The National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts against economic violence in close relationships

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

I want to begin my speech by directing my thoughts to the relatives, children, and families who have been affected by the horrific femicides that have occurred in recent times. I state once again that men murder and women are murdered, both by men unknown to them and by the men who are closest to them. It happens again and again. It is one of the greatest failures of our time, and it is also a threat to both our democracy and the safety in society.

For the government, the country's security and the citizens' safety have absolute highest priority. Based on this, a paradigm shift is now occurring by shifting the focus from perpetrators to crime victims. It is time that women and children finally are given a human value in the penal legislation. Now, women's, girls' and children's right to safety will take precedence over the interests of dangerous perpetrators.

Men's violence against women must be fought with the same force as gang crime, and this government is implementing reform after reform. Confidentiality barriers between authorities have been torn down to prevent acts of violence. Gross and repeated rapes shall now be punishable by life imprisonment, and a new and very important penalty will be introduced during the spring. It will mean that pedophiles, serial rapists, and women murderers who have a high risk of reoffending can be locked up for an indefinite period.

There must be zero tolerance for men's violence against women. A special ministerial council will be established to coordinate the work. The situation requires that we all do everything. The work on men's violence against women must continue in all areas, and it is led by the government and by our Prime Minister.

Economic violence is often an invisible but devastating abuse. It is about control and power and about taking away a person's independence. It can be that one is prevented from working, being burdened with debt against one's will, or being held back in protracted economic processes long after the relationship has ended. Economic violence is one of the very greatest obstacles to being able to leave a violent relationship. When one's own finances are completely shattered, it becomes practically almost impossible.

Leaving a relationship filled with violence is not only among the hardest things a woman can do, but it is also among the most dangerous. Precisely at that stage, there and then, it is a matter of life or death. When a woman finally dares to make such a decision, all parts of the protection that is to be provided must be complete all the way through. Therefore, the government introduces a special exit program within the action program with the aim that no one should be forced to stay in a violent relationship due to economic, dependency, or practical reasons.

The exit program gathers measures concerning protection, housing, contact with authorities, and economic independence so that one can break the economic violence and the grip that exists. It shall provide real opportunities to start over.

The Swedish National Audit Office has audited the state's efforts against economic violence in close relationships during the years 2014–2024. The largest part therefore concerns the red-green government period. The audit indicates a great need for improvements in governance and follow-up, in legislative processes, and in the work of authorities. At the same time, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that the government in recent years has taken many measures to strengthen the protection for those subjected to violence in general and highlights several positive examples of this.

The government has, for example, strengthened the rental housing protection for victims of violence, introduced a new regulatory framework for protected housing, and strengthened the protection for children. Children's protection against violence now takes precedence over the importance of having contact with both parents. The government has also submitted investigation directives that take economic violence into account. This applies to the investigation directive on penalties for psychological violence, which is now being prepared in a referral to the Council on Legislation.

Even the investigation on strengthened protection for those who wish to separate, which concerns new rules for division of property and reflection periods, is highlighted by the Swedish National Audit Office. It is noted that several central problems have been identified, such as the fact that delaying division processes is a form of economic domestic violence.

The government has, regarding cooperation, conducted a series of meetings with authorities, municipalities, civil society, and researchers. Regarding governance and the authorities' work, the Swedish National Audit Office notes that the work with knowledge and routines can be improved. A review is also needed so that perpetrators of violence cannot exploit the authorities' systems.

The ongoing mandate that seven agencies have jointly undertaken has concerned compiling and disseminating information on the economic aspects of violence in close relationships. It has now been both extended and expanded. This is important because perpetrators of violence often utilize agency contacts and compensation systems. In accordance with the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations, the mandate now also includes increasing the knowledge of employees regarding how different forms of violence are interconnected and mapping agencies' systems and routines so that they cannot be exploited by perpetrators of violence.

Economic violence must no longer be what forces women to remain in destructive relationships. The Government welcomes the review and will ensure that the recommendations given are acted upon.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! The member has just spoken very passionately about what is being done in the area and how one responds to the National Audit Office's review. However, I heard very little about a certain part, which I intend to ask questions about.

The members of the government are aware that the National Audit Office's review points out the lack of governance of authorities, which is very important in order to be able to move forward in these issues, which is needed. I would therefore like to ask why, through the regulatory letters that all authorities receive every year, the authorities are not given the mandate to work with economic violence. This is the government's opportunity to govern the authorities.

In the regulatory letters for 2026 that are now being sent to the agencies, we see that economic violence is not included, and we wonder why, if one now takes this most seriously, wants to achieve success, and wants to resolve the problem. When the government now listens to what the National Audit Office has to say in its audit, it still chooses not to steer the agencies through regulatory letters. Why does the government choose not to do so?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Member of Parliament for an important question.

The management of the authorities is an important part, and it is a main point in what the National Audit Office highlights in its review. It emphasizes that there have been opportunities for improvement for a long time. Authorities are managed through regulatory letters, but they are also managed in many other ways, for example through assignments. This happens continuously, while the regulatory letters are sent once a year.

As I just mentioned, an important agency assignment is underway for seven agencies. Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Konsumentverket, Migrationsverket, Pensionsmyndigheten, Statens servicecenter and Jämställdhetsmyndigheten are now working together on this, and the assignment has now been expanded. This work shall also be done together and coordinated with Skatteverket and Kronofogdemyndigheten. In principle, all relevant agencies have a large and important assignment here.

From April 2025, the government has additionally removed the secrecy regarding the exchange of information between authorities. It is extremely important that the authorities can cooperate in their work. It is therefore an important change in order to be able to work more preventatively.

Furthermore, work is also ongoing on a new national strategy, where the focus will be on exactly the governance and monitoring of the work. There is, therefore, a great deal of work ongoing regarding the governance of the authorities.

We also have several other assignments. The Gender Equality Authority has a mandate to produce and disseminate research-based knowledge and to analyze the economic consequences of honor-related violence and oppression. The investigation into the work against gender-related violence and honor-related violence and oppression has also submitted its final report, which is under consultation, and has submitted proposals for strengthened governance and follow-up. There is, therefore, an enormous amount of work ongoing precisely regarding the authorities.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! There is still a significant difference between giving assignments to authorities and governing authorities. It is in the regulatory letters that one governs the authorities and can truly achieve this governance, especially when it comes to economic violence.

When we look at the regulatory letters for the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Crime Victim Authority, and other authorities within the justice system, we see that the issue of preventive work against violence in close relationships and honor-related violence is highlighted. All of this is good, but the focus is largely only on physical violence and the traditional types of crime.

The National Audit Office is extremely critical of the governance of authorities. The criticism is extensive, and it concerns the regulatory letters. Why does the government not choose to govern the authorities to achieve results in these matters? Why does the government choose to bypass this to achieve actual governance? Why has it not been written into the regulatory letters for 2026 that the focus needs to be placed on economic violence in order to succeed and achieve results? Why does one choose not to write this into the regulatory letters for the authorities concerned?

My question remains. I think, Madam Speaker, that it should be quite difficult for the government and the Moderates to be satisfied when one does not choose to govern the authorities in the regulatory letters. Why has this not been written in?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! As I stated in my speech, there is no reason for any government or any politician to feel satisfied with the situation that prevails today. I can also reflect a little on the member's harsh tone, given that the greater part of this review, where there is, as mentioned, a great deal of criticism, concerns the social democratic, red-green government period and not this government. On the contrary, it is noted that in recent years many measures have been implemented to protect those exposed to violence. A little self-criticism could, therefore, perhaps also be in order.

Economic violence has for a long time been neglected in the work. If I am to try to understand why, I assume it is because it concerns an indirect form of deadly violence. The focus has largely been on protection from direct physical violence. But as is also noted, economic violence is one of the biggest obstacles to being able to leave a relationship that can have a deadly outcome. It is therefore absolutely a priority area.

Then I do not agree that authorities are only governed by regulatory letters. Authorities receive mandates and report continuously to the government, and the work is designed and improved all the time. Regulatory letters are not the only way to govern authorities.

As I said: Work is ongoing. Not least the national ten-year plan against men's violence against women will also largely be about follow-up. I think it is unnecessary to anticipate the major work. Economic violence will undoubtedly be prioritized by this government. I believe this is more than clear given what I have already stated.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Economic violence is about someone controlling, restricting, or exploiting your finances to exert power. It is a common but often invisible form of violence in close relationships and can continue for a long time without those around noticing or realizing it.

