Response to interpellations 2023/24:458 and 465 on legal counsel for children
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 child's perspective should be strengthened and that there is a broad consensus on improving the child's position in matters of custody 1. M emphasizes that the child's opinions and experiences should be taken into account 1 and that there are both good reasons for and against having their own counsel since social services' representatives may have better experience than lawyers 2 3. M argues that the party has not blocked the issue but taken responsibility for handling it 4. C believes that children die in Sweden because the child's perspective is not ensured 5 and pushes for an investigation into the child's right to their own counsel 6. S argues that it is inconsistent that children have counsel in criminal cases but not in civil law proceedings 7. S wants an investigation into the child's right to their own counsel to guarantee that the child's perspective is made visible and strengthened 8 9. SD argues that children should get a counsel who follows them throughout the entire process 10. SD criticizes S for passivity 11.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Martina Johansson has asked me if I am prepared to appoint an inquiry into children's right to their own counsel in matters of custody, residence, and access. Laila Naraghi has simultaneously asked the Minister for Social Affairs what measures the Minister intends to take so that an inquiry into the possibility for children to have their own counsel in processes concerning their custody, residence, and access shall be appointed. The latter interpellation has been handed over to me.
I want to begin my response by linking to what Laila Naraghi refers to in her interpellation regarding the importance of the child's perspective being made visible and reinforced. This is also highlighted by Martina Johansson. For a couple of decades now, there has been a legal development where the child's role as a rights holder is progressively strengthened. The incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Swedish law is part of this. The child's position in matters of custody, residence, and visitation has also relatively recently been strengthened and clarified in the Children and Parents Code. Since 2021, it has applied that the child shall receive information and be given the opportunity to express their opinions. The child's opinions shall be given weight in relation to the child's age and maturity. The social welfare committee now also has the possibility to hear a child without the guardian's consent and presence.
In the report *Se barnet!* (See the child!), the question of children's right to legal counsel in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation was considered a few years ago. It was concluded there that legal counsel for children should not be introduced. In the report *Förbättrade möjligheter för barn att utkräva sina rättigheter enligt barnkonventionen* (Improved opportunities for children to assert their rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child), no proposal is submitted, but the investigation has made the assessment that children should have an opportunity to obtain a stronger procedural position and be assigned their own legal counsel, and that the question should therefore be investigated. The report, which is relatively recent, is currently being prepared within the Government Offices.
Disputes over, for example, custody are difficult for all parties involved and especially for the children. I and the government are therefore working continuously to strengthen the children's rights perspective in issues regarding custody, housing, and visitation, particularly to protect children from all forms of violence. I think it is positive that there is a broad consensus on strengthening children's rights and opportunities to be heard. The essential thing is, in my opinion, first and foremost that the child's opinions and experiences truly come forward and are taken into account. Right now, my focus is on the proposals in the report Safer homes for children. In it, it is proposed, among other things, that children placed in foster homes shall have the right to a public counsel when the social welfare board applies for custody to be transferred to the foster parents. The report also contains proposals for changes so that the child's best interests shall have better impact, for example, in considerations of whether a child should have visitation with a parent who has committed violence. A bill is, as I have previously indicated, planned for September this year.
When Laila Naraghi (S), who submitted one of the interpellations, reported that she was prevented from attending the meeting, she granted the first deputy speaker permission for Anna-Belle Strömberg (S) to participate in the interpellation debate instead.
Martina Johansson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Gunnar Strömmer for the opening statement, but I cannot claim that I received an answer to my question. My question was whether the Minister is prepared to appoint an inquiry into children's right to their own counsel in matters of custody, residence, and access.
I have previously, during an oral question period, received the answer from the Minister that the issue is not sufficiently illuminated and that through a dialogue we can see where we should land. Now it is the case that according to Save the Children's survey, seven out of eight parties, i.e., a large majority in the chamber, want to investigate the issue. The only ones who have not answered that they want to investigate the issue are the Moderates, the Minister's own party.
