Temporary execution of Swedish prison sentences abroad

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's proposal that Swedish prison sentences may temporarily be executed abroad. Let me begin with the fundamental: Swedish correctional services shall fundamentally be conducted in Sweden. The person sentenced by a Swedish court shall serve their sentence under Swedish control, with Swedish legal certainty and with Swedish requirements for security, rehabilitation, and reintegration. That is the Social Democrats' principled starting point.

Mr. Speaker! We must also face reality. The correctional services are under severe pressure. The occupancy is extreme, and the staff are working under a heavy workload. At the same time, we know that more people will be sentenced to longer terms over the coming years.

It is fundamentally a consequence of society responding more harshly to crime. We think that is right. Those who commit serious crimes should be met with clear consequences. But then the entire justice chain must also function. It is not enough with harsher sentences if the state does not simultaneously manage to expand the capacity in the correctional services. Here, I believe the government is still lagging behind.

Mr. Speaker! It is not just about crime policy. It is also about the state's presence throughout the country. When the state builds new institutions, it is about long-term investments, qualified jobs, and a secure state presence even outside the large cities. These are good jobs, and they are important jobs. They are jobs that should come to more parts of Sweden.

We Social Democrats want to see a significantly clearer national governance of the expansion of the correctional services. The state cannot simply hope that it will resolve itself. It requires faster processes, long-term planning, and a clear political will to actually expand Swedish correctional services here at home and in the entire country.

It is about something larger than just the correctional services' capacity. All around Sweden, there are municipalities that have raised their hands. These are municipalities that have prepared land, worked out detailed plans, and shown that they want to be part of the solution, but which are still waiting for a decision.

There are also places like Kalmar where the correctional services are already established and where there has been an opportunity to expand the operations faster over a long period. Municipalities such as Munkfors, Hagfors, Norrköping and Malung-Sälen have also shown in different ways that they want to contribute.

We Social Democrats have also submitted proposals to be able to shorten lead times, simplify processes and give clearer assignments to Specialfastigheter. We believe that the expansion should be able to go faster. When the government is now forced to seek prison places abroad, it is also a testament to the fact that the expansion here at home has not kept the pace that the situation has required.

Mr. Speaker! We still stand behind the government's proposal because the situation is as serious as it is. But we do so with great caution. It must not become a permanent solution, and it must not become a way to postpone the responsibility to build capacity in Sweden.

This must be seen for what it is: An extraordinary measure in an extraordinary situation. At the same time, it places high demands. Legal certainty must be guaranteed, and Swedish requirements must be upheld. Oversight must function, and the quality of execution must be high.

The Prison and Probation Service has a dual mandate. Punishment must be carried out. But people must also be able to return without relapsing into crime. This requires treatment, education, and functioning rehabilitation. After serving a sentence, one should emerge better. That mandate must not be lost.

Mr. Speaker! In the short term, the lack of space must be managed. But in the long term, Sweden must build up a criminal justice system with sufficient capacity, a good working environment, and a strong state presence throughout the country. That is the path we Social Democrats want to take.

We say yes to this proposal. But at the same time, we will continue to push for more Swedish prison places, more correctional services employees and more state jobs across the country. Security shall be built in Sweden, and the capacity shall be in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In an interpellation debate that I had with Gunnar Strömmer at the beginning of 2025, Member Lars Isacsson chose to enter the debate. The Member was then very upset about the plans to place Swedish prisoners abroad and called the proposal "expensive, inefficient and unrealistic." The Member also said that this was proof that we were "really bad nationalists."

Now we stand here in the chamber, a little more than a year later. The Social Democrats have shifted on this issue, just as they have shifted on many other issues precisely because it is an election year.

For almost eight years – first during the Social Democrats' own period in government and then during our period in government – the Social Democrats have opposed the plans to temporarily solve the capacity shortage in Swedish detention centers. This has been done by not building detention centers during their own period in government and also by, until now, opposing our proposals to place prisoners abroad.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear. I am very positive about people and parties changing their opinions on issues and approaching our politics. Everyone who wants to pursue Sweden Democrat politics shall, of course, be allowed to pursue Sweden Democrat politics.

