Response to interpellation 2024/25:132 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. Summarized briefly, one could say that a lot is happening now and that it was about time.

Preventing and combating men's violence against women and other violations in close relationships are high-priority issues for the government. It is not only about countering serious crime but also about safeguarding everyone's freedom. The government is working diligently for increased equality with a focus on ensuring that men's violence against women and honor-related violence and oppression shall cease.

As the interpellor points out, it is important that a person who has decided to leave a violent relationship does not encounter obstacles on the way to a new life. It is not acceptable that economic factors deter anyone from leaving a violent partner.

Today, a husband can delay or otherwise obstruct the division process for the purpose of exerting pressure and power or withholding property. This can be described as a form of economic violence. A protracted division process can lead to problems of various kinds, including finding a new home. The division process can therefore constitute an obstacle for the person who wants to leave a destructive relationship.

To get to the bottom of the causes of the problems, we have held round-table discussions with members of parliament, judges and lawyers, as well as with representatives from interest organizations and research. The picture that emerges is that there is a consensus regarding the difficulties with the processing, which are caused, among other things, by the parties' passivity or obstruction.

That is why the government has now moved forward and, as recently as last week, appointed an inquiry to review the division process. The purpose is to ensure a well-functioning, efficient, and legally secure order and to counter economic violence. Part of the investigator's mandate involves taking a position on the question raised by Eva Lindh, namely whether a maximum time limit should be introduced for the division proceedings. But the investigator shall also consider other measures. This includes, for example, taking a position on whether the division officer should have access to sharper tools to use against a party who does not cooperate or who in other ways tries to prevent efficient processing. It also involves assessing whether stricter rules should be introduced for how the costs of the division officer's work can be distributed, so that a spouse who does not cooperate is made to pay a larger share of the costs.

Let me also mention in this context other important measures that the government has taken or plans to take to combat violence against women and violence in other close relationships.

A very important part concerns strengthening the criminal law protection for vulnerable women. Therefore, we are now carrying out a major reorganization of criminal policy where the focus is shifted from the perpetrator to the crime victim and the surrounding society's need for protection. Last summer, the Government gave a special investigator a mandate to review the sentencing scales and fundamentally reform the system of penalties. The investigator shall, among other things, submit proposals implying that life imprisonment should be able to come into question for certain serious cases of repeated crimes of violence and sexual offenses, even if none of the individual crimes have life imprisonment in the sentencing scale.

Another very important part concerns reforming the legislation on restraining orders. Currently, we are preparing proposals within the Government Offices aimed at ensuring that more restraining orders can be issued and that the crime-preventive function shall be strengthened - all with the aim of ensuring that restraining orders constitute an effective protection for those who are subjected to, or risk being subjected to, violence and other violations in close relationships.

Legal changes have also been implemented to provide strengthened rental law protection for those subjected to violence. Specifically, the changes mean that the perpetrator shall be able to lose their rental apartment while the possibilities for the person subjected to violence – often the woman – to remain in their home are strengthened. It is therefore the perpetrator who shall move, not the crime victim.

In summary, the government is tackling violence against women from several different angles. The work is being carried out purposefully and persistently, and we will not lower the level of ambition or slow down the pace.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! The first time I encountered this problem was when I worked as a social worker and met a woman who had almost been beaten to pieces. In that conversation, many things were naturally brought up, but I asked her if she was prepared to leave the man who repeatedly committed violence against her. She then said that she had already done it once but would never dare to do it again. She had tried to leave this man, but the division process had become protracted. A division process is about distributing the assets between each other after a marriage or after having lived together.

But it never became anything, because the husband dragged out the time and delayed the process year after year. It never became a good solution for her and, above all, for her children. As a mother, the children's situation is the most important, she told me, and that is how it is.

Since it did not work out, she found no other alternative than to go back to the man. Then the violence was even further escalated, because in his opinion she had taken the liberty of leaving him once.

Men's violence against women is a major societal problem and a personal problem. The Minister for Justice addresses several consequences of this and other things that we really must take action on.

