Stricter rules for parole

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a serious situation. Shootings, explosions, and systematic crime have changed our country. Crime affects more people and more severely than before. In this situation, the rule of law must be clear and consistent and have a focus on safety, crime victims, and societal protection.

The report "Stricter rules for parole" is one of the most important steps in the criminal policy realignment that we are now carrying out through the Tidö Agreement, a realignment from a system that has long been built around the perpetrator to a system that puts the crime victim and safety at the center.

Mr. Speaker! For more than 25 years, the proportion of the sentence to be served has been the same. During the same period, society has changed drastically. Crime has become more severe, more organized and more ruthless. But the prison system has not kept pace.

With the government's proposal, the requirement is now raised so that three-quarters of the sentence must be served before conditional release can be considered. The changes are introduced gradually: first for sentences of six years or more and thereafter successively for shorter prison terms when the government so decides. This is good because the Prison and Probation Service must be given time to expand.

This is a necessary reform to strengthen the credibility of the penal system and to strengthen public safety. Someone who is in prison cannot commit crimes out in society.

Mr. Speaker! Another central part is that the threshold for postponing release is lowered. Special reasons shall not be required; reasons shall suffice. If one has misbehaved, refused to participate in recidivism prevention programs, behaved threateningly, or manipulated drug tests, one shall not be rewarded with an early release. The committee is clear: a sharpened reaction is needed in cases of misconduct and at risk of recidivism in serious crime. This is fundamentally common sense. Conditional release shall be something one earns, not something one receives automatically.

For the first time, the possibility is also introduced to postpone release when there is a concrete and significant risk of recidivism in serious crime, particularly in cases of violent crime or organized crime. It is a very important reform, not least for those of us who safeguard the safety of crime victims. A person who is assessed as remaining dangerous shall not be released.

The government proposes that even the shortest sentences shall successively be covered by the system for parole, which is wise because the recidivism rate is high in that group. That it has previously been the case that persons were released without supervision, a probation period, or the possibility of forfeiture upon recidivism has been a loophole in the system. With this reform, that loophole is closed.

Furthermore, the prison minimum is raised to 30 days, something that should have been done a long time ago. It is not reasonable that crimes could have been punished with such short sentences that no actual enforcement or control was possible.

Mr. Speaker! One of the biggest problems with the current order is that many released prisoners have had no structured supervision at all. That is changing now. The probation period is extended to at least two years, and a presumption for supervision is introduced. It is an important step to reduce recidivism. Supervision, treatment, and control are a central part of reintegration, and the reform strengthens the role of social services.

The government also clarifies that the main rule shall be that the entire granted conditional release is forfeited in the event of recidivism during the probation period. Unlike today, one shall not be able to receive a new conditional release from the part that has been forfeited. This is a much-awaited tightening. We have seen far too many examples where individuals have repeatedly broken society's rules without the penalty having a real effect.

Mr. Speaker! This committee report is an important step towards a safer Sweden. It is a step away from naivety and towards a rule of law that takes the safety of crime victims and the security of society seriously.

Punishment must mean something. Misconduct must have consequences. Dangerous persons must not be released too early. Those who reoffend shall be met with clear and noticeable reactions.

The Committee on Justice proposes that the Riksdag adopt the government's bill. I support this and move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have for a long time pursued the line that the presumption of conditional release should be abolished and that those who may still be eligible shall serve three-quarters of the sentence in prison, regardless of what crime it concerns. This is also what is stipulated in the Tidö Agreement.

But here we stand today, Mr. Speaker, and are to decide on a new regulatory framework for conditional release. In that case, it is clear that the Sweden Democrats' promise and what was stipulated in the Tidö Agreement became a mere trifle. Do not misunderstand me: I think it is very good and welcome that the Sweden Democrats have backed down so significantly on this issue. The original plan would have become very expensive and inefficient and had quite literally risked breaking the Prison and Probation Service.

Mr. Speaker! I simply want to ask Katja Nyberg if the Sweden Democrats have reconsidered in this matter, or why they have backed away so significantly from what they pushed through as recently as three years ago in the Tidö Agreement. What is the message to the Sweden Democrats' voters, and to everyone else for that matter, who wonder what is happening?

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member's question is therefore what happens with the presumption. Is this what you are wondering about, Teresa Carvalho?