When your partner takes control of your finances, it can mean several things. You are not allowed to decide over your own money, you are forced to hand over your BankID or passwords, or you are prevented from working or studying. It can also mean that you are forced to take out loans or incur debts without understanding the terms, or that your income is entirely used by someone else.

Taking control of your finances is not just about money, it is about power and freedom. No one has the right to control someone else's money or limit someone's ability to support themselves. Economic violence is fundamentally about exercising power and control. We must never forget that.

Economic violence can affect anyone, but statistics show that it is particularly common that it affects women. One in eight women has been subjected to economic violence by a current partner and one in four by a former partner. The risk of being subjected to it doubles when women become mothers. The consequences can be long-lasting, with debts, problems obtaining housing or work, and economic insecurity that remains even long after the relationship has ended.

A common testimony is about how the man who was a woman's great love took away all her honor and decency, and she was not even allowed to take care of her own salary. Unfortunately, a testimony can sound like this:

He took my entire salary and gave me a few thousand kronor in pocket money. He controlled me down to the smallest detail, and as soon as I had bought something, whether it was groceries or clothes for the children, I had to provide the receipt to him. I was terrified of having lost a receipt. Then he would go completely crazy.

Madam Speaker! Economic independence is fundamental to achieving equality. But economic violence is the direct opposite in every way, and it is of the utmost importance that we counteract economic violence to achieve an equal society.

The National Audit Office has conducted a comprehensive and thorough review which shows that there are significant deficiencies in the state's work. The Government and the authorities have not taken sufficient measures to counteract economic violence or, in that regard, have not paid sufficient attention to the problems with economic violence in close relationships. The Government has also not systematically followed up on the need for legislative measures, despite the existence of regulatory frameworks that even facilitate the exercise of economic violence and which do not provide sufficient protection for the victim.

This is extensive criticism that must be taken with the utmost seriousness. The government's writing in response to the National Audit Office's review nevertheless lacks ambition and gives no hint that they are taking the extensive shortcomings seriously in order to achieve a real difference.

Madam Speaker! For us Social Democrats, the fight against men's violence against women is a high-priority issue. The Swedish National Audit Office's audit report reveals extensive deficiencies in the state's work, which we believe should be taken most seriously. We assess, for example, that economic violence should be criminalized and that an inquiry should be appointed with the aim of criminalizing all forms and expressions of post-violence, as well as that a special relocation support should be established for those who have been subjected to economic violence, precisely so that they have the opportunity to leave the destructive relationship.

Concrete measures are needed here and now. We believe that the government should promptly return with a renewed action plan clarifying how it intends to act to reduce economic violence in close relationships. Therefore, I move for approval of the Socialdemokraternas reservation 8.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! I have a question.

Now, the Moderate-led government has implemented an enormous number of changes in the legislation to protect women and children from violence. This is something that we have fought for for an incredibly long time. Regarding the legislative changes that I described, as examples among many other measures, we have had to fight against the Social Democratic government for a long time.

Among the examples I listed were that the penalties for aggravated and repeated rapes are now to be tightened so that these crimes can actually result in life imprisonment. But the Left Party, which the Social Democrats cooperate with as a government alternative, has been against it.

Now, during this spring, we are introducing a very important penalty which means that serial rapists, pedophiles and female murderers with a very high risk of recidivism shall be able to be imprisoned for an indefinite period. This is a tightening of the law that we have pushed for over several years, and we also tried to get the Social Democrats to push the issue during the time they were in government. But there we were told no, with the justification that one should be punished based on the severity of what one has done, not based on what one might be expected to do.

My question to the member is: What is the position of the Social Democrats regarding the increased penalties that are now being implemented under the Moderate-led government?

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by clarifying that this debate is about economic violence. I intend to stick to that, because it is an important debate, and these issues deserve time in the chamber.

There have been several debates in this chamber, both before and after Christmas, regarding the issues the member is raising, and they will continue throughout the spring. From the Social Democrats' side, we have here and in the Justice Committee been careful to emphasize that we also are in favor of the increased penalties.

But this debate is about economic violence, which is extensive. The criticism from the National Audit Office is stinging. This is what the government has responded to in this letter. The ambitions that are actually required are missing. Why does the member choose not to discuss economic violence in this debate and talk about all the measures that are actually required?

It is a very large number of women who are affected by incredibly serious consequences and have to live with debts long after a relationship has ended. They are given restricted lives and have to live under oppression and control, just as I have described.

My answer is that there are no major conflicts regarding what the member raised. But my questions are still about economic violence. Why is it that one does not want to criminalize economic violence if it is so important? We consider it important – why do the Moderaterna not?

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that I have spoken very much about economic violence in my speech and in previous replies.

Economic violence is one of several forms of violence. Part of the criticism also concerns the lack of knowledge on how the forms of violence are interconnected. Economic violence is part of the violence that women are subjected to. It is not just a completely separate issue.

As I have already explained, a tremendous amount of work is being undertaken by the government regarding economic violence.

I interpret the member's answer as that the member simply does not want to give me an answer on where the Socialdemokraterna stand on the issue of the penalty value when it comes to being able to imprison murderers and pedophiles with a risk of recidivism for an indefinite period.

This review is largely not about this government's term of office, but about the terms of office of the Social Democratic and Red-Green governments. Therefore, I now pose the question – as this did not quite emerge from the member's speech either – what self-criticism the Social Democrats have regarding their own term of office. What would the Social Democrats have done differently?

The Leader of the Opposition claims that we are against the criminalization of economic violence, but that is not true. On the contrary, several investigations are underway that include this. It will certainly be taken care of by this government. But is there any self-reflection regarding all the years when the Social Democratic government led the work against economic violence against women? This is what the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism is about.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Madam Speaker! Now there were very many things that needed to be addressed here. We shall see how far I get. But when it comes to the sentencing increases specifically, my answer was that we share the view. We have pushed for several of those issues, and we are not against what is being proposed now.

When it comes to economic violence, which the Riksrevisionen report addresses and which my criticism concerns, I think it is a problem that one chooses not to regulate this in the regulatory letters. The criticism is that precisely the governance when it comes to this with economic violence is a problem. One must be able to address it at an early stage.

We have said that we also want relocation support, which I explained in my speech. Women who have been subjected to this violence should also have the opportunity to leave the relationship. The Moderaterna have not included this in their budget either. They have not implemented it.

How is a woman supposed to be able to leave a relationship if she has been financially controlled at a detailed level for many years if she cannot get support? That is one of our proposals. The Moderaterna are welcome to answer that.

When it comes to criminalization, I would like to know which investigations deal specifically with criminalizing economic violence and post-violence. The member claims that such investigations exist. Why, then, has this not been addressed in the letter?

In summary, I can state that concrete measures are required beyond the knowledge-raising efforts. Knowledge-raising efforts are important, but we need to go beyond that. The knowledge is high in many places, and we know what we should do. The proposals are on the table. It is up to the Moderaterna to do something about this. Up to proof, for it is you who sit in the government!

(Applause)

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

Camilla Rinaldo Miller (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, namely the rejection of the motions and that the Riksdag lays the government's communication on the record.

I want to begin my speech by telling you about something that I have probably already spoken about earlier in some debate here in the chamber. I want to tell you about my upbringing. It was a fairly traditional upbringing in the 60s and 70s. I grew up in a working-class family. Dad was a metalworker. He was a coal miner at the beginning – hardly anyone knows what that is today – but he later became a metalworker and a travel fitter. Mom was at home. I am the youngest of five siblings. It was a fairly normal family at that time.

The family had an income. Mom had to manage the household budget and turn and twist the money so that it would suffice. It was my mom's task to make the everyday life work. If she were ever to question dad's priorities, that is to say tobacco and alcohol, when it came to the household budget, the answer could be: You shouldn't get involved in that. It is not you who brings in the money.

Madam Speaker! Was my mother subjected to economic violence in a close relationship? I would say that the answer to that question is no. On the other hand, I would say that she was, of course, economically limited.

Had I wished her a greater freedom and a greater opportunity to at some point be able to prioritize herself before us children – it was we who went first and she who had to stand back? Yes, with all my heart, I would have wished that at some point she could have been able to prioritize herself instead of me and my four siblings.

