Response to interpellation 2023/24:114 on time limit for division of property

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me what is happening with the issue of introducing a time limit for the division of property.

Let me first be clear that men's violence against women must stop. Combating men's violence against women is about combating serious crime, and it is about protecting everyone's freedom. The Government continues to work persistently for strengthened equality with a focus on men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression.

After a divorce, a division of property must be made. In most cases, the spouses handle this themselves, but there are situations when it is not possible. As the interpellation highlights, it is important that there is a well-functioning, efficient, and legally secure procedure for property divisions. It is not acceptable that economic factors can deter a person from leaving, for example, a violent partner.

In May this year, I invited people to a round-table discussion on division of property proceedings. It became a very rewarding exchange. It was also a first step for me in mapping out what the causes are for why division processes can drag on and how extensive the problem is. The work has continued since then in the department. Recently, officials at the department gathered a number of experts for a follow-up meeting to discuss the issues in substance more closely. At the meeting, active division practitioners, judges, and academics participated.

Introducing a time limit for when a division of property should be completed is one of several different proposals that have been put forward in the debate and which may be worth looking at more closely. As I have mentioned previously, I do not want to rule out any proposals in advance. I also perceive and appreciate that the Riksdag, in its announcement, is on the same line. The question of how we best proceed is now being considered in the Government Offices. I will return to this in more detail in the subsequent posts.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, 150,000 children live with a parent who has been assaulted by the other parent. Hundreds of women have been killed by a current or former partner. It is mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who are affected by men's violence against women.

It is crimes that should be punished, and it is crime victims who should be protected and receive support. As a society, we must make many different interventions to save and support the women and children who live under these difficult conditions.

Since 2016, we Social Democrats have worked according to a coherent strategy to prevent and combat men's violence against women. I think that has been very good. There, a large number of important interventions in the area have also been carried out with both increased resources and preventive measures.

Despite this, there are a number of things and measures that we need to do. It is not entirely easy for a woman to dare to take the step. Many of us know why it is so incredibly difficult. Women end up in a situation of dependency where it is difficult to leave a relationship where they are exposed to both psychological and physical violence.

But when they dare to take the step to leave, they also need to receive long-term support in order to be able to continue to remain outside the relationship. It is, of course, about the housing situation and much more.

Some are about this issue of not having achieved a division of property. Consequently, many of these women do not have the economic means for a sustainable housing situation or to move forward with their lives. What is happening is that the husband or partner, the one they have lived with, does not cooperate with the division of property.

It means that it is dragged out over a very long period. I have met several women who tell that for years they have not had the opportunity to start their new lives because the partner or husband drags out the division of assets processes. They become both long and costly.

We also know that it means that women have difficulty obtaining mortgage loans and that it proceeds in so many different ways. One way is to set an upper time limit so that one cannot drag it out, or to set a requirement that one cannot just delay and fail to show up during the division of property processes.

I was very happy when a unanimous Riksdag set a requirement that something should be done so that it will no longer be possible. I have seen it. I have worked as a social worker for quite many years. During that time, I have met many women who one has not known about. It is not the case that we all know under what circumstances women live.

When they have dared to make the decision, it has been very difficult. They have ended up in a loop, just as I described. They cannot buy a new home and cannot move forward because the division process is delayed.

Now a unanimous Riksdag has said that something needs to be done about it. I saw that there was also a provision that the Minister for Justice would return during the autumn of 2023 regarding what happens and also with a timetable for the process.

Now it is starting to drag on. Autumn is almost over. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister for Justice: What is happening, and when can we expect a change?

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Division that does not work is an extremely pressing issue for the woman – it is usually a she, and it is few men – who every day struggles in the situation she finds herself in. Therefore, I am very pleased to hear the answers from the Minister for Justice so far today. I know that they have been preceded by the conversations that were held in the spring, and we also hear now that conversations have been had and are being had during the autumn.

On November 22, 2022, after the election in September, I stood here in the chamber and debated the division of property in an interpellation debate with Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer and Martina Johansson from C. I have asked myself: Where were the Social Democrats then and previously on that issue? I have missed you, Eva Lindh, to move this issue forward and to make it a non-issue.

I looked back at what the Minister for Justice said in the autumn: "I can at least promise this much: I will ensure that we in an appropriate manner gather actors with insight into the conditions in order to, at least in a first step, gain better knowledge about the conditions, so that we can move forward in the issues."

