Response to interpellation 2024/25:338 on after-drinking

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Gustaf Lantz has asked me if I share the opinion that after-hours drinking should be prohibited and if the government intends to take any measures to be able to go to the Riksdag with such a proposal.

I must first only underline that I am, of course, well aware that allegations of drink-driving after the fact can constitute a significant problem in investigations of suspected drunk driving offenses. In order to address the criminality we are now talking about, it is of course of great importance that those crimes can be prosecuted. It also cannot be ruled out that a well-designed criminal liability for drink-driving after the fact could contribute to more prosecutions.

To the picture, it should be noted that this question has been investigated previously. In 2013, an investigator made the assessment that criminal liability for post-consumption should not be introduced. Various reasons were cited for this - partly that such a criminalization would be incompatible with a fundamental principle in our criminal law, namely that it is not a crime to conceal one's own criminality, and partly that punishment was not judged to be sufficiently effective to counteract post-consumption and post-consumption, as it is called. The then Social Democratic government obviously agreed with those arguments because they did not proceed with the issue.

I do not say this for polemical purposes, but merely to describe that as intuitive as the question may be perceived to be, it seems equally complicated when one looks closer at it in practice. It is at least obvious that if such a regulation is to become effective, it must be designed in a good way, where one also considers fundamental principles in our legal system.

What is required to achieve this is likely a continued, rather solid analytical work. There is no concrete plan for it at the current stage, but I do not rule out continuing to work on the issue moving forward. I welcome that it has been raised today by Gustaf Lantz.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I am an incurable optimist. I hear the Minister for Justice say that he is not closing the door to tackling this old sourdough, which I actually think it is.

The Minister of Justice is therefore not closing the door to doing something about binge drinking and making it criminal. I think that is wise, for two reasons. The first is that the proposal can actually save lives. The second is that it can actually relieve the justice system. I think it is important to keep this in mind.

I believe it is provoking not only for me and the Minister for Justice but also for the common man that people who are caught intoxicated at the wheel after a traffic accident are dragged out with the excuse that they decided to drink afterwards. It sounds quite incredible. But it often reaches the level of reasonable doubt in our courts – nothing said about that.

We must also see this issue in the light of what a major problem alcohol and drugs constitute in traffic. Between 2012 and 2022, over 1,500 people died in traffic. In 39 percent of these, alcohol or narcotics were detected in the blood.

It is therefore absolutely crucial to address the number of deaths in traffic that we also address these questions. And just as the Minister for Justice says, it is important that those who are out on the roads with alcohol in their bodies are prosecuted.

In an investigation from 2013, where the question was examined, it was stated that this objection was made in up to 10 percent of the cases of rattonykterhet. It is not only a problem when it is made. It also places special demands on the justice system in terms of being able to handle this type of objection. One must take a blood sample and two urine samples and analyze them and see a falling curve. It is cumbersome when it comes to the sampling itself, and it burdens the police with unnecessary time and unnecessary costs. The objections also result in more court hearings than otherwise. One could imagine a summary conviction and that the court, so to speak, does not need to be involved in this. Now we get more hearings because this possibility exists.

But there is another way to go. In Norway, since 1959, there has been a very successful ban on after-drinking. In that case, there is not the same incentive for someone who is caught drunk or under the influence of drugs in a car to claim that they consumed it afterwards, because there is another crime that they have committed.

I think the proposal is not just about that one should not, so to speak, have an easy way out from a DUI. It is actually a reasonable requirement to place on people that they should not drink if they have been involved in a traffic accident.

I have traveled with the Uppsala Police. Then I learned that the most common cause of death for police officers is traffic accidents. That police officers in their work environment should have to take care of intoxicated persons, regardless of whether they have drunk before or after, I think is unreasonable in itself.

I hope that the government finally takes action on this issue.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Gustaf Lantz for the opportunity to discuss these very important issues! There is no doubt whatsoever that it is a very large societal problem that so many people die in traffic every year. It is striking and naturally deplorable that such a large proportion of these people die in accidents where alcohol or drugs are involved in various ways. It is clear that we must move the positions in a number of different ways to address that problem.