But I would not say that she was one of those women – one in eight women in Sweden – who have ever been subjected to economic violence in a close relationship, even though her economic situation was limited.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats and the government do, however, take seriously that there are those who are subjected to economic violence. It is nothing that we can accept. The report that we are debating today is about precisely this. The National Audit Office has reviewed whether the state's work to counter economic violence in close relationships is effective.

The National Audit Office notes initially that economic violence – this we heard earlier – is a form of violence in a close relationship that involves taking power over and controlling another person's finances or in various ways exploiting and destroying their assets. As I just mentioned, therefore, one in eight women has at some point been subjected to this.

The report is based on three questions: Has the government steered the work against economic violence in an effective manner? Has the government, in the legislative process on relevant areas, taken into account risks of economic violence? Are relevant authorities working against economic violence?

What I have been able to gather is that the Swedish National Audit Office has never previously produced a similar report. It is therefore difficult to compare with what previous governments have done or have not done when it comes to this issue. It is the first time the Swedish National Audit Office is producing a report that addresses the area of economic violence, and it is very good that it is being done. But what we can see now is that the current government and Sverigedemokraterna are intensifying the work regarding this.

Mr. Speaker! The current government has taken several measures and tasked authorities to specifically handle economic violence in close relationships. This includes, among other things, continuing the work to prevent and combat economic violence within the framework of the work on an upcoming long-term strategy regarding men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking.

Regarding clearer governance, the government has tasked Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Jämställdhetsmyndigheten, Migrationsverket, and Socialstyrelsen with improving their methods for detecting vulnerability to violence, including economic aspects, and referring to the correct authority.

Furthermore, strengthened cooperation is required. The Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, and the National Board of Health and Welfare have been tasked with strengthening their cooperation to prevent and combat men's violence against women, domestic violence, and honor-related violence and oppression, which includes considering all forms of violence, thus also economic violence.

The government also has another proposal. It has been signaled that action will be taken against men's economic violence against women, and it proposes strengthened protection against psychological violence, which is often linked with economic violence.

Based on the recommendations that the Swedish National Audit Office provides to the government, a more intensified work has been initiated, through among other things the proposals that I have just listed, but also by giving the National Board of Health and Welfare the assignment to analyze how contact persons can be included in a coordinated support chain for individuals exposed to violence to ensure that the victims receive the support they need, including financial assistance through social services if necessary. These efforts aim to increase the detection of economic violence, improve the authorities' ability to act, and offer better support to those affected.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats do not want to accept that one in eight women will ever be subjected to economic violence. We have ongoing work to prevent this.

Mr. Speaker! No woman or man should have to live with being subjected to economic violence, whether by someone in a close relationship or by someone else. It is a fundamental value for a society that stands up for all people's equal value.

(Applause)

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind the Sweden Democrats' follow-up motion in its entirety, but since it is customary to request approval of only one reservation, I request approval of reservation 4.

I would like to start by saying that this government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has done and is doing very much in areas concerning men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, honor-related violence and oppression, and so on. But there is more to be done.

Today we are dealing with the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report. It gives the impression that the issue of economic violence in close relationships is finished. The government actually states that the matter is completely finalized. It is a very far-reaching position, and it is precisely for that reason that the Sverigedemokraterna have chosen to submit a follow-up motion and reserve themselves in this committee report.

The National Audit Office's report leaves no room for the conclusion that the government draws. On the contrary, the report shows that the state's work against economic violence is characterized by fundamental deficiencies. It points out deficiencies in governance, deficiencies in coordination, deficiencies in follow-up, and deficiencies in the government's own control over how the agencies' mandates are actually carried out.

Economic violence, Mr. Speaker, is not a new phenomenon. No, it is an area that has long been treated as an adjunct to other forms of violence. The National Audit Office's report clearly shows that this has had consequences. When economic violence is not clearly defined, is not visible in statistics, and is not considered in legislative processes, and when the distribution of responsibility is unclear, the state's interventions become fragmentary. And when the state's interventions are fragmentary, the victims are left alone.

Mr. Speaker! It is actually very important to understand what economic violence means in practice. It is about a person who loses control over their own life and about debts that are built up in the victim's name. It is about bank accounts that are blocked, about compensations that are withheld, and about livelihood that is systematically sabotaged. It is also, Mr. Speaker, about every attempt to get out of such a relationship being met with new economic obstacles.

Against that background, it is actually very remarkable that the government, in its letter, does not present any new measures. Instead, it refers to already decided assignments and to work that is ongoing. But, Mr. Speaker, the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism is not that nothing is being done, because things are being done.

The criticism is that the government has not ensured and followed up on previous assignments in a sufficient manner. The results have not been analyzed, coordination between the relevant departments has not been ensured, and it has not been evaluated whether the steering signals have led to actual improvements for the vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker! It is serious criticism, and it is directed directly at the Government Offices. Despite this, the government chooses to consider the matter closed. It is, in practice, a way to dismiss the Swedish National Audit Office's observations. It is to say that the deficiencies that have been identified do not require political action.

The Sweden Democrats do not agree with that. When the National Audit Office points out systemic errors, we have a duty to act. In that case, it is not about referring to ambitions, but about taking responsibility for the governance. This means clearly identifying responsible actors, ensuring coordination, and demanding follow-up that focuses on results and not just on completed activities.

Our follow-up motion therefore has a clear purpose: It points out what is missing and what needs to be done so that the state does not continue to fail people living under this economic oppression.

Mr. Speaker! We point out the need for clarity. When authorities work based on different definitions and different understandings of economic violence, the work becomes fragmented and difficult to follow up. We also point out the need to review the legislation because today's regulatory framework can, in several cases, be exploited by perpetrators. We point out the need for protection against economic post-violence, where the oppression continues long after a separation. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we point out the need for functioning governance.

This is what the reservation at point 4 is about. I move for the approval of this reservation, which marks that the government has not taken its responsibility to lead and coordinate the work against economic violence. It marks that mandates are not enough if they are not followed up. It also marks that the Government Offices cannot evade responsibility when the authorities' work falls short and that the state must stop settling for processes and instead start delivering results.

Mr. Speaker! For the Sweden Democrats, this is a fundamental principle. The state must function. Tax-funded activities must yield results. When people seek protection from violence and oppression, they should not be met with unclear lines of responsibility and slow processes.

That the government in this situation chooses to conclude the matter without presenting a clear plan for how the Riksrevisionen's criticism shall be addressed is deeply problematic. It risks cementing a system where economic violence continues to fall between the cracks and where vulnerable women continue to bear the consequences of the state's lack of governance.

Mr. Speaker! Economic violence is often what makes it possible to maintain the violence over time. Those who lack economic freedom also often lack a real possibility for self-determination. It is therefore why the state must take this issue most seriously.

The Sweden Democrats' follow-up motion and our reservation at point 4 are an expression of precisely this responsibility. We do not consider the issue to be treated as finalized, because the problems persist.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 4.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a speech that contained very much of what the government prioritizes!

I would like to inform the member and the Sweden Democrats that the government has definitely not tabled any issue regarding economic violence, which is what it sounded like in the statement. I state once again that the majority of the scrutiny that has taken place during the years 2014–2024 concerns the red-green government's work. That is what primarily receives criticism.

This government takes both the work against economic violence in close relationships and the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendations very seriously. Everything else must be a complete misunderstanding on the member's part. Even if it has been formulated in such a way that the letter and the report are finalized, the work against economic violence is definitely not.

On the contrary, intensive work is being carried out by the government. One of the things the member raised was protection against post-separation violence. There I mentioned, for example, the new rules that will be addressed within the investigation on division of property and reflection periods, which the Swedish National Audit Office also highlighted as a good example of the government's work. It is argued that important problems have been identified there. Just divisions of property are a form of economic post-separation violence, it is stated.

It is, therefore, part of the work that the government is pursuing. I have many more examples that I also mentioned in my speech, so I simply want to clarify that the government has in no way set this work aside. On the contrary, it is being driven with full force.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is absolutely doing very much regarding this issue, but we are not doing enough. During the time span the member is talking about, it is still two years that this government has been in power.

For the remainder of the year, the red-greens have ruled, and it takes a very long time to clean up after the previous government. That is how it is. But what we are debating today is the report, and what I mentioned in my speech is the government's response regarding the report. The government is actually just sweeping the report under the carpet and saying that this is finalized. That is what I mention in my speech.