It would have been interesting to hear from the member what it was that made the Social Democrats go from thinking that the proposal was expensive, inefficient, unrealistic and a proof that we were bad nationalists to now wanting to pursue Sweden Democrat politics.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Pontus Andersson Garpvall for the question!

I also remember the debate we had then. I haven't actually changed my opinion on it. I think that fundamentally it is a proposal that we should not have. But it is also a matter of fixing things as they come. It is a bit of a stretch to be forced and compelled to do so.

We should have expanded earlier so that we did not end up here. I believe that the jobs should benefit Swedish workers. We are missing a great opportunity to get new state jobs all around in the whole of Sweden.

We have said that we are doing this as a temporary solution because we see that the need is so great. But fundamentally, I still think that it is a very bad proposal.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Just as the member says, it is a temporary solution. It is not a question of placing prisoners abroad and not building new prisons in Sweden. It is a question of either placing prisoners abroad or having, in rotation, 2,000 people who go free without an ankle bracelet while waiting for a prison space.

The fact is that the prison expansion is in full swing. Since the 2022 election, we have arranged an additional approximately 2,000 prison places in Sweden or, to put it in a way that makes it easier to understand how fast the expansion has been, increased the capacity by approximately ten places per week.

It has been about bunk beds in cells, and some cells are as small as under six square meters. It has been about modular prisons on prison yards or renovations of visiting rooms or similar areas at correctional facilities.

We have new detention centers in the works in, among other places, Trelleborg and Värnamo. Expansion is being built in Hall, Karlskoga, Österåker, Ystad and not least in Kalmar. Since the change of government, we have made decisions on a total of 6,300 new detention places that are in the works.

Given the offensive we are conducting against crime in society – an offensive that I believe is unparalleled in modern times – there is a need for resources right now.

I am, of course, happy that the Social Democrats choose to join in. Without you, it would not have been possible. It is a policy that needed to be pursued much earlier but which only became a reality now that we get to be part of governing Sweden.

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

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat striking how satisfied the Sweden Democrat member is with the pace of expansion. We are absolutely not satisfied with it. It could happen much faster, and it could have been steered faster.

It is good that a national coordinator with experience as a municipal council member has been appointed. I had hoped that person would have been given more mandate. I am incredibly annoyed by when the state has such poor self-confidence in its recruitments.

It is said that it is most often municipal councilors who overestimate their own labor market who raise their hands and want establishments. The industries can recruit, but when it is the state, it doesn't work. There, no one can work.

The government with SD as a support party has a track record regarding state presence in the country that is frightening. One can only take the part of Sweden that I come from, Dalarna.

During this mandate period, police stations in Leksand, Rättvik, and Vansbro have been closed. Service offices in Ludvika and Mora have been shut down. The Arbetsförmedlingen in Falun has been shut down, and the commuting traffic between Ludvika and Borlänge has been reduced. There is hardly anything left that the state can remove.

Here, a great opportunity is being missed. Steer this more firmly! Do not be satisfied with just being involved, but ensure that you steer the authorities and ensure that the jobs are distributed throughout all of Sweden and to Swedish workers!

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! This government's policy raises many questions, not least regarding its competence and what it has for future goals for Sweden.

One can say a lot about the Alliance government. Many felt that Sweden became a colder and harder country during its time. Above all, it was then that we could see the police's concern that gang recruitment among young people risked increasing in the long run. A strongly contributing cause was that people became socioeconomically vulnerable to a greater extent.

The worst thing the alliance government did was to fundamentally change how Sweden was built. There are many who will never forgive that government for the damage it inflicted on Sweden. The police's predictions unfortunately came true, because the government ignored the warnings. The damages to Sweden became great during that time and still are. Ulf Kristersson's government, the Tidö government, makes the damages even worse.

