Response to interpellation 2022/23:222 on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and crime policy

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Anna Wallentheim has asked me how I and the government will work to ensure that measures within criminal policy do not conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Let me begin by underlining that Sweden is experiencing an extraordinarily serious development with a system-threatening gang criminality that affects our entire society. And it is clear that even very young people, not infrequently children, are involved in these criminal networks and also commit very serious crimes. Today's regulatory framework is not adapted to the development that has occurred. This means, among other things, that the sentencing system when it concerns children and young people must be designed in such a way that it can also credibly meet such criminality. This also includes the question of the length of sentences. Put simply, one can say: Even the sentences for young criminals must be increased.

With that said, the penal system still treats young people differently. This can, for example, mean that youths who commit serious crimes also have their sentences reduced precisely because they are young. Children and young people who commit serious crimes must, of course, be met with clear and adequate reactions, and a criminal lifestyle must be able to be interrupted in time. People also have a right to protection against serious crime, even when it is committed by young offenders. By pursuing a policy of that kind, one can also fulfill the right that children and young people have to protection against being drawn into crime and being exploited by criminal networks.

To reduce crime, increase safety in society and prevent children and young people from ending up in crime, a very effective crime prevention effort is also needed. Social services naturally have a central role in that work, and the government therefore wants to strengthen the social services' preventive and crime-preventive work while various programs for parenting support are expanded.

As Anna Wallentheim has pointed out, the coalition parties in the Tidö Agreement have agreed that the sentence reduction for young offenders shall be investigated and that a lowering of the age of criminal responsibility shall be considered. The Convention on the Rights of the Child naturally applies as Swedish law, and the children's rights perspective shall obviously be included as part of the legislative work.

In summary, decisive action needs to be taken against juvenile crime, and all legislation and other measures will, of course, be designed in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer to a question that I and many others with me have felt concerned about. Above all, I want to highlight the last part of the answer as particularly pleasing, namely this: "The Convention on the Rights of the Child applies as Swedish law and the child rights perspective shall be included as part of the legislative work. In summary, action needs to be taken against youth crime and all legislation and other measures will be designed in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

I completely agree with Gunnar Strömmer that we need to do more to tackle youth crime. It must involve both legal regulations and measures, as well as the preventive work.

Earlier this week, we in the Committee on Justice had a debate regarding young offenders. It was I who preferred the part about how we Social Democrats view these issues. In the debate, I chose, among other things, to speak about how society's fight against crime must be relentless and that we must ensure that those who commit crimes in Sweden and are old enough shall receive tangible punishments, both to show what values we have in Sweden and to show that society stands on the victims' side.

But, Mr. Speaker, what I also raised in the debate is that children are children and that our greatest responsibility as politicians and as a society is, of course, that all children in Sweden can become their best. When children commit crimes and harm others, the reason for this is often that adults have failed.

Both I and the Minister for Justice are certainly well aware that children and young people living in areas that are extra vulnerable and where crime has a strong foothold often run a greater risk of ending up in crime than other children. We know that when children and young people fail in school they run a greater risk of going astray in life, and we know that long queues to BUP and social services as well as a weak school health service also increase the risk that children and young people do not receive the help they need.

This means that we must talk about children and young offenders as both perpetrators and victims. Children are victims in the extreme crime and criminality that we see today. They become victims who are forced into criminal structures. They are victims who are forced to become perpetrators.

This interpellation is, however, rooted in a concern that we sometimes forget that children are children and that through disproportionate increases in penalties, lowering the age of criminal responsibility, and so on, we risk turning our children into more serious criminals and, above all, that we are violating several parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Speaker! I am incredibly proud that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since January 1, 2020. But since the Tidö Agreement was presented, there have been some critical voices specifically regarding the parts concerning the crime area when it comes to children.