I welcome that Gustaf Lantz raises just this aspect of the question. As said, it is perhaps not primarily this government's sluggishness in the matter that makes us stand here, since the investigation we are discussing came with its proposals in 2013. There were at least eight years for the previous Social Democratic government to "grab hold" of the issue, as it is called. But with that said, I still think it is important and good that it is raised. That Gustaf Lantz now raises the question also means that the investigation from 2013 comes into the light of day today.

I think it is interesting to hear about the experiences from Norway. I say honestly that there is no ongoing process or plan for how the issue shall be handled, but I think it is welcome that it is now being raised in this way. I do not rule out that we find a format to also conduct a more updated analysis of the issue.

I also take this opportunity to point out that it is important that we do a long series of other things to ensure that drivers under the influence of alcohol and drugs are detected and prosecuted, and that the penalties for that crime correspond to the severity of the crimes.

I can highlight a very closely related issue. The government has drafted a bill that gives the police the possibility to conduct routine eye examinations in traffic without there being suspicion of a crime. This means, concretely, strengthened opportunities to detect drivers under the influence of narcotics in traffic. This law enters into force, gladly enough, as early as March 1st this year.

Furthermore, it is the case that within the framework of the ongoing investigation into the major reform regarding the penalties - which will come forward with its proposals during the spring - a broad review is also included of the penalties that may become relevant regarding this type of offense.

Overall, we are moving the positions forward, not least through what I have just described. I also think it is excellent that we are getting a renewed discussion on the issue that Gustaf Lantz has raised in today's interpellation debate.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I think this matter of on-site eye examinations is excellent. That it actually comes is also something that the police in Uppsala expressed great gratitude for. It is very good.

However, we must not let it stand in the way of becoming optimal. I still have to react a bit to what was stated in the investigation, namely that the introduction of this crime would be incompatible with the fundamental criminal law principle that it is not a crime to conceal one's own criminality.

I am thinking about the crime of hit-and-run, that is, deviating from an accident if one has been hit or has hit someone else. That is not allowed. If anything, it is well to have an obligation to actually settle a situation where you yourself, so to speak, might be criminal. It is a very strange principle if one were to think that it was okay for the person who caused the accident to take off, but not for the person who was hit.

This was tested after the investigation, and an objection was made where it was questioned whether forging was in conflict with this principle. At that time, a Swedish court concluded that it is not. This is now practice.

I mean that the requirement for a person to remain sober after a traffic accident is less restrictive than the requirement to stay at the scene. I think that argument carries very little weight, and I believe there are far more important principles.

This is a principle that has been violated in this case since 1959 in Norway, and there has not been any outcry in the outside world for that.

I would, however, like to return to the fact that this is a very special opportunity to actually relieve the justice system. Few new crimes actually have that effect. The possibility of the defense "I drank after the accident," and that defense being used, causes much more extra work. It leads to testing and court hearings. Let us give the justice chain the opportunity to devote itself to what it is absolutely needed for the most.

We are not in such a situation in Sweden today that we can make it unnecessarily difficult for our police, judges, and prosecutors. We will, of course, uphold the principles of the rule of law, and I think that is something one can do when one has a ban on binge drinking.

I also think that one should see this issue as something that concerns the legitimacy of the entire legal system. A few weeks ago, we read in the newspapers about a person who was stopped by the police and caught with remains of narcotics in the car. He said that he had flushed all this narcotics after the police stopped him, before the police had managed to reach the car. This appears very strange and very inappropriate.

Of course, one is then convicted of a narcotics offense, but the problem is that it does not become the connection to the driving and the traffic situation that allows the police to automatically revoke the driver's license.

A very important part of this is that we are actually introducing legislation that can resolutely take the driver's licenses from those who drive high or drunk on our roads and expose others to danger to life. There, I think there is a very strong argument for such an order.

