Response to interpellations 2024/25:347 and 352 on youth crime boards
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 investigation into youth crime boards is complex and that the government is analyzing the proposals carefully to ensure a coherent care chain. M is prepared to consider everything as long as it does not occur at the expense of efficiency 1. M considers the Bob structure and the proposed Social Services Act to be important for reaching children in the risk group 1. M wants to strengthen existing reforms rather than create more bureaucracy and argues that youth crime boards risk short-circuiting existing systems. M argues that there is a lack of evidence for the effects of the Danish system for the target group 15–16 years 2. S argues that the government has backed away from youth crime boards 3 and that the Danish system provides opportunities to work in a completely different way 3. S considers that a lack of resources hinders preventive measures 4 and that the government has not allocated sufficient funds to equip vulnerable schools or strengthen social services 5. S wants to introduce youth crime boards to give young people in risk zones the right to support 4 and argues that the government is arguing against these despite the fact that they are to be tested according to the Tidö Agreement 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Madam Speaker! Gustaf Lantz has asked me whether I and the government still intend to present a proposal to introduce youth crime boards and, if so, when.
Mattias Vepsä has further asked me if I have dismissed the idea and the proposal regarding youth crime boards.
The previous government decided on July 7, 2022, on the committee directive for the Inquiry into Youth Crime Boards – a new order to prevent crime. In accordance with the Tidö Agreement, the government decided on February 16, 2023, in a supplementary directive to the Inquiry into Youth Crime Boards to shorten the investigation period. The inquiry submitted the report "A state order with crime-preventive measures for children and young people" on May 8, 2024. The inquiry proposes an order with state ownership to decide on and follow up on individual crime-preventive measures for young people who risk committing serious crimes. The inquiry also proposes that a national state agency against youth crime with regional decision-making bodies shall be established. The report has been referred for consultation and is now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Working out a bill based on the proposals in the report and implementing the administrative model that the Investigation on Youth Crime Committees proposes is a complex and extensive process. In order for the implementation of the process to be as effective as possible, the investigation proposes that the government should appoint a special investigator with the mandate to prepare and implement the reform as well as supplement the investigation's proposals in necessary parts. The investigation further considers, among other things, that a more in-depth analysis of issues regarding secrecy and data protection linked to the new order is required and that secrecy-breaking provisions in the area of social services should be further investigated.
Based on the evaluations of the Danish system that I have received, the Danish model has not shown sufficient results. Furthermore, a majority of the referral bodies are completely or partially negative towards the proposals in the report, while only a few are positive. In addition, the government has begun a reorganization of both social policy and criminal policy, which in various parts has implications for the investigation's proposals.
In this context, the bill A preventive social services act – for increased rights, obligations and opportunities, which contains proposals for a new social services act, the proposals in the memorandum A law on interventions within social services to guardians, children and young people when consent is lacking, the cooperation structure Bob (children and young people in organized crime), whose purpose is to strengthen and streamline the work of preventing children and young people from ending up in serious crime through concrete measures and interventions, as well as the proposals from the Inquiry on stricter rules for young offenders, should be particularly mentioned.
All this combined means that the design of the proposals from the Inquiry on youth crime boards needs to be analyzed carefully, partly so that the collective measures against youth crime will be purposeful, and partly to secure a coherent care chain. Social development requires that we focus on effective measures. We are therefore working intensively on this important issue.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
Now I intend to challenge the Minister with four questions. I know that we politicians find it very difficult to answer yes-and-no questions and according to points from interpellants. But I intended, in any case, to give the Minister for Social Services the opportunity.
My first question is: What is meant in the Tidö Agreement by that one should trial youth crime boards? What does it mean to trial them during this mandate period? Does it mean that one should have a practical operation running?
My second question is: Has a specific investigator been appointed, something that is requested by the investigation? If not, when will such an investigation be in place?
My third question is: Is there any possibility of implementing the proposal during the mandate period? Is that ambition still there? Is there such a theoretical possibility, based on the Minister's answer?
My fourth and final question is: If the government has not yet decided whether youth crime boards should be introduced, when will we know if the youth crime boards will become a reality? Will that announcement be able to be given in the near future?
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer to the question regarding youth crime boards and whether the SD government is willing to also examine this proposal in precisely the way presented in the Tidö Agreement, an answer that we have just heard and received since a few hours ago. It is an interesting answer.
Let me begin with the part that concerns what conclusions we can draw from the Danish system. As we heard regarding what the minister has taken note of, the Danish order has not shown sufficient results.
