunate that we now have a situation where it seems to be incredibly difficult for the bourgeois parties to say yes to our proposals. We have submitted incredibly many proposals in the Committee on Justice that are met with rejection after rejection, because the sender is more important to you than the policy.

(Applause)

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I will not engage in historiography, but I think there is a great deal to what Ludvig Ceimertz stated earlier regarding the announcements of increased penalties under the previous government. But we do not really need to discuss that question.

The member says that you want to monitor criminal children and young people. As the member knows, I come from Malmö – the cradle of the Social Democrats here in Sweden. The Social Democrats have ruled, for the most part, uninterrupted for 100 years – with two three-year periods of bourgeois rule.

It is now established that there are over 800 children and young people in Malmö acting in the criminal world. That alone is a major failure in itself, we can surely agree on that. We do not need to discuss that question.

The proposal you are putting forward is to mark the young people. Anna Wallentheim mentioned that it would take place more or less around the clock, every day of the week, and it requires resources. How have you planned for Malmö to act in those types of markings of over 800 children? How is it going to work in practical terms? I see problems, but the member may be welcome to elaborate on the thoughts a bit more.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Torsten Elofsson for an incredibly good question, which gives me the opportunity to elaborate on this.

The question concerned the targeted intervention of 800 young people, for whom we can state that it has already gone too far. It is a matter of children who have ended up in crime. Here, we mean of course that targeted intervention will not always be the solution, but here other solutions are needed. We should have started earlier, and I hope that Torsten Elofsson can agree with that. We need a society that stands strong in supporting children so that they do not end up so far astray.

There is a beginning. We often hear stories from leisure activities, school, and social services that there is a young person who would need support. That support can take the form of point marking, meaning that one follows the child to and from school as well as to and from an activity. Then we know at all times that the youth is on site.

It might not help the 800 children who have already ended up on the wrong track. There are other proposals, such as HVB homes and other social interventions, which perhaps would be clearer and sharper there. But some of them we could certainly help through point marking. It is incredibly important that we ensure there is an adult who is there, who sees and who acts. The answer to Torsten Elofsson's question is therefore that not all of the 800 would have needed point marking.

We are allocating, as I mentioned in my speech, resources to identify the young, 1.5 billion to begin with. The Social Democratic budget also contains more investments in the municipalities and regions than the bourgeois budget does. That also makes a difference.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I am still a bit doubtful as to how it is going to proceed.

After 100 years of Social Democratic rule in the city of Malmö, the municipality has this type of social problem with young people and children who engage in crime. Furthermore, the municipality tries to obscure parts of the report. They do not want to admit that things are as bad as they de facto are.

I think it would be appropriate for the Social Democrats to examine themselves. What is it that has led to Malmö city ending up in a situation with such gigantic, large social problems as it de facto has? If social democracy now has the answers to most of it, I wonder how we ended up here. How did the Social Democrats end up there? And how are they going to solve these problems?

Proposals are being presented here. But I feel that it is a repetition of proposals that have come through the years. They are new crime-preventive measures but more of the old. Would the proposals presented here be some kind of solution to the problems that Malmö city is struggling with? That is my question to the member.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Torsten Elofsson, for the follow-up remark!

The simple answer is, of course, that since 2006 we have had a bourgeois majority here in the chamber of the Riksdag. Moderate municipal councilors back in Hässleholm have told me: There is nothing as wonderful as being a municipal councilor when you have an S-led government. That is when resources and money come to the municipalities.

The fact is that municipality after municipality signals that they do not have sufficient resources. They are forced to cut back on schools, and they are forced to cut back on prevention, on social services, and on psychiatry. At the same time, we wonder why the municipalities are not able to manage the severely exposed situation they face. Resources are needed. We need to build up the welfare, not dismantle it.

We Social Democrats see this. That is why we are allocating even more money to our municipalities and regions, to ensure that they can manage the situation they face, to be able to help the children and young people who are falling behind.

Without resources, it doesn't matter what fine words we say here in the chamber or what we say we are going to implement. It is out there, in the encounter with the children, where we can make a difference. But it is not us politicians who do it. It is our teachers, it is social secretaries, it is the social services, it is people within psychiatry and it is our leisure leaders. They need resources. That is what this chamber needs to send out to our municipalities and regions. That would be a good start.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the government's submission of the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts regarding children suspected of serious crimes. Children suspected of serious crimes – that is where one should stop and be astonished that we have a National Audit Office report on children suspected of serious crimes at all.

The crime we see in Sweden today is brutal. Children at increasingly younger ages are being recruited by gangs. They are used as runners and are lured into crime that risks marking their entire lives. The gangs exploit children mercilessly. They are made to carry weapons, deal drugs or, in the worst cases, commit serious violent crimes, even murder.

The National Audit Office's review shows that the state's efforts to break children's criminality have been insufficient. I can only agree. They have been insufficient for a long time. The problems have only grown without sufficient measures being taken. This audit report is a clear sign of that. But I believe we have all seen it ourselves already.

The National Audit Office rejects the work that has been done. We have seen gangs grow stronger and how young people are drawn in, but society's response has been too late and too weak. But now, a decisive reorganization of crime policy is underway. The Government is taking a holistic approach to prevent, combat, and break crime among children and young people. We are strengthening the justice system, social services, and the entire society's ability to handle these serious problems.

One of the major reforms being implemented is the new Social Services Act. It is a law that puts crime prevention work at the center, and it will be in place this summer. It is a reform that means we stop being reactive. Instead, we build a society where we identify risks early, act in time, and have the right tools to intervene quickly when children fall into the risk zone.

It will be a decisive change. It gives the social services increased authority to implement interventions early, even if the guardians do not consent. And it strengthens the cooperation between social services, school, and police to ensure that children in the risk zone are caught before it is too late, Mr. Speaker.

