Response to interpellation 2025/26:32 on a Swedish mafia law

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me if I and the government intend to act to introduce a Swedish mafia law. The straight answer is: Yes, we already are.

The background is well known. Organized crime is one of the greatest social problems of our time. Between 2012 and 2022, the fatal gun violence in Sweden more than tripled. The criminal economy is estimated by the authorities to turn over 100–150 billion kronor a year. The recruitment of children is being pushed further and further down in age.

For far too many years, far too little was done. Eight years of Social Democratic passivity and incompetence have led us to where we are today.

The government's strategy to push back organized crime and restore safety in Sweden is, simplified, about three things: to strike hard against gross violence, to choke the criminal economy, and to break the recruitment of children and young people into the gangs.

Specifically, it is about doing what has been successful in other comparable countries that have fought the mafia and similar criminal networks and designing new tools and new gang laws in such a way that they work in practice and can have a powerful effect in our Swedish legal system.

We have during these years significantly increased the resources to the justice system: The appropriations during the years 2023–2028 are estimated to increase from a total of 60 to 108 billion kronor – an increase of 57 percent.

We have given law enforcement new tools such as preventive coercive measures, preventive stay-away orders, security zones, anonymous witnesses, expanded camera surveillance, and better opportunities to use biometrics.

We have, with inspiration from among others Italy's fight against the mafia, introduced new powerful possibilities to forfeit criminals' assets without going through prosecution.

We are carrying out major reforms of the crime prevention work.

From and with 1 October, the police can use secret coercive measures preventively against criminal networks and also against children under 15 years of age, all in order to reach the gang leaders who rule and direct from behind the scenes.

We have removed confidentiality barriers and introduced a new Social Services Act, which is preventive in its character. We are now preparing proposals on new intervention tools for social services, such as the so-called intermediate detention and the use of electronic surveillance, i.e., ankle bracelets, to monitor children in the risk zone.

We see that what we do matters; new gang laws, increased resources and new methods of working are having an effect. The number of fatal shootings has decreased since 2022. We see a higher clearance rate of the fatal shootings. Furthermore, more and more serious violent crimes are being prevented and deterred.

But we as a country still find ourselves in a very serious situation. The conflict levels in the criminal networks are high. The violence capital is extensive. The ruthlessness is great. And the risk of new acts of violence is latent. Therefore, it is absolutely self-evident that we must continue to maintain the pressure to tackle organized crime.

We are now adapting criminal law to a new reality, and we are doing so largely based on practical experiences in countries such as Italy, Denmark, and others similar to us.

Already in January last year, we doubled the minimum sentences for, among other things, serious weapons offenses, offenses against the permit requirement for explosive goods, weapons smuggling and smuggling of explosive goods – changes that went directly against organized crime.

Now we are expanding the so-called non-autonomous forms of crime in order to reach more people who in different ways contribute to the gangs' criminality. This referral to the Council on Legislation was decided yesterday.

We are also working on investigation proposals that mean that gang criminals should be able to receive double sentences. We are also working to criminalize participation in criminal gangs – something that will finally become possible because we have received a majority for an upcoming constitutional amendment. The investigation reviewing such a criminalization shall, among other things, make comparisons with other countries' regulations, for example the American so-called RICO legislation.

In addition to this, I want to highlight the current tightening of the business prohibitions, so that the person who has committed organized or systematic crime, regardless of whether the person conducted or had a connection to business activities at the time of the crime, shall be able to be issued a business prohibition.

The Government has also indicated that we intend to examine special legislation against gang criminals, and we will return to the more specific meaning of this.

In summary, the government has therefore already established itself and is preparing a long series of legislative proposals that are specifically designed to tackle the criminal networks. I hope for broad support for all the reforms that the government is now and in the future placing before the Riksdag.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the Minister for Justice that gang crime is one of our greatest societal problems today and that much more must be done.

Even though the police have become increasingly effective in their work and the shootings have decreased, they remain at very high levels. I visited Gävle yesterday, which was recently struck by a horrific tragedy when a 13-year-old shot six innocent people late on a Friday night.