It is terrible to see the consequences for the women who are subjected to it, but also for the children who live in this. Calculations show that it is approximately 150,000 children who live in that situation.

When a woman dares to take the step to leave her partner, it is for her own sake and not least for the children's sake. They also become victims by witnessing the many times difficult violence that women are subjected to.

Therefore, society must provide all the support that is possible so that women dare to take the step. But when they do dare to take the step, it is also a matter of giving them the support they need to manage it and live a good life.

All the things that hinder it are something that we must take seriously and really work to remove. When I became a member of Parliament, it was one of the issues where I felt: I will not give up until it is possible and we resolve this. It is for this woman's sake and for all other women's sake.

It is important to extend a big thank you to all the women, organizations, politicians and others who have worked to ensure that this is resolved. If many of us push for it, it can also become possible to resolve the issue.

I would also like to extend a thank you to the Minister for Justice. But there are a number of things in the committee directive that I intend to take up in my next speech. It is important that we resolve this issue for the sake of the women and the children.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for the answer to Eva Lindh!

First of all, I want to say what Eva Lindh concluded with. I want to express a thank you. My thanks actually come from the children who have not been able to start two good homes and who now see the possibility that they might get to do so in the future. The thanks also come from the men and women who have difficulty starting a new life and a new home after a separation where they have a former partner who does everything to make it difficult.

Secondly, I want to say: Finally! But it could have gone faster to get the investigation out. It is about two years since we stood here for the first time, the minister and I, and discussed faster apartment division processes. It was then the minister said: I promise that I will look into the issue.

It is about a year since the minister stood here in the chamber and said: I will appoint an inquiry. I would like to assert that the minister is usually able to be significantly faster on other areas of inquiry than this, which I think is a pity.

For the children who cannot start two good homes with their parents after a separation, every day is a very long day. It is significantly longer than it is for us adults.

It is also a very long day for the adults, the parents, who have an uncertainty and do not know: Do I have money to pay for a home? Do I have money to buy food? It is because the other party is stalling. This is something that creates poor well-being in both children and adults.

For the third, I want to say: Am I satisfied with the directives? Are the directives sufficient? I am not entirely convinced that it is all that we could do.

The Minister and I are quite in agreement that the tools available today do not function sufficiently. The question then is whether more similar tools are needed and what consequences that will have in the future for those who delay a partition process. I do not quite see that clarity in the directives.

The Minister has previously pointed out that it would be necessary to significantly change the processes that are currently in place. But I do not see that it is included in the directives. It is a bit like doing the same thing but still a bit sharper.

Why was it not included to be able to investigate how cases can reach court faster, so that it is not possible to continue to delay with a partition executor, but so that one reaches that point faster if one does not move forward? The tools are not being used correctly today.

Could more things have been included for examination in the investigation? I believe so. One could have investigated whether the division process can be divided in some way if there is a very large amount involved or if it is problematic.

I would have appreciated it if I, along with others, had been included in the development of the directives. It is such an important issue. These are real children and adults we are talking about who are affected every day a process is delayed.

I have a question for the Minister. Sometimes it works to ask directly in the chamber. Could we not gather and see if there are more things that we could include in a supplementary directive to make them comprehensive, so that we do not lose more time if we discover that perhaps things are missing along the way?

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

Denis Begic (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for a good interpellation, and thank you, Minister, for the answer!

I signed up for the interpellation debate for two reasons. One is that I sit on the Committee on Civil Affairs, where we work with this issue. The other is that I suspected there would be many more women discussing precisely these issues.

Men's violence against women is a societal problem where we all need to work together. It is something that I would like to send along. We all need to be part of the process.

I listened to the minister who here confirmed the importance of secure and legally sound housing allocation processes. We share that view. It is truly a welcome step.

I want to, just like the previous speakers, emphasize that time is a decisive factor. There are still many women who are forced back into destructive conditions and relationships. They simply cannot afford to leave the conditions. For these women and their children, every day in economic insecurity is one day too many. We know that.