This is a whole. The most important thing is that we ensure the safety of the crime victim and society. This is what we are trying to achieve here. The presumption will now be that there will be surveillance. One will not be automatically granted parole, but now it is three-quarters that applies, and one must also earn the release.

In the broad sense, it will result in increased safety for society and for crime victims, and one can additionally reduce the risk of recidivism, because there will be supervision in connection with the release. And it will not be one year but two years when one is to have control over those who are released, precisely in order to reduce the risk of recidivism. Furthermore, we have ensured that those who are considered dangerous will have to remain in custody longer.

One must look at the whole of this, what is important and what one wants to achieve. I think we have made a very good balance according to the Tidö Agreement.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katja Nyberg, for the answer! I agree that it is a whole, and the whole is, to the greatest extent, agreed upon by us. There is broad support here in the chamber for the vast majority of what is now to be implemented to sharpen the regulatory framework regarding conditional release. However, that was not what I asked about.

My question concerned what is stated in the Tidö Agreement regarding changing the presumption. The intention was, after all, to abolish conditional release as the main rule. This is now not happening. I therefore simply wonder: Have the Sweden Democrats changed their opinion on the issue, or will you go to the election on a promise to renegotiate what we are now taking a position on? Will you once again promise your voters that you will go significantly further and abolish conditional release as the main rule? It is not this that we are to make a decision on today. The Sweden Democrats support a different order today when we now vote on this bill. Is this an involuntary compromise from the Sweden Democrats' side, or have you simply realized that it was a bad order – have you changed your opinion? How do you view the presumption regarding conditional release?

I believe this is an important piece of consumer information, not least for the voters of the Sweden Democrats, who naturally wonder why the Sweden Democrats are not delivering on something that they campaigned on and which even stands in the Tidö Agreement.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can put it this way: the Social Democrats have sat in government positions before and had to cooperate with, among others, the Left Party and the Green Party, and then they have had to compromise on various issues, and there have been even worse things than the issue we are debating now.

In this case, we have arrived at a very good proposal. It will be a presumption for surveillance, and it will be for two years. The whole reduces the risk of recidivism and strengthens the protection for society. This is a whole, and that must be seen.

Now the member is going into specific matters to try to sabotage the proposal. But it is a whole, and as the member surely knows, cooperation is needed. I do not consider this to be a bad deal, but rather the opposite. We have pushed through very many things through the Tidö Agreement. This is a good thing when it comes to increasing the protection for crime victims and not looking at the perpetrator's well-being primarily. Now it is the crime victims and societal protection that are the most important here. We have also increased the presumption for surveillance from one to two years, and conditional release can occur after three-quarters instead of after two-thirds, as under the previous government, which Teresa Carvalho's party was a part of.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

Sweden has serious problems with brutal crime where the shootings continue and the bombings and arson attacks are increasing. More and more innocent people are affected, and the insecurity among ordinary, hard-working people in our country is increasing. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we do more to reverse the development by taking harder action against serious crime and breaking the new recruitment to the criminal gangs, which has escalated over the last three years. But it is not enough.

A criminal law and a correctional system are also needed that protect society, provide justice for crime victims, and at the same time give those who have committed crimes a real chance to actually leave crime behind. The important work of preventing recidivism must begin in prison but continue in social services during conditional release.

That one is released before the entire sentence has been served behind walls may give the impression that the sentence is being shortened, but that is not the case. What it actually concerns is that during the final part of the sentence, one is given the opportunity to gradually adapt to a life of freedom without relapsing into crime. During the remaining time of the sentence, the probation service decides if one, for example, needs to be supervised or participate in various programs and interventions.

We Social Democrats believe that the basic idea is good. There should be a controlled and supervised transition from prison to freedom. That part of the sentence is an important part to reduce the risk of recidivism.

Of course, there is also an economic aspect. As is well known, prison places are very expensive. That does not mean that we are against criminals being locked up in prison for a long time, on the contrary. The previous S-government tightened 80 sentences. We believe that there are several sentences that need to continue being tightened, not least when it comes to gang-related crimes, both the violent crimes and the economic crimes. In cases where the policy considers that the time behind bars does not stand in parity with the gravity of the crime, the natural strategy is to extend the sentencing scales or change the sentencing measurement – not to shorten the conditional release, whose primary purpose is precisely rehabilitation.