We are debating today a question that concerns fundamental principles. If a person is sentenced in Sweden – should that person not then serve their sentence in Sweden? Now that we live in an increasingly internationalized world, this may seem like a question that is not so serious. This is not so dangerous, one might think. But it actually concerns taking a first step into hitherto completely new and untrodden territory.

This government seems to be very ambitious. The goal appears to be to sentence as many people as possible to long prison sentences, and this in as short a time as possible.

Today, Sweden stands at approximately 90–92 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, which is lower than the EU average. If the government succeeds, we in Sweden will risk reaching over 300 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants and then end up in the same league as Turkey in terms of number of convicted per capita. The highest levels in the EU are today at around 190–200 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. Sweden would thus go from being below the average to having the most prisoners in all of the EU. We are talking about a tripling of the prison levels in Sweden.

I am convinced that we will not hear any regret whatsoever from the Tidö parties over this, because it is, after all, completely in line with the type of society they strive for. They want to recast Sweden. They do not like the welfare society we have built up together. Instead of investing in school, elderly care, and healthcare, they want the resources to go toward keeping people locked up. Instead of preventing and ensuring that crime does not spread in society, they want to be tough and hard.

I do not want anyone to misunderstand me, so let me be extremely clear here. Otherwise, it will come as a bolt from the blue that what I advocate for would be so-called "juice-and-bun" policy. If one commits a crime in Sweden, one should be punished. There are reasons for that, and some punishments even need to be increased. Punishment serves a function, so that both society and the crime victim can feel that they receive redress.

It is therefore important that we all understand that it is a question of feeling that we are addressing, and not crime fighting. I want it noted here that many advocates of harsher punishments claim crime fighting as an argument. There is much that indicates that such connections are highly questionable.

What the government now has as a goal creates, on the other hand, extreme problems both in the long term and in the short term. The government wants to increase all penalties and wants Sweden to have many prison inmates, so many that we would thus have the highest level in the entire EU – and that with a good margin.

The big problem is that there are not enough prisons and prison places. Therefore, the government is trying to solve the whole thing by signing an agreement with Estonia that the country shall receive a large number of prisoners. This, Mr. Speaker, is madness from several perspectives.

The first thing is that the fundamental principles of the rule of law are being torn up. If some of the prisoners who have committed similar types of crimes serve their sentences in Sweden and some in Estonia, it is no longer a question of equivalent sentences. On a personal level, one might think that it doesn't matter all that much, but one must be clear about one thing: If this principle is torn up within one area, which area is next?

The second, and perhaps most serious, is that this is not just about Sweden. In Estonia, the issue is extremely hotly debated. The sitting government is deeply unpopular as a direct consequence of just this agreement – to such an extent that it will very likely lose the election next year unless a miracle occurs. The opposition in Estonia has promised to tear up the agreement immediately, with immediate effect. Even if one were to happen to be a strong advocate for putting prisoners in prison in Estonia, this should be an alarm bell to take into account.

The government now risks not only undermining the principles of the rule of law; it also risks placing Sweden in an extremely difficult situation as early as a year from now if the opposition in Estonia wins the election, which strongly suggests that they will do.

If Estonia cancels the agreement, we will need to handle the situation quickly, something that Sweden, therefore, will not be ready to do because it is precisely the lack of space that is already from the beginning the reason why the government wants the agreement with Estonia.

What the members of the Swedish Riksdag need to give some serious thought to – because the decision rests in our hands – is whether it is particularly wise to proceed with making this decision at all. The risk is imminent that the next government, whatever form it may take, will have a major hangover to deal with within just one year. I would very much like to avoid having to stand here again then and say: What was it I said?

I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! "By ensuring that there are established opportunities to rent space in other countries in the short term, we get the opportunity to counter temporary peaks of overcrowding in Swedish prisons."

So my colleague Adam Marttinen wrote in a committee motion eight years ago. In the motion, he argued and showed that Sweden, due to increasing crime and future sentencing increases, will have a capacity shortage in Swedish prisons – at the same time as the costs for prison places in Sweden are the highest in the entire EU. In the motion, he mentions Estonia as a possible place to house Swedish prisoners.