I also appreciate the government's consideration of giving partition executors more tools and opportunities to hold back a party that obstructs the process. It is necessary. We look forward to these proposals being realized, again as soon as possible. The party that refuses to cooperate should not be allowed to drag out the process and make things difficult for the economically weaker party.

I also want to convey a greeting to the Minister from my colleague Laila Naraghi. You have discussed this very much. For her, it is incredibly important that we maintain consensus on the issue. It is an issue that is crucial for us to be able to act quickly and reach a fast and effective decision.

The consensus on the issue also shows a show of strength for the chamber. These are issues that we truly care about. Men's violence against women is not an issue for an individual member or a party, but the entire chamber stands behind the work against the violence.

I have also noted that the Minister in the response highlights that there is a desire to strengthen criminal protection and reform the restraining order. It is absolutely an important task. As I said: Men's violence against women is incredibly important to work against, and we welcome these changes. We also welcome changes in the tenancy law protection for vulnerable women. It is the perpetrator who should move; it is not the one who has been assaulted and is a crime victim who should move.

In order to make it possible for women to leave destructive relationships, we need the division of property process, and we need it now. As the previous speaker has said, timing is incredibly important. I believe the government received a clear message from the Riksdag when we collectively made this decision. Therefore, I hope, just like several others, that this happens as quickly as possible.

I want to conclude by saying that it is our duty to ensure that the women who are vulnerable - there are men, but it is primarily women - receive the safety they deserve.

I also want to tell the Minister that I unfortunately will not be able to stay here in the chamber, because I have promised a school class that I will go around with them. But I really wanted to show that this is an important issue for all of us, including men. It must not become a women-men issue.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for an important interpellation! Thank you to the Minister for the answer and the joyful news that we are immensely grateful for! It took a long time, but so in last week it was decided on this. This is important.

We have heard Eva Lindh's story. We who have participated in the debate probably have similar stories. Here we heard about a woman who had difficulty leaving the man. I have also heard about a pattern where women suddenly find out and understand that someone has actually planned and tried to find loopholes to get away financially. The women have then been left high and dry because they have not been able to hold on and endure a legal process.

Legal aid was removed in the 90s. Women who are exhausted and tired and who live under difficult conditions every day - sometimes with children, which makes it even worse - have dug into the subject and become their own experts. They have pointed out that at the time there were a number of moderate motions that this would become a problem in the future. And that is also what it has turned out to be.

Eva Lindh has a party colleague who has been a Member of Parliament and who is also a former deputy speaker. She wrote as follows: "The women's shelters meet many women who, during a separation, cannot afford to push through a division of property and thus leave the relationship empty-handed. The problems are greatest when the woman, due to violence, has been forced to flee the shared home without being able to take her belongings with her." This is a quote that is approximately ten to twelve years old. She has also participated in a radio interview, which I think everyone should listen to. It says a lot about what this is about.

I found out about this shortly before 2019 and have since written several motions and participated in interpellation debates. This means that I have stood here and debated with the former Minister for Justice a number of times. I would have wished that we had come further then, but time passes. If he had said that he would look into the issue, that he listened and that the government would take the issue further to see if it was possible to have a round-table discussion and so on - which came later - we might have been there today.

For it is as you say: Time is ticking away, and these women have a pure hell every day, I would like to assert. I follow some of them, and we have been made privy to stories that they have sent to us. It is impossible to describe in words what this is about.

I would have wished that Eva Lindh, just as I had, participated in interpellation debates earlier, with the previous Minister of Justice, before this government took over. I would also have gladly seen Laila Naraghi in the debate. It would have made us stand stronger overall. It started with us having our own debate, during this government's time, in November. You took office in October, and it was before a unanimous Riksdag had spoken when parts of a motion were then hammered out in the committee in the spring.

We heard that the Minister for Justice had read up on Teleman and future issues and saw that there were things in this that had a pattern that he wanted to move forward with. Even though time passes, and despite the fact that we have a democracy that requires its investigation opportunities, I am very happy that we could start in that way and avoided spending even more time laboring through this once again. Now the issue is being viewed from all sides and angles, and for that, I would like to say thank you.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Eva Lindh for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today! Thank you also to Martina Johansson, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson and all others who have been involved in the issues for a very long time and have driven them forward in a wonderfully fine way!