With that said, we Social Democrats believe that there are several serious problems with how conditional release actually functions today. We see how inmates who misbehave are still released after two-thirds of the time. We see far too many examples of recidivists who are judged to have a high risk of committing new crimes being released, even though they have shown that they cannot manage to follow the rules even at the end of their sentence. We see that the possibilities to postpone release are too limited and are used too little.

It simply should not be like this. The result is that people who should have been deprived of liberty for a longer period in order to protect society and to prepare themselves for a life in freedom without committing new crimes all too often are released prematurely, which of course entails risks both for crime victims and for society as a whole.

It was against that background that the previous S-government commissioned the investigation that forms the basis for the bill. That investigation was then given additional directives by the current government. Both of these, as stated, form the basis for this bill.

We stand behind the vast majority of the bill that we are dealing with today. In fact, we stand behind all the proposals that the government suggests should enter into force at the turn of the year. We Social Democrats want it to be more difficult to obtain parole in cases of misconduct and risk of recidivism. We want an extended probation period after parole, strengthened supervision, that those who commit new crimes during parole can be forced back to prison to serve the entire time that actually remained of the sentence, and that those serving a sentence of six years or more shall receive parole only after three-quarters of the time has been served in an institution, instead of the current arrangement with two-thirds. This is about ensuring that those who behave well get a chance, but that dangerous individuals or those who misbehave are not released automatically.

Madam Speaker! What we Social Democrats, on the other hand, object to is the government's plan to at some point in an indefinite future change the parole period for conditional release even for less serious crimes, i.e., that even short sentences shall be served a little longer in prison and a little shorter time conditionally under the supervision of the probation service. It will not have any effects on crime. On the other hand, it will become very expensive for the taxpayers and in that way risk pushing out necessary early crime-fighting interventions that the government does not even manage to prioritize today, despite the national crisis situation our country finds itself in.

Furthermore, it is a strange procedure that the government carries out such a large-scale law reform at a very strained agency but fails to manage to implement it fully and therefore postpones the entry into force of a significant part indefinitely. It would have been more honest towards the Swedish people to change the law only in the part that one actually intends and manages to carry out and then return to the Riksdag the day one eventually considers oneself ready to expand the legislation further. That the government now asks the Riksdag for a blank authorization in this way is not, in our view as Social Democrats, either right or reasonable, and in fact is also not particularly serious. One can sense that it is about the government being able to say that it has carried out a major law change even though it will not be implemented in reality.

To clarify: We Social Democrats are therefore saying yes to extending the time that serious crimes are served in prison and that conditional release can be granted only after three-quarters of the time instead of two-thirds. But we do not consider it justified to make the same change for all crimes, and it is based on a classic Social Democratic pragmatic balancing. Let me explain!

One aspect is that we want to safeguard the principled value of the system as such but at the same time sharpen the rules so that repeat offenders and delinquent criminals do not receive conditional release automatically.

Another aspect is the Swedish crime paradox: General crime is not increasing but is remaining stable or even decreasing in several respects, but serious organized crime has become one of our greatest societal problems. It is obviously there that we must focus the efforts and resources.

A third aspect is the economic arguments. Increasing the quota time generally for all sentences to be served in prison comes with a very expensive price tag for the taxpayers, while the limitation to the serious and dangerous crimes is more justified from a crime-fighting perspective but also significantly less costly.

There are, therefore, several compelling reasons to change the parole period for serious crimes, though not for all. Even though we have reached different conclusions in the individual parts of the bill, I want to emphasize that the Sweden Democrats' and the government's proposal, which we are taking a position on here today, is significantly much more reasonable than what is found in the Tidö Agreement. From that, it actually only became a thumbprint.

From the beginning, the Tidö parties' idea was to completely remove the presumption of conditional release, that is, that the main rule would be to remove the conditional release and only grant it in exceptional cases and then after three-quarters of the sentence regardless of the crime. The Tidö government's own investigation estimated the price tag for this at 7 billion kronor, an incredible amount of money, every year. The investigation advised against such an expensive and dramatic change, and it is good that the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have backed down.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by underlining that despite the objection we Social Democrats do have against shortening the conditional release for shorter sentences at some point in an undefined future, even though it is expensive and ineffective, most and the most important changes in the bill are very good.