For those who follow Swedish politics and for me as a member of the Committee on Justice, eyes are often turned precisely towards Denmark. In that debate, it could not have escaped anyone that just that part of the Danish crime policy concerning, for example, the visitation zones—a law that now celebrates one year here in Sweden as security zones—lacked just empirical data and experience. There was very weak evidence that just that legislation would be a decisive and important part for breaking down the serious organized crime in Sweden. Nevertheless, just this law was introduced here by the Swedish Riksdag, despite the fact that there were insufficient results to bring home to Sweden.
Many criminologists and debaters, both Danish and Swedish, point out that the Danish crime policy is built on two pillars. One is to go hard on gang crime with double sentences for gang criminals, more tools for the police than we have seen here in Sweden, and longer sentences for those who commit serious crimes.
The second part is about powerfully breaking the recruitment into gangs, Madam Speaker. It is about free leisure club activities, that is to say, no children and young people should even risk ending up in situations where the gangs are standing and tempting them with cheap promises of clothes, quick hits, or whatever it may be. In Denmark, it has been realized that what keeps children and young people away from crime is strong parents, safe residential areas, a school that functions, and not least a leisure activity that all children and young people have the opportunity to participate in. It therefore requires both.
In that part, one might wonder why the government does not choose to draw the conclusion that it is precisely these activities that should be promoted and protected in Sweden. In recent years, we are seeing an underfunding of the state's grants to municipalities, which in turn results in deficits in the municipalities and fewer employees in our schools. It is tough for social workers and tough in the preventive work.
Thus, the Swedish recruitment crane stands wide open. The police say that approximately 1,700 children and young people under 18 are in the criminal networks, and the Investigation into Youth Crime Boards argues that more measures are required to intervene earlier with those who risk falling into youth crime.
I wonder when the government will take all the alarm signals seriously. When is it time to truly close the recruitment tap? Why is it not a proposal that one can imagine moving forward with, specifically youth crime boards?
I repeat my question: Has the government dismissed the proposal entirely, or will you proceed even in this part?
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Madam Speaker! I must say that it is extremely challenging to have two wise interpellants but still only have four minutes to answer! I will, however, do my very, very best.
Let me begin by saying that it is naturally absolutely crucial that we stop the recruitment to the criminal networks. I do not believe there is any politician in this chamber who does not agree with us here that this must happen.
I also believe that everyone agrees that the investigation commissioned by the Social Democratic government has a very good underlying purpose. It is truly society's task to protect children from being involved in crime and criminality with all that it entails of vulnerability.
It is incredibly important that the measures we take become effective and purposeful. The Government is working in a number of different areas with both implemented reforms and reforms that are on the way. Those reforms must not hinder one another; instead, what we do must become effective.
This government has, just like the previous one, commissioned a number of inquiries – not least after several announcements from the Committee on Justice. We are prepared to examine everything. Therefore, we investigated the matter and allocated funds to ensure that the inquiry would be completed faster than the previous government did. It was because we are prepared to examine everything, but it must not happen at the expense of this not functioning better.
One can say that we are testing an intervention that UKN provides through the Bob structure, which to a very large extent addresses the problem of coordinating all the constituent structures. They have until now not been coordinated at local, regional, and national levels.
That the special investigator mentioned in the investigation on UKN has not been appointed is because we are also looking at what the overall picture will become in light of the bill A preventive social services act – for increased rights, obligations and opportunities. It is an important part of the work. It is about being able to work preventively at an early stage to identify and work with children in the risk group.
The compulsory care act is highlighted in several of the referral bodies' submissions and is also an important part. It is, therefore, a law regarding interventions from the social services to guardians, children and young people when consent is lacking. It gives us other tools. When traveling around the country and meeting the country's social services, it is very many social workers who specifically request other tools. Half of the country's guardians, in fact, refuse the interventions that the social services offer.
I want to return to the Bob assignment. It concerns a cooperation structure that a number of authorities in Sweden have been tasked to establish in order to create a coherent work with children and young people who risk committing or commit serious crimes. It is an assignment similar to the work with youth crime boards. It reinforces and streamlines the work with children and young people who end up in serious crime. In the final report of the Bob assignment, it was stated that Bob will reinforce the existing forms of cooperation locally.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister may not become a world champion in concrete answers in bullet points. But that is not what we are competing in either. I interpret the answer as that, regarding whether youth crime boards shall be tried, it is the government's ambition to refer to other forms of cooperation, and consequently, no special investigator has been appointed. That is an important announcement.
What surprises me a little is that there was such an incredible hurry that one even shortened the investigation period. I quote the Minister for Social Services: ”The Government is deeply concerned that young people are being recruited into criminal networks and we must take all measures we can to meet this. Protecting children and pushing back crime are some of our highest priority issues. Therefore, it is important to shorten the investigation period.”