The Children's Ombudsman was in the Committee on Civil Affairs yesterday. She was very clear and also very critical regarding investigations of custody, residence, and visitation. Risk assessments are missing. Documentation is missing. Reasons for the assessment of what is in the child's best interest are missing. This is not so strange when we do not have anyone representing the child. The court has an incredibly great responsibility, I believe, when cases have been taken as far as to court. I would have wished that they were not there, but when they are there, the court has a responsibility.
It is true that changes were made in 2021 which mean that children shall have the right to information and that their opinions shall be given significance. But it is completely ineffective if no one follows up to ensure that this happens. If it is not done earlier, the court must at least do this. The Children's Ombudsman's criticism regarding the lack of rights for children also applies after the changes that were made in 2021. In connection with the discussion in 2021, the Center Party would have liked to see that we also made other interventions to prevent children from ending up in court, for that is the worst for the children, I believe.
Mr. Speaker! In the Minister's response to the interpellation, investigations were mentioned. One of those investigations did not have a mandate to investigate the right to a representative for children but had received the instruction that it must not cost anything. It is clear that one cannot introduce anything new if the proposals are not allowed to cost anything. In one of the other investigations, it is mentioned that there is a need to investigate children's right to a representative more, while at the same time many other proposals are presented regarding children having a representative, for example in the investigation of placement in foster homes. The third investigation has many good proposals regarding children's safety.
Mr. Speaker! Still, there is no one representing children in custody, housing, and visitation disputes. These can be inflamed and contain both physical and psychological violence and other types of pressure. Children actually die in Sweden today because we do not ensure the child's perspective in these disputes. Children lose contact with a sufficiently good parent because no one represents the child and its rights. Something must be wrong.
Once again, Gunnar Strömmer: Why not investigate this issue and shed light on the whole picture when you prepare other matters in the Government Offices, so that I do not have to fear that this will end up in a filing cabinet? Why do these children not have the right to their own representative, when children in other situations do?
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Gunnar Strömmer!
I am participating in this debate on behalf of the Social Democrats because Laila Naraghi is not able to be in Stockholm today. She has asked me to convey her greetings to the Minister. Both Laila and I have a positive view of the dialogue that has taken place between the Minister and the Social Democrats in the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding the area of family law.
Mr. Speaker! Recently, Save the Children presented a survey showing that seven out of eight parliamentary parties believe that an investigation needs to be commissioned to review the possibility for children to have their own representative in proceedings concerning their custody, housing, and visitation. Together, the members of parliament from these seven parties constitute a substantial majority here in the chamber: 281 of the Riksdag's 349 members.
Several investigators and authorities have expressed this, for example Fredrik Malmberg from the Institute for Human Rights, who has also been the government's investigator in the investigation *En uppväxt fri från våld*. The Children's Ombudsman has expressed it this way: "The child shall be protected in the legal process and not from the process. The child shall be protected in the court and not from the court." The Children's Ombudsman has also suggested that the child should therefore be given their own counsel in the process, who speaks on behalf of the child.
Mr. Speaker! Researchers, experts, civil society, and authorities, as well as government public inquiries, have identified deficiencies in how children's rights are met in processes regarding their custody, residence, and access. Several agency reports have shown major deficiencies. This concerns, among other things, the courts' deficient risk assessments regarding violence and that children's stories and opinions are rarely highlighted or given importance. This is presented, for example, in the Convention on the Rights of the Child Inquiry 2020 and most recently in the 2023 report from the Inquiry on children's opportunities to demand their rights. There, the following is presented to the government: "The question of the right to speak and legal counsel for children in cases regarding custody, residence, and access is such an extensive and complex issue that it is not possible to submit concrete proposals within the framework of this inquiry. The question should therefore be further investigated."
Mr. Speaker! There is a clear majority for this in the chamber. Seven out of eight parties think that an investigation needs to be appointed. The only party holding back is the Minister of Justice's. Why do the Moderates not want to investigate this? And why not do what a majority in the Riksdag wants?
Fundamentally, this is about children's rights. Children have the right to a representative in criminal and administrative proceedings. It is not logical that children should not have a representative in civil proceedings concerning the child's entire life—issues regarding custody, residence, and visitation. The current arrangement means that when questions of violence are to be assessed in criminal and administrative cases, the child has the right to their own representative, but when questions of domestic violence are to be assessed, the child has no standing whatsoever.
