Response to interpellation 2024/25:213 on criminal liability for psychological violence

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Mattias Vepsä has asked me what measures I will take to also combat psychological violence against women.

Let me begin by emphasizing the importance of combating violence against women and violence in close relationships with full force, regardless of in what form such violence occurs. It is why the government is purposefully working with a number of different legislative proposals to move the positions forward in the fight against different forms of violence in close relationships.

An important part of this concerns the restraining orders. Currently, we are preparing proposals within the Government Offices aimed at ensuring that restraining orders can be issued in more cases, that more intrusive restraining orders can be used as a primary measure to a greater extent than today and cover larger geographical areas, and that the electronic monitoring of the orders shall become more effective.

The proposals also mean that a presumption for contact prohibitions shall be introduced for serious crimes in close relationships. It is also proposed that improper surveillance through, for example, GPS transmitters or apps, which constitutes an intrusive form of psychological violence, shall be able to form the basis for a contact prohibition. Furthermore, it is proposed that more circumstances shall be considered in the risk assessment even if the actions do not reach the threshold of what is punishable. In this way, support is given for a more nuanced risk assessment with less focus on previous criminality.

This should also be seen in the light of the fact that the government is carrying out a historic realignment of crime policy, where the focus is shifted from the perpetrator to the crime victim. In the summer of 2023, the government appointed a special investigator with the task of reviewing and proposing toughening of the sentencing scales for, among other things, serious violent and sexual crimes and also to reform the sentencing system. The government has also referred the report *Ett ändamålsenligt samhällsskydd* - the referral period for that investigation expired in the middle of November. The report contains a large number of proposals which, among other things, are judged to be able to lead to increased safety for crime victims, not least for those who are subjected to violence and other violations in a close relationship.

We previously discussed the rental law issues. In the legislative changes that entered into force this summer, there are also changes that entail strengthened rental protection for women subject to violence - it is the violent man who shall move, not the woman subject to violence.

In June, the government also decided on an action program to prevent and combat men's violence against women, violence in close relationships and honor-related violence and oppression, as well as prostitution and human trafficking. In that context, violence refers to physical, psychological, material, economic, and sexual violence. The action program includes, among other things, several measures within the framework of a program for leaving destructive relationships.

Furthermore, I want to highlight that the government recently commissioned an investigator to review the rules on division of property and reflection period, in order to ensure a well-functioning, efficient, and legally secure order for persons who wish to separate and thereby also strengthen the protection for those who are subjected to economic violence.

As Mattias Vepsä mentions, an investigator has previously submitted proposals for an expanded criminal liability for psychological violence. Upon the referral of the proposal, relatively extensive criticism was received from various referral bodies, particularly from those actors within the justice system who are to use the legislation in practice. The proposals were considered so unclear and unpredictable that it was questioned whether they meet the requirements of the principle of legality.

There is no doubt that psychological violence is a widespread problem and that it is very important to address it even in criminal law. It is therefore why the Ministry of Justice continues to analyze and work with this basis.

All violence affecting women, something that occurs in all too many close relationships, must be met with force and precision in the legislation, regardless of whether the violence is physical, psychological, sexual, or economic.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for a detailed answer!

This question has its background in a conversation we had here outside the chamber with a group of women who could testify about how a friend in their circle of acquaintances was stopped at passport control at Arlanda in connection with a planned and long-awaited holiday trip. It was supposed to be an opportunity for her to spend time with her friends and recharge after a long period in a rather destructive relationship. But in the latest SMS in the woman's phone from the man, it says that he is going to destroy her life. And when the woman is about to show her passport, it turns out that the passport is blocked. The trip, therefore, does not take place.

There are a lot of questions to ask when it comes to such a matter. Some are about what more we can do legislatively. Which laws can be tightened? What should be punishable? How should we work with norms and values to stop men's violence against women? In this case, this touches upon a discussion about psychological violence and the fact that it is not covered in the criminal law discussion today.