Furthermore, the explosions are increasing significantly. We are now also seeing how the gangs are beginning to use arson attacks. In other words, the levels of violence continue to be very high, but the forms vary more and more. Behind the violence lies a growing organized and purely mafia-like criminality that is eating its way into the business sector and welfare. It is obvious that no government, neither the previous nor the current one, has succeeded in combating it.

I would still, initially in the debate, Mr. Speaker, praise the Minister for Justice. I think that he and the government do very much that is good when it comes to crime fighting, not least regarding gang-related crime. There is actually nothing that Gunnar Strömmer says here in his response that we Social Democrats do not stand behind.

What we disagree on even more is the importance of preventive work and the need for truly early interventions. But beyond that, there is really only one thing that we Social Democrats lack, namely a Swedish mafia law.

The idea behind a Swedish mafia law comes primarily from the USA. But similar legislation also exists in other countries: Italy, Ireland, and the Netherlands. A Swedish mafia law is a proposal that we Social Democrats drafted and presented in 2023 and which we have sought support for ever since. But the Tidö parties have consistently voted down the proposal here in Sweden's Riksdag.

Now Gunnar Strömmer says that this is already being done. It is simply not true, I mean. I shall explain why.

What we Social Democrats want to see in a Swedish mafia law, in addition to the criminalization of participation in gangs and double penalties for gang criminals, is a collective criminal liability for the criminal associations' criminal activities. We want to see special mafia units within the police and prosecution, restrictive measures such as contact and travel bans for gang criminals, and a more well-developed witness protection system that provides incentives to report those who are higher up in the criminal hierarchy. We want to see a new level in the sentencing scale for serious organized economic crime.

We want to investigate the possibility of prosecuting legal entities in order to better be able to stop the mafia's business activities and exploitation of the welfare system, as well as to confiscate their companies. In addition, we want to introduce a forfeiture fund so that the criminals' crime profits are not only seized but also returned to areas affected by crime.

The proposal would make a big difference in the fight against gangs and organized crime.

I have understood it as that the Sweden Democrats in various contexts have made positive statements about introducing a Swedish mafia law. I have understood more that they feel bound within the framework of the Tidö agreement, and I therefore cannot draw any other conclusion than that it is the Moderates and Gunnar Strömmer who are holding back.

Where is the shoe pinching? What is the motive for not moving the proposal on a Swedish mafia law forward?

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Teresa Carvalho for the opportunity to debate the issue of a Swedish mafia law, and I also want to thank Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer.

It is good that we have a debate about a Swedish mafia law. Many of us here probably feel that we need to step up the fight against organized crime.

But the Minister of Justice's response contained, just as Teresa Carvalho said, much that we Social Democrats stand behind. This applies to things that we initiated, implemented or started already during the previous government, including the legislation on the forfeiture of criminal profits, increased resources to the justice system and new tools against the criminal economy.

I usually hear that nothing was done during the eight years with the previous government. Therefore, I have asked the Riksdag's research service to look at the bills that the government has submitted and where they were initiated. I can state that in the fourth year of the mandate period, according to the Riksdag's research service, 75 percent of the bills that have been submitted to the Committee on Justice were initiated by the previous S-government. That is good, and it shows the complexity and the importance of working persistently. But I am also a bit tired of the image that the previous government did nothing.

I would wish for more answers regarding what is new in our proposal. Teresa Carvalho highlighted collective criminal liability, special mafia units, a crown witness system, and a forfeiture fund.

The Committee on Justice visited Rome and Naples in Italy last week. There we were made aware of some new matters that have not been raised previously. We need to look into these matters. Polizia, Guardia di Finanza and Carabinieri as well as judges and prosecutors look at Sweden with a certain skepticism. They wonder how we can allow so much money to disappear from the welfare system and in procurement.

In Italy, a system of certificates has now been introduced where one must show that they are anti-mafia in order to be able to do business with the state, regions or municipalities. That would be something to look at for the future. In Sweden, there is the law on public procurement, and nearly 1,000 billion is procured per year. How can we get better control over procurements?

I understand that the Minister for Justice must take the question on the floor, but how does the Minister view the value of investigating a Swedish certification system for public transactions to stop companies with links to crime, organized crime, and the mafia even before they receive contracts?

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Gunnar Strömmer for coming to the chamber and Teresa Carvalho for a wonderfully fine opportunity to debate a Swedish mafia law.

