Response to interpellation 2022/23:397 on the crisis commission against violence

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me if I intend to try to conclude a broad parliamentary agreement so that the work against violence becomes a common task for all of us who are elected and for all actors in society, and whether the government will listen to the Police Union and appoint a parliamentary crisis commission against violence, with the aim of producing a long-term action plan that can span several parliamentary terms.

Let me first just state that Sweden is in an exceptionally serious situation, and I share the picture that, among others, the Police Union has expressed. Organized crime is a threat to the system and must be pushed back with the combined strength of the entire society.

The development will take time to reverse and a proper change of course is required. I therefore also share the view that we have a great need for national unity and to take a long-term grip.

A parliamentary commission with all parties in the Riksdag risks only to slow things down and create new deadlocks. A large part of the reform work that the government is now carrying out consists of entirely necessary measures and legislative changes that were sorted out in the so-called gang talks conducted during the previous mandate period.

Now, concrete action and a consistent policy are required that can break old patterns. This presupposes cooperation between many actors, but it must occur in effective and purposeful forms.

The Government is working intensively to develop a national strategy against organized crime. Such a unified strategy has not existed previously. The Government is also preparing a letter stating the direction for social-preventive crime prevention work. This is happening in parallel with the work to merge and update the national strategies against terrorism and violent extremism.

In this strategy work, municipalities, regions, authorities, representatives of civil society, researchers, other experts and so on are involved.

The government has also established a council against organized crime consisting of the heads of the central law enforcement agencies. It is the hub for a cooperation that, over an 18-month period, aims to bring precision and power to the reorganization of the policy that is now being undertaken.

And the important work with the parties in the Riksdag occurs continuously, most appropriately within established structures within the framework of the Committee on Justice's work. The week before Midsummer, I also invited the chairpersons in the Committee on Justice from all the Riksdag parties to a meeting in Farsta here in Stockholm, where the police provided a situation report against the background of the recent tragic shootings and explosions. Also, representatives for the local community, district, civil society, and so on were present at this important meeting.

I look forward to broad support in the Riksdag for the measures we are now taking, and I welcome all proposals that can further strengthen the efforts against the criminal gangs.

No task is more important than restoring people's security and safeguarding our free and open society.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to thank Minister of Justice Strömmer for the answer. I also appreciate that he takes the time to debate despite it being after Midsummer. The situation we have to deal with, unfortunately, does not take a summer break.

I want to start with some parts of the answer that I think are good. I also take the opportunity to thank you for the invitation to Farsta which we received last week. I believe there was great value in that, even if we were there more to listen to the actors who were on site rather than to discuss politics. I also believe that it was appreciated by those who were there.

The parts of the answer concerning a new national strategy are positive. I look forward to it being finalized. It is also good that so many and so different actors are invited into the work. This applies to both municipalities and regions as well as researchers, civil society, and so on. It is something that is needed, and I look forward to taking part in it.

The national council that has been established can have an important role. This has also been done previously in different forms; the collective power of the authorities becomes strong when they cooperate. For example, an annual situation report is produced. What I miss are the municipal representatives. One perhaps cannot invite all 290 municipalities, but there are organizations, such as SKR, that could be represented in such a context.

As far as the positive goes, but the part of the answer that disappoints me is obvious: that the government says no to the crisis commission that the Police Union requested.

As grounds, the Minister for Justice primarily cites the risk of deadlocks and slowing down. I actually think it is a fear that is unfounded, at least if one sees what such a commission could do. I do not see that it means one needs to agree on all policy. But one can make an effort to go as far as one actually can. Cross-bloc agreements have been made between parties previously where common denominators are found, give and take, and see what one can agree on. Then the impact also becomes stronger.

The current right-wing government has a narrow but clear majority. They will get through the propositions they submit, so it is not for that reason that broader anchoring is needed. But the problem we have with gang shootings unfortunately seems to be not just for this mandate period but for a longer period ahead.

I also want to have time to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, before the time runs out.

For some time now, we have had legislation regarding the municipalities' obligation to be responsible for crime prevention work, which I think is very good. It has also been long-awaited by the municipalities. Now we are in an economic situation where resources are lacking. Many municipalities are forced to plan for cuts because of how things look, and no notice has been received regarding what the state grant will look like for next year. A concrete question: What is the Minister of Justice's message to those municipalities that plan to cut back on important activities that also have a clear connection to crime prevention work?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for an important question!

We have a strong common interest in mobilizing the entire society around the absolutely crucial task for our country, namely to restore safety for the citizens, for crime victims, and for their relatives, to prevent crimes from occurring at all, and in the long run to safeguard the free and open society for all citizens. It is that which is fundamentally jeopardized, and it is fundamentally that which makes it justified to speak of this criminality as a threat to the system.