I would, however, like to start by asking a much simpler question than about the political terms regarding legislation and criminal law. We must ask ourselves if it is reasonable for it to be in this way. Is it reasonable that a jealous and controlling man, through a simple phone call to the police, can in this case block his ex-girlfriend's passport? The only screening questions one receives are quite simple questions about name, residential address, and some other details that one can quite easily find the answers to by googling on the internet.

Is it reasonable that the woman, in this case, should bear the costs herself? She does not only end up in a situation where she feels unwell because she is being mentally abused. She is also hit financially, not just by the costs of getting a new passport and the anxiety surrounding it. We know how difficult it can be if this continues, if passport after passport is blocked. Then there is the risk of being stranded in Sweden. It is also about having saved up a vacation fund and having paid for a trip with an expensive plane ticket and hotel. It is not enough that she is stopped at passport control at Arlanda and stands there alone. She is also supposed to bear the economic costs after having been subjected to this. Is it reasonable?

We have heard the answer and have been informed that work is underway, that it is being reviewed and that it is being considered. In my next contribution, I will raise precisely those aspects in the legislative process. I believe that my colleague will also do so.

I would, however, like to ask if the government, in addition to toughening the penalties for psychological violence, has considered clearer instructions to the police in such cases. How do you view the instructions to the police? How should it proceed? How is the legal certainty to be guaranteed in such processes, for example when it concerns blocking passports?

How does the Minister view the economic issue and the compensations? Are there reasons to speak with insurance companies and to have a discussion with more instances, if there is to be clearer protection for crime victims?

We in the Social Democrats have a crime victim law in our catalog. I know that the Moderates have also raised that issue. Is there reason to consider having more tools in the toolbox?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! The story of the woman at Arlanda is not unique. It is one of many that illustrate that psychological violence can be as destructive a weapon as physical violence. It is a way to control, manipulate, and break down.

This is an issue that the Sweden Democrats have championed for many years. I am proud that this government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has taken the issue most seriously and is working to strengthen the protection for women who are subjected to violence.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, had the chance to tackle these issues, but they chose not to do so. Instead, they handed over a society where perpetrators can still exploit loopholes in the systems and crime victims are left alone. Now that the Social Democrats are in opposition, they complain about the government, which is working purposefully to clean up after their failures. It is hypocrisy at the highest level, and it is the crime victims who pay the price for their passivity.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long been driving several areas that are central when it comes to combating violence and psychological violence and strengthening the protection for women. For us, it is not just about talking about the problems but also about actually delivering solutions. It would never have happened if the Social Democrats still held power.

One can ask why the Social Democrats did not act when they had the power. Why were the necessary legislative changes not made? The Social Democrats talk a lot about women's safety but delivered very little when they actually had the opportunity.

The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, have always put action before words. Our policy is based on creating a safe Sweden where violence, threats, and oppression, regardless of form, are not accepted. We have been clear that the penalties for violent crimes must be increased generally. Perpetrators who harm others shall feel the full force of the rule of law. For us, it is a self-evident matter that both physical and psychological violence shall lead to substantial consequences.

Thanks to our work in cooperation with the government, we have pushed through several important priorities: stronger protection for crime victims and expanded support measures for women and children in vulnerable situations. Psychological violence is not just a private problem. It is also a societal problem that requires the entire rule of law to be mobilized.

The Sweden Democrats have also been a strong voice for strengthening the police's resources. We have demanded more police officers, more training to handle crimes of violence in close relationships, and a more efficient judicial process to ensure that crime victims are not left alone. That the police should have the right tools to act quickly when women report psychological violence is a fundamental pillar of our policy.

The Sweden Democrats have been clear: We want to see a Sweden where safety is at the center. Violence, threats, and oppression shall be met with the full force of the rule of law. Therefore, we have been driving to tighten penalties, strengthen the police's resources, and create systems that protect, rather than abandon, crime victims.

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the member what punishment he considers should follow specifically for psychological violence and what requirements should be met for such a conviction.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Member Mattias Vepsä for this important interpellation and also the Minister for Justice, who is once again in the chamber to discuss psychological violence.

The commonly occurring definition of violence that is often used by, for example, the county administrative boards, the Gender Equality Authority, the children's rights organizations and the women's shelters is the words of the Norwegian psychologist and psychotherapist Per Isdal in Meningen med våld from the year 2000: Violence is every act directed against another person, which through this act harms, causes pain, frightens or violates, makes this person do something against their will or refrain from something that they want.