One is struck by how satisfied the Minister for Justice appears in the response we have received today. Just as the previous speaker said, we agree that we can be satisfied about one thing, namely that the deadly violence is decreasing right now. We Social Democrats have been part of putting forward the proposals, tools, and reforms required for such a development. But we also know, not least because of the conclusion that Lars Isacsson mentioned that the entire Committee on Justice drew jointly after the week in Italy, that it is life-threatening to be satisfied.

It is also noteworthy that in debate after debate, one gets the impression that there is a kind of idea among Moderates, Sweden Democrats, and in government circles that the year 2022 was year zero in the world and in Swedish politics. Nothing was done, and then everything is done.

That is not correct. Just as previous speakers have said, about eighty sentences were toughened and more passed the police training. We see the effect with more police officers out on the streets and squares, and we see how society has been equipped to stand stronger against the wave of violence that has swept over Sweden for over ten years. We could imagine that the wave of violence can also be linked to the early 10s, but anyway, that is not what this debate is about.

From Italy, we were told, just as we have heard here, that we must follow the money. It is incredibly important to follow the money. In addition to highlighting the mafia laws, we have pointed out that public procurement in Sweden amounts to almost 1,000 billion – 900–1,000 billion kronor every year. These are enormously large sums that are procured annually and which unserious companies and criminals largely have free access to. So, we cannot have that.

The police point out that 100–150 billion is circulated in the criminal economy every year. Here, we propose a mafia law to collectively strengthen resources from the state side to access these funds.

We have submitted proposals to take back strategic center properties, strategic property purchases, and court properties that have fallen into the hands of criminals. We have submitted proposals to not let gang criminals run HVB homes. We have said that it is completely horrific that criminals are allowed to run health centers. Almost daily – unfortunately – we see in the newspapers how welfare institutions that are supposed to protect our young people from falling into the hands of gangs are allowed to be run by criminals with this government.

We need a holistic approach and broader measures to tackle the criminal economy.

A week ago, an investigation was presented by the government's own productivity commission. It states that public procurement turns these billions of kronor over. The public sector is leaking money like a sieve. The wave of ideological naivety and blindness from Sweden's right with privatizations is leading us into a situation where there is no control. The productivity commission says that if it is not possible to guarantee a control of every krona, the conclusion is that one should perhaps withdraw the reforms and roll back the wave of privatization that has led to HVB homes being run by criminals and that health centers have fallen into the hands of the unserious.

I therefore pose the following questions to Gunnar Strömmer: Is it time to let go of the naivety? Why can we not collectively stand behind a new Swedish mafia law to broadly tackle crime?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellator with adjutants for the opportunity to discuss these issues today.

First and foremost, it is excellent that we are discussing how we can develop the policy to further strike against violence, strangle the criminal economy, and break the recruitment of children and young people. It is also striking that much of what we are talking about, despite everything, is such that is at the core of several of the large and broad reforms that are now underway.

It is pleasing to see that the committee has been on a trip to Italy. I am quite sure that it has been made clear there that the core components of the anti-mafia legislation that has been worked on in Italy – successfully under quite difficult circumstances – are to confiscate the criminals' assets, impose double sentences for gang criminals, prohibit participation in criminal organizations, develop a witness protection system, and prohibit mafia-linked persons from staying in public environments or in other places where they cause great harm, that is, our preventive stay bans.

One can say that the entire force of the reorganization of policy that we are now achieving is derived from experiences in our neighboring countries. It is Ireland, which was mentioned, Italy and Denmark, but there are more. We are creating a Swedish model based on reforms that have functioned well in countries with similar problems and legal systems that resemble ours.

What is decisive is which problems one wants to solve and how one can approach them. We develop those tools with both eyes open and both ears listening closely to other similar countries with corresponding concerns that we have.

Several of the things raised in what is being packaged here as new mafia legislation are things that are already subject to either implementation or investigation. Are there any things being mentioned that are not yet subject to process? Yes, there are a couple of such parts. To the extent that it is not already addressed, we will, as said, return to a broader special legislation approach when it comes to gangs. There, an additional couple of the issues raised will be included.