Now we stand here, eight years later, with a shortage of space in Swedish institutions due to the increased crime in Sweden and due to the Tidö parties' sentencing toughening, and with a proposal to finally be able to place Swedish prison-sentenced individuals in institutions in just Estonia, at two-thirds of the cost in Sweden. Imagine if previous governing parties had ever listened to the Sverigedemokraterna in time!

Today we are therefore debating the issue of the temporary execution of Swedish prison places abroad. All parties, with the exception of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, support the proposal. The question we are debating today is therefore not a question of either placing prisoners in Estonia or building new institutions in Sweden. There is no such contradiction here.

Since the 2022 election, we have enabled an additional 2,000 Swedish prison places, and a total of 6,300 have been decided since the 2022 election. The question we are debating concerns solving a temporary shortage of Swedish prison places in a situation where over 2,000 people are released without an ankle bracelet while waiting for a prison place. We simply need this to solve an acute situation, a situation that has arisen because previous governing politicians did not take their responsibility and acted in time.

It is no secret that the increased crime in Sweden is rooted in the extreme mass immigration that the Sweden Democrats were previously the only party to oppose. The serious crime in Sweden consists largely of persons from other countries or second-generation immigrants. These criminals would not have needed to be here if a reasonable migration policy had been pursued a long time ago.

In Swedish institutions, approximately one-fifth have foreign citizenship. One might then ask: What are they still doing in Sweden? The fact is that we would not have had the same lack of space in Swedish institutions if the persons with foreign citizenship were subtracted, even though our criminal policy measures will cause the need for space to increase over time.

It is enormous costs. All the billions that are now being thrown at the need for new facilities are also a consequence of the irresponsible migration policy. We are therefore not only counting the billions that are spent on SFI, the billions that municipalities spend on social benefits to immigrants who never work and on their healthcare, and the billions that need to be spent on making the law enforcement authorities larger, but also that Kriminalvården's total appropriation increases from 14 billion per year in 2023 to 32 billion per year in 2028. This is tax money that could have gone to Swedish healthcare, to Swedish schools, or to elderly care.

But those who wanted this immigration to Sweden were also prepared to pay that price, at the expense of the Swedish welfare and the security of Swedish law-abiding citizens.

Now, the Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties are choosing a different path to resolve the situation that has arisen. Asylum migration to Sweden is at its lowest ever. We are introducing tests in social studies and Swedish to become a citizen in Sweden, while one must be unconvicted and self-sufficient, have an honest conduct, and have lived in Sweden for at least eight years. We are introducing qualification for welfare for those who have come to Sweden, and we are withdrawing social benefits for people who are in Sweden illegally.

Regarding correctional care, we now have an agreement with Somalia where we condition a part of the aid on them accepting their own convicted citizens. Similar agreements can be concluded with other countries in the future, just as similar agreements on prison places abroad can also be concluded with other countries in the future if these places are needed. Now we stand here and deliver the message that we will rent 600 prison places in Estonia at two-thirds of what the prison places would have cost in Sweden.

In short: It is, to say the least, a mess that previous governing politicians have caused in Sweden, a mess that in no way can be solved in four years. We will need to continue this work for many years to come, a work that in the long run will make Sweden both safer, freer, and more Swedish.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not intend to touch upon the racism that Pontus Andersson Garpvall spat out from the rostrum just now. I intend to ask another question.

He talks very much about a mess that someone else has caused. We know that it is an incredibly tense situation in the politics in Estonia right now. It is a direct consequence of the agreement we are now debating regarding sending prison inmates to Estonia, which the Sverigedemokraterna are beating themselves up over that they intend to do. At the same time, we know that the opposition in Estonia, who are party colleagues in the EU Parliament to Pontus Andersson Garpvall, have promised that if they win the election in Estonia in March next year, which everything indicates they will do, they intend to tear up this agreement with immediate effect.