I am clearly thinking of the second half of the sentence which in many ways frames the psychological violence; it is, for example, about long-term suppressing and devaluing a person but also about limiting her entire scope of action and social interactions.

Member of Parliament Mattias Vepsäs's story is absolutely appalling. A man sends a text message to his former girlfriend about destroying her life and then blocks her passport so that she cannot go on her long-awaited trip abroad. Psychological violence can certainly take many forms.

We also know that psychological violence is often the starting point for severe physical violence and sexual violence. Socialstyrelsen's latest investigation into injuries and deaths has also pointed to the serious connection between psychological violence and physical violence. Several cases have also been seen where only psychological violence occurred before a murder was committed.

Unfortunately, it could also be noted that psychological violence has sometimes been known at, for example, health and medical care or social services. It is obvious that there are large knowledge gaps and that society needs to take psychological violence more seriously.

On Friday, I attended a knowledge-enhancing full-day seminar on the theme of violence in young couples' relationships, which was organized by Kvinnojouren Blåklockan. The seminar was aimed at decision-makers and at professionals within school and social services.

Several times during today's proceedings, it struck me that politics must do more to mark a powerful stance against psychological violence. This can involve, for example, severe and essentially uncontrolled jealousy or controlling behavior, which is all too common in young romantic relationships.

In the interview study that was presented, there were several young people who themselves described the psychological violence as the most serious because it has such great long-term consequences on mental health and self-confidence.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that I truly appreciate the Minister for Justice's answer here in the debate today: "There is no doubt that psychological violence is a widespread problem and that it is very important to address it even in criminal law."

This feels hopeful. But at the same time, it has been a good while over two years since the S investigation on psychological violence was presented. It was more than one and a half years ago that the Minister for Justice promised that we would be allowed to return to the chamber and chase him with a blue light if a government bill was not in place within a year. And I must then ask how long a question can be prepared in the Ministry of Justice. Is the material being processed, or has it ended up in a bureaucratic drawer?

There is absolutely some criticism from certain quarters regarding the design of the bill. And it is good that we have referral bodies, so that the government can weigh in more perspectives to produce an accurate and legally sound bill to present to the Riksdag for a decision. But that a new proposition is needed on the Riksdag's table, I am completely convinced of.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank everyone who is participating in this important debate today.

Let me begin with the case at Arlanda, which Mattias Vepsä raises. The straight question is whether it is reasonable. No, it is really not reasonable. I am happy to follow up on the question of passport handling in an appropriate manner - also in a wider circle, so to speak. What are the consequences, and who bears the costs for that type of consequences?

This debate is an expression of that when one speaks about men's violence against women, which is what it is about in the vast majority of cases, even though of course it has its value to highlight that violence of different kinds can occur in other relationships than between men and women, but nevertheless, it is important to have the broader perspective. It is naturally about physical violence, but it is beneficial that there is a development in the legislation and in other ways that aim at the breadth of the violence. Economic violence is one part, and psychological violence is another part. We must keep in mind that these often are connected in an intricate way.

Let me take hold of one thing that Sanna Backeskog mentioned, namely the insight that, for example, knowledge about psychological violence or information about the occurrence of psychological violence may exist with different actors but has not come to the knowledge of law enforcement so that measures can be taken to prevent and preclude more serious crime - ultimately murder. It is unfortunately a known fact.

There is a high clearance rate of murders affecting women in close relationships, but the problem is that the murders occur in the first instance. I would therefore like to draw attention to a bill that the government is now placing before the Riksdag, which concerns information sharing and a duty of disclosure for various actors. This bill can have great significance, not least in this area.

Law enforcement, for example, cannot know what information regarding psychological violence exists with other actors, but if those actors must proactively share that information, the collective system's ability to prevent, for example, psychological violence – however serious – from also escalating into physical violence and, in the worst case, deadly violence will also be improved. Then we can prevent many more such crimes in the future. It is extremely important, and I hope for a resounding yes from the chamber when that legislation is eventually subject to a vote here.