I agree that it might not be particularly productive to harp on about history. But we can still learn something from it when we look forward. The great concern for Sweden and, in that respect, for the Social Democrats, is probably not what the four Tidö parties in the committee said, if one may be a bit mocking, that the napkin regarding the mafia legislation on one and a half A4 pages with double spacing was set aside with reference to the fact that all those processes are ongoing. The great concern for Sweden and potentially for S today is that the intended government partners also voted no, but for a different reason: They do not want it.

I agree that we have been able to take some of the products started by the previous government at the end of their eight years further, during the few months that S could govern without the burden of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet. We have been able to strengthen, develop, and make them really good. But it is striking that none of it would have come about under normal government conditions, which would also be the case after the next election, with a veto from MP and V against everything that we are talking about here today.

It is positive that we have now finally received the Social Democrats' backing regarding, for example, the possibility of reaching a goal on the criminalization of participation in criminal gangs, especially as it was impossible to achieve during the last parliamentary term. It was a dead end regarding necessary constitutional amendments. It is pleasing that S has changed its mind on that point. But it is also notable that V and MP also voted against that.

When we look ahead, we see all that is now being put on the table, and most of it is already underway or already done. But there is also such things that are new and which are not yet quite subjects of process, but they will become so before we close the shop for this mandate period. And the only chance to get it done is if the Moderaterna lead the government and have a stable base in the Riksdag that S can hook onto. With an S-government with MP and V, none of what we are talking about will come to fruition.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gunnar Strömmer, for a bit more content in the answer! But I must still say that it is tiresome with the constant shift of focus to government alternatives, political games, who takes whom, and what other parties think and feel about different things.

Here we stand in the chamber of the Riksdag, and the subject to be debated is the Social Democrats' initiative to introduce a Swedish mafia law. We are interested in hearing why Gunnar Strömmer and the government do not want to implement this. But Gunnar Strömmer is efficient in his use of time to try to shift the focus.

I, however, want to shift the focus back to the mafia laws and obviously need to repeat myself when it comes to explaining what we Social Democrats mean. I hear Gunnar Strömmer saying that this is already being done. But in the response we were made aware of here initially, Gunnar Strömmer admits that it is not in progress, but rather that an investigation has been tasked to compare it with other countries. It is regrettable that the government does not take the opportunity to follow through and also give the mandate to produce a Swedish mafia law.

If Gunnar Strömmer does not want to listen to us Social Democrats, perhaps he can still listen to his Tidö colleagues who were with us on the trip to Italy, where we took away many important lessons. One such lesson was how incredibly central the unified grip has been.

I also think it is time that Gunnar Strömmer stops shifting the blame. We are now in the final year of the mandate period anyway. Just as the Minister for Justice said, it is not productive to look backward too much. But that is still what he chooses to do here. Instead of justifying why Gunnar Strömmer says no to introducing a Swedish mafia law, he chooses to focus on the fact that the Social Democrats several years ago said no to making a constitutional amendment that enables criminalization of participation in gangs.

Gunnar Strömmer knows that we, and for a longer period of time now, stand completely behind this. We see it as part, but far from the only part, of a coming Swedish mafia law. Therefore, it becomes somewhat ironically easy that Gunnar Strömmer is now the one saying no to our proposals and who is slowing down crime fighting. He has such great confidence in what he has already done and intends to do that he says no to our proposals. He simply does not have the energy to do everything that is required.

It surprises me that Gunnar Strömmer is about to repeat the same mistakes that he, I must honestly say, accuses the Social Democrats of having committed previously on good grounds.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for Justice for the debate.

We share the goal of striking back against organized crime. When I pointed out that three-quarters of the bills in the legal area, according to the Riksdag's investigation service, still have their origin in Social Democratic proposals, the Minister for Justice stated that many of them arrived at the end of the previous parliamentary term.

Given the media reports I have received regarding the pace of the Ministry of Justice, many propositions from this government will likely also arrive at the end of the mandate period. I believe it is in the nature of the matter that many proposals arrive at the end of a mandate period.

The Minister of Justice speaks well about Italian mafia legislation and the core components. But something that struck me and several others when we were there was that the head of the Carabinieri in Naples brought up another matter after they had gone through everything regarding legislation, judges, and prosecutors that we have raised today.