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to once again confirm that the social problem that Gustaf Lantz raises is indeed large and real. It is, of course, about the fact that we all want to protect the citizens, who are exposed to such risks in traffic to an all too high degree. Far too many people perish, and of those, far too many in turn perish in accidents where alcohol and drugs are present in the person who causes the accident.

I also think that in this context it is important to protect the police - which Gustaf Lantz also does - who are also exposed to these risks in their important mission. When it comes to the judiciary, I think that the issues regarding workload are relevant, even if they also illustrate that the objection regarding backlogs naturally does not provide a trump card. That can naturally be refuted, and that is also largely the case.

Regarding the principled question, I expounded on the investigation's two lines of argument. One was the more principled one, that each individual should have the right to conceal their own criminality. The other concerned more practical complications. I am, admittedly, a warm supporter of this principle.

I believe that everyone can experience that there are also other important principled values in society, even when it comes to crime fighting and the legitimacy of the legal order. These must, of course, also enter into this equation. For my part, it is not so much about the principled questions but perhaps rather the practical ones.

In light of what has been highlighted in this discussion, I think we should consider how it is possibly possible to move these issues forward. It has, as said, been twelve years, or something like that, since the last investigation was conducted. The Norwegian experience was reasonably in place even when that investigation was undertaken. It would be interesting to see how one related to the Norwegian experience already in that investigation.

I may also have to investigate the reasons why the Social Democratic government did not choose to proceed despite the investigation over eight years. I will not rule out that there were also good reasons for that position.

With all this said, I think it is excellent that the issue is being raised in this way as well. Let us find a format to discuss this further.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! That sounds hopeful. The Minister for Justice seems to have understood the value of a ban on binge drinking.

Unfortunately, that is the case with drugs; it is not possible to determine when they have been ingested. We know much better in alcohol research how alcohol works. When it comes to drugs, it is more difficult to disprove such a circumstance. On the other hand, we can determine if someone has taken drugs, and it is very good that new tools are being put in place for the police.

I think it would be fantastic to resign as Minister for Justice and feel that "I abolished the residence permits, and I introduced after-drinking as a new crime in Swedish legislation." It is the kind of thing that no other Minister for Justice has managed to do. It is the kind of thing that someone who takes on sourdough could solve.

I would be very happy to be able to tell the police officers I traveled with in Uppsala last week that the Minister for Justice has taken their thoughts and what they consider important to heart - even though I am a Social Democrat. Let us, in a time of polarization, still listen to one another and do things that actually make Sweden better and that allow the police to devote themselves to what they are supposed to do, instead of waiting for someone to pee.

I think it is reasonable to let courts handle questions of guilt where they examine something other than whether someone came up with the idea to drink after a traffic accident. I think it is reasonable that it counts as a crime both to drink before and to drink after you have crashed into a tree.

This debate made me cheerful and happy, and I hope for a continuation. With that, I would like to thank you for a very good debate!

(Applause)

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Madam Speaker! I am very glad that Gustaf Lantz is happy.

When I eventually resign as Minister for Justice after the 2030 election and at that time hand over to a younger Moderate talent, I hope that we will be able to look back on a period that has been successful in many different respects and also in this area. I hope, however, that we will have moved the positions forward significantly long before that point.

We will take the discussion about what we have talked about today further and see if there is an appropriate way to handle that question moving forward. In the meantime, we welcome the important step being taken as early as March 1st this year. Then we will have a legislative change in place that makes it possible to detect drug-impaired drivers in traffic in a much better way than today. It will then be possible to perform routine eye examinations in traffic without there being a suspicion of a crime.

It is already an important success in this area, but there is certainly much more to be done to safeguard the safety and security of citizens in traffic, as well as for many others - for example, police officers - safety and security in traffic.

I think we can conclude by stating that not only Gustaf Lantz but also I am glad that we had the opportunity to discuss this here today. We will return to the questions in an appropriate manner moving forward.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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