Criminal law should also capture the different dimensions of violence. In that case, two questions arise in every instance. One is, of course, what should be punishable. There, I mean that even psychological violence must be hit by the criminal law regulation in a precise way. I will return to the legislative work itself, but I just want to say that there is one more dimension, namely how long the sentences should be.

I have been somewhat concerned when the Social Democrats have criticized me and the government for being too unfocused in our view on criminal law and argued that we should only focus on combating the gangs and organized crime. It is admittedly a very important task, but it is clear that the issues we discuss today underscore the importance of a broader perspective also on criminal law. We must, of course, have punishments that in a better way reflect the seriousness of the crimes also in this area. It is about both what should be punishable and how high the punishments should be. Psychological violence should be punishable, and the punishments should be significantly more tangible than what is the case in the area today.

Let me say something about the investigation. The rental law regulation that we spoke about earlier was of high quality, and it was easy to work further with it expeditiously. Unfortunately, the very legislation on psychological violence that we are talking about today was more problematic.

The investigation is not a shelf-warmer. When I say that we are processing the issue, it means that we are working on the investigation and that we will return to the Riksdag with a concrete legislative proposal. On the other hand, I do not intend to sell the skin before the bear is shot, but I will return when we are finished. However, we are working very actively on the issue.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the members of the House for the interesting questions that have been raised. I must nevertheless pick up the thread where Sara Gille, Sverigedemokraterna, left the rostrum.

It is now several debates on our committee's area in the chamber. They are trying to present a picture that we had some kind of zero point when the Tidö parties formed the government. Before that, it was decay and nothing was done. There has been talk, but no delivery has occurred. Sweden has been terrible to live in, but now it is gold and green forests. Now everything seems perfect, and now we have a government that is incredibly proactive.

It is in the area of the Committee on Justice that the weight of the Tidö Agreement lies. It is not possible to say anything else. This government wants to achieve things on the criminal law side and throughout the entire justice chain. The political weight lies here. One can discuss the issues in depth and have objections to parts of the proposals. In the vast majority of parts, the Social Democrats have supported or even laid the foundation for the legislative work currently taking place in the chamber.

We do not need to mention how many bills and investigations are based on Social Democratic proposals and investigations, but at the beginning of the year it was around 19 of 21. It is clear that things have been done.

This debate took its starting point in a story from a woman who was affected by a man's need for control and was left in a situation at passport control where she could not travel abroad. It costs money and causes personal suffering. We have been able to show that this government has a completed investigation. There is a bill on the table, but in this legislative work, it is extremely important that things take a long time.

Fundamentally, I believe that everyone in here thinks it is important that the legislative process is allowed to take the time required. I share Gunnar Strömmers view on that.

I note that it is now halftime in the Tidö cooperation. Therefore, I think that both the Sweden Democrats and the government must take responsibility for the situation that prevails in our country right now. In several other legislative matters, preparation at the Government Offices has occurred at a frantic pace, and investigation proposals have been pushed through at a tempo that sometimes makes the products we have to take a position on here deficient. We do not want a deficient product, but we want a broad discussion about criminal law and about psychological violence. That is why we are pushing to address a major societal problem.

I also want to say that we are not alone in having a concern regarding this specific policy area. In the police's own annual report, it is stated that this very area needs to be devoted more effort.

In several police regions, violence by men against women is actually more deadly than gun violence. But the own annual report says that the work that has been done so far has not made any major difference.

In my city, projects like Igor were laid down, which was a method of work to break men's violence against women. Against that background, I intend to continue to ask: Does the government have more tools in its toolbox, and will any legislative products emerge?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am actually myself a person who has been subjected to both psychological and physical violence. I know how difficult it is to leave a relationship. I know how it feels to be oppressed and how the threat can loom. I know exactly how it is experienced.

Psychological violence is one of the most destructive forms of the exercise of power, and I am extremely pleased that the government takes this issue with the utmost seriousness.

The investigation into criminal liability for psychological violence has come back, and we will carry out a revision based on the answers we have received. It shows that we do not just see the problem but actually take action.

