Response to interpellation 2025/26:77 on a public mandate for the expansion of the Prison and Probation Service
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the expansion of the Prison and Probation Service began too late due to previous governments' misprioritizations 1. M emphasizes that the appropriations have increased significantly and that the expansion during the mandate period corresponds to seven new Kumla-type prisons 1. M argues that there is no market failure that justifies a public service mandate for Specialfastigheter AB 1 2, but that the issue is being analyzed carefully 3. M emphasizes that the stance is pragmatic and that there are no plans to privatize prison operations 4. S argues that the prisons are overcrowded and that the expansion is proceeding too slowly 5. S proposes a public service mandate to a state actor in order to cut lead times 5 6 7. S argues that the delay in Norrköping is a market failure 5. S argues that the state should own the properties to prevent organized crime from gaining access to the market 8 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Teresa Carvalho has asked me if I and the government intend to reconsider regarding the procurement procedure and give a public mission to Specialfastigheter AB or another suitable state actor in order to cut lead times for procurement and construction of new detention sites in Sweden.
The strained capacity situation in institutions and prisons is due to the expansion of the Prison and Probation Service starting far too late. This is, in turn, due to incorrect prioritizations and missing decisions by previous governments. At the same time, the shift in criminal policy that is now taking place means that more people will be imprisoned and for longer periods than today. It is fundamentally about justice. Society must be protected from dangerous criminals, and crime victims must receive clearer redress. Dangerous persons shall be locked up, so that all law-abiding people dare to be out. There has also been intensive work since the change of government to meet the need for prison places here and now. At the same time, we are creating the conditions for continued expansion in the longer term and finding solutions to reduce the pressure.
The Prison and Probation Service's expansion plan for the period 2025–2034 involves a historic expansion towards the goal of having 29,000 places in prison and detention by 2034. This means almost a tripling of the number of places. To enable this, the Prison and Probation Service's appropriation has simultaneously been strengthened significantly. Between 2023 and 2028, the appropriation is estimated to increase from 14.1 to 31.5 billion kronor. It is therefore an appropriation increase of a record-breaking 123 percent.
Since this government took office, the number of prison and detention places has increased by nearly 3,800. The Prison and Probation Service plans for an additional approximately 1,400 places to be added by the summer of 2026. The expansion during the mandate period thus corresponds to a total of seven new Kumla prisons. This can be compared with the number of places corresponding to two Kumla prisons which was the result during eight years with the Social Democrats in government.
Even though the number of places has increased significantly since the change of government, it is important that the expansion continues and is facilitated through more efficient working methods and processes for a rapid and cost-effective expansion that corresponds to the need resulting from the government's announced reforms in the budget bill for 2026. Here, of course, the cooperation between the relevant actors is absolutely crucial – the Prison and Probation Service, municipalities, real estate companies, construction companies, and others. In February this year, the government appointed a national coordinator with the mandate to support the expansion of the Prison and Probation Service, and in particular to increase the pressure in the relations between the agency and other relevant actors.
The Government is also taking other measures to increase capacity in the detention centers. An investigation has submitted proposals for changes in the planning and building regulations. It aims to simplify the expansion of detention centers and prisons. We are currently processing those proposals within the Government Offices. A completely new investigation is also reviewing the entire prison and detention legislation to facilitate the expansion of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service and, not least, to create greater flexibility in the regulations.
In this context, I also want to highlight that more detainees who are foreign citizens shall serve their prison sentences in their home countries. This is through new legislation that entered into force this summer. In June, Sweden, as is known, signed an agreement with Estonia to rent 600 places in the facility in Tartu for detainees from Sweden. The goal is that the first detainees shall be able to be placed there after the half-year turn next year.
When it comes to the expansion of places during the mandate period, it has largely occurred through densification, that is, either double-layering in cells or modules within existing facilities. In those processes, the state-owned company Specialfastigheter is a central actor, as the company owns almost 90 percent of the existing facilities.
In the continued expansion, new construction is crucial. Specialfastigheter has, in that respect, no special status regarding correctional facilities. On the contrary, it can be seen that Kriminalvården's latest procurements of landlords have shown an increased interest from the real estate market. We can see a broad mobilization of several different actors which is also favorable for the expansion.