I hope and believe that the Minister agrees on the inconsistency and what this means for children in general and children exposed to violence in particular. This inconsistency is not in the best interests of the child and is not worthy of a rule-of-law society.
Martin Westmont (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Several different instances have pointed out deficiencies regarding the fulfillment of children's rights in various contexts. We can never compromise on children's well-being and safety. Children often become a tool in a conflict and a struggle between a mother and a father, characterized by much hatred and problems.
I want to emphasize something of great importance, namely that a child is given a representative who accompanies them throughout the entire process and is not replaced in the vulnerable situation the child is in.
Then I would, Mr. Speaker, like to point out that we have now heard a representative from the Center Party and one from the Social Democrats who want the Tidö parties to act in this important issue. The truth, however, is that we could have come much further in the matter if not, above all, the Social Democrats had been very passive. Even the Center Party was part of the government base during the previous parliamentary term.
Now, the Sweden Democrats, together with the Tidö parties, are pushing for a change. If we can cooperate, it is of course very good; we are positive towards broad agreements. We are here to take responsibility. But it also matters that other parties, such as the Social Democrats and the Center Party, are prepared to cooperate on individual issues where we have a common view.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the member from the Social Democrats and the member from the Centre Party if they are prepared to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats on individual issues where we share a common view. This applies in particular to this important issue of children being entitled to their own representative in these types of disputes.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today. We have done so before, and it is very important that the exchange continues.
I want to first be clear that neither I nor the Moderaterna are holding back on this issue. What we are doing is now carefully analyzing the way forward. There are a number of different issues in the area of family law that must be handled in a sensible way and in parallel.
There are investigation reports; the interpellants have highlighted several of these investigations which, if we are to be perfectly honest, point in different directions when it comes to these issues. It is this that we are now going to address in a collective manner, and in doing so, I want to establish a few things that I consider to be an important basis for this.
The first thing is that there is a broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag, which has also been expressed here in today's exchange, that there are very serious problems regarding children's position in legal processes concerning issues of custody, residence, and access. We agree that we must do something about these deficiencies.
It is a self-evident starting point that children should be heard and that children's interests and perceptions in matters of custody, residence, and visitation shall have full impact in the process in court. I think that what was referred to earlier is well formulated: It is about protecting children in the process, not from the process, and protecting children in court, not from the court. There is a broad consensus on this problem and on the insight that we must do something about the deficiencies that exist, and I think this is an excellent starting point as we look forward.
When it comes to the concrete question in the case, I think it deserves a somewhat broader illumination. How this is to be solved is not self-evident, I would say. There are strong arguments in favor of children having their own representatives in this type of legal process. There are also objections that are worth considering.
We can look at the arguments for. One is, of course, that it concerns a right to be heard, which needs to be strengthened. We know that there are examples of courts having failed in assessments of the risk of children being harmed. Children's perspectives must be brought forward in a clearer way. We know that it often happens that parents who are in a conflict-ridden dispute concerning, for example, custody, residence, or visitation with children do not really succeed in meeting the children's interests in that situation. This speaks for a separate representative for the children. We also know that a separate representative or someone who represents the child can contribute to curbing conflicts and possibly contribute to shifting the focus from the parents' conflict to the child's perspective and interests.
An argument against that is often raised is that the child is drawn into parents' conflicts in an even more concrete way. To this, one can of course say that it is already a problem today that children are part of conflicts; it is a reality, and perhaps the child's position in such conflicts can be strengthened with a representative.
The arguments I think should be placed in the other scale are that the essential thing is that children's interests can be expressed and considered in a clearer way, and this can be done in other ways than through representatives in every individual case, for example by making the social welfare committee's role clearer. There are risks of being drawn into conflicts as I mentioned. It is not self-evident that lawyers convey the children's perspectives in a better way than, for example, representatives for the social services, who have education and experience in the area.
The sum of this is, I think, that there are good reasons that speak for and good reasons that speak against. We are not blocking a path forward at all. On the other hand, we are carefully considering what should be the next step.