Let us say that it will take place during the spring semester, then I have a reasonable time pressure but also a reasonable scope of action to do this in a practically suitable way.

But I can truly promise that we will gather good forces to see if it is possible to form a new common understanding of where the shoe pinches somewhere, which I think is a good first step, in order to then consider which steps forward are appropriate.

This, Madam Speaker, was for me finally a breakthrough compared to my previous interpellation debates and questions on property division that I had with the former Minister for Justice. There we treaded water in the debate, so to speak, which can be discerned from the Riksdag's minutes.

It was stated that there is a toolbox and that it must be used. So far, that is correct. There is a toolbox. But the problem is if nothing is done and nothing happens with it. That is why we stand here in the chamber and debate.

I have written questions, participated in interpellation debates, and organized seminars in various contexts with women who have been exposed. One receives story after story from women, and with some exception from one man. They describe how their property divisions have stood still and that nothing is happening. It can be six to seven years, as has been said earlier here today, but it can also be eleven years or more in division processes that do not work.

Trials never happen. One doesn't make any progress. A letter can be sent from one party to the other where the partition officer is essentially just being paid to somehow act as a mail carrier.

If one wants, one can make a football metaphor. One is in the first half, but one never enters the second half. One is at halftime.

If this continues and continues, we must say here in the chamber that something is seriously wrong. We cannot do this to the women and men in our country who end up in these situations. I believe that everyone who has not heard these stories or personally been through it thinks: If it becomes my turn, and if it were to happen to me, this would work. But it does not work in these cases.

It was liberating to stand here and hear the Minister for Justice say that something will be done about the matter. This also applies to what Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer said there and then, which I quoted. Often it can be a question of rules, but at least as often it is a question of application. Actors, for various reasons, do not use the rules that exist or use them in an incorrect way. It is precisely the latter that I wonder about. Now I think that what Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer said about where the shoe pinches will get its answer.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the interpellation and thank you, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, for the contribution and for the opportunity to discuss this very pressing issue today! We are truly talking about something that is both a comprehensive societal problem and, above all, a problem for the individual people, predominantly women, whom this affects.

To build on what Eva Lindh said about the importance of working with a coherent strategy, where the concrete issue we are discussing today is, of course, an important part, it is clear that in a broader perspective we must do a number of different things to counter men's violence against women. A division of property is not an expression of physical violence, but it can undoubtedly be a violent tool to use a kind of economic blackmail in a relationship and in the situation we are speaking about now.

The government is now conducting a revision of the action plan regarding men's violence against women and the work against honor-related violence and oppression. We will present a new plan for this work which shall apply for the years 2024-2026. It will be an incredibly important tool for working collectively and strategically with these issues moving forward.

Let me also, in my own area, highlight the importance of increased penalties. In a time when we, on very good grounds, devote much time and effort to how we can counter gang crime, the criminal networks and the serious organized crime, I want to emphasize the importance of men who hit women or men who commit violence against women being punished more severely than today. Detention must be mandatory. I see it as a matter of decency for our society.

When it comes to today's question, we can first state that in the vast majority of cases, spouses settle this themselves. Even though divorces are not a simple matter for the vast majority of people, I believe that in 95 percent of cases, spouses settle the division of property without ending up in the type of problem we are now discussing. But for those who are affected by or end up in this situation, it is of course equally unbearable and can have very serious consequences.

For me, it has been enlightening to hear the discussion over nearly a year's time, not least with many initiated members of this chamber who have put the issue on my radar. It was very much so that we were seen in a broader cross-political circle during the spring. As recently as this week, a conversation with expertise was conducted. Today I can say that during the next year we will appoint an investigation into these issues in order to acknowledge both the importance of the questions and the broad consensus that exists here in the chamber on the need to illuminate the issues in depth.

The issue of division is not entirely uncomplicated. If I am to summarize my impressions of this year's deepening, one can say that in the division processes there is undoubtedly an equality aspect and usually a stronger and a weaker party. Not always, but as a rule, it is the woman who is the weaker party. It is clear that the consequences of the processes dragging on can become very far-reaching and in some cases also devastating for those affected by it.