I know that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has done and is doing very much in this area and that even more will come. So that is absolutely true. But it is still the report we are debating today.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member is fixating very much on the specific wording that the matter is concluded. I therefore feel compelled to explain that it is a way of phrasing things when one submits a report to the records. The wording does not mean that one does not take this work fully seriously or that one will not continue to drive the work with the same force as one has since the government took over the leadership in government position.

It sounds undeniably like a misunderstanding linked to that wording, but it is just a wording that is more or less standard when one discusses a report.

I am also looking at what the Sweden Democrats have had comments on and note that work is ongoing from the government's side regarding pretty much everything. When it comes to, for example, indicators that have been raised, very important work is being carried out by the Gender Equality Authority according to the instruction they already have. The government has also noted in another communication that they see a need to develop a broader spectrum of indicators, something that also is included in the work with the new strategy.

When it comes to the government's management of agencies, I have accounted for several of the ongoing assignments and also the very large assignment shared by seven agencies which has now been expanded and extended precisely in accordance with the National Audit Office's recommendations.

I am therefore a bit questioning of the criticism, because point by point, the government is delivering exactly what the Sverigedemokraterna are requesting.

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the government, are doing very much in this area, but there is much more to be done. What we are debating now is nevertheless the government's response to the report that has been submitted.

It is remarkable that the government's response is as it is. It feels as if the government is not taking the letter seriously enough. The Sweden Democrats have therefore chosen to submit a follow-up motion because we cannot stand behind the government's response. We do not believe the government is doing enough regarding this issue. There is much more to be done.

The government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is admittedly delivering significantly more than the previous red-green government did. But there is much more to be done. I consider the response from the government to be insufficient.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is incredibly heavy and difficult to stand here and speak about violence against women after the horrific murders that have occurred in recent weeks. What must never happen has happened. It is an inexcusable failure on the part of society. My thoughts and my deepest condolences go to the relatives who are now forced to live with the very worst of sorrows. At the same time, it has perhaps never been more important than now that we talk about this.

We find ourselves at a point where everyone understands that violence against women must be prioritized. The violence must be stopped. We who sit here, we who hold the power, bear the responsibility to ensure that it actually becomes a reality.

Mr. Speaker! I have seen up close the vulnerability of women and girls to the reckless violence of men and boys. I have seen the consequences: the breakdown, the fear, the terror, and the physical and psychological terror. I have listened to the testimonies of the women's movement and read stories of life destinies that sometimes also reach the public. Not even I, who have language as one of my most important tools, can find words that fully describe the cruel consequences of violence.

I am completely convinced that I am not alone in here in feeling that violence is close by. Most of us are personally affected through our own experiences, through someone we love, or through someone in our proximity – or as now, when we all mourn after the horrific acts. Violence is so widespread that no one is exempt, not even in this bastion of democracy. I am therefore certain that we all see the seriousness and want to act. Still, politics does not go all the way. For it to do so, it is required that we take full responsibility, and it would cost. It would require that we see the whole and acknowledge that men's violence against women is a structural problem.

The National Audit Office's report on the state's efforts against economic violence is an alarming read. It shows with all clarity that economic violence is a blind spot in politics, despite the fact that the violence in many cases is perpetrated through our own systems. The report highlights that we are far behind in the understanding of the nature of the violence and thus also of how it should be handled.

Economic violence is a particularly harsh, but invisible, form of violence. It has far-reaching consequences and destroys lives in a way that is often very difficult and costly to repair even after the violence has ceased. It is required that society actively and consciously intervenes, but that is not how it looks today.

Mr. Speaker! When we talk about economic violence, we must be concrete. It is not about something abstract. It is about how men methodically and systematically indebt, control, and exploit women as a part of the violence. It is about men who force a partner to take out loans and credits in their own name, often under threat, sometimes under assault.

With the help of BankID and digital services, loans can be taken with a few button presses and agreements can be entered into for installments on goods the woman never wanted. Quick loans are taken to avoid even worse consequences. In relationships where violence is already normalized, the woman knows exactly what will happen if she says no.

It is also about total control. Every purchase is scrutinized, and every withdrawal is questioned. The woman is forced to account for her finances in the smallest detail. If or when the relationship ends, the violence does not stop. The debts remain, the credits must be paid, and the demands come. Ultimately, women and girls who previously had impeccable finances risk ending up with Kronofogden, often completely alone with the responsibility for debts they never had any real opportunity to say no to.

Mr. Speaker! A payment default is not just an administrative note; it risks becoming a very far-reaching obstacle. It becomes difficult to get housing and impossible to take out loans, and in many cases, it is not even possible to sign a mobile subscription or electricity contract – not to mention the stigma of being in debt. For young women or women without a safety net, this can mean that they are shut out from society as a whole. This is, in practice, a prison sentence without a trial, without a time limit, and without the possibility of redress – a punishment that does not hit the perpetrator but the crime victim. Still, this is still treated as a private, economic problem rather than as part of men's violence against women.

Indebtedness is far from the only form of economic violence. Economic violence can involve systematically preventing a woman from working or studying, sabotaging employment, forcing her to resign, or ensuring she never receives an independent income. It can involve the man taking full control over the household's finances, the woman lacking access to bank accounts, cards, or cash, or her receiving an "allowance" while simultaneously being expected to bear responsibility for children, the home, and daily life. It can involve the man refusing to pay maintenance despite having the ability to pay, or him deliberately dragging out processes and appealing decisions time and again. The law is used as a weapon – fully legal but deeply destructive.

This violence can also involve manipulating our security systems, providing false information to authorities, and putting a woman in debt to the state and making her liable for repayment of benefits she never had control over.

Children are all too often used as a tool in this violence through custody disputes and by withholding maintenance and exploiting regulations that do not take into account the dynamics of violence. Child allowance, maintenance support, and parental leave benefits do not become protection but means for continued control.

Mr. Speaker! We know that violence in itself has enormous economic consequences in the form of, for example, sick leaves, destroyed homes, and lost work capacity. Still, it is the vulnerable woman who pays the price, physically, mentally, and economically. It is horrific. Despite the fact that we know this, functioning systems to handle it are lacking. The theoretical way out of this economic prison is often a police report. But who dares when the justice system all too often fails, when protected housing is closed down and fewer are given a place, and when a report can mean a life on the run? This is nothing other than a brutal systemic failure that politics does not fully take responsibility for.

The National Audit Office's report shows the consequences of the policy not fully acknowledging that men's violence against women is structural. The perpetrator is almost always a man. The violence is a consequence of inequality between women and men at all levels. Therefore, it permeates the entire society and makes it possible for perpetrators to use authorities, subsidy systems, and legal processes as tools for continued violence.

If we had seriously viewed violence against women as a structural problem, our laws, authorities, and systems would have looked different. Then, economic vulnerability would have triggered protection, not further punishment. Then, debts would have raised alarms. Then, society would have stepped in before the Enforcement Authority did.

Vänsterpartiet argues that it is not enough to merely state the deficiencies. The government must take responsibility. A unified mapping of economic violence is needed, clear mandates for the authorities, and changes that ensure the state is not used as part of the violence. Therefore, we move for approval of our reservation 9.

It should not be the victim of violence who literally bears the blame for the violence she has been subjected to. Politics, the state, and society must stop failing and start protecting. It is not only possible; it is also absolutely necessary.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a very fine speech! I agree with everything that was said about the importance of protecting women against economic violence and against violence in general.

When I hear the Left Party's politicians talk about violence against women, I often feel a sense of solidarity and that we really want to move the work forward together and truly protect women and children. For many years – even before I became a politician – I have, however, been disappointed by both the Social Democratic government and the Left Party.

Much is being said. I agree with exactly everything the member said; I feel that we want exactly the same thing and that we collectively care about women. However, I have been disappointed so many times because Vänsterpartiet has not been willing to move forward with measures, above all increased penalties or changes to sentences, in order to also in reality protect women.

The members of the committee wonder who dares, and that is truly the case. Who dares? Economic violence is the main topic today, but the National Audit Office and we others know that these forms of violence interact. For a woman to dare and be able to escape economic violence, which is almost always related to physical violence or other types of violence, she must dare to trust that society will back her up.

One example is the penalties that this government now wants to introduce. Serious repeated rapes shall, for example, result in life imprisonment. Vänsterpartiet wants to abolish life imprisonment, as can be read on the website. The party leader says something else. Where does Vänsterpartiet stand on this?