Why have Pontus Andersson Garpvall and the Sverigedemokraterna not had contact with the opposition in Estonia to guarantee that the agreement will hold even if there were a change in majority in Estonia?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe above all in the principle that it is we Swedes who rule in Sweden and that it is those who live in Estonia who rule in Estonia. I see no reason for me as a Swede to tell Estonians how they should rule Estonia, and in the same way, I do not want Estonians to tell me how we should rule our country.

This is just one agreement. There are other countries around in the EU. Denmark has placed prisoners abroad in other places. If the shortage of space in Sweden is still large after the expansion we are doing and if Estonia were to potentially tear up the agreement, there is nothing that says we cannot sign new agreements with other countries around in the EU or in other parts of the world.

Now we have taken a line where we have chosen that the prison standards for those we send abroad shall not be lower than in Sweden. I have no problem with compromising on that principle in order to ensure that those in Sweden who are sentenced to prison also get to serve their sentences. The alternative is that we have persons who go free without ankle monitors out in society, perhaps here in Stockholm, awaiting a prison place. These people need to be locked up as soon as possible for the safety of ordinary people in Sweden.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Pontus Andersson Garpvall does not answer with a single word to the question I asked. I ask it again: Why has Pontus Andersson Garpvall not contacted his sister parties in Estonia? They are in opposition now, are deeply critical of the agreement, and have promised that they will tear it up if they win the election next year. That means that we will then not have an agreement. The prisoners we send to Estonia from August will not be able to stay there if Pontus Andersson Garpvall's party colleagues win the election next year. That raises very big questions.

Of course, every country decides for itself. But in the same way that support has been sought from other parties here in Sweden, one should have ensured that there is support in Estonia to guarantee that the agreement will hold. It is more in Sweden's interest, or perhaps primarily in the Sweden Democrats' and the Tidö government's interest, that the agreement holds over time. But that is not what will happen. As the opinion situation currently looks in Estonia, the sitting government will lose, and then the agreement will be torn up.

How have the Sweden Democrats intended to handle that situation?

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

Pontus Andersson Garpvall (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to Samuel Gonzalez Westling, it almost feels as if he hopes that our sister party will achieve a good result in the Estonian election. Naturally, I do too.

I believe in a Europe of nations, a Europe where we in Sweden – the Swedes, Swedish citizens – rule over the politics we are to conduct here, and so those in Estonia may vote in the politicians they want to rule in Estonia with the politics they are prepared to conduct. I will never attempt to interfere in another country's politics and try to get them to do something that they may consider to be worse for their own citizens. It is the Estonians' business to develop the politics there.

If we were to end up in a situation where Estonia actually tears up the agreement, there are infinite possibilities to get new agreements with other countries around the world that do not have the shortage of space that we have in Sweden.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not support the government's proposal to rent detention places in Estonia. Previously, we have pointed out how the proposal is associated with great risks and questioned how legal certainty and Swedish standards shall be guaranteed in detention centers abroad. In the government's bill, some of the questions that have existed previously are partially answered, but not in a satisfactory way, we believe.

The proposal in the government's bill means that the Estonian correctional services shall be responsible for the execution, that Estonian law shall be applied, and that the facility shall primarily be staffed by Estonian personnel. This stands in clear contrast to the proposal in the first memorandum Rent prison places abroad from January 2025, where the assessment was that Swedish law would apply even during execution in Estonia. From that starting point, the investigation has not conducted a thorough review of the Estonian legislation or analyzed which parts of the law will be applied.

When the government's own investigation points in one direction and the bill in another, it is evident that fundamental questions regarding legal certainty have not been investigated. Despite the assessment in this first department memorandum from January 2025 that Swedish law should be able to apply to those detained in Estonian prisons, several heavy referral bodies still direct sharp criticism at the investigation's proposals, including the Institute for Human Rights, the Chancellor of Justice, the Swedish Bar Association, and Lund University. They assess that the execution of a Swedish prison sentence at a facility abroad will not be equivalent to execution at a facility in Sweden.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman is clear that there must be equivalence in the forms of different prison sentences, regardless of whether they are served in Sweden or abroad. When the government now presents a proposal where Swedish law is not to apply during execution in Estonia, it is obvious that equivalence cannot be guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker! In the memorandum Temporary execution of Swedish prison sentences abroad from September 2025, it states: ”On 18 June 2025, an agreement was signed between Sweden and Estonia on the execution of Swedish prison sentences in Estonia … The agreement implies, among other things, that the Estonian criminal justice authority shall be responsible for the execution and that Estonian legislation shall apply as a starting point.”