The reform is a clear change and a clear shift in perspective. Previously, there has been talk about crime prevention work without providing the authorities with the tools. Now we are doing the work and creating the conditions to act. It should be difficult to enter into crime but easy to get out of it.

With the so-called intermediate coercion investigation, we strengthen and clarify parental responsibility. Society's responsibility will never be able to fully compensate for a lack of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility must be clarified, and it must be strengthened. We strengthen the interventions between the most intrusive interventions, such as coercive placement, and the completely voluntary interventions, where we see that half of all parents decline. We also allocate 8 billion to get the implementation in place.

Mr. Speaker! Other central parts of the extensive strategy are the Bob structure and the social preventive strategy Barriers against crime. Bob – children and young people in organized crime – is a new cooperation structure between authorities working with precisely these issues. The Police, social services, the Prison and Probation Service, Sis, the Prosecution Authority, and other actors shall now work together in a more systematic way to identify and break crime before it goes too far.

At the same time, we are strengthening crime prevention work through the social preventive strategy Barriers against crime. It is about making it harder for children and young people to be drawn into crime from the very beginning, about building a safety net around young people by giving schools, social services, and other actors greater opportunities to act. Through the cooperation structures between municipality, state, and civil society, we can act with the full force of society.

We are also tearing down secrecy barriers. It should be said that this has not happened without resistance. But now we are tearing down the secrecy barriers that make it difficult for authorities, civil society, municipalities and regions to gather together and help children who are heading into crime. We want to do more so that more information can be shared, and further legislation is on the way.

It is important that we take concrete measures and build barriers so that young people are not recruited into the gangs. And it is important that those who nevertheless end up there shall be given a way out.

It is telling that the main criticism is primarily about it going too slowly, that it is not going fast enough. I can agree with that criticism. It is a frustration that has existed for many years. But it is still interesting that the criticism that it is not going fast enough comes when the work picks up pace.

For eight years, the previous government had the chance to act. It was eight years when we saw how children were recruited into gangs without the sharp measures that had been needed being taken. We continued to let interventions from social services be voluntary. We saw how HVB homes failed to help youths on a downward spiral.

When we are now implementing the largest criminal policy change in decades, the criticism is that it is going too slowly. Yes, it is frustrating when it goes too slowly. I agree. But we are on our way. We are underway. We have started. We have redone the work. We are taking decisive action. We are taking a holistic approach to get children and young people out of crime and break the new recruitment into the gangs.

We know that we will not solve this overnight – far from it. It requires perseverance, a comprehensive effort, and a combination of preventive measures and clear reactions to crime. We must be both repressive and preventive. That is why we have a clear strategy that encompasses the entire justice system, social services, and civil society. We must be able to intervene early. We are repressive against crime and preventive in order to reduce new recruitment.

Let me be clear: We cannot yield. We cannot let children become pawns in the gangs' power games. We do not intend to give up the fight for a safer Sweden. We must build a society where crime is met with consequences and where those tempted by criminality see a wall of resistance ahead of them – a wall built of law, justice, and a strong society. It is not just about prosecuting criminals. It is fundamentally about reclaiming Sweden – street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, and child by child.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! During the autumn of 2024, it emerged that criminal gangs operate a large number of HVB homes in our country. It is completely incomprehensible that something such can happen, I believe. HVB homes should be for giving young people a new chance in life and a new start in life without crime. It should be a self-evident matter that those who are responsible for our young people are persons with competence, integrity, and a genuine will to help young people to a better life. Every young person should meet adults with resources and opportunities to help stop crime. Instead, many young people have met staff linked to criminal gangs who have used the HVB homes as a recruitment base for young people into criminal networks. The placement in these homes has then had the opposite effect and instead contributed to young people being drawn deeper into crime. It is, to say the least, remarkable and completely incomprehensible.

During 2024, the police stated that criminal gangs run HVB homes and that members of criminal networks work in the operations. SVT calculated that Swedish municipalities paid 200 million kronor to HVB homes with links to serious crime and organized crime. Some of these homes have now been closed, but not all.

How does the member believe that society should act to address this problem? Is it not high time that society takes over the operation of the HVB homes in order to completely rule out the possibility that criminal gangs can run the operations?

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Johnsson Fornarve for the remark.

Let me be clear: When we see criminals running or working at HVB homes, it is a complete failure. That there are criminals with links to serious organized crime working to care for our young people in risk zones is a failure in every way. It is also why the government has acted in many ways in this issue.

The government has strengthened Ivo, partly with increased resources, partly with a clear mandate to conduct inspections of HVB homes in order to be able to close those HVB homes that have links to crime. We have appointed an inquiry to review the entire state youth care and give it better efficiency. For the seriously criminal young people, we are introducing youth prisons. We strengthen Sis, strengthen HVB, and strengthen foster homes in order to be able to differentiate to a greater extent and strengthen the state youth care.

Mr. Speaker! When Ivo closes even municipal HVB homes because there are links to serious organized crime, the conclusion cannot be that the problem is solely about the fact that not all HVB homes are run by municipalities. When even municipal HVB homes are forced to close by Ivo, the conclusion therefore cannot be that only municipalities should be allowed to run HVB homes.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. I am glad that the member agrees that it is a complete failure when criminals run HVB homes.

The Inspectorate for Health and Care, Ivo, has warned about the growing crime within the HVB homes. Ivo has also closed several HVB homes, but several remain. Every day that passes where young people are forced to be in HVB homes with criminal connections naturally involves great risks. It is actually incomprehensible why the government does not stop this more clearly and earlier. Is it the case that the government is unable to set hard against hard because it concerns private profit-driven actors in the welfare sector? Is it the case that the government is tied by its belief that the market should solve all problems? It has turned out that this has not worked when it comes to the HVB homes.