Among these critical voices, organizations such as Bris and Rädda Barnen can be mentioned. These are two well-known organizations that we all know stand on the side of children. These are voices that argue that there are points in the Tidö Agreement that risk conflicting with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I have had the opportunity to sit down with these and other children's rights organizations over the past few weeks to discuss this. Therefore, in my first contribution, I would like to ask the following questions: How does the Minister view the criticism that has been raised? Have the Minister and the Ministry sat down with the various children's rights organizations to work towards ensuring that the future proposals that the government is prepared to submit are actually compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for an extraordinarily fine opportunity to discuss important and pressing issues!

Let me begin with a description of the crime we are now seeing and to what extent it is penetrating ever deeper into the younger generations, and it is doing so.

A very strong impression during my first six months is that we have built a legal order and an order regarding the social services, that is, the intersection between the rule of law and the social state, which is adapted to a completely different reality than the one that we as a society are now facing.

Let me just mention the 15-year limit that recurs in very many different contexts. It is not just a question of the age of criminal responsibility; it is also a question of when the police, for example, are allowed to deploy secret coercive measures. If you arrest 14-year-olds in a car with explosives and weapons, the police are not allowed to take the mobile phones and empty them of information because the children have not turned 15. Social services have also not had the right to implement measures against children without the parents' consent until the children have turned 15.

In a situation where the recruitment into criminal networks begins when the children are eight, nine, or ten years old and they are full-fledged criminals when they are thirteen or fourteen years old, we must look at this with extreme sobriety. I mean that the division between hard and soft in the view of how one should handle children that is sometimes made is outdated. The rule of law and social state that must step forward must be demanding and encouraging and go further in a number of different respects than we have done until now, otherwise we will not have a chance to break this development.

All the parts that I am now mentioning are subjects of reforms based on the Tidö Agreement, but new aspects are constantly being added that we must deal with.

Let me mention a current event, namely the release of a 17-year-old who was admitted and locked up in a so-called special youth home, convicted of a murder. That case has highlighted many fundamental questions regarding our entire system surrounding young criminals. I believe many find the sentence provocatively low when it fundamentally concerns a confirmed murder. It also concerns the fact that escapes are not criminalized, and it concerns the fact that the person in question became a Swedish citizen while he was suspected of this serious crime, that is to say: There is no requirement of good conduct for young people who apply for Swedish citizenship.

This has also shed light on a number of questions that approach the issues of children's rights, for example, to what extent one can use mobile phones or tablets and communicate with the outside world even if one is convicted of a bestial murder and happens to be under 18 years of age. It also concerns the limitations that exist for the staff at these homes in relation to children and young people when it comes to body searching them or searching through their rooms for mobile phones, sharp objects, or drugs.

All of this is an illustration that our order is not suited to meet the system-threatening serious organized crime that, unfortunately, all too many children and young people are already a part of. We must change that.

Then the question is whether one can do it with the force that the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats here in the chamber, is now signaling, and still respect the rights for children and young people that emerge from the Convention on the Rights of the Child. My firm opinion is that yes, one can do that.

What follows from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, just to take a couple of examples, is that one shall have a age of criminal responsibility. This is established; otherwise, they are recommendations. Different countries do things in different ways when it comes to exactly where to set the age of criminal responsibility. Should we decide on 12, 13, or 14 years, it would in no way conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We can also close the possibility of using mobiles and tablets in these youth homes without acting in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am fully aware that children have rights that adults do not have, but we have very good opportunities to achieve this.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I have met the police, I have also been told that the day the police come into contact with our children and young people, it can many times be too late. One wishes to come into contact with young people earlier. However, many of the police officers I have met point out that it is other things that must be implemented much earlier. We must start as early as preschool with strengthening our children and young people and so on.

I am also unsure whether the children's rights organizations I have spoken with would agree with Gunnar Strömmer regarding what he said in his response now. I hope that the department and the minister take the opportunity to sit down with them to ensure that one is truly working hand in hand. These are important issues.

According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the justice system shall take into account the child's age and promote the reintegration of children into society. The justice system's actions towards young people are therefore incredibly important when it comes to ensuring how the adults of the future are shaped.