I am not a principled opponent of a social mission, but rather think it is a completely pragmatic assessment of which way is best to proceed. A mission of that character to a state actor would, if we look at the formal requirements, demand a clear market failure and furthermore that all other alternatives and tools, for example industry-wide support, are exhausted.
I rule nothing out as we look forward to streamlining and facilitating the continued expansion of the Prison and Probation Service. At present, I do not see that there is a strong demand for that specific measure, but we rule nothing out as we look forward.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking the Minister for Justice for the answer and the opportunity to once again discuss the need to expand the prisons in our country.
Punishments have been tightened in recent years, and more and more criminals are being prosecuted. That is good. It also increases the need for more prison places. I can only state that the creation of new places has not kept pace. It is going far too slowly, and our prisons are now overcrowded.
It is serious for several reasons. On the one hand, it risks leading to executions being postponed, on the other hand, it risks worsening the working environment. But also the important work of preventing recidivism suffers when there are simply no spaces for conversation and rehabilitation. Moving forward, the influx of clients is indeed expected to triple.
If we look back at the last five years, the creation of places has primarily come through double-layering. Now, new prisons are also being built and planned, and that is good. Those are good measures that the government has taken so far. That is not where my criticism lies, but it is simply not enough. Above all, it is going far too slowly.
The question I have asked the Minister for Justice concerns the order that is applied today regarding the procurement of new facilities, which delays the pace of the necessary expansion.
The Prison and Probation Service describes very well itself in its latest capacity report how one first signs an agreement with a municipality regarding a specific property. Then one procures the property owner. Only after that does one procure the construction itself.
The Prison and Probation Service also points out an alternative to the current model in the capacity report. It could be that, similar to the Armed Forces, support would be taken from the National Fortification Agency in the establishment of new regiments. Instead, a specific public mission should be directed to a state actor to support the Prison and Probation Service's expansion with new prisons in a fast and efficient manner. That proposal we Social Democrats presented here in the Riksdag this spring, but the Tidö parties unfortunately voted no to it.
Madam Speaker! I was reminded once again of the need for the measure when I read an article in my local newspaper Norrköpings Tidningar a couple of weeks ago. That was also why I requested the debate. There, it was described how the facility in Norrköping, which had been planned for several years, now risks being delayed due to the procurement process itself.
The Prison and Probation Service's real estate department tells the newspaper: What has caused the problem is the procurement process, that is to say the question of who should build and own the property where the Prison and Probation Service rents itself in. The procurement process has dragged on and is still ongoing. One of the interested parties has requested more time as it involves a lot of money.
Madam Speaker! The feared delay of the facility in Norrköping shows exactly why we Social Democrats have proposed a different arrangement where the government instead gives a direct mandate to a state actor to support the Prison and Probation Service with the expansion so that lead times can be shortened and new prison places can be built faster.
The Minister for Justice justifies his opposition to the proposal by, one might say, that there is an increased interest from the real estate industry and that our proposal would only be relevant if a market failure were present.
Is it not precisely a market failure when prisons that clearly need to be built immediately, such as the one in Norrköping, are delayed due to the current system of procurement from private actors? What is it if not a market failure?
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister of Justice, for the answer!
I am becoming a bit concerned when I hear the Minister for Justice speak as if we do not have a clear market failure when it comes to the premises of the justice chain. On 29 January 2024, Dagens Nyheter revealed that the district court building in Södertälje is owned by a company linked to the Södertälje network.
This should be at the very top of the agenda for a Swedish Minister for Justice, and I am sure it worries the Minister for Justice enormously. The question now is: Does the Minister for Justice know if any change has occurred? Is the Södertälje District Court still in the hands of organized crime?
We know that organized crime works together with foreign powers to carry out operations in Sweden. While we live with that reality, the police are not allowed to own their police stations, courts are not allowed to own their courtrooms, and the Prison and Probation Service is not allowed to own its prisons.
One must rent one's premises; it follows explicitly from Swedish legislation. One is referred to a commercial rental market where criminals obviously have access.
When the Prison and Probation Service procures premises, the person who is detained for gang-related crime can submit a tender and become a landlord for the Prison and Probation Service. The State may also not exclude anyone from the procurement who was convicted five years ago for serious gang-related crime.