I mean that the public sector must take over the control of the HVB homes. That municipalities have paid out grants to HVB homes that have turned out to be criminal is due to the municipalities not having had the insight and awareness into who these actors have been. If we get a public takeover of the HVB homes, we can gain total control over their direction. We can also then ensure that the staff working there have adequate education and competence; it is of course incredibly important that we have staff who can handle these young people, who have very difficult problems. To protect our children and young people, we must ensure that the HVB homes are not run by criminal gangs. I find it difficult to see any other long-term solution than for the public sector to take over to achieve uniformity and control over the HVB homes. Does the member not agree with that?

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear: In many ways, we have inherited a broken system when it comes to state youth care. That the police are not allowed to inform Ivo, who has the task of inspecting, that there are criminals running or working at HVB homes is absurd. Now we are changing that. We are moving forward with new legislation to tear down the secrecy, so that the police and other authorities can cooperate and share information to a greater extent to put a stop to this. We have given Ivo a clear mandate to inspect the HVB homes and shut down all those who have connections to crime or do not function. Ivo has also received an additional allocation of resources for this purpose.

We have moved forward with a national coordination function to help municipalities make placements. It should not be the case that at every individual social service in Sweden's 290 municipalities, one has to sit alone and call and search for HVB homes, because one often does not have the knowledge and the overall picture. It works in the larger municipalities, but in the smaller municipalities, it is difficult. Therefore, we are introducing a national coordination to place children and young people in HVB homes.

But let me also be clear that it is not solved just because municipalities take over the HVB homes. Ivo closes municipal HVB homes because they have links to serious organized crime when it is the home municipality that has placed persons in the residence. It is therefore not at that end we should start to address the problem. Instead, we shall strengthen Ivo, break down secrecy barriers, have national coordination, and close all HVB homes that have links to crime.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have nothing to object to regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations to the government. I also share the government's assessment that it is very important to reverse the negative development and prevent children from being drawn into crime, and that society's ability to act with accurate interventions in a timely manner can be decisive in preventing children and young people from developing criminal behaviors.

We have for a longer period seen how the development is going in the wrong direction and how all younger people are being recruited into the criminal gangs. We simply must put an end to the recruitment of young people into the gangs and the criminality. Anything else is unacceptable and a proof of a societal failure.

But in order to succeed in reversing the development, we must build the safe society where children and young people in the risk zone see an alternative to the gangs and the crime. In order to succeed with that, we cannot just talk, but we must invest in children and young people. There must be an end to the cuts in welfare, the school, the social services and a rich outdoor life.

What is required is both short-term and long-term work and a common political will to reduce the economic gaps in society and a substantial investment in building resilient communities with strong welfare.

Unfortunately, the right-wing government's proposal in the Tidö Agreement to combat crime is based on SD's repressive policy. The government must immediately take a holistic approach to the issues based on research and proven experience and not let populism form the basis for justice policy measures.

The Government reports in the letter on a number of investigations for which it has submitted or is expected to submit proposals in the near future. These concern, among other things, proposals regarding a changed youth discount for those under 18 years of age, a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility, youth prisons, and secret coercive measures against persons under 15 years of age who have committed serious crimes.

My perception is that age limits exist for very good reasons. Children are children and should be treated as children. I want to particularly emphasize the importance of the special status that children have and shall have within the criminal justice system and that it must not be diluted. The sentencing system for young offenders is designed based on the principle that children and young people who commit crimes should primarily be kept out of the Prison and Probation Service and instead be subject to interventions within social services.

Even though I have chosen not to submit any follow-up motions in the matter, I want to express a great concern regarding the proposals. I consider that these proposals are neither necessary, effective, nor proportionate. They will not lead to reduced crime. The measures risk, on the contrary, becoming counterproductive. What is required is long-term crime prevention work to stop the new recruitment to the gangs, primarily among young people.

I see, however, a need for new youth sentences for children over 15 years of age and am not opposed to introducing more such sentences that can complement the ones already existing. The prerequisite is, of course, that the sentences introduced are legally secure and specifically adapted for children and young people, as well as having a clearly treatment-oriented content. I also believe that the recidivism prevention work towards young offenders should be strengthened.

Stopping the recruitment of children and young people into crime is completely central to reducing shootings and other serious crimes. It is therefore absolutely necessary to invest in crime prevention measures and to provide, among other things, social services and schools with sufficient resources for this work.

However, there is no quick solution to stop the new recruitment into crime. A number of measures are needed in both the short and long term. It is primarily investments in schools, social services, and children and youth's leisure activities that are needed.

If school, leisure activities, and society in general function well, the opportunities to recruit children and young people into crime decrease. A young person who receives the support they need to manage school is significantly harder to recruit. Many of the young people who end up in crime have not managed school or have major deficiencies in their schooling. This is something that is also confirmed in the letter.

A young person who has a meaningful leisure time and sees clear alternatives to crime also becomes harder to recruit into the gangs. Good cooperation between different authorities and local actors is required, where the police have an important role, which is also apparent from the communication.

The government often refers to Denmark when it comes to crime fighting, but then one forgets to look at what has actually had an effect in Denmark. It is not the extended prison sentences that have had the greatest effect in Denmark. It is becoming increasingly clear and obvious that it is instead the preventive measures that have had the greatest effect in our neighboring country. It is about local representatives coming together and cooperating with the police and authorities, building up trust among children and young people, and showing a different way.