Martina Johansson (C)
Mr. Speaker! Let me first turn to the member from the Sweden Democrats. I am here primarily to have a discussion with Gunnar Strömmer, and I find it a bit difficult to accept that we are also going to have a blame game in these issues over who could have done what and when, and who has been part of which government basis. I feel that it does not quite belong here.
During the previous parliamentary term, I initiated an early discussion on the issue of housing division, for which the Minister has promised us an inquiry in 2024. It has nevertheless shown that we are a party that pushes forward on substantive issues to make a difference. I will continue to do so, regardless of who follows my proposals.
The Minister speaks about analyzing the way forward. There are approximately 5,360 pages of investigation material in five different investigations - three of which we have already mentioned - concerning children's rights. The issues are illuminated in different ways, but we have still not managed to move forward with just this question, if it is to happen and if so, how.
The reason why I push so hard that this issue needs to be included is that we have deficiencies in many people's paths forward. I wish the Minister could give me half a day. Then we could go through many different things where there are deficiencies to be addressed in the work of the Family Court, in their mandate, and regarding how it functions in practice. Courts do not want training in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and children's rights. One must constantly ensure that there is documentation, risk assessments, and a clear justification where it clearly appears what the reason is for proposing what one proposes.
The Minister usually has a very high level of tolerance in other areas when it comes to having fast investigation times, for example when it concerns privacy violations against individuals or pushing out groups, changing how a law should be prepared, or that one should take a harder line against children with criminal behaviors. But he also speaks very much about preventive measures, which I often interpret as him meaning reprisals rather than early interventions, which would otherwise make a difference.
Now we are talking about measures that protect children - an unprotected child in a dispute, a child who is suffering in a dispute. The child can be affected by mental ill-health. Mental ill-health can lead to a poorer schooling. We know that a good schooling is one of the biggest protective factors to prevent, so that people and children will feel well and not end up in crime and criminal behaviors.
One could perhaps link the two different roles the minister has – to protect the vulnerable children in a custody dispute and to protect children so that they do not end up in crime. One could turn the question around and say: Could a representative in matters of custody, residence, and visitation be a preventive measure so that children do not suffer and do not end up in crime? Could the minister then imagine investigating the issue of children's right to their own representative even in custody disputes?
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! I believe the Minister and I agree on the context. It is a major problem today that children are subjected to violence by their parents and that society fails to protect them from this violence. Children are also the only crime victims who are forced to meet their perpetrators.
It has now been just over a year since the boy Tintin was murdered in Luleå by his father during visitation. He was forced into visitation despite his fear, despite his mother's warnings, and despite several authorities being well aware of this. Tintin was forced into visitation and was murdered during his visitation. Unfortunately, there are many more examples of violence against children during visitation. Often, social services and the district court have knowledge that a risk of violence exists, but the child is still forced into the perpetrators' homes, with abuse and violence as a result. Society fails these children every day.
A tool that experts and those affected by violence themselves bring up is precisely that children should be granted the right to their own counsel in custody disputes. After the murder of Tintin, his mother formed the Lex Tintin association. I know that they will see this debate. Tintin's mother deserves to be heard. She speaks for so many children and parents affected by violence.
I want to give some time to them here. Therefore, I will read out what the Lex Tintin association writes about this: "To give the child a representative would guarantee that the child's perspective is made visible and reinforced in the process. If the child's position is to be strengthened in a more real and sustainable way, it is required that the representative be linked to a right of audience for the child, so that the representative can, for example, present their own claims regarding a certain form of custody, housing, or visitation, invoke their own evidence, ask questions to the witnesses and experts invoked by others, present arguments, and appeal a decision or a judgment. Ultimately, the right of audience and the right to a representative for children in custody disputes would contribute to the court's basis for decision-making becoming more robust and thereby provide the court with better conditions to make well-founded decisions in accordance with the best interests of the child."