It is also a strength that there is such strong and broad support here in the Riksdag to implement the changes. Stricter rules regarding misconduct and risk of recidivism, longer probation periods, clearer supervision, the possibility to revoke the entire conditional release in case of recidivism, and the ability to extend the time a sentence is served in prison for serious crime – all of this strengthens both society's protection and trust in the social contract. It simply makes the system more purposeful, and it is good that these changes are now being implemented in broad consensus.

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

Charlotte Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! Why was he released now? He received nine years. How can a sentence be nine years but in reality only become six? How is that even possible?

So that is what it sounds like when I meet residents on the streets and squares in Skaraborg who want to talk about safety. And they are right – it is unreasonable, and it is unfair.

This bill is completely in line with what people consider reasonable, decent, and obvious. Sweden has changed over the last decade. Shootings, bombings, and organized crime have stepped straight into people's everyday lives. Sweden finds itself in a situation that none of us desired. It is in that situation that we must dare to take the decisions that are required – decisions that protect people, strengthen the rule of law, and restore trust in our common justice system. When society changes, the laws must also change, and that is the work we are doing now.

The Moderate-led government has changed course. We have shifted the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim and to the safety and social protection that people have the right to demand. A prison sentence should be exactly that: a punishment in prison. Today, a convicted person is released already after two-thirds of the time. Nine years becomes six, and six years becomes four. For many crime victims, this appears incomprehensible. For many Swedes, it appears unfair. The actual prison time corresponds to neither the gravity of the crime nor the crime victim's experience.

Those who are subjected to serious crimes expect justice. They expect society to stand on their side. That is exactly the core of this reform: a shift in perspective that Swedish crime policy has long needed. When a person is shot, assaulted, or raped, this is not two-thirds of a trauma – it is 100 percent in an entire life.

Madam Speaker! Today's system is not holding up. That is why we now want to increase the quota part to three-quarters first for the longest sentences and later for all. It shall occur gradually, responsibly, and with consideration for the correctional services' capacity. It is still conditional release, but it is a sentence that somewhat better reflects the gravity of the crime and that better meets the public's sense of justice – with a clear compass, justice, and security.

This reform is not just about longer time in detention. It is also about tightening the requirements during the execution of the sentence itself. Today, there are far too few incentives for the inmate to actually behave, participate in treatments, and prepare for a life without crime. We therefore tighten the consequences for those who misbehave during their stay in detention and refuse treatment, manipulate drug tests, or threaten staff. In those cases, conditional release shall be able to be postponed. It is time that good behavior becomes a prerequisite and not a marginal remark.

Conditional release should not be an automatic right. It should be something you earn by actually behaving yourself. Therefore, we are lowering the threshold for postponing conditional release. It should be sufficient with "reasons" – not "special reasons". It is a small word, but it is a big and important change. This strengthens the Prison and Probation Service and creates a clearer incentive for good behavior.

For the most dangerous, that is, for those who have been convicted of serious violent crimes or who are part of organized crime, a new tool is now being introduced: Parole can be blocked when there is a concrete and considerable risk of recidivism in serious crime. We are now talking about cases where society must have the right to say: The risk is too high. You are not being released.

This is not just reasonable, it is completely necessary. Today, prisoners who are judged to have such a high risk of recidivism and misconduct that they are not granted a single permission to prepare for their release are nevertheless released on parole after two-thirds of the sentence. Releasing a person who is judged to have a high risk of committing serious violent crimes is not humanism. It is recklessness, and it is irresponsible. Now we put an end to this.

Let me be clear. As long as these individuals are in prison, they cannot shoot. They cannot explode, they cannot assault, and they cannot commit violence. Every day they sit behind bars is another day when someone else avoids becoming a crime victim. It is not a theory. It is practice in reality, and it is safety in reality.

Madam Speaker! The reform does not end there, but we also tighten the period after release. When someone is released on parole, society must have better tools to follow up, support, and monitor. Therefore, we extend the probation period from one year to at least two years. This is a fundamental strengthening of both the control and the opportunity for reintegration. A presumption for surveillance during this time is also introduced: It shall be the main rule and not an exception. It is not reasonable that the person released from prison should return to society without a structured follow-up. The person released shall be followed up, tested, and held accountable – not left to their own devices.