But instead of investing in crime prevention measures, the right-wing government chooses the repressive path with harsher penalties, despite a lack of evidence that these measures are effective in reducing crime. The right-wing government has, on the contrary, cut funding to, among other things, social services and school. It is a deeply reprehensible and irresponsible policy that the Left Party completely distances itself from.

Stopping the recruitment into crime is not a quick fix, however. The dismantling of the common welfare society has been ongoing for a long time, and researchers warned early on that the situation that now prevails would arise.

A number of different measures are needed in the short and long term. There are various projects that have turned out well and that can be learned from, such as Rätt Kurva and Sluta skjut. We also need to develop good national exit programs across the country for young people who want to leave crime behind. Bob-råden are also extremely important bodies that need clear structure and resources, as is also pointed out in the letter.

We have a reservation together with S and MP that I want to move for approval, which concerns HVB-homes. HVB-homes shall be a safe environment where children and young people receive good care and help to move away from crime and destructive behavior. They shall be a help for young people to return to school and a functioning life.

The care and treatment provided primarily to youths with a criminal background in HVB homes unfortunately have such significant deficiencies that the operations fundamentally need to be changed. In recent years, it has been reported how youths during their stay in HVB homes have been recruited into criminal gangs and to commit serious crimes. In some cases, the homes have even been run by criminal actors.

During 2024, the police noted that criminal gangs run HVB homes and that members of criminal networks work in the operations. SVT has calculated that Swedish municipalities have paid out 200 million to HVB homes with links to serious organized crime.

Criminals should not be able to run HVB homes for vulnerable children and young people. It should be completely obvious and completely impossible. It should be a matter of course that those responsible for our young people are individuals with competence, integrity, and a genuine will to help young people toward a better life. Every young person should meet adults with the resources and opportunity to help and stop crime.

Some of these homes have now been closed. But to solve the problems in the long term, we believe that society needs to take over the control and operation of the HVB homes. This is partly to gain better control over ensuring that the homes are operated in a purposeful and equal manner across the country, partly to guarantee that staff have adequate training – and of course to prevent them from being operated by criminals.

Vänsterpartiet would preferably see a total ban on private actors operating HVB homes and that the government investigates how existing privately run operations within HVB can be taken over by the public. But step one is to shut down those that have links to criminal activity and that the public takes over the operation of the HVB homes that care for young people who have been placed due to criminal activity in accordance with the reservation we have. I therefore move for approval of reservation number 2.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to everyone who has participated in the debate on this very important issue!

For my part, I am perhaps less interested in discussing whose fault it actually is that we have ended up here. I am more interested in trying to find out who wants to be involved in solving the problem.

We are now carrying out the largest investment in the justice system in modern times. We give the police powers that allow more crimes to be solved. We give social services powers that will enable them to make interventions much more effectively. And not least: We remove the secrecy so that school, social services, and the police can talk to each other and in that way intervene early and break criminal careers among very young people.

We have very strong support in the Riksdag for this. I experience that it is going well. I experience that it has an effect. Serious crime is decreasing in some parts and the clearance rate is increasing very much. We solve serious crimes to a much greater extent today than we did a few years ago.

There is a large cloud of concern in the sky. For these measures to have full effect, they need to be in force for a long period. This is going to take time. But what happens in the event of a change of power? The fact is that Vänsterpartiet very often is against these measures. People say no to things. This past week, we talked about that we are going to set up thousands of surveillance cameras in Sweden. Vänsterpartiet was against it. What one then wonders is: Will Vänsterpartiet want to remove those surveillance cameras if they gain power after the next election?

We are now discussing, for example, that school, healthcare, and social services will be able to talk to each other about young criminals in order to stop these careers early. Vänsterpartiet is against it. They do not want that information sharing. They perhaps want to have back the confidentiality barriers that we had before.

My question to the member is actually: If it were to be the case that Vänsterpartiet gains influence over crime policy after the election, will you then reintroduce confidentiality barriers so that principals, social services, and the police cannot speak with each other in order to prevent serious crimes being committed by young people?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

Of course, the police and social services must be able to talk to each other – we are completely convinced of that. But they actually can already do that today.

The problem with the Sweden Democrats' and the government's policy is that you talk about the importance of preventive work but do nothing to ensure that it becomes a reality. Instead, you cut resources to municipalities and regions and choose to lower taxes for the very richest. You have a budget space. You use it to lower taxes for the richest instead of strengthening the municipalities and regions.

It is in the municipalities and regions where the important work must be done. The municipalities are on their knees today. They do not have the money they need to invest in social services and schools so that one can be able to help and support the children who need support and help. We see instead how teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists and so on are being dismissed all over the country.

This is not sustainable. If we are to work preventatively and long-term, we must invest in children and young people here and now. Then we must ensure that municipalities and regions receive the support and help they need. Of course, we must ensure that we get a well-functioning crime prevention effort, but that goes hand in hand with resources and investments. In that case, one cannot cut back, as the government and Sverigedemokraterna do in their budget.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the member that resources are needed to solve these problems. We are providing those resources. I therefore do not at all share the view being put forward here.

But the question was actually not that. The question was that we are now conducting a review of the entire Swedish criminal law and the entire Swedish criminal policy in order to, in every way, tear down the obstacles that exist for solving crimes.

Two years ago, you could go to the police and ask: What is the most important thing we can do now to break the recruitment of young people into gang crime? Then they said: The most important thing is that we must be able to speak openly with social services and schools. Tear down the secrecy barriers!

It is not in the way that the Left Party claims that one can already do this today. It is, therefore, a real problem that crime fighting is hindered by the fact that we ourselves set up rules that prevent authorities, adult society, and the adult world from stepping in and stopping criminal careers early, when the people are children. It is a fact.

We are now changing that. This will come into force on April 1. This means that the police, social services and school will be able to speak with each other. Vänsterpartiet said no to that.