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for her questions.

I must go back a bit. Today we are here to debate economic violence. I think, like the member, that it is very important that we stick to that. It is not because the issues that the member raises are not important; we will have every reason to talk about them. The issue of increased sentencing is, however, a very large issue, and I think we should leave it to debates that concern those areas.

It surprises me that the member is disappointed when she looks at the Left Party's political capacity for action. What distinguishes the Left Party from the member's party when it comes to the way of working against men's violence against women is that we in the Left Party work structurally. To counteract men's violence against women, one must build a very strong base. One must have a massive welfare system. One must level the gaps between men and women economically, socially, and in power. That is the foundation for being able to counteract this.

We have for 30 years worked to provide protection for women through the women's movement, which has done an immense amount of work. We have supported them financially and in their work. Unfortunately, we now see how the government actively opposes the fundamental protection for women and children in vulnerable situations.

We have invested in educational initiatives within social services, the justice system, and authorities in Sweden, because it is a success factor. When violence is structural, it permeates the entire society. We must go through instance by instance to ensure that we guarantee the protection that women must now receive.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we are debating economic violence. I still want to maintain that in order to dare to take the steps required to escape even this, one needs to be able to trust that the justice system is there. Many of these women can never escape the economic violence if the perpetrators are not actually locked up.

When it comes to basic prerequisites, as the member pointed out, I agree that it is extremely important to have a foundation in one's independence. This government sees that the key to this is women entering the workforce. It is part of what has been discussed here regarding economic violence – if one does not have their own finances, it is almost impossible to leave the perpetrator. We try to make it work in different ways, for example through shelter programs, by authorities intervening, and by us reviewing the systems, even if one stands there completely exposed. The very best thing, however, is that one does not end up there but instead has the opportunity to get out of the relationship oneself. Here, there are dividing lines between the government options and the Left Party.

The basis is that this government believes in women's ability to lead an independent life by working instead of through benefit dependency. It is not economic independence. Therefore, we are taking several different measures. Many of them are aimed at foreign-born women, who are those who are furthest away, and women who are subjected to honor violence and a problem that is even more complex. The benefit reform is one part. All support regarding competence-enhancing measures is also extremely important to strengthen these women.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I did not quite understand the member's question.

First and foremost, I can say that we are suffering from a gigantic unemployment. It is not my side that bears the responsibility for it, but the government does. I really hope that we get some momentum in that area, because it does not look bright.

It is interesting that the member brings up the subsidy reform in this context. It will place women in an extremely difficult economic situation. One will take the subsistence level that we have set in Sweden and take it away from children in this country. This is a poverty reform without equal, and I am terrified of the consequences of it. The women who live on social assistance are already struggling, and now they will find it unbearable.

We know that economic vulnerability increases the risk of violence. Now the government is increasing the risk of violence. One is not primarily striking against women, but against children.

It is interesting that the government side chooses to raise this issue. We will fight hard to ensure that this does not pass. One of the reasons is that we want there to be a minimum permitted standard of economic living for people. It is low in Sweden – it is not reasonable even today, but you want to lower it, Merit Frost Lindberg. It is also a form of economic violence.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker, listeners and the chair! Violence in close relationships is, as we know, an acute and widespread societal problem. One in three women is subjected to violence in a relationship at some point in life. Every year, 75,000 women are subjected to violence in a relationship, and 15–20 women are murdered every year – not least have we seen it during the Christmas weekend. One in ten children grows up in homes where violence occurs. This is nothing other than a serious crime, and it occurs at all ages, in all social groups, and in all parts of the country.

When a woman subjected to violence leaves her partner, economic violence can become a way to continue to control and harm the woman and the children. Women's fundamental human rights are sidelined. This must stop.

Unfortunately, the Swedish National Audit Office's review of the government's work against economic violence is a very serious read. The National Audit Office establishes, among other things, that there are significant deficiencies in the state's work. The government has not paid sufficient attention to the problems with economic violence, the government does not systematically follow up on the need for legislative measures despite the existence of regulatory frameworks that facilitate the exercise of economic violence, and the government also does not provide sufficient protection against this vulnerability.

The general state of knowledge regarding the extent and nature of violence is furthermore fragmentary, and furthermore, it appears that several authorities are requesting a definition of the concept of economic violence. It is also unclear both in what way economic violence is included in the sixth sub-objective, and whether it will be accommodated in a satisfactory way in the upcoming bill on psychological violence. The concept of economic violence is also not found in today's criminal law regulations, the judiciary states. This is extremely serious.

It is interesting that representatives of the government base acknowledge this; it is a strength.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the government's management of authorities, the government argues that there is an advantage to a general mandate regarding the sixth sub-objective in order to cover all forms of violence. I can understand that. A major "but" is, however, that it then requires relevant authorities to possess knowledge and competence regarding specifically economic violence. That several authorities are requesting a definition and that the government's response remains outstanding is serious. If the foundation for the authorities' work does not exist and if one is not even in agreement on what economic violence is, how then does the government imagine that the authorities will be able to deliver?

Centerpartiet argues that a much clearer mandate must be given to the appropriate authority or authorities to define and formulate indicators, similar to those that currently exist for physical and sexual violence, so that the work against economic violence in close relationships can be trained for and monitored. This must be done immediately, for how can the government steer the work if there is no overarching definition?

Mr. Speaker! I will raise a few areas where it is serious that the government lacks measures.

Regarding economic violence in the form of taking out loans and credits in someone else's name, the Riksrevisionen's observation is that it is easy for a perpetrator to exploit a relative with the help of e-identification. Work is underway, but the regulation of and the preparatory works on unauthorized use of e-identification and payment services do not take into account that the perpetrator can be a relative. All protective measures are instead adapted from the perspective that the risk comes from an unknown person in another location. Riksrevisionen also writes that the perspective of economic violence is consistently missing in the government's directives and propositions within the area of loans and credits. I cannot see the government commenting on this observation at all.

Mr. Speaker! A serious fact is also that several authorities have identified that they are being exploited by perpetrators in connection with economic violence against relatives, but measures are lacking. The authorities describe how the legislation and the authorities' routines are used by perpetrators to, for example, prevent the payment of grants and benefits, exercise economic control, and sabotage livelihood.

At the same time, there is a lack of knowledge regarding how extensive the problems are and to what extent the authorities themselves have investigated this. The authorities have, therefore, not received a directive from the government to find out how widespread this is. The government must address this immediately. The government mentions certain measures in the letter, but they are not sufficient. Furthermore, far more authorities than those mentioned in the government's response should be working on these issues.

Mr. Speaker! A question that is extremely serious and which has been highlighted many times recently is that authorities disclose the identities of protected persons without major consequences. This can have serious consequences. Being forced to move again can shatter finances, break down security and, in the worst case, force the crime victim back to the perpetrator. Even being called to court repeatedly for a custody dispute, perhaps without any conditions having changed, is a form of economic violence. These are examples of how authorities both contribute to and are used as tools when a perpetrator commits economic violence.

Furthermore, it concerns authorities that are not included today in the government's proposal for collaborative measures to combat economic violence. Among others, the Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Courts Administration, and the Swedish Police Authority are not included. SVT conducted a review a few years ago which showed that 44 people over four years had had their identities revealed by these authorities. But these people, therefore, have nothing to gain from the government's letter and response. The economic violence that these authorities exercised against them will persist.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party also does not make the assessment that the government has responded to the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendation to ensure that economic violence is taken into account in legislative processes when it is relevant. The issues in question have very clear legislative grounds, not least in the Istanbul Convention. When there is such a clear legislative ground and the Swedish National Audit Office concludes that there are significant deficiencies in the state's work, how can the Tidö government then mean that its measures have been effective? It is almost a bit nonchalant. The government should promptly investigate this and return to the Riksdag with a plan for how this should be included in the legislative process in a more relevant way.

I move for approval of reservation 7.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech, and I agreed with much of it. I believe we all agree that there is much more to be done and that no one in this room has reason to feel satisfied. The review covers, to a large extent, the previous government's work, so a little self-reflection from the opposition could be in order.

The government really wants to do everything possible to address economic violence and all other forms of violence against women, so the work will continue with all its might.

The Chairman raised many different points, and I shall comment on some of them.

When it comes to e-identification, the government has expressed that there is a need for alternative solutions. This is a problem, which the government has definitely noted. On behalf of the government, development work is also underway regarding state e-identification, and the government will return to that issue.