This actually benefits both parties. The released person receives more support in their reintegration into society, and society gains better control and can intervene earlier if something goes wrong. This is effective crime fighting combined with consideration for the individual and – above all – safety for the crime victims.

We are also tightening the reactions in cases of recidivism. If a crime is committed during the probation period, the entire conditionally granted liberty is forfeited – that is, the whole, not parts. From the forfeited time, no new conditional release is granted, because it is about credibility, about consequence, and about respect for those who follow the law and for those who are affected by crime.

Madam Speaker! This is a reform that has been missing for years. It is a reform that responds to the problems of reality. It is not about toughness for toughness' sake, but it is about decency. We set our foot down and regain control. We make Sweden safer with responsibility and clarity and with respect for those who are affected by crime.

Twenty-five years ago we lived in a different Sweden, but today's reality requires a modern regulatory framework. Today's crime victims deserve justice, and today's society demands better protection and a justice system that holds. This reform delivers that. It is balanced, well-considered, and necessary.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move that the Riksdag rejects all motion proposals. I move for approval of the committee's proposal to approve the government bill.

(Applause)

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

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating a legislative amendment that entails that the rules for parole are tightened. This means, among other things, that the proportion of the sentence that must be served before parole can occur can increase from two-thirds to three-quarters and that the increase is implemented gradually, with the longest prison sentences first. If the convicted person misbehaves during their stay at the institution, the threshold for release is raised, as is the case if there is a risk that the convicted person will reoffend. The probation period after parole shall be at least two years, and the released person shall be placed under supervision.

Vänsterpartiet stands behind all of these proposals. We have chosen to stand behind the proposals even though there are question marks regarding whether the proposal will result in any actual improvements. We have, however, written a motion where we explain our positions and where we have an additional couple of supplementary proposals that I intended to take the opportunity to account for.

Something that is absolutely certain is that the government's proposal risks becoming ineffective or, in the worst case, counterproductive if we do not improve the integration into society of those previously convicted. Today, the integration of those previously convicted functions all too poorly, and the government needs to take measures to significantly improve the integration. It is an incredibly important crime-preventing measure.

Unfortunately, the adaptation of those admitted into society – the so-called integration – has long been deficient. This is largely due to the fact that relevant authorities, such as social services and the correctional services, have difficulty cooperating. Social services unfortunately do not always take their responsibility to support and help those who are to be released from a prison sentence with, for example, housing. The problems are naturally also due to the general shortage of rental apartments in many municipalities.

It is, therefore, not unusual for a released client to begin their life in freedom with only a plastic bag containing their belongings in hand, with nowhere to go. It is a situation that in no way facilitates the return to a life without crime and potentially substance abuse – on the contrary. A report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå, shows that a large proportion of those who do not receive any special release from the institution are judged to run a high risk of misconduct and recidivism.

A pilot project was carried out with admission where authorities and municipalities collaborated. It was concluded in June 2020. The project could have been a first step on the way. Now, the necessary preparatory work and thereby the conditions for the project to succeed were lacking, shows an investigation from Brå.

It is obvious that the state must take a clearer overall responsibility for reintegration. It is both counterproductive and unreasonable that the state does not take a greater responsibility for the reintegration and readaptation of people who have committed serious crimes.

We therefore mean that the government should appoint an inquiry to review how the state can take greater responsibility for the reintegration and readaptation of grossly criminal persons after they have served their sentence. It is highly reasonable that the state, during a sufficiently long period after release, takes financial responsibility for the individuals' maintenance, employment, and housing in order to reduce the number of recidivists and facilitate reintegration into society. It is socio-economically profitable and will contribute to reducing crime and creating a safer society.

Another possibility for reintegration can be halfway houses. Today, there are opportunities for certain clients to serve the last part of the prison sentence in so-called halfway houses. The activity aims to provide the client with support for their own housing and participation in community life through work, internships, or studies, which increases the individual's opportunities to readapt to society. The person staying in a halfway house is allowed to leave the area during specific times to, for example, participate in employment or do shopping. The stay can also be combined with an electronic ankle monitor.

It is primarily clients who have been well-behaved during their stay in the institution who can today be given a place in a halfway house. Vänsterpartiet considers it reasonable to review the possibility of giving more inmates than today the opportunity to complete their prison sentence in a halfway house, as this significantly facilitates reintegration into society.