At the same time, there are still uncertainties. There is, in fact, already today a fairly large toolbox for accelerating the partitioning processes, which for some reason does not seem to be used in the way one might assume. A deadline is one thing that can be considered, but there are also possible risks with that which must be highlighted more closely. Let us come back to that in the continued exchange when we look at the substance of the important principle issue that has been raised through Eva Lindh's interpellation.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! That is exactly what I believe is the reason why it might have been a bit difficult for us to see that this was how it was. There are actually tools in the box, and one thought that it actually worked.

But the stories and narratives became more and more numerous. For those of you listening to the debate, I want to take the time to describe what this can mean.

One of all the women I have met was subjected to physical and psychological violence for a very long time. She had difficulty leaving the relationship because of her children. As a parent, one's children are the most important and the closest. I believe it was when she discovered that this was affecting the children that she gathered the strength and dared to take the step. When there was still no solution after all these years and it also became difficult to achieve any long-term stability in life, she made the choice that turned out to be fatal – to go back because the division process had dragged on. Then the violence became even worse, and there was also an element of punishment in it because she had dared to take the step. This is what we must remember when we talk about this. A single woman is enough for us to have to do something.

I think it is very good - and I am really happy about it - that many of us see this and that we are pushing the issue. Therefore, I also think it is good that Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson and others in the Riksdag are engaged.

I just want to add that if one goes back to who has done what, I have written motions on this for a long time and also pushed the issue. But I think it is good that the Social Democrats, together with others, have been able to agree that we need to do something about it together and sent that to the Minister for Justice. Regardless of what has happened, I am glad that there is now an opening and that they are now going to look into this. But it is also an aspect of following up on this. I hope that the Minister for Justice does not see it as a threat but as an urge to push forward.

Many of us, not least myself, will keep our eyes on this and ensure that something actually happens, regardless of whether it is difficult or how it is tightened. What additional tools need to be in the toolbox so that one can truly tackle this? It cannot be okay that it drags on for this long now that we see that what previously existed does not work. We know that is the case, and then some kind of tightening needs to occur so that not a single more woman has to make the journey that the woman I have told about has made. No one should feel forced to go back to this type of situation.

I thank you for the debate so far and hope that I receive an additional answer in the next contribution.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister of Justice, for the fact that an investigation is being appointed! I really want to thank you for that.

Many of us have discussed the issue for a long time, and I am pleased with the starting point that was made last autumn even before the announcement from the Riksdag. The government was on the ball and wanted to see a solution to the issue.

We have just heard testimony, and we have received many stories about how these people, especially women, are doing. One of the worst stories is a real detective thriller, involving a woman who has been enduring this for over eleven years. She and the children have been exposed, and it has included all kinds of elements that one can hardly believe are real. One could write a book about this; these are terrible experiences.

Division processes are long and costly. It becomes difficult for those who have no money to influence their situation. We have the housing, which we have spoken about. It is testified that one borrows from parents if there is an opportunity. Even inheritance can be taken out so that the woman, which it often concerns, gets her inheritance in advance, before her siblings, to manage. One can live at home with parents and have several jobs to manage one's situation. Sometimes one lives with a protected identity. Perhaps one lives at home with friends.

It is not just about starving one's partner, but also about economy, and that with a capital E. In this, there is also an element of that money or assets existing in the joint property somehow disappear before the information is presented on the table on the day of the split. One is therefore planning for this so that one party is left without. When I become aware of this – and it is not one case but many – it feels like there is much to be done also in that issue.

I look forward to the continued process and hope that we can promptly get this in place so that it becomes safe for those who receive division processes that are flawed.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh and Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, for your testimonies from real cases! They are an important reminder that legislative work aims at reality and at people, in this case often in a very vulnerable situation.

Let us agree that there is a real problem here. There is also a common ambition to find a good solution to that problem. Then the question is how it should be done in a good way.

Is this matter of the Riksdag now being in the loop of the government and the Minister for Justice a threat or an opportunity? In this case, I see it one hundred percent as an opportunity. Not all announcements are always welcomed by all governments, but I think this specific announcement is a wonderfully fine confirmation that we, across party lines, can see a strong public interest in the issue. It also creates a loyalty to the issue that will extend over a longer period, regardless of who happens to be the Minister for Justice or sits in the Government Offices. When the investigation is appointed—during next year, is our intention—we shall therefore, naturally, ensure that there is continued interaction regarding the issues while they are being investigated in a serious manner.