I am also in favor of effective and purposeful ways of cooperation between different political actors and others. That is why I am now pointing to the development of the new national strategy against serious organized crime, where, as mentioned, there is a large number of actors involved in the process.

As late as before Midsummer, I had a meeting with SKR and a representative selection of the country's municipalities to get input for the strategy work. They will continue to be involved in the work during the autumn, but not just them. The regions also have a substantial role. Other actors also have an important role – civil society, the research community, expertise, and more.

The Riksdag will also be involved in the work in various ways, and I think there are established working methods for that, namely the interaction between the government and the Riksdag, exchanges of this kind, the concrete work with legislative issues in the committees and so on.

When it comes to the commission format specifically, we unfortunately have a proven experience, and that is the conversations that were held during the previous mandate period in a similar format. To begin with, not all parties were invited, and when it came down to it, it was not possible to reach an agreement across the board because a very large amount of what was necessary and which would have bitten into this crime if it had been implemented earlier was sorted out in those conversations.

I will list some questions that were important for us to include but were sorted out by, among others, S and MP and others who constituted the majority at the time: a targeted wage investment for the police, paid police training, a special initiative to recruit administrative support staff to free up police resources, double sentences for gang criminals, search zones, stay bans as a specific and separate penalty, a lowered threshold for mandatory detention so that all crimes with a minimum sentence of one year in prison are covered, a special initiative on surveillance cameras, a crown witness system, a system with anonymous witnesses, abolished sentence reductions for adults between 18 and 21 generally, not just for serious crimes, and so on.

Much of this constitutes the backbone of the program that we are now implementing. I am not actually saying this for overly polemical purposes, but I am saying it because it is a matter of finding formats that are effective. I mean that very much of what was sorted out during the previous mandate period in commission-like formats is such that is absolutely necessary in the reorganization that is now taking place if we are to have a chance to reverse this development. It is therefore why I welcome interaction regarding strategies and welcome interaction and exchange between government and parliament in established forms. But I also safeguard the room for maneuver that the government must have in order to be able to do what must now be done so that we can reverse the development.

Lastly, an answer to the direct question about the crime prevention work: On July 1, the legislation will be in place. Then, 25 million in earmarked funds will be added. After that, it will be 50 million in earmarked funds annually for the municipalities' part and a special assignment to Brå to be supportive of the municipalities in that work.

In the long term, we can only secure resources for the municipalities by having more people enter the workforce and by breaking inflation. That work is in full swing.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the gang talks, it is the case that we did not get all the invited parties to agree on an agreement; that is quite correct. We will certainly not agree on the reason why it became so. I mean that it was because the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna did not want to reach an agreement. All parties sat and held these discussions. They did not try to reach the very end but left the table before then, most likely because they did not want the Sverigedemokraterna to be the sole opposition in those matters.

Several of the examples that the Minister for Justice brings up are such things that have actually been implemented. All the bills that have now been placed on the Riksdag's table originate from the 34-point program, for example those on residency bans and crown witnesses. The wage investment was perhaps not included there, but it was started during the last parliamentary term. Then there were other issues where we were not in agreement, that is quite true, for example visitation zones and anonymous witnesses. But a large part of these things we have actually been in agreement on the whole time. This is also reflected when we vote on those bills in the Riksdag, as we have done this spring.

Mr. Speaker! As I have said, I do not think we necessarily need to agree on everything. But if we sit down and discuss, it could actually be the case that new ideas emerge, that we find the lowest common denominator, and that we understand arguments in a different way than when there are heated debates. I think it is very unfortunate that it is dismissed in this way, even against the background that this is something we need to have long-term perspective on and gather more actors around than just the political parties.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the municipal sector and the money that has been allocated for this law, 25 million and the scale of it in the coming years is not insignificant. But the crime prevention work in the municipalities is much, much larger than that. The municipal sector needs 24 billion from the state to maintain the current quality in its operations. They need that increase, as SKR has stated, and in that context, 25 million is peanuts. It is about avoiding cuts in schools, in social services, and in other operations that also have a very obvious crime-preventing purpose. Education and social services obviously have other purposes, but the crime-preventing aspect of a child succeeding in their schooling can actually not be overestimated.

In that perspective, the municipalities should receive a message from the government that they do not need to plan for cuts but can prepare their budget, which most will decide on during the autumn, in such a way that they can at least maintain - preferably develop, naturally, but at least maintain - the activities they have. I think it is a pity that no such clear message has come from the government.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must first confirm what Rasmus Ling says. The money that is earmarked specifically for the statutory responsibility and Brå's mandate in relation to the municipalities regarding crime prevention work is naturally not the answer to the broad welfare challenges or the broad crime prevention tasks that the municipalities engage in. Nevertheless, this is naturally also important, linked to the specific legislation that Rasmus Ling raised.

With this said, the government has been clear that the municipalities will receive clear and definite decisions from the government before the autumn budget on how the government will use the state grants in relation to the municipalities.