I support the proposal for legislation needed to enable the implementation of the agreement with Estonia and other similar agreement structures. Although we now primarily have the agreement with Estonia on the table, it may in the future also be a question of whether the Swedish detainees should be placed in other countries. The Government writes in the bill that the law is proposed to be generally designed so that it can be applied in relation to all states with which Sweden has entered or may come to enter corresponding agreements.

The Institute for Human Rights emphasizes in its consultation response to the second memorandum that it is of utmost importance that Swedish enforcement law is applied during enforcement abroad and that the order involving the application of the receiving country's legislation cannot be considered compatible with requirements for legal certainty, predictability, and equality. The Government chooses not to take that into account and writes in the bill, among other things, that it collectively, unlike the Institute for Human Rights, considers that an application of Estonia's enforcement legislation with the adaptations that have been made in the agreement is compatible with requirements for legal certainty, predictability, and equality.

Furthermore, the government considers that no further account of the meaning of the Estonian legislation, for example regarding visits and electronic communication, is required in the manner requested by the Administrative Court in Linköping, the legal institution at Umeå University, the Chancellor of Justice, and Värmland District Court.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal that Swedish law shall not apply at Estonian facilities where those detained from Sweden are to serve their sentences is just one of many flaws in the government's proposal that contribute to the fact that Miljöpartiet cannot stand behind the bill.

Both the Institute for Human Rights and the Bar Association reject the proposals in their entirety. The Institute warns of the risk that international standards for deprivation of liberty are not complied with in Estonian prisons and that Swedish supervision possibilities are significantly weakened. The Swedish Bar Association emphasizes that the right to an effective appeal risks being eroded and that permissions and release measures are worsened when detainees are to be placed outside Sweden's borders. Miljöpartiet shares the criticism raised by these and many other referral bodies.

The fact that Estonian law shall apply for those admitted from Sweden, that Swedish authorities' possibilities to exercise supervision are limited, that the possibilities for appeal, permissions, and release risk being weakened, that the right to private and family life is restricted, and that the proposal's compatibility with EU law is questioned means collectively that we cannot support this proposal.

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Swedish detention centers and institutions is acute with overcrowding and high workloads, which entails risks for staff and detainees. Miljöpartiet believes that the Prison and Probation Service should be relieved through sustainable reforms in Sweden, not through legally secure solutions abroad. We want to strengthen the Prison and Probation Service's conditions to hire and train more staff, reduce double occupancy, and improve rehabilitation, care, and recidivism prevention work so that fewer people reoffend.

Miljöpartiet also wants to reduce the burden on the staff by ensuring that more people who are suitable for it can serve their sentences under electronic surveillance. At the same time, we oppose proposals from the government that fill the prisons at a faster rate than the Prison and Probation Service can handle and which lack sufficient support in research and sufficient consideration for the Prison and Probation Service's capacity. This applies, among other things, to the proposals to establish youth prisons, lower the age of criminal responsibility, and introduce double sentences for gang criminals.

The Council on Legislation considers that the proposed law should be time-limited. Several referral bodies, such as the legal institution at Umeå University, also point out that the law should be followed up with a proper evaluation. It is a reasonable and necessary procedure that Miljöpartiet stands behind.

When the legislator introduces a law that will be so intrusive for the detainees to be covered, their relatives and also Swedish taxpayers, there must be a clear mechanism to review whether the law has truly been necessary and whether it has yielded the intended results, as well as what consequences it has had for legal certainty and the fundamental freedoms and rights.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government is now carrying out the largest offensive against crime in Swedish history. It is about a strengthening of the entire justice chain, new tools for law enforcement agencies, a complete renovation of crime prevention work, and a complete review of the entire penal code.