Let me say something about the substantive issues, which are not entirely uncomplicated. One thing that I have not become quite clear on during the time we have discussed this is why the seemingly very far-reaching tools that already exist today to expedite division processes and pressure the party that is deliberately causing delays do not seem to be used to any great extent or, in any case, do not have the intended effect, if one looks at the problems raised in this discussion. It concerns fines, different obligations regarding costs, the possibility of special administration, and the possibility of letting a spouse who is stalling bear a larger share of the procedural costs. These are, normally speaking, quite powerful tools to expedite a process.

It is difficult to reach a way forward before these issues have truly been exhausted. Is it in that toolbox that a solution forward lies, or should other parts also be considered?

I think, in a way, a time limit intuitively feels like a good idea. If there is an upper limit, there is a limit to how long someone can engage in procrastination. On the other hand, there are sometimes substantive reasons why processes need more time, perhaps more time than such a time limit would allow – perhaps not in the cases we are discussing now, but possibly in other division cases. There is also possibly a risk that if one sets an upper time limit, it might become normalizing in the other direction, i.e., in practice that divisions generally will take longer because one sets a time limit against which more and more processes would work. The consequence could then possibly be that more divisions would take longer than they do today. It is, in any case, a risk.

There is also a third part that one can reflect upon: There is a reason why we want property divisions to be settled outside of court. Once one is inside a court process, however, a completely different logic enters the process. What happens if more and more property divisions that are unresolved or not fully resolved are handed over to the court? It is not obvious that, from a time-expenditure perspective, so to speak, it would become better for the weaker party. I am not actually saying this as an objection; I am only saying it as a description.

We are in complete agreement that there are problems here that we must solve. Now we are going to do it in a very serious manner, go to the bottom of all aspects and issues, and then find a way forward.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. I still feel that the Minister for Justice sees and understands the need to do something. Let us simply state: Men's violence against women must cease. We must do everything we can to prevent it. We must do everything we can to support the women who are vulnerable and also all the children who become witnesses. All of us who have worked with children who have become witnesses know that this has a very strong impact and has consequences in the children's lives. This is, therefore, something that we really need to work on.

Not least, we must see it, because we do not always do so. We believe that men's violence against women occurs in a certain type of families. That is not the case. It occurs in all social classes, in all places, and so on. Now, I do not mean that it happens everywhere, really not, but we do not always see it. It is therefore about both preventing, detecting, and providing the support that is needed.

When it comes to this, I understand the trade-offs being made. I have also intuitively thought that an upper time limit is what should be introduced to set a requirement. I understand the objections that exist, but can we not find something else, or perhaps this is what must be included even if there are some negative consequences. I understand the considerations that the Minister for Justice speaks of, and I appreciate that we can have such a debate and such a discussion.

I hope there is a timetable and that we will meet – it perhaps does not need to be exactly here – to follow up on what happens with the issue. It is extremely crucial for very many women.

With that, I thank you very much for the debate.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Once again, thanks to Eva Lindh for the opportunity to discuss these important issues in the chamber today! I also thank Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnson for her contribution and long-term commitment – it applies to both of you – and for the opportunity to take part in the experiences and testimonies that you have with you here today.

We have now spent a year together on these issues in different ways. We have seen each other in different contexts. The Department has invited expertise of various kinds in these and related issues, both practitioners and academics. You have gathered across party lines around an announcement that is very constructive in its content. It takes hold of the shared insight that there is a problem here that we must tackle, but also an insight that the issues are not lacking complexity and that it is a matter of ensuring that what we do truly makes things better for those we are now speaking about, above all women, who end up in a situation where they in practice become held hostage in division proceedings with very far-reaching negative consequences, both economic and social.

I also want to emphasize that we have not yet designed our investigation directives. We will see exactly how they are to be formulated and in what context the questions are to be investigated. But that it will happen, I can guarantee, and our intention is therefore that it should take place during the next year.

I would like to take note of this fine interaction and emphasize that I have no problem at all with us meeting here in the chamber as well and keeping the issues alive while an investigation is ongoing. There is a great public interest in the issues. There are also many people who are immediately affected by them and who I hope and believe also take pleasure in seeing engaged citizens in this chamber keep the issues alive and ensure that they are both debated and handled in a serious manner so that we can achieve an improvement in the future.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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