My question is therefore: Will Vänsterpartiet, if they are given influence over crime policy, want to reintroduce these confidentiality barriers and prevent the police, schools, and social services from talking to each other? Or have you changed your mind and now understood the importance of us implementing this? Do you now stand behind the legislation that we are implementing on April 1st?

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question!

We do not in any way want to prevent the police, social services, schools and so on from talking to each other. We mean that they can do that perfectly well already today. But we must ensure that we strengthen the local cooperation in various ways, including by providing more resources and establishing clear structures for how that work should function.

The Chairman also says that you are investing in preventive work. But you actually are not doing that. You only have to look at how it looks in the municipalities and regions, which are on their knees. They have to constantly save and cut back. It affects the youth and children who are absolutely most vulnerable.

We must, if we are serious and want to tackle the problem with new recruitment, really invest in children and young people here and now. Children and young people who are in the risk zone must receive the support and help they need early on. We must start investing in the children already when they are in preschool. We cannot wait until they are inside the criminal gangs.

You must see that it is this work that must be strengthened. Then one cannot cut the resources to municipalities and regions, which you actually have done in your budget. It is a fact.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Johnsson Fornarve, for your speech! I listened to it with a certain amount of surprise.

Yes, it is true that the government is pursuing a repressive policy to combat the criminal gangs, tackle crime and ensure that we can get more prosecuted, as well as toughen sentences and provide redress for crime victims. But we are also pursuing a policy regarding extensive preventive work.

It was this that I got stuck on. Time and again it was said that the government is doing nothing when it comes to the preventive work – it is just locks and barriers. I therefore thought that I would mention some things that the government is doing.

Support is being introduced for maternal and child healthcare and parenting support and school social teams to strengthen the parental role. It is a targeted investment for Bris to help children and young people leave crime. It is an increased parental responsibility, including more home visits in maternal and child healthcare. It is an increased accessibility within child and adolescent psychiatry.

It is a student health guarantee for rapid access to professional support in school. School areas are closed to unauthorized persons so that you can reduce recruitment to gangs. Principals receive statutory responsibility for safety, including the possibility to relocate violent students. It is school social teams.

It is reduced confidentiality barriers between school, social services and police for better information exchange. It is the establishment of a new cooperation structure for children in organized crime.

It is a new Social Services Act with a focus on preventive measures. It is 8 billion to implement it.

It is about ankle bracelets for young people in care due to crime or links to serious crime. It is a review of HVB care for increased safety and security. An investigation has been commissioned to reform the entire youth care system.

It is a national strategy against organized crime to mobilize the entire society in the fight against crime. Parents and society shall set clear boundaries and take responsibility for preventing crime. It is about regular follow-up and evaluation to ensure that no children fall through the cracks.

This is what Member Johnsson Fornarve says is nothing.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! It was not a real question, but I thank you anyway.

Yes, the government is making some minor efforts. But when it comes to the large investments in municipalities and regions, you are actually doing nothing. You are cutting back on the support to municipalities and regions – the foundation that is so important to stop the recruitment of children and young people.

We see clearly today how municipalities and regions are being brought to their knees. They are forced to lay off teachers, school psychologists and so on, who are needed to support and help the children. They are forced to cut back on social services.

The great resources that municipalities and regions need, and have needed for a long time, are not coming. It is there that we see the government is doing far too little, even if some smaller interventions are being made. Much more needs to be done when it comes to investing in children and young people here and now so that we can stop the new recruitment. One must identify the children and young people who are in the risk zone early on. Resources must be allocated, above all, in schools but also in leisure activities to give young people an alternative to crime. They must gain a belief in the future. They do not have that today.

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

Ludvig Ceimertz (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was pleasant to receive an acknowledgment that preventive work is being done. What is being done is probably the greatest change in social preventive work in perhaps 40 years in the form of a nationally coordinated strategy and an amended Social Services Act, which provides a preventive responsibility. But this was now called minor adjustments. I actually think, Mr. Speaker, that it is somewhat remarkable. When the largest social preventive measure in modern times is being made, it is called adjustments in the margins or minor measures. I do not remember exactly which words were used, so I will not put them in anyone's mouth.

The Government's strategy against crime stands on three legs. We shall strike against gross violence, strangle the criminal economy, and counter the new recruitment of young people into the criminal gangs. For this, it is required that a holistic approach is taken. This has Johnsson Fornarve also conveyed, and now I present the extensive work that is being done. But that work must be allowed to take time. Unfortunately, it does not resolve quickly. Unfortunately, one cannot break the recruitment at once. It takes time to change. It takes time to break patterns. But to have torn down secrecy barriers so that we can, together, with the full force of society, be able to meet youths on the slide, I am completely convinced will prove to be a key factor. It is a pity that it is precisely that which Vänsterpartiet opposes.

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the further addition!

I see that the government and the Sweden Democrats are primarily focusing on tightening punishments and penalties. I mean that it is not the path we should take when it comes to children and young people. Children should not be in prison. Children should be treated as children and not be treated within the criminal justice system but instead within social services when they have ended up in crime. Your proposals have counterproductive effects. They can mean that children end up deeper in crime.

We must, above all, work preventatively and do so at an early stage. The police also refer to this. I also sit on an oversight council, and the police say clearly and distinctly that the most important thing is the preventative work here and now. That is what we want to emphasize. In our neighboring country Denmark, for example, they have increased the penalties significantly. But there, one also sees that what has really had an effect is the preventative work. It is here that resources must be allocated and measures must be taken.