It was that, among other things, a popular uprising against the criminal organizations was needed. That was achieved with the murders of Falcone and Borsellino in Palermo in the 90s. But if the police cannot guarantee what people demand – safety in their own home, in their neighborhood, and in their municipality – one will never win the fight against the criminal organizations.

He told that they therefore have 4,600 police stations in Italy. They have police stations in municipalities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. We are going to talk a bit about the local police presence here moving forward. But just that combination must not be forgotten.

It is about the importance of having a local police force that is leading in society, that inspires confidence and that breaks silence cultures, while at the same time we become much tougher against economic crime. If we can combine that, I believe we have a way forward.

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

Mattias Vepsä (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to resume from where I left off.

In our proposal for the mafia law, we have a number of points, which Teresa Carvalho has deservedly presented here in the chamber and which we have argued for outside the Riksdag building in different ways. One of the points where we would very much like to see a development regarding the Swedish approach to combating serious organized crime is economic crime.

One needs to be able to address the great losses in the welfare state because criminals are still allowed to run health centers, nursing homes, or whatever it may be. They can own commercial properties and neglect them to such an extent that we fail to get rid of the drug scene, which is another important part of the gangs' financing.

Then it is perfectly appropriate to conclude with a few questions. On which points can the Minister for Justice see that we need to do more? We still perceive that there are somewhat different messages from the government. In a debate that my colleague Lars Isacsson had with the Minister for Health and Social Affairs a few months ago, where we demanded a mafia law to deal with the criminals who run health centers and other operations, we received the answer that no legislative changes are required, as one simply needs to follow the Local Government Act. But when one speaks with municipal and regional representatives, they say that a stricter law is needed to deal with these problems. One way could be a new approach in the form of a Swedish mafia law.

What does the government plan to do? On which points will the minister return with sharp proposals to address precisely that economic crime linked to the mafia and organized crime?

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not saying no to the Social Democrats' proposal, but what I am saying is that a large part of the proposals that the Social Democrats are now putting forward and repackaging with American rhetoric concern things that are already being done offensively in important ongoing processes, especially in light of experiences from legal systems that even more closely resemble our own, for example from Italy, Ireland, Denmark and others. That is the first thing.

Does it mean that there is no need for any new tightenings or even more offensive tools? It absolutely does, even though I still think that what is coming from the Social Democrats is very shallow. I have said that we as a government will return with the next offensive in the form of special legislation aimed at the gangs. I understand that it is politically rhetorically attractive to describe this as a no, but it is therefore not true.

The second point is that Teresa Carvalho thinks I am complaining about the past and talking about other parties. I do so against the background of what the Socialdemokraterna and Teresa Carvalho want to give the impression of, and it was also done in the opening statement, that I personally would be the primary obstacle for the Socialdemokraterna to get their political ideas through. Then I just want to clarify that I honestly believe I am the least of the concerns for the Socialdemokraterna when it comes to gaining support for new tools and new legislation that can be effective against gangs. I believe that Daniel Helldén and also Nooshi Dadgostar are a bigger problem, and I mean that there is very much historical empirical evidence that speaks to this.

Lars Isacsson presents, as usual in a noble way, reasonable points here in the speaker's chair, but what was striking about the previous eight years was not that propositions were submitted at the end of the mandate period, for that lies somewhat in the nature of the matter. What was striking instead was that several of the investigations that we have been able to work further with were appointed after eight years of nagging from the Tidö parties in opposition. They were impossible to get forward except during the few months at the end when the Social Democrats ruled without MP and V.

This is the historical experience, and it has been repeated throughout this mandate period where, not least V says no to almost everything, including that which is the core of effective legislation against criminal networks: offensive use of secret coercive measures, a criminalization of participation in criminal gangs, and so on. I only note that when we dismissed your questions in the committee, it was with the justification that the work is ongoing. MP and V said no because they do not like what the Social Democrats are doing. This is a reality, and I only say it because Teresa Carvalho started by saying that it is I who stand between the Social Democrats' ideas and the realization of the legislation, otherwise I would naturally not dwell on these issues.