Many of us in the Committee on Justice have, in various debates, highlighted the research that points out that it is harmful for children to be exposed to the criminal justice system too early and that this many times limits their opportunities to grow up as responsible adults. Studies also show that young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system sometimes even emerge as worse criminals, because they have come into contact with criminal gangs or other networks and so on. It is therefore incredibly important that we ensure they receive the right care when they come into contact with the justice system.

Preventing children from being exploited and recruited into crime is one of our most important tasks in society, of course. We know that all children are different and that children differ from adults in both their physical and mental development. This is, among other things, the background for children's lower criminal responsibility and that we have a separate system where children and young people are treated in a more individual-based manner.

Mr. Speaker! The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child aims to give children, regardless of background, the right to be treated with respect and to be heard. The Convention on the Rights of the Child clarifies what rights all children in the whole world have. In decisions and actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall always be considered. The State has a responsibility to protect the child against neglect, exploitation, and abuse. And the Convention on the Rights of the Child applies to all children.

All children who are in Sweden shall have the same rights without distinction. This applies regardless of whether a child is a citizen, has a temporary residence permit, is an asylum seeker, is an EU citizen, or is staying in Sweden without permission.

There are proposals in the Tidö Agreement aimed at detecting criminals earlier. Fundamentally, it is something good and positive. But the proposals and approaches mentioned there are, in my opinion and the opinion of children's rights organizations, at risk of violating children's rights. Among other things, the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna propose various coercive measures and visitation zones where, without suspicion of a crime, one is given the right to violate people's integrity, private life, and freedom of movement. This is something that violates Article 16 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Unfortunately, we already hear children today telling us that they are subjected to searches on their way to and from school just because they live in a certain area, or that they are subjected to identity checks simply because of their skin color.

Several of these repressive measures also lack a clear basis in research and risk violating children's integrity, privacy, and freedom of movement. It becomes disproportionate and does not lead to the desired effect.

Therefore, I ask: How does the Minister view that the proposals put forward by the government should be based on research and evidenced to have the effect that the government desires, without violating children's rights?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first say that it is perfectly obvious that we all prefer above all to prevent and preclude children from ending up in these contexts at all. The importance of the preventive work is, I understand, an uncontroversial position. If one reads the Tidö Agreement carefully, one will also find that there is an offensive in the crime prevention area that I have missed in previous years in the form of strategy, structure, systematicity, and effect.

I can point to a couple of things that we have taken measures regarding during the last few months. Let me mention clearer and more unambiguous directives to the ongoing investigation on removing secrecy barriers. And let me point to an issue that one hears everywhere if one speaks with municipalities, social services, police, or schools, namely that police, schools, and social services must be able to share information and create a common system power, primarily to prevent and stop children and young people from being drawn into criminal contexts at all, but also to be able to pull them out of there with great force if they have nevertheless ended up there. I am surprised that this has not been done earlier. I am fully aware of the difficult balancing of interests involved in this.

As late as Wednesday, we gave a special assignment to the police, Socialstyrelsen, and Statens institutionsstyrelse to provide us with a common situation report with high precision on exactly where we stand regarding the issue of the recruitment of the youngest in the networks. They are to propose new effective forms of cooperation, using models from other parts of the work against serious organized crime, and provide an updated catalogue of measures regarding how we should meet this. It is largely about prevention and deterrence.

With this said, we must also see the truth in broad daylight. It is many of the most serious crimes - the fatal shootings and the serious explosions - that are committed by children and young people. Then they are criminal, and then they shall be prosecuted and punished for it. It is about both the redress of the crime victims and the surrounding society's need for protection against gross organized crime.

I believe that an important thing to achieve both is to separate the most serious young criminals from the other children and youth. Therefore, we will move forward with a reform on special youth prisons that has a dual purpose. One purpose is to ensure that criminals such as the 17-year-old who was released last week - I am fully aware that we do not have all the details and that it is an ongoing legal process - must be handled by a part of our order that has experience, resources, and legislation on its side. It will also relieve the pressure on other parts of social life, which will then be able to mobilize their resources for children and young people who have not yet fallen into the most serious crime.