All this is pointed out by Kriminalvården to the government in the document Uppdrag gällande säker lokalförsörjning. In the same communication, the entire judicial chain, including Domstolsverket, the police, and Kriminalvården, states that the government should consider that certain society-critical properties should be owned permanently by the state. It is very good advice. We cannot have business as usual for the Södertäljenätverket. We cannot have these rotten beams in the rule of law. Let the state own! Let the state build faster, cheaper, and safer without being forced into a commercial rental market!
I understand that in the Moderate ideology, it is close at hand to see the state as an obstacle and a threat, but in the fight against organized crime, the state must be strong. We must be able to own the institutions and the buildings that are central in the fight against organized crime.
We in Sweden stand out in the world. We like to see ourselves as the country of "just enough," but that is not the case when it comes to these issues. We have opened up so that organized crime can eat its way into our law enforcement agencies. Even buildings can be owned by organized crime. The buildings where we are to sentence criminals and provide redress to crime victims cannot continue to be owned by organized crime.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
With reference to what I previously pointed out regarding the meeting times in the chamber, which shall not last longer than until 23:00, I also want to announce now that even interpellation 86 by Joakim Sandell, Socialdemokraterna, on eligibility for election to municipality and region will be answered at a later meeting.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thanks also to Gustav Lantz for the opportunity to discuss these important issues!
I will begin with the concern that Gustav Lantz expressed. I can immediately alleviate that. It is clear that we are not to have criminal actors who are involved and own properties where we have sensitive activities in Sweden. There is also legislative work underway in that area which, simplified slightly, is about precisely a very far-reaching security screening work in relation to property transfers and other matters. This will naturally also be completely decisive in the area.
When it comes to the question of market failure, that is not a word that I have chosen myself. It is instead about looking at which rules or which circumstances we must adhere to when we are to decide whether to introduce a public mission or give an actor a public mission or not.
As I have said, I am not a principled opponent of public service missions, which we have in large parts. We have it in relation to the Armed Forces, and there are a long row of other state actors that have public service missions. This is simply a pragmatic question: In what way can we build as effectively, safely, and appropriately as possible?
Regarding the Norrköping case, I have also read about it and spoken with the Prison and Probation Service about it. The delay in question there is approximately half a year. That is, in itself, bad enough in a situation where we must move forward. This is also a result of testing a different way of procuring there, that is, not doing one procurement at a time but trying to check off different actors within the framework of one and the same process.
One is testing a dialogue process to resolve all relevant issues within the framework of the procurement so as not to have them in later stages of the process. But it is clear that one must evaluate this carefully and see if it is the right way forward. I share, in any case, the starting point that every delay is, naturally, a delay too much in this situation.
When it comes to the issue of the social mandate, it would in such cases be natural to give this to Specialfastigheter, which has a central role here. One could say that the part of the expansion where one can speak of a market failure more than in other respects is the class 1 facilities, i.e., those facilities where we have the highest security level. There, Specialfastigheter is in practice a completely central actor.
I can only state that the Prison and Probation Service, just as the interpellator Teresa Carvalho pointed out, has raised this in its capacity reports as a strategic issue that must be subject to ongoing consideration. And it is a strategic issue that is being considered on an ongoing basis.
A market analysis of Svefa has been conducted, which points to a certain degree of market failure specifically in relation to class 1 employees. But at the same time, one arrives at the conclusion that there are other measures that are more effective than the social mission. One points, for example, to the possibility of longer lease agreements to bring more actors into the processes. One does not suggest social missions and so on.
For me, the short meaning of this long speech is this: We are now ensuring that we drive expansion in a historical way. If we are to make a historical comparison anyway, there are, after all, more than three times as many places this mandate period as during the previous two.
I do, however, agree that we would like it to go even faster and that we want to increase the volume even more. As I said, I do not rule out anything for any principled reasons. Gustav Lantz, in connection with the election year, suggests in a rather elegant way that it would be some kind of rigid moderate ideological instinct that makes one not want to consider social missions in the area. That is not the case.
I am happy to discuss the issue further. But here and now, I see that neither the Prison and Probation Service nor other actors, including Specialfastigheter or analysts, point to it. It is rather about other measures that we prioritize.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I believe it has become clear that the government does not, at least not at the present time, intend to issue a public mandate to cut the lead times in these long procurement processes and accelerate the pace of construction.