We want to shift the focus from the perpetrator to the crime victim. The sentences must reflect the severity of the crimes. The government intends to introduce double sentences for crimes committed in gang criminal environments. Today's form of bulk discount shall be abolished, and the rules for parole have been tightened.

Imprisonment aims to provide redress to the crime victims and to give the perpetrator the opportunity to re-enter open society as a law-abiding member of society after the sentence. Imprisonment also, and not least, aims to protect society from the perpetrator. The question of toughening the sentences is therefore ultimately a matter of justice.

To manage all of this, the Prison and Probation Service needs to be significantly expanded, which is also happening. It is therefore quite bold, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Social Democrats complain about the pace of prison expansion in Sweden. During the eight years the Social Democrats governed Sweden, 1,550 prison places were added. During the same year that gang crime exploded and the number of fatal shootings tripled, only 1,550 new places were added.

Mr. Speaker! Now the government has shifted into high gear. From 2023 to 2028, the Kriminalvårdens budget more than doubles, from 14 billion to over 30 billion. Since 2022, 5,000 new places in detention centers and prisons have been added, both through densification and through entirely new places. But the need for additional places will be great for a long time to come, and in Kriminalvårdens capacity plan for the years 2026–2035, nearly a doubling of the number of inmates in prison is projected. To this is added the non-time-limited reforms from the Straffreformutredningen which the Riksdag is expected to make decisions on in August, as well as expected rules for parole, which require an additional large number of places.

Mr. Speaker! One thing is certain: A substantial expansion of prisons and detention centers will be necessary during the ten-year period we have ahead of us. It is a matter of expanding existing detention centers and prisons, building entirely new detention centers and prisons in Sweden, and in several cases transferring the execution of the sentence to the convict's home country in cases involving foreign citizens.

Mr. Speaker! The issue we are debating today concerns the possibility of Swedish prison sentences being served in Estonia, and it is a measure taken alongside several others to ensure that persons sentenced to prison can also serve the penalty under secure conditions. To enable this arrangement, a new law on the temporary execution of prison sentences abroad, as well as adjustments to several other laws, is proposed. Furthermore, it is proposed that the Riksdag approve the agreement with Estonia that has been signed by the Swedish government.

Mr. Speaker! The agreement means that Estonia shall make 400 cells with capacity for up to 600 inmates available in the prison in Tartu for the execution of Swedish prison sentences from this summer. These 600 places correspond to a large prison in Sweden, which will mean a great deal for a heavily strained Swedish correctional service.

According to the agreement, it is the Estonian correctional authority that is responsible for the execution, with Estonian legislation as the starting point. However, there are provisions in the agreement that replace or exempt parts of the Estonian legislation so that the conditions shall, as far as possible, correspond to those prevailing in Swedish institutions. The institution shall be staffed with Estonian personnel, but some Swedish personnel will be present on site. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service also has the right to monitor the implementation of the agreement on site.

Mr. Speaker! A prerequisite for this to become a reality is that at least three-quarters of those voting at Wednesday's vote and at least half of the members of the Riksdag vote for the proposal. Pleasantly enough, there seems to be such support here in the chamber by a good margin.

But it is worth noting that without a Moderate-led government, this would not have been put in place. When we here in the chamber debated criminal justice issues last spring, it sounded completely different.

In the Social Democrats' reservation in last year's correctional services report, they were very clear that they did not want to proceed with the plans to lease prison places abroad. They expressed it as follows: "We therefore request that the government does not proceed with the plans to lease prison places abroad."

After that, the Social Democrats have gladly changed their opinion. And it should be said: It is honorable to be able to change one's opinion when one realizes that one has been wrong. The concern regarding this issue is that if the Social Democrats had been in government, they would not have started this work at all. We would therefore not have had any new legislation or any new agreement to take a position on.

We have also in the debate here today been able to take part in the posts from the Social Democrats' comrades on the red-green side, the Green Party and the Left Party, who still say a firm no to the cooperation with Estonia.