The dialogue that the government made a basic agreement on in the handling of the issue already when we took office, and which I dare to assert we have maintained in an almost unique way when it comes to legislative matters, we naturally intend to continue to maintain.

I do not intend to dwell on the time perspectives. But let me put it this way: I take the point that I specifically have been slow a bit lightly for the simple reason that the issue was raised in an SOU 2005, and many governments have sat since then. Even the Center Party comrades in the Social Democrats had eight years to do something about this, but it did not become much of an issue. Without dwelling on what has been, I think it is worth noting what Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson said about the response in these issues during previous parliamentary terms. It was very stubborn from the Ministry of Justice at that time.

I am very pleased that it was possible to move forward on the issues with a Moderate Minister of Justice, and I think it is a great strength that it could happen with such broad anchoring in the Riksdag. I am convinced that the processes will also be pursued with great consensus regarding the content.

The investigation and its directives are completely in line with the mandate coming from the Riksdag. These are also the questions that we have focused on when, together with civil society representatives and representatives for lawyers and others who act as partition executors, as well as judges and other expertise, we have thoroughly discussed the issues.

I see no need for any additional directives, and I perceive that all the questions that we have also raised here today are very well covered by the directives that we have formulated.

Martina Johansson mentioned the question of getting to court faster. That is the entire basic premise of the investigation; the time limit is precisely this. I can, however, say that the most important thing is to achieve a good agreement as quickly as possible without ending up in court. That is also the primary purpose of the time limit.

I also want to warn against the belief that it will become better if much more ends up in court. In that case, we are talking about processes lasting several years in several instances, in addition to very high costs. If one must go to court to resolve the dispute, there is of course a strong interest in getting there as soon as possible, and a time limit or a corresponding arrangement will be able to contribute to that. But I would still say that the most important goal is to try to achieve a division of property without having to go to court, but to do so in a much more efficient way than what happens today. The time limit can do the job in both respects.

When it comes to more efficient tools and moving the process forward, I mean that the directives are written in such a way that all the tools that could become relevant to achieve this will be possible for the investigator to explore.

It is perhaps no coincidence that one speaks of the possibility of using fines in a more powerful way and of using the cost allocation for proceedings as a means of pressure. Often there is a certain type of tool in the toolbox when it comes to moving proceedings forward, but there is nothing preventing the investigator from identifying other tools that can also help do the job.

I feel that we have written a directive that gives a very skilled investigator all the possibilities to turn over all the stones that must be turned over for the final result to be as good as we all hope and believe.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for the answer.

I do not intend to devote this debate to historiography. I do not think it is particularly productive moving forward. I also think that this should have happened earlier. Regardless of who is guilty or not guilty of nothing having happened, my commitment is very strong. I will continue to examine this closely. I believe we are many. But I did not, as I said, intend to devote myself to this now.

We must do more to stop violence against women, of which this is a part. It is incredibly important, and that is why we are talking about it today. We must also be united. The important thing is precisely that we are united in that more needs to be done and stand up to stop violence against women.

This is also important in itself. We see that the development is unfortunately not positive. It is not the case that fewer blows are dealt or fewer cases of psychological abuse occur now. This development is also not unique to Sweden. We see it in other countries as well. It also means that we must not become complacent in our responsibility and our work. It is important that we take action on this.

So now we have had an inquiry commissioned - very good, thank you for that! Not just me, but everyone who has been involved in the issue thanks that an inquiry is coming. It is also important, just as Martina Johansson pointed out, that we continue the dialogue and that the government invites such dialogues - I do not mean that I must receive an invitation, but the women's organizations and everyone who has been very involved in the issue and sees in what way the processes can be improved - so that the outcome truly becomes the best possible.

When we now start an investigation and there really are hopes for a solution that makes it better, we need to take in all the views we can to improve the process in a good way, not make too small changes or changes that do not really tackle the problems that exist.