Then it was a hurry, but since the government got the investigation in place, not much has happened at the Government Offices. It has been nearly a year since an investigation came out saying that we must have an investigator who looks closer at certain issues – but no investigator has been appointed yet. It feels like something has happened regarding the attitude towards youth crime boards.
I personally think that youth crime boards are a very good proposal. I was in Denmark and met those who work with such things, and they said that they opened up opportunities to work in a completely different way with youths heading towards serious crime. One could, for example, ensure that someone received help to get to a football practice which was important so that the child would not end up in deep crime. This was investigated in a board. There was a seriousness and a weight in the board's decisions that the social services had to abide by. I perceived that there was a consensus in Swedish politics regarding what was important with the youth crime boards.
The government reduces the attempt with youth crime boards to being about Bob. I think that feels very far from how the debate sounded before the election and also after the election.
The big question is whether the government has backed down. We need to clarify it once and for all. Will we see youth crime boards being trialed during this mandate period, or is one now falling back on other already known initiatives, which we all knew were underway? It is very convenient that the Minister for Social Services refers to work that the Social Democratic government took the initiative for. But at the same time, one already knew that when the Tidö Agreement was written.
Has the criticism from the referral bodies caused the government to back down, or what is it that has happened? When the Tidö Agreement was written, there was an eagerness that caused the investigation time to be shortened. Where has that gone, and why is it no longer there?
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! I take over from where Gustaf Lantz finished and spend some time on what it means to test and investigate. It is clear that the production of an investigation is crucial for getting legislation in place. But it sounds as if the government is not prepared to truly test this tool to reach children and young people at an early stage who risk falling into serious crime, to intervene and give them an opportunity to live a non-criminal, normal life. It stopped at an investigation and the government pointing to a number of other forms of cooperation – which in themselves are very good.
It is clear that it is important that the police, social services, schools, and leisure activities cooperate and that there are Bobråd all around the country to interrupt youth crime and do everything to combat this. But I also noted that it is important for the government and for the minister not to present reforms that hinder the work that the government does in other areas.
I want to point out how it looks in reality. Out in reality, we meet municipal representatives who for a long time have warned that there are missing resources in the school, social services, and leisure activities. Therefore, I wonder if it is not the lack of resources that is hindering all the promoting and preventive measures we have in this country. They are about strengthening the families with children so that they do not have to choose between offering their children music school or football boots and putting food on the table. Where are all the initiatives that could have supported and helped the municipalities and the families to ensure that children and young people do not end up in risk environments? I do not see those initiatives.
In the reality that I and several others move in, we get the impression that the government lacks answers. If the Social Democrats had governed, we would have laid a foundation for the welfare system and added an additional 9 billion to investments in welfare. We would also have ensured that young people drifting aimlessly were identified and proceeded with proposals such as that of youth crime boards to be able to intervene earlier and provide support to those who are in a risk zone.
In one case, this proposal is about exactly what Gustaf Lantz pointed out earlier, namely what we encountered in Denmark. There, it is said: You who are young and who have ended up in a risk environment shall have the right to an intervention. This is missing today. It may be because the municipalities are faced with economic realities, or one might end up falling between the chairs in an administration. We believe that it is important to take the young person's side and say: When one has ended up in a situation where there is a risk of serious crime, society shall do everything so that the individual can stand up and get a chance to live a normal and non-criminal life.
A ruling in such a committee could give the person a right to be able to manage in school, be active in their free time, and prepare to take a summer job. Society should then support the person through this life situation. Through that, I believe we can truly build a strong society that can close the recruitment tap to all those evil and negative forces that are currently operating around us and lure more and more young people into serious crime.
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Madam Speaker! This government wants to stop the recruitment for real by strengthening existing things and reforms that work. The members, on the other hand, apparently want more agencies and more bureaucracy.
I would advise the members to read what the referral bodies have said. If the members meant that one should not listen to the referral bodies, I hope I misunderstood. I can, to begin with, recount what a party colleague of the members has written. The Social Welfare Councilor in Stockholm, Alexander Ojanne, states in the referral response from the City of Stockholm that the negative aspects of the proposal outweigh the positive aspects and that this should make all decision-makers, regardless of party affiliation, want to pause and dare to rethink.
I also note that from the cities where we have the greatest concerns with crime and recruitment – Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, our three largest cities, all of which are governed by Social Democrats – we have received powerful referral responses rejecting the proposal. They do not want it to go through.
When the members visit reality, I urge them to also take in what their own party comrades express powerfully. The fact is that we have not received a single positive referral response from any of Sweden's municipalities. We have actually received quite few positive referral responses overall.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my previous speech, the proposal risks having a poorer effect by short-circuiting our own systems. We need to consider that. It would be interesting to get the members' views on what the respective party representatives express forcefully in the referral responses.