The consequence of the government's proposal must not be that those convicted receive no parole at all. In that case, both they and society will lose the necessary supervision and reintegration during the probationary period.

I want to point out in this context that the Council on Legislation, while not rejecting any of the proposals, notes that according to the referral responses, it is disputed whether the proposed changes will actually lead to increased societal protection and increased protection for crime victims. I therefore consider that the cumulative effect of the legislative changes should be evaluated after five years. If the number of recidivism has not decreased during this time, there are, in my opinion, grounds to review the rules again. The Government should therefore have an evaluation conducted five years after all proposals have entered into force.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 3 and 4.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party approves the proposal in the report we are debating today.

The current legislative changes aim to tighten the rules for parole. They concern, among other things, that the proportion of the sentence that must be served before parole can occur can be raised from two-thirds to three-quarters. This means that the threshold for postponing parole is lowered if the convicted person misbehaves during the prison stay, and that it will be possible to postpone parole if there is a risk that the convicted person will re-offend in serious crime.

These are important changes. They are now being introduced successively for sentences shorter than six years when the government so decides.

Furthermore, it is introduced that the probation period after parole shall be at least two years, instead of today's probation period of one year, and that the person released on parole shall, as a rule, be placed under supervision.

Finally, it is introduced that the entire conditionally granted liberty shall be forfeited in the event of recidivism during the probation period, and that no new conditional release shall be granted from the forfeited part.

The Centre Party considers these rules to be reasonable and fair for both the crime victims and for those convicted.

One must see this in its context and in a larger framework. If the common time in the institution is to become a bit longer, it is important that that time contains a competent and secure correctional care. This is – when it is introduced by the government – particularly important for those who have been sentenced to shorter punishments, because they, so to speak, have less time to avail themselves of the care and treatment that Kriminalvården offers.

That is why it was good that the Riksdag earlier this autumn decided that more people should be able to receive ankle bracelets when it is appropriate. It means that those who have employment, housing, and an orderly social life can receive an ankle bracelet as an alternative to prison sentences of up to one and a half years, instead of, as before, only up to six months of imprisonment.

Those who will serve shorter sentences in prison can be assumed to have slightly greater challenges in life than those people who can serve the sentence with an electronic tag. In that case, it is an advantage that they, when the government chooses to introduce this, can receive part of the correctional care for three-quarters of the time instead of for two-thirds. It gives a little longer time to prepare the inmates for a life without crime.

In a time of serious crime in our country, we need to remind ourselves of the Prison and Probation Service's vision, Bättre ut (Better out). It is our duty as a country and as a constitutional state to give those who have been convicted of crimes an opportunity to distance themselves from criminality. I am not naive, and the Center Party stands behind the fact that life sentences and long prison sentences are needed as penalties, but we need to remind ourselves again that most crime victims – apart from wishing that they themselves had never been subjected to it – wish that no one else should become their perpetrator's next victim. To honor the crime victims, it is important to have a prison and probation service worthy of the name of the Prison and Probation Service's vision, that is, Bättre ut.

Madam Speaker! Today's proposal means, all else being equal, that there will be more days and years to be served in our Swedish prisons. These prisons are already overcrowded, with double and triple occupancy, and there are warnings of abuse and security risks for both employees and inmates.

That is why the Centre Party has said yes to temporarily renting prison places in Estonia to ensure the safety of employees and inmates. Crucial for our decision were the plans that exist to significantly expand the correctional services in Sweden with an additional 15,000 places before 2032. We do, however, know that the construction projects initiated three years ago will be put into use at the earliest in 2029 – the project time is at least seven years.

The facilities being built have an average of 500 places. If we are to build 15,000 new places, the government should therefore have 30 constructions underway, but there are only 4 constructions underway.

Last week I was in Hagfors municipality and met with the municipal leadership there. For three years, a dialogue has been held with Kriminalvården regarding building a prison there. A plan program has been adopted and a detailed plan is moving forward, despite the fact that Kriminalvården has not been able to provide any notification in three years.

The country's municipalities are ready, but they lack a powerful action from the state and the government. The country is waiting.