I have taken note of what the Swedish Women's Organizations, for example, have raised. I am making no judgment on that here, but we know that we think it is good to have investigations and that it needs to be looked into. However, it feels like important and pressing issues to include, for example, the lack of sanctions and whether there is a possibility to not have a compulsory private law process, as it is called. This needs to be looked into. Those processes are also expensive. To include all of this but also other aspects feels very important.

I thank you for the answer so far and want to once again thank everyone who has worked for this. Then I will return in the next speech. I would, however, like to direct a wish to the Minister for Justice to really carry out this process in such a way that as many as possible can be involved so that we get better legislation and a better process.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! We often end up in a discussion about what could have been done earlier and what could not. Everyone here is in complete agreement that it has taken far too long since the issue was first noticed. We heard from Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson how there have been motions long before my time in this chamber. Whether we are friends or not with different governments, we can have a different discussion about that. I am, however, glad that we are here now and that we are moving forward – of course! I am also concerned that it becomes a whole.

Then I shall answer this regarding the speed. The Minister has absolutely acted faster than many of his predecessors on this issue. However, since the government took office, quite a lot of legislation has been developed from idea to implementation in two years. The reason I criticize the Minister for slowness here is that it has taken two years to appoint an investigation - I just want to clarify that.

Whether there is a need for additional directives or not, we can continue to discuss. Since I do not receive any promise here that there is an intention to continue the work of filling in with directives, I can only hope that the minister is correct that the directives are sufficient and that this truly becomes the legislation we want.

It is good that it is included in the directives to review the reflection period in the case of a separation or a divorce, even if one has children under 16 years of age. Had I or any organization been given the opportunity to be involved in developing the directives, we might have taken the opportunity to also look at the fee for a divorce. The crowns it concerns can actually constitute the economic difference that decides whether one submits a divorce application or not. And if the reflection period is to remain, how do we view the maintenance obligation, which is also a major economic means when one procrastinates?

I hope that we can gather again during a referral process.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to dwell on the investigator and what solutions are possible if one is a skilled investigator. It has occurred to me that there are opportunities and potential. Perhaps we will see solutions that I have not thought of – I am not a lawyer and cannot see all the parts. I also know that the women's organizations have references to what they want to see: It must work like this. Just as the Minister for Justice said, new things can also emerge that are even better than what we each had thought previously. It is with that hope that I view this.

In that also lies the legal aid we had in the early 90s. Member of Parliament Martina Johansson pointed out that there were moderate motions when the Social Democratic government removed that part, the five hours one could get for a certain amount of money which could then become several thousand kronor. However, that is a very short time if one has a division of property that extends over several years. There were some exciting thoughts regarding this that I have good hopes the investigator will look into.

I would like to conclude by speaking about our democracy, Sweden, where there are things and matters beneath the surface that one thinks do not exist among us. That is how most people think until they see the problems that do exist. It is important to understand that even if it is not a large group compared to the population that is shouting and is loud, it is still very harmful things that are happening. It is important to have big ears and listen to this.

The women's organizations have been present at the round-table discussions, as I understand it. There are stories that they have not been able to get any hearing there. There are, therefore, lessons to be drawn all the way regarding how we reach out and achieve the best rule of law.

I see hope in moving from hopelessness to the full potential of hope.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! When it first concerns the process, it is incredibly important that many have the opportunity to be involved in the continued work. Until we have now appointed the investigation, it is the Ministry of Justice that to a large extent has been the focal point for such a process. We have, as said, been in the Committee on Civil Affairs on several occasions and discussed the issues and had several different sessions with both members of the Riksdag and representatives for civil society, research, lawyers and others who have assignments as partition officers and so on, precisely in order to establish directives that capture all the issues that are on the table.

Now I envision that the investigation and the investigator during this year will be the hub for involving different actors in the work. I assume, of course, that the committee will have experts from different fields and also conduct its own outward-facing work and meet different actors who have much to contribute and can provide input during the course of the work.