Regarding the issues that were raised about visitation zones and increased opportunities to use preventive coercive measures such as secret surveillance and the like, there is a great deal of proven experience in other countries that have succeeded in reversing the development. That type of tool is extraordinarily important.

Regarding the visitation zones, we have 25 years of Danish experience to lean on. Regarding secret coercive measures, it is no coincidence that Swedish police and Swedish prosecutors point to the value of the possibility of using, for example, secret wiretapping not only when one has a concrete suspicion of a crime but also so that it can be directed towards criminal networks to prevent and preclude shootings and explosions from taking place at all.

I am aware of the trade-offs between personal privacy and effective crime fighting, but societal developments have brought us to a point where effective crime fighting must move forward its positions.

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

Anna Wallentheim (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by commenting on these confidentiality barriers. We Social Democrats stand fully behind this. It was an investigation that the Social Democratic government initiated, and which we now look forward to providing its proposals. Just as the Minister for Justice says, this is incredibly important for catching children and young people in time.

As I mentioned in my first exchange with Minister Strömmer, we Social Democrats are willing to review the legislation to ensure that we address youth crime and ensure that adults who exploit children in criminal activities receive significant sentences. We are willing to increase the maximum period for closed youth care and so on. But we also see that there are things that need to be addressed.

Above all, we want to work more preventatively, because more needs to be done. We cannot allow that we in Sweden have a school system that does not give all children the right to an equal school. We cannot allow the gaps to grow and child poverty to increase. We cannot accept the overcrowding that we see in vulnerable areas, which above all causes children to be caught in the middle.

We cannot accept that children are not allowed to see their parents go to work or education, because it is incredibly important that children also get adult role models. We therefore cannot accept that community life withdraws or that there are no adult role models in areas where it is important that they exist.

We cannot accept that in Sweden 2023 we make a distinction between children and children.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for this interpellation debate and for the answers that have been given. Even though I would, of course, have liked slightly clearer answers to some questions or would preferably have seen the government ready to back down from some of its proposals, I choose to interpret the Minister kindly.

But I also want to be clear that we Social Democrats will follow this development. We will follow the work closely. I will take with me the answers I have received regarding the fact that the children's perspective shall be included in the legislative work.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that the Minister should be aware that if this is not implemented, he will hear it from me and my party in other debates, and I believe he can also expect to hear it from all children's rights organizations who want to ensure that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is actually upheld.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to thank Anna Wallentheim for the debate!

It feels extremely urgent to speak as soon as an opportunity is given about what must be said to be one of the biggest structural challenges we have regarding organized crime, namely what I would call the insocialization of children and young people in criminal networks at a very early age. New recruitment feels like an overplayed word. It also makes them become very serious and brutal criminals far too early. Preferably, they should not become that at all, naturally, but it is a development that we have every reason to take with extraordinary seriousness.

I also want to confirm that it is, of course, the case that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law, must be complied with. With considerable personal experience of working with rights issues, I also want to say that these rights – perhaps particularly in legislation of the nature of the Convention on the Rights of the Child – are not trump cards, but an assessment of interests always takes place. If one looks at the motives behind the Convention, one also sees very clearly a strong victim perspective, and a strong need for societal protection against serious crime is what is included in the assessment that must be made in every individual case, regardless of whether it concerns punishment or preventive coercive measures or whatever it may be. We intend to make that assessment in a very serious manner, and I truly welcome more parties if they wish to be involved in that work.

I want to conclude by saying that this division into soft and hard that we sometimes hear – that the preventive is soft and the criminal is hard, that the rule of law is hard and the welfare state is soft, that perspective – we really must leave it. The rule of law and the welfare state that must now step forward must do so together and speak the same language. That language shall be warm but also demanding, encouraging, and clear. Otherwise, we will not have any chance at all to break this development.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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