I still think, however, that the motive is somewhat vaguer, even though the Minister for Justice now stated that it is not about ideologically motivated reasons but rather pragmatic ones. But for that very reason, I think it is a bit strange that it is claimed that the current order should be preserved because it is the most effective way. It is clearly not particularly effective. Even the Prison and Probation Service has pointed out how this could be done more efficiently, which is also the reason why we have this debate at all.
This matter regarding an increased interest from the real estate industry, I think in itself feels typically Moderate – one could say that. We will surely all remember how it was last year, when we Social Democrats proposed a different order for the HVB homes, where neither gang criminals nor, for that matter, other private fortune seekers should be able to run HVB homes following the alarm reports that have come in. Then the Prime Minister replied that it would be like banning private property owners. It is naturally a flawed comparison, for reasons easily understood, but I understand that there might be a Moderate instinct when it comes to the private property owners.
It is perhaps also for that reason best to clarify that we Social Democrats have, therefore, not proposed any ban against private property owners, whether it concerns HVB homes or prisons.
It is instead about letting the Prison and Probation Service use the same model as the Armed Forces to use the state's muscles and capacity to quickly and efficiently build new critical infrastructure prison properties by skipping complicated and time-consuming procurement steps.
I might have been able to understand the Minister for Justice's cool interest if it were the case that the government had looked properly at the issue and the responsible authority had advised against it or something similar. But now it is precisely the opposite; it is the Prison and Probation Service itself that has pointed to this as a solution. I also could have understood it if it were the case that the government judged that it was far too uncertain whether this would work in practice. But here, the Minister for Justice actually only needs to pick up the phone to his colleague, the Minister for Defence, and ask how it works. And it seems to work quite well there.
Madam Speaker! I must admit that I have also had the thought that the lukewarm interest might be because the proposal actually comes from us Social Democrats. I really do not want to believe it, but it is a pattern that would still be recognizable. We have indeed presented quite a few proposals in this area during this parliamentary term – to stop gang criminals from running HVB homes, to criminalize evasion of payment, to introduce a mafia law, and so on. The government has said no to all of that.
There is also another conceivable explanation. Now, I did hear the Minister for Justice assure previous speakers that it was not ideologically motivated, but I nevertheless feel compelled to ask if it might possibly be the case that the government is so keen on preserving this system in order to facilitate further privatization of prison operations. I take the opportunity to ask that question. Can the Minister for Justice reassure me on that point and say that there is no intention to privatize prison operations as well in the future? I would truly appreciate that.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! It is pleasing to hear that the government is working to take back control over our court buildings, police stations, and prisons. It is important that those institutions never fall into the hands of organized crime. I believe we agree on that.
But ownership actually plays a role here. The Minister for Justice talks about control during ownership transfer and other things. The fact is that long contracts are signed for this type of building. They are, so to speak, adapted for a certain activity and often have contracts of 25 years. It is clear that during that time, it is highly likely that they are transferred to others.
You can actually let the ownership remain with the state from the beginning and not keep fussing around with patches and repairs with controls. We have seen it on the HVB housing market, and we see the tendencies here as well: People are incredibly afraid to say that certain social activities are of such a sensitive nature that we must have them in state ownership. It becomes cheaper to build, it becomes easier to plan, and it goes faster. But above all: In the world we live in and with the security threats we have, which have merged with organized crime in Sweden, we actually must take back control seriously.
I believe it would be wise to ensure that we can give the unequivocal answer that no building belonging to the Courts Administration, the Police Authority, or any other part of the justice chain is owned by organized crime.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! At this late hour, I intended to deliver two reassuring messages, as they are called.
The first is to Gustaf Lantz: Yes, we are now in various ways taking back control. One must then still ask: Who was it that lost control?
Now we are sitting here, as they say, with the problems that are described in a very accurate way and which have, therefore, grown large over a long sequence of years. Someone lost control, and we are now devoting great effort to taking back that control. For the sake of the late hour and the Solomonic unity, we can land on the fact that we agree that organized crime shall not be inside either the buildings of the justice system or other critical social activities, or for that matter, any properties at all. The work is proceeding offensively on a long row of different fronts.