The government does not see or understand the importance of investing in the municipalities and regions. It is there that the work must be done to support, help, and take care of our children and young people so that they do not end up in crime. The municipalities and regions must receive the resources that are necessary. Now the government is adding some resources, but it is far from enough. Significantly more must be added. In our shadow budget, we provide, for example, 20 billion more to welfare in a restoration grant so that investments can be made in school, culture, and leisure for children and young people so that they do not end up in crime.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today, as has been said, it is not a bill that we are to debate and vote on. Today, it is an audit report from the Swedish National Audit Office.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the importance of an independent audit as part of the Riksdag's power of oversight – an audit that performs both financial audits and efficiency audits. It is an important part of the separation of powers we have in our country, with the legislative and oversight power here in the Riksdag, the governing executive power that the government has, and our independent courts' judicial power.

This is actually worth saying in a time when we see that this order is being challenged in countries where most have taken for granted that the public power in a state is constitutionally distributed among different poles of power so that these shall balance and exercise control over one another in order to prevent abuse of power. That, if anything, is worth defending. Today, it is in the form of a report from the Swedish National Audit Office on the state's efforts for children who are suspected of serious crimes.

Mr. Speaker! This report aims, as several have said, at one of our country's greatest failures. The greatest is that we have children and young people who are exposed to serious crimes in homes, in schools and on the streets and that children are murdered. As a cruel, macabre part of the failure is it, in many cases, also children and young people who commit these crimes, which affect many.

We from Centerpartiet have no own motion, but we stand behind the committee's proposal in the report. We consider that it is done very well in the area of the Committee on Justice, but we also see that it needs to be discussed more in conjunction with other areas. When discussing children suspected of serious crimes, it is necessary to show alternatives to the criminal path and to faith in the future – primarily before they begin committing crimes, but also during the time they fall under the responsibility of the municipalities, the correctional services, or Sis and receive care.

I have said this before, but all the focus from the Riksdag and the government on the preventive work – the municipalities' activities, social services and school – cannot be on the young people not committing crimes. The goal must be something more. We must show the young people that there is another Sweden than the one we have today and give all children a good schooling with both education and training.

We must be clear towards parents about their responsibility, but also provide them with support and education to take on that responsibility. We must show a clear picture of a different Sweden – a Sweden where great freedom comes in combination with great responsibility. More needs to be done here for our young people, but also for our entire country.

A large amount of new legislation is in place, and more is underway. We from Centerpartiet have seen and view much of what is being done positively. It is important with national governance in the form of sufficient resources but above all clear laws.

After the school shooting and the massacre in Örebro, Center against violence-promoting extremism visited the Committee on Justice. I asked whether, within the scope of secrecy, any new or amended laws could have prevented the macabre events that occurred. I was then given the answer that the main problem is not a lack of legislation. The problem is cultures and ignorance within authorities. They specifically highlighted ignorance regarding secrecy as a greater obstacle than new rules.

We have heard about the same problems with cultures and lack of knowledge from other actors – most recently from Sis-hemmen who visited the Committee on Justice. Clear leadership is required here. These important tasks must be seen as part of the line activity and core activity. The Bob-councils that are often mentioned are good. But just as the National Audit Office says in its report, these projects must not be sustained by passionate individuals or just become projects. We would not let other countries handle such important issues in that way.

What we need is robust legislation, sufficient resources and core activities. It is not always new boards and forms of cooperation that are needed, but rather that everyone starts by doing what they are supposed to do. Here, the government has a great responsibility when they direct agencies. It also obviously means that there is no room for criminal actors to operate, for example, HVB homes. It is like a double failure towards children and young people when they can be recruited while they are in custody to get away from the gangs. This has happened under both this and previous governments.

We in the Center Party, however, see that there is room for more actors than the public sector for the group of children and young people, as they are not a homogeneous group. There are many different needs to meet. But licensing as well as supervision and controls need to become significantly better and sharper within all actors' operations.

Just as the Swedish National Audit Office states, the state's collective efforts to break children's serious crime are not fully effective. We therefore need to cooperate more effectively but also work with proven effective tools. That is why the Center Party has not been in favor of legislation on visitation zones and anonymous witnesses and does not want to see a lowered age of criminal responsibility; this is not proven effective legislation. It is also not as legally secure as we want legislation to be.

If we look ahead, the Prison and Probation Service needs to be given the best possible conditions to give every child and youth the opportunity to complete primary school when they are now to take over the responsibility for the so-called youth prisons. School attendance is not just for the young, but we in the public sector have a duty to provide them with schooling. This is not covered by the report, but it is something we must carefully follow.

The same applies to access to health and medical care, with a focus on psychiatry and other therapeutic support. Recently, we heard from Sis that the children who are convicted of crimes – serious crimes and even the most serious crimes – have very poor mental health and that a non-negligible proportion of them have intellectual disabilities as well as other NPF diagnoses.

School, care, healthcare and support need to be guaranteed by the public, for if there is any group that must receive a share of the Prison and Probation Service's vision Better Out, it is these children. A time will come when they are to return into society, and then they must be better equipped than when they came in. Anything else would be a great failure for the crime victims, for those who have committed the crimes and for society as a whole. Sweden can do better than this.

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

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office has examined whether the state's collective efforts to break children's serious crime are effective. The audit covered several sub-questions: Does the agencies' work contribute to achieving the objectives of the operation? Do the actors in the system work effectively to break serious crime among children under 15 years of age? Do the actors in the system work effectively to break serious crime among children who are 15–17 years old? Several actors were audited, including the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the National Board of Health and Welfare, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, and the government. The audit also covered how the agencies cooperate with the municipalities' social services.

The Swedish National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the state's collective efforts to break children's criminal behavior are not fully effective. Among other things, the Swedish National Audit Office argues that the reviewed actors' joint work to identify and support children with serious criminal behavior works with varying degrees of success in different municipalities. Municipalities with more experience of more serious crime often have a more developed method of work.