The members of the committee were also involved in the concept of economic violence. As I previously stated, work is ongoing to define this. In the action program, it explicitly states that the concept of psychological violence also includes material and economic violence and that it is a form of violence in itself. This will also be included in the work on the national strategy.

The Istanbul Convention was already in place before the previous government's work. Is there any self-reflection regarding the member's own party's work during all that time, which has also been audited by the Swedish National Audit Office?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the members for the opportunity to debate this issue. I say as previous speakers have: What we are now debating is the National Audit Office's report on the current government's work to combat economic violence.

I never claimed in my speech that the previous government, which the Center Party, for the record, was not part of, did everything right. Absolutely not!

I am fully aware that it is a long-term task. As I mentioned in my speech, the biggest problem is the concept of economic violence, what it entails, that the knowledge about it is so fragmentary and that no one really steps up to identify and educate about it. It is a major problem.

I said in my speech that it was strong of a party in the government support to engage in self-reflection. It was perhaps not an indication that I myself would do it, but now I have done it. I have not claimed that previous governments have done this in a particularly good way either. The definition itself is reasonably new, but we must get better.

The fact is that the Swedish National Audit Office says what it says, namely that the government has enormous deficiencies when it comes to this work. I think what the member said was very good, i.e., that the government will introduce other measures in connection with the work on the regulation of e-identification. It is strange that the Swedish National Audit Office has not picked up on this, because it states clearly and distinctly that the government leaves the observation completely without action when the Swedish National Audit Office discusses the issue of loans and credits and that such are used for economic violence.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! If the National Audit Office does not notice everything that the government does, so be it, but I will try to report what the government actually does.

I must say that I am a bit questioning regarding certain parts of the criticism. The concept is part of the work that will be included in the ten-year national strategy, which is being revised. When it comes to working effectively and structurally, which is a good basis for being able to achieve something for real, it would be unfortunate to anticipate that work, but it is ongoing. The Gender Equality Authority already has a mandate today to develop indicators, so that part of the work is also ongoing.

The Center Party will not be able to govern independently and take responsibility for the measures that are taken. As I noted earlier, I have experienced that there is a lot of talk from many parties, but in action, we do not always have everyone with us. What does the member intend to achieve moving forward, other than to tinker around with different concepts? I am thinking of concrete measures. This government has delivered concrete changes in the legislation, and we are also in the process of investigating several different parts of what the opposition has highlighted here.

I wonder: What specifically do you in Centerpartiet see that you will achieve together with the rest of the government base, in addition to everything we are already doing?

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, it is about keeping the issue where it is today. Which government basis will become relevant after the election, we will probably have to wait to discuss until after the election, but I can gladly tell you what Centerpartiet wants to do.

If the government does not take away from this debate that more agencies should be involved, I hope that the Gender Equality Authority itself is at the forefront and says that more agencies need to be included. The Prosecution Authority, the judiciary and the police are actually not involved today, which is a major shortcoming. We know that they have made mistakes that have had enormous consequences for people.

I agree with what both the member and many other members are saying: The best way to achieve an independent economy is to have a job to go to. There are plenty of things that can be done there, such as reviewing the parental leave. I believe the member mentioned a departure program in her speech today, but we will have to take that another time since she does not have any more speeches.

I wonder, however, what the government's transition program consists of. My firm opinion is that when the government presented its transition program some years ago, they had packaged together various assignments that the authorities were already working on. They packaged these together into a transition program, but not a single new measure was included there.

A relocation program and a relocation payment represent a major step that we have talked about for many years. It would be incredibly important for one to get out of economic violence, that is to say: When one moves, one should receive support for it – for a new apartment, new insurance, new clothes for the children, and so on. This is not something that one should have to bear alone because one has lived together with a man who has committed violence. This is one thing that we will work very hard for, among other things.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have, for the most part, always known that society is not succeeding in its mission to protect women from violence, whether in the home or outside. This shows itself time and again. Recently, we have once again become acutely aware of this due to the murders in Rönninge and Boden, which were extremely clear and horrific examples.

Violence against women does not always have to mean only brutal death, but we know that it can also take many other forms behind closed doors. Women have long testified to various bestial things that have happened to them – things we can hardly imagine – but also about a creeping, psychological violence that destroys lives but which most often escapes attention in the media or from us in politics. Included in this is also economic violence, which perhaps has received the least attention of all forms. Few reach out with their voices.

One of those who has done so is Emma from Halland, who on Sveriges Television spoke about a relationship where the control was not only about threats or physical violence but also about her fundamental ability to have power over her own finances and thus her own life. Emma described how her partner systematically took over control of her money and assets, which in practice made it impossible for her to leave the relationship. In the documentary, she spoke about how economic violence strengthened the control and hindered her opportunities to free herself even long after she had left him.

Economic violence can manifest in many ways. The partner can, for example, prevent the victim from working or studying, take out loans in her name, prevent her from having her own bank account, or force her to account for every penny she spends. Many women in Sweden live in relationships where they no longer have access to their own money, even though the relationship to the outside may look like a perfectly normal romantic relationship.

Unfortunately, this is more common than one might think. Many have mentioned the incredibly alarming figure in the Swedish National Audit Office's report, that at least one in eight women in Sweden has been subjected to economic violence by a partner and that it often occurs in conjunction with other violence and other control.

Violence against women must cease in its entirety, and then we must also recognize this violence, make it visible in laws and strategies, investigate the crimes, and strengthen the support for those who are affected.

Economic violence in close relationships thus affects thousands of people, mostly women, every year. The National Audit Office's report shows that the state's efforts have been insufficient so far, and we also know that from reality.

No government has paid sufficient attention to economic violence. As we have discussed, there is a lack of a unified national strategy where economic violence appears as a distinct form of violence alongside physical, psychological, and sexual violence. There is also a lack of systematic follow-up on legislative needs and agency work.

The fact that economic violence is rarely defined and considered in legislation and agency mandates means that, in practice, people who are subjected to these acts are not offered sufficient support and protection. It also means that the justice system, in many cases, does not receive the resources or mandate to investigate these crimes as they are, namely violence in close relationships.

We in Miljöpartiet have long worked to ensure that economic violence in strategies, laws, and agency mandates is recognized as a distinct form of violence. We must ensure that knowledge of this violence increases throughout society – among authorities and in the justice system, social services, and civil society.

Miljöpartiet therefore wants us here in the Riksdag to decide on a special inquiry into specifically economic violence in close relationships – an inquiry that can provide a holistic perspective on this problem, map out how the violence manifests, and propose legislative and regulatory changes that actually protect the vulnerable.

We want the Riksdag to decide to include economic violence as a separate form of men's violence against women in the national strategy to prevent and combat violence in close relationships. It is not enough to see it as part of psychological violence; it must be clarified systematically and consistently.

We also want the Riksdag to decide to increase support for those affected by violence – especially women – who are affected by economic violence. This concerns support to regain economic independence, debt counseling, security in housing situations, and support through legal processes.

Economic violence is about people's fundamental ability to decide over their own lives and about the freedom to live independently without being trapped in debts, manipulation, and control.

The National Audit Office has pointed out that the government has also not followed up sufficiently on the need for legislative measures, despite the fact that there are regulations today that actually facilitate the exercise of economic violence. This provides insufficient protection against vulnerability.

I think it sounds like we in the chamber today agree that it is a disgrace that people in Sweden can still be left with debts they did not cause, with insufficient support to regain control over their lives and without clear legal help to get away from their perpetrators. Our ambition as the Riksdag must be to prevent all forms of violence, including economic violence, and to ensure that everyone who is subjected to it receives the protection, the redress, and the support they deserve.

I am glad that the government also takes violence against women seriously. We in Miljöpartiet also stand behind the zero vision that has been presented. We look forward to the new strategy. We were supposed to have received certain announcements today, but it turned out that they have been pushed back. We hope, however, that it means that together we can make the strategy a powerful tool to protect women.

I also want to move for approval of the Environment Party's reservation 10, primarily. We want the government to take into account our proposals, and other proposals that have been raised in the chamber today, in the continued work to address the deficiencies that both the National Audit Office and women all over Sweden experience.