The Lars Isacsson in front of us is a reality, and I look forward to the upcoming discussion on the local police presence. The police organization, which had its qualities and still has great qualities, had a very large disadvantage: It drained the local presence. It is a large and very important transition work that is ongoing, and I think it is excellent that setbacks, for example that some signs are taken down, are highlighted by Members of Parliament with a strong rooting in the countryside.

Regarding the criminal economy, I want to emphasize that there is much more to be done, including legislation, and I can mention a few things that we have seen being done.

The first thing is that we are tightening the penalties for economic crime, and we are doing it properly. We ensure that the new secret coercive measures can be used against economic crime and not just other crimes. We ensure that we tighten up properly around freedom of enterprise and business prohibitions, which is incredibly essential. Ivo had left a list of 40 points regarding how we must restructure the supervision so that it becomes more effective and powerful. I actually noted that not a single point was addressed during the previous government. Now we ensure that all 40 are implemented.

However, more than that will be required, and I am very happy to continue that dialogue.

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

Teresa Carvalho (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now we are, as we have said, in the final year of the parliamentary term, and I can state that the shootings continue, even though they have decreased. At the same time, the explosions have increased, and arson attacks seem to have become a new form of violence.

Worst of all is perhaps how we see children under 15 years old being involved in murder cases and gang-related crime in a completely derailed manner. It has completely spiraled out of control during the last two or three years, under Gunnar Strömmers watch. What we see now, we actually have not been anywhere near before. Still, many gang leaders, who order the shootings, the explosions, and the arson attacks, go free, while they eat their way into the body of society with ever more economic and other crime.

It is true that much of the focus is precisely on gang violence. It is that which creates the immediate fear and anxiety among many of us. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface, we have a growing organized – not least economic – crime that uses legal corporate structures to conduct illegal activities and which infiltrates the business sector and the welfare system in a way that truly is a threat to the system.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have, as I have said, understood that even the Sweden Democrats are positive towards our proposal for a mafia law, which is our response to this collective problem. They, however, feel bound by the Tidö agreement, and therefore it appears increasingly that it is the Minister for Justice who is holding back.

I believe it is a mistake. I believe it is bad for Sweden. I believe it would be much better if we could take responsibility together, because we think so much more alike than we disagree, but I note that Gunnar Strömmer unfortunately seems to prefer to have a political conflict where there is hardly any. I believe that Gunnar Strömmer knows by this point that I find that regrettable.

Thank you for the debate!

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

Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that it is clear that it is an incredibly great success that lethal violence has been halved since the peak in 2022. It means half as many crime victims, fewer grieving families, and fewer areas in fear of violence. But it also means that half of the lethal violence still remains. It is a very large task that lies ahead of us to truly push back the violence permanently.

We know that the conflict levels within the gangs are high and the violence and ruthlessness are extraordinarily great. We know this, not least when it concerns the children, and there I really want to give Teresa Carvalho complete credit: If there is one area where the development has gone completely wrong, it is the children, and it is very much about the fact that recruitment has moved from the physical environment into the digital world with what is now called crime as a service. It is totally transactional and involves a huge exposure for very many children who previously were not exposed to the criminal networks.

That is also why we are doing an incredible amount to also target that problem. Not least, we removed the possibility of using secret coercive measures against children under 15 years of age. If one cannot access their mobiles, it is indeed completely impossible to reach those who rule and direct from behind the scenes, the so-called gang leaders. It will require an incredible amount more.

I am going to tell you about the Council on Legislation referral that we decided on yesterday, which concerns these so-called non-autonomous crime forms. It sounds very technical, but what it is fundamentally about is that the police, in order to protect children and ensure that children in the risk zone do not end up where the 13-year-old suspected of the crime in Gävle seems to have ended up, shall be given completely different opportunities to reach those who are behind them. I think that is extraordinarily important.

As far as the Sweden Democrats are concerned, it is pleasing enough that we have an extraordinarily fine daily cooperation. One of our most important projects as we look forward is the special legislation against gang criminals. There I dare to assert that more of the proposals that the Social Democrats are now putting forward will be included than in the supplementary motions one can imagine seeing from the Social Democrats' intended government partners in the Left Party and the Green Party.

We continue our exchange, and so we continue to govern – then I believe that this will be excellent!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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