The social services in the country have different conditions but must at the same time bear a large part of the responsibility for breaking crime among children. The National Audit Office notes that the government has taken certain steps to increase equality and support the social services but considers that additional state support may be needed.

The National Audit Office also considers that it must be ensured that changes in the legal system of a more repressive nature, for example proposals for stricter penalties and the establishment of youth prisons, work together with and strengthen the more social-preventive measures. This is something that we in Miljöpartiet really want to emphasize. That the preventive measures are the very most central for us to be able to tackle crime in the long run and thereby create a safer society for us all is something that always deserves to be repeated.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet notes that the government has commissioned a very large number of inquiries in the area of crime, punishment, and children and young people in social care. A consequence of there being so many ongoing and recently completed inquiries at the same time is, naturally, that it becomes difficult to get an overview of all the submitted proposals and how they relate to one another. In the Committee on Social Affairs, where I sat until quite recently, we received a summary of all current inquiries in the area of children and young people in social care, and it took the State Secretary around half an hour just to go through the names and mandates for all these inquiries.

I would therefore like to take the opportunity to mention one of these inquiries, which Miljöpartiet believes contains many good proposals. In November 2023, it submitted its report For barn och unga i samhällsvård, SOU 2023:66. The inquiry has a very large focus on preventive work. Here are many proposals in the area of increased quality in care when children and young people are placed in foster homes, emergency homes, supported housing, and HVB.

The investigator concludes that the state's efforts for social care in particular must be strengthened and coordinated more to meet the rights and needs of children and young people. It is important that the government takes the work further. This is the content of reservation 1, which I hereby move for approval of.

When it comes specifically to HVB homes, Miljöpartiet shares the same view as Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet. The care and treatment provided to youths with a criminal background in HVB homes have such deficiencies that the operations must be fundamentally changed. None of the proposals presented so far are sufficient. Society needs to step forward and regulate the failure in the market, and the public sector should take over the responsibility for all HVB homes that care for youths who have been placed due to criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say something about the absolutely crucial question of whether we as a society will be successful in our efforts to address crime and prevent more children and young people from being drawn in, namely the investments in the budget.

It has already been discussed a bit in the debate. The government is, of course, making investments, but we consider them to be insufficient. Municipalities and regions are forced into cuts and savings. This is fateful in a time when, for example, we hope that the new social services act's focus on preventive work will have large effects, also to prevent crime. How can social services and other municipal activities be able to make the necessary investments when they are forced to save? Savings in schools and savings in the work for vulnerable families naturally have the exact opposite effects of a crime-preventive effect.

I would like to specifically mention one of the Green Party's initiatives in the autumn budget motion concerning measures for children in the risk zone for crime. There are successful measures both in Sweden and abroad where the state should participate and co-finance, and we need to spread and develop the knowledge about them.

Denmark and their work have been mentioned several times. In Denmark, the number of gang criminals has decreased by a third over ten years. However, it does not seem to be primarily harsher punishments, visitation zones, and military personnel in the suburbs that have provided that effect. Researchers instead highlight social interventions in early years as the strongest contributing factors.

Even in Sweden, there are several successful initiatives that we can build upon. Since 2023, the joint agency assignment "Bob, children and young people in organized crime" has been ongoing, which concerns creating local cooperation councils between the police, social services, school, criminal justice, as well as health and medical care. This activity is specifically mentioned in the National Audit Office's review. The National Audit Office argues that it is important that it is given a structure that is robust and that reduces personal dependency and the need for local solutions.

It is important that efforts such as these do not stop at temporary projects but are given sufficient and long-term resources. Miljöpartiet therefore makes a major investment in its budget of 1 billion kronor more than the government, which shall be used to achieve results in crime prevention work and to curb the recruitment of children and young people. This can involve efforts in schools, in social services, in special youth homes, and in other public institutions.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Actually, it is sad that we today have to stand in the chamber and debate the state's interventions for children suspected of serious crimes. It is nothing other than a major societal failure.

Just a few years ago, this would have been a non-issue. Children generally did not commit serious crimes. But now we stand here, and the situation is serious, to say the least. In recent years, we in Sweden have been hit by an exceptional wave of violence that has no parallel in other comparable countries. Our country has been plagued by deadly violence, gang settlements, shootings, and explosions that have claimed many victims, in many cases completely innocent people who just happened to be in the way of the perpetrators of violence.

Perhaps most alarming is that a large proportion of the perpetrators who are recruited and commit the crimes are very young – many are under 15 years old. Mostly they are young boys, but an increasing number of girls are also willing or forced to commit murders with firearms or to participate actively in the bombings. It is also noteworthy that even the recruiters are often young, under 18 years old, and in turn have instigators behind them.

Common to a majority of the active participants are complicated upbringing, deficient schooling, and mental ill-health. But there are also perpetrators who grew up under more orderly conditions. The motives for taking on the assignments vary. Sometimes it happens voluntarily in the hope of earning money and/or gaining status in the criminal world. But often it happens under coercion, when one has put oneself in a predicament. The recruiters have gotten a hold of the young person, who then must take on additional assignments.

Mr. Speaker! New legislation in combination with better police working methods and young perpetrators with a lack of consideration for consequences, poor planning, tramadol as an anxiety medication, and a lack of experience in handling weapons and explosives has resulted in a marked increase in the clearance of serious crimes. According to the police, they have moved from a clearance rate of around 20 percent to over 70 percent.

According to the latest data from the State Institution Board, Sis, there are today 230 young people aged 15–17 who are in closed youth care. The majority suffer from mental ill-health and are intellectually at a fifth-grade level. Interventions and treatment are provided during the time at the institution, but at present, there is a lack of follow-up after release – a responsibility that falls on the municipalities and social services. These deficiencies lead in many cases to recidivism.