When the Social Democrats are now in opposition, they suddenly start complaining about the government that has to clean up after their failures, which is remarkable. It is dishonest and disrespectful, not only towards us who work for change but above all towards the women whom the Social Democrats betrayed when they had the chance to make a difference. It is hypocrisy at the highest level that they are now trying to appear as if they care about these issues.

Madam Speaker! Let us be clear: It is the Social Democrats' passivity that has caused women like the woman at Arlanda to stand alone today. Their lack of action has cost not only money and freedom but also safety for women throughout Sweden.

We see the problems, and we are acting. We are cleaning up the chaos that the Social Democrats left behind, and we are doing so with clear goals and concrete measures.

The difference between us and the Social Democrats is simple: While the Social Democrats talked, we did the work.

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

Sanna Backeskog (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me emphasize that violence against women has been a high-priority issue for the Social Democrats and for the Social Democratic government. During our time in government, a number of penalties were tightened and the crime compensation was increased. We invested a lot of money in the municipalities to prevent violence and its causes, and we also ensured that the vital civil society could be part of providing support and protection to crime victims and also be an important voice in the public debate.

Look at Brottsofferjouren now! A 66 percent reduction in support has been received just when it concerns the work against men's violence against women. That is the result today.

Let me return to the conversation with the Minister for Justice, which I nevertheless think has been productive, forward-looking, and hopeful in many ways. I want to emphasize that several referral bodies are positive towards criminalizing psychological violence.

Save the Children says as follows: Overall, Save the Children views the criminalization of psychological violence as positive, as the consequences of this type of violence are often at least as serious as, for example, physical violence, especially for children.

And in the Police Authority's referral response, one can read: The Police Authority approves the introduction of a new crime designated as psychological abuse and that this crime, as well as insult, be included in the crimes against peace, unlawful harassment, and honor-based oppression. This sends a clear signal that psychological abuse is unacceptable, which in turn can prevent and counteract crimes. It also provides redress for victims of crime and takes into greater account violence between young people.

Madam Speaker! Society must act powerfully to prevent and prosecute psychological violence. It is clear that there is a large displacement effect, where men's violence against women is deprioritized.

Let me ask the Minister for Justice: Will we in the Riksdag get to take a position on a bill regarding criminal liability for psychological violence during this parliamentary term?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I answer the direct question immediately with a yes. The Riksdag will be able to do that. That work is ongoing. But I want to return to exactly what we are going to put on the Riksdag's table and the timing for it when we are finished. But the work on this is ongoing.

I also want to emphasize that I am positive towards such a criminalization. However, I think the problem is so serious and the consequences for individual crime victims so extensive that it is very important to have a criminal law regulation that does the job, i.e., a regulation that is sufficiently precise, practical, and effective, so that it achieves the intended effects for individual people and the concrete cases. Therefore, we are now taking great care to produce just such a regulation.

Mattias Vepsä asks if the government is doing more things beyond this and if there are more measures in the toolbox. Yes, it really does.

I have no problem at all with continuing to work with materials initiated by others. In some such cases, I might possibly think that one has not been sufficiently offensive and perhaps has only reached 80 percent of the way. We have devoted a lot of time to sharpening a long series of such materials, so that the legislative proposals that are subsequently placed on the Riksdag's table can really do the job.

Let me mention some parts. Safer Home is an incredibly important piece of legislation that the Riksdag stood behind earlier this year. It creates a protection for children where one parent subjects the other parent to violence. There, we had a good basis to work with but could move the positions forward and sharpen it further.

When it comes to the restraining order legislation, I look forward very much to returning to the Riksdag with a comprehensive reform package, which is highly important when it comes to psychological violence. It will be based on the victim of a crime or the woman who has been psychologically abused to a much greater extent than today. It can be used in more cases and cover larger geographical areas and create real safety and freedom based on the individual woman's needs. It targets such things as are to a high degree precisely psychological violence, and such as monitoring with apps, GPS, or other means. It is incredibly important to get this in place, and it will come during the spring.