I also believe that everyone sees that what is also happening now is that even the municipalities' money is losing value. In short, one gets less for the money because of inflation. It is clearly a very distinct Swedish experience historically that if one does not succeed in cracking inflation, it doesn't matter how much money one pours in, because this money will become worth less and less. The government's focus is now entirely on cracking inflation and on re-establishing a clear work line so that more people get into work and the common cake can thereby grow.

An important part of the task locally will naturally be to further strengthen crime prevention work across the board. When we speak of this, we are not talking exclusively about individual projects, but it is about school and social services – the broad welfare activities.

I also want to say, regarding the interaction in the Riksdag, that I, as I have said, truly welcome an exchange. I can assure you that every good idea raised on how we can reverse the development, regardless of which party it comes from, will be valued in a serious and constructive way by this government.

I welcome an even closer exchange between the government and, in my case, the Committee on Justice as the natural arena for this exchange. I point again to the broad strategic work, which involves our political parties in the municipalities, across the board - already now but to an even greater extent during the coming autumn.

And then I still want, for illustrative reasons, to say that I believe it is extremely important that a government in this situation has the room to maneuver to do what is necessary, even if it does not mean that one agrees on everything. One must, after all, have a majority for its proposals.

We have during the spring presented some concrete legislative proposals that Miljöpartiet has not fully supported. It has concerned the security guards, who I believe are extraordinarily important for the municipalities' own crime prevention work. It has concerned expanded powers for police and customs in border areas - extraordinarily important for crime prevention, that is, to be able to prevent crime from occurring. There, Miljöpartiet has stood in the way.

We have several important proposals coming. It concerns anonymous witnesses, which I believe will be one of several tools to break up a completely paralyzing culture of silence, which, in addition to often making it impossible to solve crimes, is also a rot that attacks our entire legal system when people do not dare to speak with our law enforcement authorities. It concerns visitation zones and other concrete tools that we know have been central in strategies in other countries that have succeeded in reversing the development, such as Denmark.

It is, as said, about exchange and interaction, preferably with maintained room for maneuver to also do what is necessary even if it is not possible to get all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag on board with that. We must prioritize the societal problems and find effective, purposeful working methods for that purpose.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the issue of security guards, perhaps the Minister for Justice noted that our objection primarily concerned the duration of the training. Perhaps the government took our criticism to heart, or perhaps it had been planned that way anyway. I do not know, but I choose to see it positively. In any case, we were informed a week later that the training period would be extended in the manner we had described in our motion.

There are other issues. When it comes to anonymous witnesses, we will have different views. I hold the same view that Gunnar Strömmer had a few years ago. I am convinced that it does more harm than good – the same applies to visitation zones.

Let us have a debate on those questions! It is naturally the majority that will decide, but I remain convinced that there are more questions than one might think - if not all - that we can actually reach a broad consensus on. Why not try?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is good that all these actors are involved in the national strategy. But when it comes to the national council, it concerns directors-general at state agencies. Involve the municipalities in this! I said it many times to the Minister for Justice's representative. Involve the municipalities in the agency-wide work, and ensure that the power and knowledge that exists at the municipal level is utilized! This does not happen by itself, but it is possible to do.

Miljöpartiet will be constructive in every situation. We will also scrutinize and be in opposition. We will present our own proposals. But we are prepared to listen. It does not mean that we accept everything, but we have the same goal in this area; that is not the case in all political areas. But we actually want a safer, more secure society, and then there is a possibility to reach an agreement on proposals where we think quite similarly.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Rasmus Ling for raising the important issue of both the societal problem of organized crime and what are effective forms of interaction between different important actors.

I would like to refer back to that meeting in Farsta that we both attended before Midsummer, where we met representatives of the local politics – of which I completely share Rasmus Ling's view. One should have a municipal council perspective on most things here in life; then the outcome in practice will often be even better.

I also take note of the entire civil society that was present – everything from sports clubs to churches and others, which play an extraordinarily essential crime-preventive role but also, in the case of Farsta, have an important role in crisis management and crisis support to the surrounding community in connection with horrific events such as the one that occurred there a few weeks ago.

I would therefore, on a general level, really want to encourage both cooperation and a respectful exchange. I would like to repeat what I said earlier: Everyone who has constructive proposals on how to reverse the development regarding organized crime, with the shootings and explosions as the most brutal expressions – just put them on the table! Raise initiatives in the Riksdag and bring me to the committee! I am sure that we can find a very constructive exchange there.

My experience, however, tells me that we must dare to rely on our established working methods and that broad crisis commissions can involve a bureaucratic burden that costs more than it is worth. But this in no way detracts from what my instinct also tells me: The broader the support that can be obtained, here in the chamber and elsewhere, for various measures aimed at breaking the destructive development we have been in for many years, the better for Sweden. We will let this be the closing note for today.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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