The government is well aware of the issues and that the state has a great responsibility to implement a system and a plan to get children to stop committing crimes and, most importantly, to ensure that there is a good crime prevention strategy that reduces the risk of children ending up in crime.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has therefore begun a comprehensive restructuring of justice and social policy, which in large parts concerns children and young people who commit serious crimes. It is required that there is a regulatory framework, tools, and resources to be able to meet both the behavior and the needs of children who commit serious crimes. It requires interventions from the entire adult society in the form of parental support, agency cooperation, as well as interventions from non-profit organizations, which can support with meaningful activities, and not least from the business sector, which can provide children and young people with vocational internships and hope for the future.

Parallelly, it is also required that there are adequate measures and forms of care for young people who commit serious crimes. Serious deficiencies have been identified in some HVB homes. Measures are now being taken to strengthen the supervision. Among other things, the government has initiated an investigation to achieve more purposeful and effective placements in social children and youth care.

Mr. Speaker! It remains worrying that very young people are committing very serious crimes. The issue is complex and requires careful consideration regarding the possibility of using coercive measures against children under the age of 15.

The objective must, of course, be that children are not drawn into crime. Here, as mentioned, the parents have a key role – it is important that the parents take their responsibility to raise their children. A tightening is required here, but the government also allocates funds for parental support to reach those parents who need support.

Other measures are proposals that have been submitted and are now being prepared regarding special youth crime boards following a Danish model, which has also been mentioned here, and the establishment of a state agency, the Agency against Youth Crime, with members from the justice system and the municipality.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, a few words about young criminals aged 15–17: Young people who commit serious crimes are usually sentenced to closed juvenile care, but the Supreme Court has in recent days issued a ruling which means that even young people can be sentenced to multi-year prison terms for serious violent crimes. In the case in question, a 16-year-old is sentenced to eight years and nine months in prison for murder.

Regarding those convicted to closed juvenile care, Sis is responsible for them – today, 230 young people are detained. The number has quadrupled in two years, and 40 percent of those convicted are serving sentences for murder or attempted murder.

Closed youth care was introduced 20 years ago. Since then, crime has changed, and even though improvements have been made within Sis, today's system is not adapted to take care of the most serious young offenders. The judgment in the Supreme Court implies a changed perspective in the sense that even young perpetrators can be sentenced to imprisonment.

This is in line with the government's mandate to the Prison and Probation Service to make preparations to establish special prisons for youth. The Prison and Probation Service is considered to have better conditions to handle longer prison sentences with a planned follow-up after parole. If everything goes according to plan, there should be 100 completed prison places with competent staff who can provide adequate care and treatment for young criminals.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, 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)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we face the greatest law enforcement challenge in modern times. I am talking about the fact that today we have children in the 14–15 age group who kill, murder, shoot into properties and apartments, explode, kidnap, rob, and sell drugs. It is about children who have been lured or forced into crime. Today we have hundreds of children who are deprived of their liberty. Last year we had 470 children between 15 and 17 years old who were detained. This must come to an end.

I hear how everyone talks about how we should break up the gangs and stop new recruitment and that we must work more preventatively. But it often remains just words. If you really want this, it must lead to drastic measures. Just talking about wanting something and not how you want it to happen will never lead to good results.

Crime policy today goes more and more hand in hand with social policy and school policy when it comes to crime prevention work. The police cannot detect an aggressive five-year-old in preschool. The police cannot, at any time and in any way, conduct home visits and in that way detect misery and substance abuse. The police cannot detect young people in schools who are struggling and falling behind. The police cannot detect shut-ins who sit and chat on shady forums. The police's preventive work is largely about being present in places where crimes can be thought to be committed. It is today social services and the school that are the major actors when it comes to detecting children who are doing poorly and in that way can also be drawn into crime.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office has looked at how the state has handled the fact that many children today are drawn into crime, and they are not entirely satisfied. My first thought then becomes: But isn't it the municipality that is supposed to handle the crime prevention work and ensure that children do not end up in crime? The National Audit Office also correctly writes that it is the municipality that is the main actor when it comes to the preventive work, but that the state always has the primary responsibility. Is that, I think, how the state can become tougher towards the municipalities and actually demand results.

To all the municipalities out there, I want to say: Start showing results! I think that the Swedish people actually have the right to demand it. It is not enough to say that we are doing as well as we can, because when "good enough" does not work, it is bad.

The mother who has her child murdered is not satisfied with hearing that we have done as well as we can. I know that some think that "demand" is a bad word, but I am not one of them. I think we have the right to demand that our politicians show results. I know that it might be provocative to say so, but I want to wake up those municipalities that are not quite doing enough. I want those municipalities to tell why the results are missing: What is it about? Is it the economy or the priorities? Or is it ignorance?

There should be a Christmas meeting every week at SKR where this is discussed. I know there is snow removal, cycle paths, graffiti boards and much more that must be handled. But this fact that children are being drawn into crime should be at the top of the agenda. It should be what is talked about every day at every meeting.

To the state, I want to say: Listen to the municipalities! Give them what they need! The problem with children being recruited into crime today is serious, and it must be taken seriously.

Mr. Speaker! We have already heard what the Swedish National Audit Office says about how things work within social services, that reports of concern do not work, that the police do not use the tools they should and so on, as well as that there are deficiencies within the compulsory care of young people and that young people who need care do not quite receive the care they need. Therefore, I shall not say more about that. But I want to emphasize that I think the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism hits quite right in many respects. Even the recommendations that are given to the government hit right. I agree with this, and I think we can add this report to the records.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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