Centerpartiet requests approval of the proposal in the committee's report on stricter rules for conditional release but simultaneously reminds the government and its supporting parties that laws and budgets are sometimes the easy part. What is needed now is leadership and delivery so that we do not end up in a situation with good legislation that cannot be used in a good way due to the government's sluggish actions.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet welcomes a review of the rules for conditional release. A modern and legally secure system for release must, to a greater extent, weigh the risk of recidivism and the individual's demonstrated responsibility during the execution of the sentence. That all conditionally released individuals are placed under supervision and offered support measures via probation services is positive, and it strengthens the possibility of reintegration into society and reduces the risk of recidivism.

The government, however, proposes far-reaching changes to the parole system that we believe are not based on a sufficient analysis. The investigation underlying what we are discussing here today finds that there are insufficient reasons to increase the sentence that must be served before parole. This is also something that many of the referral bodies agree with, including the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, all of which oppose the increase and the quota system.

Several referral bodies particularly highlight that there is a lack of scientific support that longer prison sentences in themselves would reduce the risk of recidivism, that the current regulation is purposeful, and that the recidivism rate among those released on parole has decreased over a long period. Precisely this we have heard colleagues reason about previously, and they have landed a bit differently than we have. But I believe that we all obviously want recidivism to decrease and that people should serve their sentences and then not commit crimes again.

The Green Party agrees with the referral bodies' criticism and argues that conditional release serves an important function so that the convicted person can be reintegrated into society under controlled conditions. A reduced possibility for conditional release has particularly serious consequences for young people, and the State Institution Board, among others, has expressed concern over this. An extension of the prison sentence risks counteracting rehabilitation, hindering reentry into society, and thereby increasing the risk of recidivism.

The Prison and Probation Service also emphasizes the serious strains that longer detention periods would entail for an already strained operation, given the agency's problems with staffing and overcrowding. Several referral bodies, including Arbetsgivarverket and Seko, have pointed out that the proposed change risks jeopardizing security at the facilities and complicating the agency's long-term planning.

Overall, we therefore consider that the government's proposal to increase the served sentence before parole lacks proportionality. The proposal implies a significant increase in the actual prison time without there being a clear basis for that this contributes to increased safety in society. Let me emphasize that it is also about a crime victim perspective. What we all are looking for is that crimes should not be committed or repeated by either those who have been convicted before or others.

Madam Speaker! The Government's bill also contains proposals aimed at further strengthening community safety in connection with release. The Green Party considers it reasonable that the possibilities for conditional release to a greater extent than today take into account whether the convicted person has seriously misbehaved during the period of incarceration or if there is a significant risk that the inmate will relapse into serious crime. Therefore, we support the Government's proposal in this part.

Miljöpartiet simultaneously notes that the proposals regarding expanded possibilities to postpone conditional release in cases of misconduct or risk of recidivism have not been addressed in the investigation. Furthermore, several referral bodies are critical and highlight the difficulties in assessing the effect of these measures. The Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, the National Board for Forensic Medicine, among others, state that there is a lack of reliable methods to assess an individual's future risk of recidivism and that allowing such an assessment to determine the time of release would constitute a departure from the principle of equal treatment before the law.

Miljöpartiet understands the complexity but still stands behind the government's proposal at the current stage. We regret, however, the lack of proper preparation. In light of the criticism mentioned, we urge the government to carefully monitor the effects of the expanded possibilities to postpone conditional release in cases of misconduct and risk of recidivism. The effects of these measures should be evaluated within a reasonable timeframe, and in parallel with the implementation of the measures, the government should also produce additional knowledge bases.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also advocates that the government proceed with the commission's proposal to raise the upper limit for prison sentences that can be combined with supervised release from three to six months. Such a reform would make it possible for more prison sentences to be served through supervised release, which is desirable as it reduces the burden on the Prison and Probation Service's facilities while simultaneously giving the convicted the opportunity for care and supervision in relative freedom.

The government has chosen not to proceed with this part of the investigation's proposal and refers to other ongoing reform considerations. We are aware that there is an investigation into a penal reform, and it has proposed that protective supervision should be phased out. We question this, however, with regard to the situation at the Prison and Probation Service and the positive effects protective supervision has for the individual. The Green Party believes that more prison sentences should be able to be served through protective supervision, of course after careful considerations and in combination with supervision and support.