Mr. Speaker! It is not about individual cases or exceptions. On the contrary, it is the case that children and mothers exposed to violence are systematically left alone by society's support systems and the judicial system to be forced to defend themselves against the violence. There is plenty of research and reports. This is well known. Now it depends on us in the Swedish Riksdag whether we will achieve a practical change for all these children. It is reasonable to now look at representatives for children in civil law proceedings and produce proposals for an investigation.
Mr. Speaker! I am also here to debate with the Minister for Justice, but let me address Martin Westmont's question. We Social Democrats did indeed put forward proposals regarding time limits in division processes, and in that preparation, agreement was reached between all parties in the Committee on Civil Affairs. We would, of course, gladly do the same in this matter.
Martin Westmont (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I still think that what has been said so far creates a certain hope for the future. I nevertheless want to briefly respond to what the member from Centerpartiet put forward and also the member from Socialdemokraterna.
The Social Democrats did, however, have the power of government for eight years. What we can see is a passivity from the Social Democrats. Just as I mentioned in my first speech, the Center Party was indeed part of the government base.
We can read in the Minister for Justice's response to this interpellation that the question of whether children should have the right to their own counsel was relevant in the report SOU 2017:6 when the Socialdemokraterna were in power. But unfortunately, I would like to say, there was a lack of responsibility and priorities during the time when the Socialdemokraterna ruled.
We also see that the original interpellator from the Socialdemokraterna is not present in this debate, and that perhaps also shows that this may not be a priority issue for the Socialdemokraterna.
Now I have a question for the Minister of Justice. These proceedings are often complex, which makes it enormously important that the right expertise adjudicates in these types of disputes.
We can see that in disputes such as those concerning copyright infringement, experts sit and judge. In disputes where children are involved, we can see that it is often arbitrary how one judges, and that is of course not how it should be.
A question I would like to ask the Minister for Justice is whether this could be a way forward in this issue, that is, to establish specialized courts with experts to ensure the level of competence in these types of disputes.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! The commitment to these issues in the Swedish Riksdag is broad and well known. I believe that Laila Naraghi has good reasons for not being here today. Not least she and Martina Johansson and others have been incredibly persistent both in this issue and in a number of others. Ann-Charlotte Hammar in M has also pushed forward. This I do not question at all.
Now it is more about how we should handle these issues in an appropriate way moving forward. In that regard, one can take note of what Anna-Belle Strömberg raised regarding lex Tintin and perhaps above all the experience that lies behind that initiative. It is naturally so that no children should have to experience or be exposed to what that child had to experience.
I believe it is an obligation for all of us who can influence the future in different ways to take in the impression of those types of tragic events and hold discussions with those concerned, experts, and others on how one can work forward. This also applies to the question of how children's perspectives and children's interests can be taken into account in the legal process regarding custody, residence, and visitation in a better way than is the case today.
It is largely that background of experience that makes us stand here today and now, looking forward with joined forces.
I believe that we have now, gradually and with joint efforts, addressed several deficiencies in the area of family law. When it comes to the investigation on safer homes, an investigation that concerns several of the issues we are talking about here, we have said that a referral to the Council of Legislation shall be submitted before the summer and a government bill after the summer. It will be an important step to move it forward.
One can say that the issues regarding division of property are related to these questions. We have said that during the year we will appoint an inquiry to shed light on this, not least when it comes to addressing problems where division of property is used as a tool against the weaker party in connection with a divorce.
The questions we are now talking about belong to that context.
I want to emphasize once again that we are not blocking anything. The honest description of the 5,000 pages of investigation that Martina Johansson referred to is, however, that they pull in slightly different directions in this matter, even if perhaps no one specifically has gone to the bottom of the issue. I think that is an honest description of it. It is not a matter of whether the underlying problem exists and that children's rights should be upheld in a better way than today. But in some cases, it is pointed out that we should investigate the ombudsman issue. In another case, the ombudsman issue is rejected with arguments that the social services may be better suited to uphold children's rights also within the framework of a court process.
I do not say this as an evasion, but I say it more as a clarifying description of the basis.
We are now carefully considering what the next step is regarding children's position in legal proceedings. This is an important discussion that I believe will also affect the upcoming steps ahead. I am confident that we will be able to do this in very broad agreement in this house as we look forward.