The second reassuring message concerns the question of whether this is now some kind of feint intended to pave the way for a large-scale privatization of the Swedish prison and probation service. The answer is no. There are no such plans at all. What this is an expression of is a very pragmatic approach to in what way we can organize an expansion as effective as possible for Kriminalvården.
I also want to say – I do not know whether it is a reassuring message or not – that it is also not a matter of the Social Democrats now discussing the issue and that it would make it impossible for us to discuss it. On the contrary, it is the case that it is not the Social Democrats who have raised the issue in the first instance. It is discussed continuously between the government and the Prison and Probation Service, which is evident from the expansion planning from the Prison and Probation Service. It is discussed in market analyses commissioned by the government, but those analyses thus conclude that other measures than just that one are advocated, in any case in this situation.
I want to return to the fact that I, for my own part, and I believe I also speak for the government, have a very pragmatic attitude towards the issue. We can now see that there are many serious actors in society who want to be part of the expansion of the criminal justice system, and then one must have very good reasons to cut them out of the processes.
In this situation, other actors analyzing the issues point primarily to other parts, for example the length of the lease agreements. As we have said, we are reviewing the planning rules regarding this. We are reviewing other issues that are relevant to the length of the procurements.
Again: I am not rigid on any point but on the contrary very pragmatic. We are happy to continue this discussion. If it were the case that the actors who have great insight into these processes really unequivocally point out that it is in this direction we should go, I would not close that door. I only state that today there is no such strong demand, neither from the Prison and Probation Service nor from other actors who analyze the issues.
We are, however, following the issue continuously, and I will not handle it from any rigid ideological standpoint but entirely pragmatically and goal-rationally.
Teresa Carvalho (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Justice for this important debate. It is, as said, important for several reasons, not least because the correctional services' important work on preventing recidivism suffers greatly when the Swedish prisons are overcrowded. Therefore, it is important that we speed up the construction rate. Here I must unfortunately repeat that I consider the government to have been far too slow when it comes to expanding in line with the need that the Correctional Services presented at the beginning of this mandate period.
In order to contribute constructively, we Social Democrats have proposed that the government should give a special mandate to a state actor to support the Prison and Probation Service's expansion of institutions in order to avoid this first and very time-consuming step in the procurement process. This, however, as is known, the Tidö parties have unfortunately said no to, and I truly regret that.
I want to emphasize that this proposal is not taken out of thin air but taken from a reality where the procurement processes unnecessarily drag out the expansion. One example in the recent past is the facility in Norrköping.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice once again how much he considers it reasonable that the procurement processes drag on and delay the construction of new facilities before one is prepared to, for example, look at the Armed Forces' model to build these society-critical prison properties more efficiently and significantly faster.
In conclusion, just a factual point to the Minister of Justice: It was in 1993 that the law stating that one must rent came about, under a Moderate-led government. It was therefore rather the Moderates who lost control. But we shall have to take shared responsibility for the fact that we have not yet reclaimed it.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Teresa Carvalho with aides for the opportunity to discuss these important issues this evening.
I state, as I have said, the fact that we are significantly tightening the penalties for serious crime and that the police are becoming increasingly effective when it comes to solving crimes. This occurs in combination with a societal development with organized crime that is very serious. Taken together, it means that the pressure on the criminal justice system will continue to be high for many years.
Parallel to this, we have presented a historically ambitious expansion plan with a funding that, over a number of years, also represents a historical expansion in terms of economic means. During the mandate period, we will have more than three times as many places as during the entire previous eight-year period. I agree that it needs to go even faster. We need to do even more. But nevertheless, we have significantly increased the pace.
We are now going through everything. We are reviewing the prison and detention legislation. We coordinate in a different way. We are reviewing the planning and building regulations. We absolutely increase the pressure on Kriminalvården to streamline the procurement process.
Teresa Carvalho asked me at what point it begins to be time to glance at other actors. We are already glancing at other actors. We are also glancing at the social mission. That is why we let the issue be analyzed very carefully. I want to say again that it is a completely pragmatic question of if and, in such cases, when one should give such a mandate. Our assessment is that we are not there just now and that actors point to other measures that are more prioritized. But the discussion continues, and we follow the issue continuously. I do not dismiss it when I look forward.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.