Crime policy should be based on knowledge-based methods that reduce recidivism. There is also a need for the government to take a holistic approach to the many ongoing crime policy reforms, which are currently difficult to oversee. Such a holistic approach would ensure a more coherent and effective crime policy as well as reduce crime.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision and thereby the government's bill Tightened rules for conditional release.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is in one of the most serious situations in modern times. Gang crime, gross violence, and recidivism manifest in various ways in our society. People are limiting their lives, parents are worried, and the elderly feel insecure in their own everyday lives.

While the police and prosecutors fight on the front line, the Prison and Probation Service must provide the final defense, the defense against the recurrence of crime, against those who time and again show that they are prepared to harm others for their own gain.

Mr. Speaker, our criminal law has not kept pace with reality. All too often, the focus has previously lain on current practice instead of on societal protection, and on mitigating circumstances instead of on the crime victims' need for safety and redress. Of course, everyone deserves a second chance, but we cannot have a system where everyone receives the same advantages regardless of whether they are first-time offenders or lifestyle criminals.

The Christian Democrats have long been clear: automatic release must be abolished. Those who do not participate in treatment, education, or substance abuse care shall not be released early.

Madam Speaker! Two years ago, the government gave clear supplementary directives to the inquiry on a reinforced civil defense. It was necessary. Originally, the inquiry was initiated following pressure from those of us who were in opposition during the previous parliamentary term.

The report A Purposeful Civil Protection was presented last summer, and it laid the foundation for what the government is now proceeding to implement. We are proceeding because reality demands it, because crime victims demand it, and because the Swedish people deserve it.

Madam Speaker! The bill is part of a larger reorganization. The Government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is fundamentally restructuring the crime policy. This is happening based on a simple but decisive shift in perspective: community protection first, crime victims first, safety first. It shall no longer be the perpetrator who is the starting point, but the people who are affected. It shall be the children who are recruited into gangs, the women who are subjected to violence, the elderly who are cheated out of their savings, and all those who every day worry when they see and hear in the media about shootings, explosions, and other serious crimes.

Today, a convicted person is generally released after two-thirds of the sentence, regardless of whether the person is motivated or dangerous or has refused to participate in treatment. It is a major failure. It is not reasonable that the risk of recidivism, which is central to community safety, cannot even be considered. It is not reasonable that someone judged as dangerous to others should be released early. It is also not reasonable that misconduct must be of a particularly serious character to have consequences. Therefore, the government proposes tightenings, and the Christian Democrats stand wholeheartedly behind them.

Madam Speaker! The core of the bill is that three-quarters of the prison sentence shall be served instead of as it is now, two-thirds. This means that those convicted of serious crimes will spend more time in prison – more time without the possibility of committing new crimes, more time without the possibility of recruiting young people, and more time while society is protected. It is about consequence. It is about credibility. A sentence must actually be served.

The introduction occurs in stages, first for sentences of six years or more, thereafter for sentences of three years, and finally for all sentences, when the Swedish Prison and Probation Service's capacity allows it. It is wise, it is realistic, and it is necessary.

We also propose that the probation period after release shall be extended to at least two years and that conditional release shall, as a rule, be accompanied by supervision. This ensures that society can follow up, set requirements, and react to recidivism.

Madam Speaker! Misconduct in prison shall have consequences. It shall no longer be required to have special reasons to postpone a conditional release; it shall suffice that reasons exist. For those who are most dangerous to society – persons convicted of serious violent crimes or crimes in organized form – conditional release can be postponed six months at a time if there is a concrete and considerable risk of recidivism in serious crime.

They are powerful tools, but above all, they are necessary tools.

Madam Speaker! We must dare to say what has long been obvious to the Swedish people: It is unreasonable that dangerous individuals are released too early. It is unreasonable that crime victims are left in insecurity. It is unreasonable that society should bear the risks when the legislation does not.

This is a reform that shifts the focus from the perpetrator to the one who is affected. It strengthens the position of crime victims. It strengthens social protection. It strengthens safety.

The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 January, and parts concerning the quota part at a later date. We stand ready to take the next steps when the Prison and Probation Service's capacity is in place.

Madam Speaker! In summary, the Christian Democrats support the bill because it is necessary – necessary for safety, necessary for the crime victims, and necessary to maintain confidence in the rule of law.

I can state that the current government is now implementing a necessary change that the previous Sledda governments failed to achieve during their eight years. Now there are real proposals that find great and broad support in this chamber. It is pleasing, and it is necessary.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and the government's proposition.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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