Martina Johansson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that I am very proud to be able to work in this chamber and to be able to advance children's rights in this chamber. For me, it is more about moving an issue in substance than about dwelling on who could have done something when one or the other did nothing. If the Sweden Democrats now want to beat their chests and say that they are so incredibly good and strong in this issue, I wonder: Why is the issue not in the Tidö Agreement, which is the basis for the government's work?
But as I said: I am proud of my and the Center Party's work and of the fact that I once got the Minister to promise me an inquiry into the division process. I hope that I will one day get him to promise me also an inquiry when it concerns the best interests of the child in custody disputes.
The Minister says that people are pulling in different directions in this investigation regarding what is good and what is not good. Then my follow-up question is: Why can we not go into depth on the question? Why can we not do this jointly? It is about looking at the area of responsibility of the family law and their mandate. What measures are there to put in place to counteract disputes going as far as they do? Then perhaps we can avoid discussing the question of how it should be handled in court, because we do not want them there. There are plenty of things we can do on the way there. It concerns knowledge, research, evaluation, and so on.
I would like to conclude by pointing out that there is a major problem today. Risk assessments are missing. Documentation is missing. Reasons for assessments are missing. Children need to be protected in the process, not from the process. All children have the right to their own representatives. One has that, but not in these situations. The Gender Equality Authority points out the deficiencies. The Children's Ombudsman points out the deficiencies.
When will the government take all children's rights seriously? Someone must stand on the children's side. More children should not have to die. More children should not have to lose contact with a sufficiently important and good adult.
Anna-Belle Strömberg (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is thus seven out of eight parliamentary parties that think an investigation should be commissioned regarding children's right to their own counsel in cases concerning custody, residence, and visitation.
The Moderates' coalition partner, the Liberals, wrote in a parliamentary motion just before the election: In connection with custody disputes, the child should have the right to their own representative who speaks on their behalf. The motion was signed by Strömmer's ministerial colleagues Johan Pehrson, who is now the Minister for Employment, and Mats Persson, who is now the Minister for Education.
Also the Moderates' other coalition partner, the Christian Democrats, have highlighted this. At their national convention in November, this very issue held a prominent place. In the response to the motion on this issue, party leader and Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch and the board of the Christian Democrats responded: Already today we are pushing that children's rights should be strengthened and that children in custody disputes shall be entitled to a legal representative.
In the core document of the Riksdag, the family policy bill, it states that all children shall have the right to their own representative in a custody dispute.
Mr. Speaker! We are talking here about two party leaders in the government who have recently stated that this is very important. It is therefore seven out of eight parties that want it to be investigated. Authorities have presented this. Investigations have highlighted it. Therefore, it would be very nice if the Moderaterna and the Minister for Justice could let democracy take its course and let just the investigation regarding this through.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martina Johansson and Laila Naraghi, for the interpellations and Anna-Belle Strömberg for participating in the debate on behalf of Laila Naraghi!
I note what I consider to be a great strength that is expressed in this discussion. There is a very broad consensus that I perceive to encompass all parties in the Swedish Riksdag when it comes to the fact that children's rights in the legal process must be met or taken into account in a better way than today. The shortcomings that have been raised by everyone who has participated in today's discussion regarding documentation, risk assessments, or otherwise are naturally problems that no decent society can live with. It is something that must be addressed, and it must be addressed in a systematic way so that it is not chance or the circumstances in the concrete case that determine whether children's legal certainty is taken into account in difficult legal processes concerning sensitive issues such as custody, access, housing, and other matters. It is also about ensuring that this can be done so that children's rights are taken into account in such a way that conflicts are not exacerbated or that children are not unnecessarily drawn further into conflicts that are fundamentally the parents'.
We are now reviewing all of this. Regarding the Moderaterna, I can say that no position so far has been an expression of a blockage, but possibly an expression that when it comes down to it, it is we who have taken responsibility for handling the issue in both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Affairs. When we have properly weighed the issue, we will also provide notice on how the issues shall be handled moving forward. I am quite convinced that it will occur in such a way that we achieve a fine interaction even in this issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.