The government is now doing a number of different things. We are strengthening the family through, among other things, a parenting support. We are strengthening the school, which we know is one of the most important prevention factors, through an investment in school social teams. We see that more and more municipalities are seeking these funds and building up school social teams, which is only part of a reinforcing effort. This is the kind of thing that makes a real difference.
I also share the view that in addition to family and school as prevention factors, it is also important that one gets a meaningful leisure time – all of this is research-based. Therefore, the government has also launched the leisure card, which is a step in ensuring that all children and young people shall have the opportunity for a positive and meaningful leisure time away from crime and into something very positive.
It is naturally pleasing that Member Lantz, on behalf of his party, tries to take credit for these efforts. But the Member is well aware that all the matters that the previous government began to investigate followed announcements in the Committee on Justice and the Committee on Social Affairs.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
To begin with, it is simply not true that everything that is happening now and that the previous government took the initiative for was prompted by announcements. The Minister knows that it is not true. The decision on the new Social Services Act was made in 2017. It has been a great deal of work, and I am very happy that we have reached the finish line with it together. It is unnecessary to seek polemics about it.
Sometimes polemics can be good. Finally, we received a straight and honest answer. The Minister for Social Services argued with emphasis against youth crime boards, even though it has been written into the Tidö Agreement that this shall be tested during the mandate period. Now we know that. It would have saved a lot of time if it had been stated in the written interpellation response so that we could have prepared for the debate. But I truly thank you for the answer.
It is amusing that the Minister for Social Services, for once, is so concerned about what social democratic local politicians think. She shows an enormous interest in whether things that have not yet had time to be evaluated are based on evidence.
There is much of what was written in the Tidö Agreement regarding crime and social policy that has not been able to be supported by evidence. I think it is strange that such high demands are being placed regarding specifically youth crime boards. The Danes I have met who work with this system view this very positively, but it is of course difficult to say what direct connection it has to crime because there are so many other variables.
Does the government set the same requirements on all areas that the Tidö Agreement has bearing on in terms of what results can be demonstrated?
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Madam Speaker! I could have stood here in the Riksdag's rostrum and drawn a few examples from other parts of the country where Moderate representatives join in behind wise Social Democratic policy. For example, it happens in Södertälje, where we govern together. There, local Moderates realize that this issue with forced LOV is something that feeds serious organized crime. We do not have control over it; instead, we funnel millions out to it. And in total, billions are funneled out of our welfare systems straight into the pockets of criminal organizations and unscrupulous companies. It is clear that we must find each other and join hands to plug this and together take responsibility for the country.
Stockholm came up as an example of where there is resistance to just this reform. I can tell everyone watching, for Madam Speaker and for the Minister, that I have quite good talks with Stockholm City Hall. There are several points even here where we could join forces to make the politics better.
If the government had laid a foundation in welfare and invested money in equipping the most vulnerable and lagging schools, supported social services, and built a stronger leisure activity by maintaining state subsidies to the municipalities, we could have made an even greater difference. Now it is going in the right direction regarding safety issues and the work being done here in Stockholm as well. But we could have done more if the national level had supported the municipal level.
I am sending along a small request that the Minister's government colleague Gunnar Strömmer should fill the police shortage of 1,000 police officers that this region has. We can take hold of this, and then we can go even further in the fight against the criminal organizations.
Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the commitment to give all children and young people a good leisure time, and I believe that together we can do even more to plug the recruitment gap.
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank the members for their engaged contributions on this important issue. There is no doubt that we must stop the recruitment of children and young people into criminal networks. We must, however, read all investigations with some skepticism, and if not only Social Democratic representatives but all municipalities are skeptical, we must take this skepticism seriously. I therefore advise the members to have this as an evening's task for a while ahead, so that we can perhaps have a more constructive discussion about what is important and meaningful and what is feasible to do. The proposals are still being prepared in the Government Offices, and how they will ultimately look is too early to say.
The government is, as stated, working on a number of different measures. It concerns the Social Services Act, intermediate measures, and not least Bob, i.e., being able to break confidentiality to provide the correct information between different authorities, which will be an extremely essential part of the work to stop the recruitment.
When it comes to Denmark, an effect has not been able to be seen for 15–17-year-olds. It concerns a preliminary study of the first 380 cases, where the improvement programs as decided in the boards were shorter than today. But the latest research shows that it is difficult to find control groups for the age group 10–14 years and thus demonstrate an effect, while there are no significant results of the reform for the age group 15–16 years. We must therefore see what is on the table and place it in a Swedish context.
The government will, however, continue to work continuously to ensure that the recruitment of children and young people into criminal networks is stopped.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.