One matter that is also very significant concerns the victim's opportunity to assert themselves in the legal process. We have an investigation underway that examines the conditions for, not least for women who have been subjected to violence, to also have a victim's counsel with them in the Court of Appeal. It is about ensuring that one can manage to stand up when the criminal law provisions we are now talking about are to be used in practice.

We are also looking at matters concerning compensation for damages. Should courts really be able to separate that issue from the criminal case, so that the individual themselves must pursue the compensation issue against their perpetrator in a civil law process? In addition to the psychological burden this entails, it can also involve economic risks when it comes to litigation costs. We believe it is reasonable that the state should, in more cases than today, pay out compensation directly to the crime victim instead of the crime victim themselves having to pursue the compensation from their perpetrators.

Then we come to the punishment, despite everything. Now we are talking about what shall be punishable. It is important, but it is also important which punishments and how long punishments will be handed out. To take a current issue, I can mention that we are currently, for example, looking at the possibility that life sentences should be able to follow repeated rapes even if life imprisonment is not included in the sentencing scale for the individual crime. We are looking at imprisonment for the purpose of being able to lock up the truly dangerous criminals, and so on.

The short meaning of the long speech is this: Since these questions are so significant and the consequences for individuals are so serious, an action program must reflect this seriousness, and the government's program does.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a good and clarifying debate. First, I really want to emphasize something regarding the testimony of the debater Sara Gilles about being affected herself. That is precisely why we are all here in this chamber - to put a stop to men's violence against women. It is a societal problem that is enormously large and which has not received the attention that is required.

I turn, however, to the picture that the Sweden Democrats repeatedly try to paint in this chamber—that nothing has been done previously. I remember back to when I myself was involved in SSU. Nearly 20 years ago, we had a discussion about consent legislation when it comes to sexual offenses. During the previous period, we received a sexual offense legislation that probably belongs among the world's strictest, with consent. We have tightened the penalties for rape and for aggravated violation of a woman's integrity, as well as regarding restraining orders and sentences for assault. We had, in the previous mandate period, a government with a 40-point program plus 99 points in an action plan specifically to combat men's violence against women.

This debate here concerns a point where we have shone a light on a legislative product that has been on the government's table for nearly two and a half years and where the process takes a very long time.

This must also be said against the background that the Sweden we live in now is being hit by the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties. The alarms from municipalities and women's shelters regarding threats of closed shelters stand as a warning. We have, in fact, an economic situation that makes municipalities and regions go to their knees. It is difficult to get money to be able to place women in need of protection.

More can be done. Let us, instead of playing a political game and trying to create images of that one side doesn't want anything while the other side does everything, agree that we want to move forward together.

The question to Gunnar Strömmer and the government is: Will you guarantee the municipalities' financial situation so that they can realistically take on the fight against men's violence against women?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Vepsä, for the opportunity to discuss the issues today! Thank you, Sara Gille, for a very powerful testimony! It is brave of you to stand here and tell about this. This, together with the story we heard from Arlanda, reflects the importance of these issues receiving significant political attention and that we systematically move forward positions in a long line of areas in society.

Today we have spoken about criminal law. It is naturally central. But it is also the case that we do very much on many other areas as well.

In that context, I would like to raise an issue that I believe was raised for the first time in a government investigation in 2005. It concerns the economic and, one could say, to a large extent psychological violence exercised within the framework of property divisions, where the economically stronger party can use the property division as a very powerful means of power against the economically weaker party, usually a woman, who wants to leave a destructive relationship. I am very pleased that this government could start a process regarding this, after nearly 20 years of a debate that has not materialized in concrete legislative work until we now take action on it.

Of course, the question of economic resources is a central part of this. As a result of the fact that the fight against inflation has now been successful, municipalities and regions will have 50 billion more in the form of reduced pension costs during the next year. During the economic crisis that has persisted for a couple of years, we have nevertheless been able to continue supporting municipalities and regions with very substantial state grants. This will, of course, continue as well.

Ultimately, this is also, of course, a question of prioritization. Will different parts of our society prioritize the fight against men's violence against women even when it comes into conflict with other expenditures? I hope so. It is indeed necessary that this is prioritized even in a time of growing resources, which we have ahead of us.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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