Economic violence is violence. It harms people's lives and security and their opportunities to build a bright future. All violence against women must cease – including this. I am grateful that the Swedish National Audit Office has produced this report and the review that has put its finger on what we in Miljöpartiet have said for a long time: that we must now work together to reduce vulnerability and stop men from economically and in all other ways controlling women's lives.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! I want to say again that we share the view on very much when it comes to much more having to be done, and we are equally concerned that women in Sweden today still have what they have.

Several members have mentioned the importance of economic independence. As we have already stated, it is best that a woman has her own finances. Even if one is married and living with someone, one does not even need to have joint finances, because one can make one's own decisions and only have what one decides to have jointly. But for that to be possible, women must come into work to a much greater extent.

This government is investing in both education and in strengthening competence so that people will become employable. We are also, as mentioned, carrying out a benefit reform which I truly see as one of the decade's biggest equality reforms. It will, above all, reach many foreign-born women. One of the most important parts of this is the activity requirement that the reform will include. It is part of letting women receive support in raising their competence; it must be meaningful activities that strengthen one on the labor market.

It is also a very important part in providing support to many of the foreign-born women who are held at home by their husbands. With these economic incentives and the requirements that actually come, they will get the opportunity to finally get out, strengthen themselves, and get a chance on the labor market. It is the very best foundation for women's economic independence and empowerment.

I wonder how the member views this. I perceive it literally as a patronizing view of women from the opposition's side regarding the idea that these women would not manage this transition. I would like a comment from the member regarding this.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! It concerns the area, but it is perhaps not quite within the political sphere. I will try to answer, but I do not want to turn this into a debate about the government's poverty reform.

It sounds very good when the member presents the arguments being put forward here, namely that more foreign-born women should be able to enter the workforce. It is just that we do not see that the proposals in this part of the government's work appear to yield that result.

What this government should prioritize and focus on is to actually ensure that more jobs are created. Unemployment is historically high in Sweden today. It is clear that those who stand furthest away from the labor market also have the hardest time getting in. That is something one must see.

When it comes to support for the establishment of foreign-born women in the labor market, Miljöpartiet also has many more proposals to offer than the government does. They are actually not doing enough there either.

What the government calls a subsidy reform, we call a poverty reform because it risks making people even less free. They are cutting back on support and help. It creates more child poverty, and it will make it even harder for many families in Sweden to manage their economic daily lives. It cannot possibly be a freedom reform for women. It is impossible.

I hope that the government intends to rethink and truly wants to start supporting women and families in economic vulnerability, because it is when one receives support, help and education and takes relevant steps into the labor market that it will work. But first, one must concentrate on ensuring that there are more jobs in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Note that I said equality reform.

We have implemented reforms in Sweden before. The fact that we have the equality we have is due to the fact that women in Sweden a very long time ago moved from being housewives to entering the labor market. The very biggest reform we have implemented, which has had an impact on this, is the removal of joint taxation.

I know that, because my grandmother was one of those who did not enter the labor market when this was removed. She had the will and the dream and spoke throughout her entire life about how she had wanted to start her own business, but she did not have the self-confidence. For my family, it became poor. My grandfather welded in the evenings so that he could sell candlesticks and stood in the square and sold tomatoes on the weekends. But for equality in general, this was one of the absolutely most important steps.

If I am to be honest, I think it will be difficult for some women to take these steps. They shall receive all the help they need. I believe, however, that this for equality overall – especially with a focus on foreign-born women – is an incredibly important equality reform.

I literally accuse the opposition of having a patronizing view of women when it comes to foreign-born women. Why would they not be able to break into the labor market and become economically independent, and thus become less dependent on men, and then run a smaller risk of being subjected to even more economic violence? Swedish women managed it. It was difficult, but they managed it. I have full confidence that foreign-born women, with help, support, and education, will also manage this journey.

The Chairman refers to the fact that it is not possible. However, we know very well – and the opposition knows too – that there are jobs that are not filled by people who want to work. But if one receives the support needed to become employable and receives the economic incentives, just as when we abolished the joint taxation and it became too expensive to stay at home, I believe that even foreign-born women will manage this. I am convinced of that.

(Applause)

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! With all due respect: I believe the member has a completely incorrect picture of our view on the opportunities for foreign-born individuals to get a job, be present in the labor market, and have economic freedom. There is, in fact, nothing among us that says we believe that foreign-born women would by definition perform worse on the Swedish labor market or have it harder than anyone else with similar education and similar opportunities. It is about much more than just that little thing.

I don't quite understand the comparison with the joint taxation and how it is relevant here. On the other hand, I see that the government is working in this area, that is to say, against men's violence against women. It is not being done fully, and we would like to see other proposals, but there is an ambition. However, economic equality is decreasing under this government. It even says so in the budget bill. The gaps are increasing between women and men when it comes to both capital and income. That is also a very interesting take.

What makes it difficult for foreign-born women to enter the labor market is that they do not have the same education and networks. They simply have worse opportunities than domestic-born, Swedish women. On the other hand, there is no reason to lower ambitions. These women also want to work. They also want an income, both for their own sake and to support their family and ensure that the children get what they need. I think that Camilla from KD, at the beginning of her speech, had a very nice story about what it is like to be a mother with scarce economic resources and how one needs to put everything into the children.

I believe, therefore, that we really must state that women want to work, regardless of where they come from. What we, from the side of society, need to do is to strengthen them in that possibility, and that is where the government fails completely.

(Applause)

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! Honored colleagues! Previously, I was a member of the Committee on the Constitution, whose work largely revolves around Sweden's constitutional laws and our civil liberties and rights. After the 2022 election, after six years in KU, I was placed in the Committee on Civil Affairs to take the work on certain constitutionally related issues further there. This involved, for example, the rights of children and adults not to be subjected to violence, something that the civil law legislation has generally shown extensive deficiencies regarding.

That is also why I am here today to participate in this debate on economic violence. I naturally stand behind Sofia Amloh's statement and motion. Since the proposal spans many areas, including civil law, I am participating on behalf of our party with a starting point precisely in the civil law legislation's impact on and enabling of economic violence.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats work systematically and methodically against men's violence against women within all relevant policy areas, including civil law. We did so in government, when we took the initiative for legislative changes, and we have continued this work in the Riksdag during this parliamentary term.

We appreciate the consensus that has existed on these issues between all the parties in the Committee on Civil Affairs. A clear example is the legislative change we made based on Safer Homes for Children: Our Sledda government started the work, and this government finished it. Another example is the Riksdag's unanimous announcement to the government regarding a time limit for property divisions to stop these processes from being used as economic violence, something that the Swedish National Audit Office addresses in the review that we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker! When a woman dares to take the step to leave a violent partner, it is important that she receives support. Equally important is achieving long-term stability so that she can start over again. There are women who have left a violent relationship but felt forced to go back when they have been unable to secure a good housing situation for themselves and the children.

It is about, for example, women who have not been able to achieve a division of property and therefore do not have the financial means for a sustainable housing situation. The ex-partner – the man – has refused to cooperate in a division of property, and it has ultimately forced the crime victims, that is, the woman and the children, back to the male perpetrator.

This is part of the man's post-violence against the woman. It is a type of economic violence aimed at continuing to control and harm the woman's and the children's mental and physical well-being. In that regard, the civil law legislation has offered violent men both tools and arenas to continue the violence against women and children.

Mr. Speaker! It is almost three years since this Riksdag issued a unanimous announcement to the government regarding a time limit in division processes. We were united in the Committee on Civil Affairs: The law is deficient. When the Committee on Civil Affairs processed the family law motions in 2023, there were proposals for improved division processes in four committee motions. These were proposals from us in the Social Democrats as well as from SD, C and Vänsterpartiet.

The Social Democratic proposal was concrete and concerned introducing a time limit for when the division of property procedure must be completed. At the first committee meeting in March 2023, all four of these parties proposed approval of their respective motions, and MP proposed our Social Democratic proposal. As appears from the public documents, it meant that we Social Democrats, before the continued deliberations, had a committee majority for our proposal to introduce a time limit, Mr. Speaker.

At the next meeting, we were therefore very pleased when the committee could reach a joint drafting between all parties and thus an agreement. We were also pleased that the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna then changed sides and stood behind our Social Democratic proposal. Previously, the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna had, in fact, been against changes to the distribution rules. I welcome that the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna changed sides so that we could have a unanimous Riksdag behind the proposal to change the distribution rules.