When we eventually receive a proposal from the commission, it will, of course, be handled in the usual way with both referral rounds and dialogue between the government and the Riksdag. I truly see that there are good conditions for those who want to be involved in influencing the advancement of these issues to have their say. But during the coming year, it is, as said, above all the commission that is the hub for that process and dialogue.

I would like to raise a couple of substantive issues that I believe are important to include. One is sanctions. This is also touched upon in the directives. We want to see new, more effective tools for the division authorities to be able to move the process forward and, in particular, to be able to intervene against someone who delays or in other ways obstructs the process.

It states in the directives that if the tools are to be effective, they must be able to be matched with different types of sanctions if they are not complied with. That is where the fine comes in, for example. One can also allocate the costs for the process in another way, so that the one who delays pays more for the process than the one who cooperates. One can also imagine other tools.

I want to emphasize that the sanctions are definitely included in this framework. Otherwise, the new, more effective tools will not be particularly effective. It is, so to speak, within the framework of that.

When it comes to the broader question of actually abolishing this entire system and building another system, I will let the investigator analyze the whole. I do not quite perceive that it has been on the cards when we have discussed it with the Civil Affairs Committee or with other actors for that part. It has been very much about starting from a system for which there are good reasons, but which for various reasons does not function as it was intended, and about now rectifying this in different ways. There should not be changes at the margins. And we will be able to measure it by the effects of the changes. We know which effects we want to achieve with this. Then the reforms must, of course, be able to lead to them.

One issue, which Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson raised and which others may also have touched upon, is the economic conditions for a financially weaker party to participate in such processes. There is currently a kind of compensation guarantee or a system for it, but it only entitles the individual to limited support. We also have that question included in the directives. We often talk about having an efficient justice, access to court. It should therefore be a fair process also in practice. Therefore, that type of compensation issue is also included in the investigation directives.

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

Eva Lindh (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for Justice once again. I look forward to the open process and truly hope that it will be such a process, so that we can resolve this in a good way.

I feel that at least we who are here in the chamber agree that it concerns a control and a need for power that some men have. It manifests as violence against the partner to whom one has nevertheless shown some type of love and security. But it has become a struggle for life and health. That we can never accept.

We as a society must do everything we can to stop this from happening. It is therefore incredibly important to provide this support, not only so that women will dare and have the strength to leave their partner but also to help all the children who witness this. These are, of course, horrific experiences. For the children who are exposed to this, their worldview is shaken to its core. Someone they love and care about is subjected to violence by someone with whom they at least believe or hope to feel safe.

Thank you for the investigation! I look forward to seeing where it leads and that we can actually make that change, or at least part of it, that makes it possible for the women who dare to take the step to live a life afterwards.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Eva Lindh, for the opportunity to discuss these very pressing issues today! Thank you also, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson and Martina Johansson, who had to leave a bit earlier, and everyone else who for a long time have been involved in the issue here in the Riksdag and of course outside of politics!

It has been at least 20 years since the issue was raised in a more systematic way in another investigation, but it did not receive any handling then. Now we can be glad that an investigation is in place, and it will be the hub for moving the issues forward.

I also want to express my appreciation for your way of constantly reminding us that this is legislation that truly affects individual people and that it can have devastating consequences when it does not work. It is a reminder that violence is not only physical violence. It can also be psychological violence and economic violence.

Violence can be exercised in very different stages of a relationship. What we are talking about now is a kind of post-violence, something that happens when one may have removed themselves from the relationship in one way but is still in it legally, regulatory-wise, and economically. There are very large opportunities for the one who is destructive and violent to also exercise much violence afterwards.

All this has been raised by many for a long time. It is quite true that this is not a universal solution when it comes to men's violence against women or, for that matter, violence and violations in other close relationships. But it is an important part of the whole.

I look forward to both following the investigation and to myself being part of a continued exchange with all the forces involved here in the Riksdag and with various actors outside of politics who all have a strong commitment and strong interests in these issues. I have great hopes that we will be able to move this forward in a very good way. Let us keep the line open during the process and with joint efforts land this in a nice way.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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