Mr. Speaker! Thus, a unanimous Civil Affairs Committee was able to move forward with the proposal to review the possibility of introducing a time limit in division of property processes, and it became a referral to the government. But this was nearly three years ago. Since then, we have closely followed what has happened – and what has not happened.

Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the government followed the Riksdag's decision. Despite a completely unanimous Riksdag directing this announcement to the government, it took until the late autumn of 2024, that is, one and a half years, before the government even appointed an inquiry. That inquiry should have been reported last year, Mr. Speaker, but it still has not happened.

In the government report from October that we are discussing today, regarding the National Audit Office's report State's efforts against economic violence in close relationships, the government writes about division of property processes and that the investigation should have been reported by December 15, 2025, at the latest. This has not happened. It is remarkable. It is also remarkable that the government has not announced an extended investigation period.

This week, the government's list of propositions was also presented, that is, the list of which proposals the government intends to submit before the election. There, changed housing allocation rules unfortunately are conspicuous by their absence.

It is remarkable that the government is dragging its feet in this matter where the Riksdag is completely united and where it is so important to achieve a legislative change. Women and children suffer under today's legislation; we here in the Riksdag have agreed that this is the case. Now it is up to the government to deliver.

Mr. Speaker! We want to remind the government here of what the Committee on the Constitution has repeatedly established, that is, the importance of the government handling the Riksdag's announcements promptly. We assume that a prompt response will be provided by the Minister for Justice so that the law can enter into force as soon as possible and the use of this part of civil law by violent men, namely the division of property processes, can be stopped. Women and children exposed to violence shall be helped by the law – not hindered by it.

We Social Democrats are following this closely. We are not averse to using more of the Riksdag's control instruments against the government if necessary. The most important thing is that we achieve a change in the law.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to point out that the absence of formal requirements for powers of attorney is used by violent men to exert power and control – economic violence – against women. We have been informed of how powers of attorney for banking matters do not need to contain dates or be witnessed, which has simplified and enabled perpetrators of violence to incur debt for victims of violence. Despite powers of attorney having contained incorrect personal identity numbers, they have been able to be used to take out large loans for which the woman is then held responsible and which cause major problems in the future. This type of economic violence makes it even harder to leave a violent relationship.

Mr. Speaker! The legislation sets requirements for how a will must be designed and prepared in order to be valid. It is illogical that similar formal requirements are not imposed on powers of attorney. We Social Democrats have proposed that formal requirements for powers of attorney should be introduced. Recently, the Riksdag also issued a notice to the government regarding this. The National Audit Office highlights this notice in its communication, but the government's response is insufficient. The government is dragging its feet even in this matter. According to the National Audit Office's review, the perspective of economic violence is missing throughout the government's directives and bills within the area of loans and credits. It is serious, and improvement from the government is required here.

Mr. Speaker! It is time for the government to execute and implement the Riksdag's decisions and take action. A time limit in division processes needs to be introduced, as well as formal requirements on powers of attorney. The National Audit Office's thorough review shows this. If the government is serious about its beautiful words regarding children's and women's rights, it is time now. Otherwise, it is just words, and they protect neither children nor women against the violent fathers and men who every day use civil law legislation to exercise economic violence. Laws need to be changed, and the government needs to follow the decisions that we here in the Riksdag have made.

(Applause)

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

Very many of the problems that we are discussing here today could be avoided if women left relationships earlier. In many cases, having their own finances is the key to being able to do that.

All women want to work – I have heard that many times from the red-green opposition. No, not all women want to work. Why would they want to if they come here to Sweden from countries where they have grown up with the valuation that it is right to be at home? It is even considered an immensely important responsibility for the woman to be at home with the children. That is how one is a good woman, and that is how one does right. That was what we in Sweden also believed 100 years ago. No, it is not the case that all women who come to Sweden want to work.

There are two major problems that the opposition refuses to see when it comes to getting foreign-born women into the labor market. One is values. The other is the men who keep the women at home – they are also a factor. Now the government finally wants to remedy this through an equality reform with activity requirements and requirements for employment. It will strengthen women in the labor market.

Again: I mean that it is a condescending attitude of the Social Democrats to constantly cling to the idea that all women want but cannot. Foreign-born women have all the capacity if they get the push they need and the support they want. But if one refuses to see these problems, how then can the situation that foreign-born women are still housewives in Sweden be solved?

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am very glad that the member took my point.

The questions you have asked me and previous members have received very fine answers from my colleagues in the Committee on the Labour Market. The questions you raise truly concern the Committee on the Labour Market's areas of responsibility. You have already received answers from the Social Democrats and from other parts of the opposition.

As I explained, I sit on the Committee on Civil Affairs, so I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few other things that you have said during the debate. I take that liberty, because you have already received answers to the questions you have asked. One only has to look at the minutes.

I want to ask you a question. You said in a previous post that it is important that the perpetrators are locked up in order to address the economic violence. I understood it as that is what you said. I see that the member is nodding. It is good that it is taken into the minutes.

One can have a discussion about the imprisonment. In that case, I would like to inform the members, Mr. Speaker, that the economic violence can continue long after a perpetrator has been imprisoned. That is, in fact, how civil law is designed. These violent men have so-called rights to continue the process. Many times they can continue to torment the woman even if they are imprisoned. Therefore, we need to make changes regarding specifically economic violence – something that the members in this debate have repeatedly tried to shift the focus away from. In this letter, it clearly appears that the government is doing too little. I just want to inform the members in all humility that the economic violence can continue even if they are imprisoned. Therefore, civil law needs to be changed.

I also want to inform that the previous Sledda government worked very hard with so-called gender mainstreaming towards a long series of authorities. As my colleague Sofia Amloh was aware, the purpose was to steer those authorities towards work with economic violence. This concerned Skatteverket, Kronofogden, and many more. It is possible to work with this if we join forces – as we do in the Committee on Civil Affairs.

(Applause)

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind the member that we do not use "you" as a form of address in the chamber. I managed to count nine "you"s. That is somewhat of a record, I believe.

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

Merit Frost Lindberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a debate in the Committee on Employment, so the member may perhaps expect to receive questions concerning that specific area.

No, I actually haven't received an answer at all. I still wonder how women's economic autonomy can be strengthened if they remain inside the four walls of the home. The Social Democrats refuse to see the problem and still claim with persistence and great naivety that all women want to work. No, it is not the case that all women want to work. But those who do not want to are in no way bad women for it. They simply have other values. We need to support them by all means we have so that they can get the same share of the equality that we have in Sweden. Everything else is a condescending view of women, and I assert with determination that it is what I see from the opposition's side.

I am absolutely well aware that economic violence can continue even behind locked doors. The government is also doing a great deal of work to counteract this. It is one of the parts that is currently being investigated. It is also what the large agency work is about. It is seven agencies that have a common mission and shall cooperate with two additional agencies. It involves, among other things, reviewing the agencies' routines and systems, so that they cannot be exploited by perpetrators of violence. As long as that possibility exists, it is, as the member states, possible to continue exercising the violence, at least to a considerable extent. I want to assert that the legislative tightenings that the government is now implementing will strengthen the protection in a very extensive way for the vulnerable women, even when it concerns economic post-violence.

(Applause)

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing for us Social Democrats is that all people have equal value.

Then it is the jobs that matter. The jobs, the jobs, the jobs! All people who can work shall work. That is what we Social Democrats fight for. We have a historically high unemployment rate under the current government. It falls back on the member and her government base to handle this.

I am well aware that this is the Committee on Employment's debate. But it is important to inform those listening to this debate and who are interested in equality issues that those questions, when discussed as such, fall under the Committee on Employment here in the Riksdag. Therefore, it is not unusual that we members who sit in other committees and work cross-sectorally with equality issues – some parties work that way – participate in the Committee on Employment's debates, especially when they span many areas.

Just the economic violence is such an issue. We had the National Audit Office visiting our committee. We Social Democrats requested that the National Audit Office be invited, and they had a good pull with us. But the debate ends up in the Committee on the Labour Market.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to remind the member that she is speaking with a woman who was born in another country, namely in Iran, where mass protests are currently taking place and where issues of equality are fundamental. I will forever be grateful that my mother took me and my sister here to Sweden, so that I could grow up here.

I am well aware of what women's oppression means. I am also well aware of the strength and the will that exists in all people and in all women to be free. But for them to be free, society needs to be there and not pull the rug out, not make things difficult, not point fingers racially and not ally with racists. It is about ensuring that all people get to be exactly the people they are.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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