It is clear that with a red-green government, many important justice policy reforms, not least this one, would not be implemented – partly due to the Social Democrats' own inability to take initiative, and partly, and not least, due to the red-green comrades, who would function as effective brake blocks.

The Green Party and the Left Party also do not say no to the possibility that Swedish prison sentences can be executed abroad. They also want to make single occupancy the norm within the correctional services, and that is no small matter. We have today several thousand double-occupied places in detention centers and prisons – places that do not easily let themselves be replaced.

Miljöpartiet has also, as the only party, said no to giving the government the opportunity to issue regulations on necessary and time-limited exemptions from certain provisions in the Planning and Building Act, if needed to address an acute and tangible risk of a serious shortage of places.

Overall, the line pursued by Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet means that it will in practice be impossible to carry out the necessary sentence increases that the Riksdag will be dealing with in the near future.

But it doesn't stop there, for which criminals is it that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet want to be released early when there are not enough places? Is it the rapist? Or is it the gang criminal who has threatened witnesses? Or is it the one who has smuggled weapons and drugs to Sweden?

I really do not want to cast a fly in the ointment with this. It is truly pleasing that we have a broad majority behind this important cooperation with Estonia. But I still want to raise a warning finger for what a red-green government with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party would mean for Swedish justice policy.

(Applause)

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! That was a lot of chest-thumping from the Moderates' Mikael Damsgaard. We have previously heard here that the Sweden Democrats have no interest in having any international relations. But one could still imagine that the Moderates, who consider themselves a governing party and hold the Prime Minister's post and also the Minister for Justice post, would have ensured that their party comrades in the EU stood behind this agreement with Estonia. But they have not done so, because they are running for election on tearing up just that agreement which we are standing here and debating today. It doesn't matter, Mikael Damsgaard, if we have a broad majority for this agreement in this chamber, if there is not a broad majority even in Estonia's parliament, when they intend to cancel the agreement if the winds change.

I think Mikael Damsgaard owes an answer. Why have the Moderaterna not ensured that their party comrades in Estonia also stand behind this agreement, if it is so incredibly important in order to be able to guarantee that one has prison places in sufficient extent? We do not need to debate the issue otherwise, but this is specifically about this agreement. Why have the Moderaterna and Mikael Damsgaard not ensured that one has broad support in Estonia's parliament to guarantee that agreements signed hold over time?

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Left Party wants to direct attention elsewhere. They say no to important collaborations, important agreements, which could relieve the Swedish correctional services at a time when we have a severe shortage of space. I understand that the Left Party does not want to talk about that issue.

The Swedish government and Sweden have good relations with the Estonian government. I have personally been on-site in Tartu and Estonia, met the Estonian Minister of Justice, and been informed on how the execution will take place. I have seen the premises and feel very secure that this will take place in an orderly and very good manner. I believe that will also show itself in practice.

I mean that it is important that we, now that the agreement is to be implemented in practice, continue to have close contacts with Estonia – the Estonian government, Estonian authorities and the politics at large, naturally – to ensure that this is received in the best possible way.

One can have an image of what this would be about. We have here in Sweden many times had a mistaken image of what it would mean – that we are sending people away to some kind of holes in the ground somewhere. So that is really not the case. I, who have been to Estonia and seen the prison, know that these are good facilities where good correctional care will be able to be conducted.

I believe that in the same way, in their own parts of Estonia, there may be perceptions of what this could mean – that Swedish criminals will be moving around on streets and squares. So that will not be the case either, but they will be in secure custody in a safe Estonian prison.

This is naturally a question for Estonian domestic policy, but I believe there are good conditions for that even when this is in place and functions well, there will be a great acceptance even in Estonia.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is quite astonishing. Mikael Damsgaard says that he has been to Estonia. He has met the Minister of Justice there, and he has had good contacts with the Estonian government. But he has not deigned to meet his party comrades in Estonia, who are deeply critical, as the chairman of the city council in Tartu, who is deeply critical and has even sent letters to Sweden – to the Speaker and to the group leaders in the Swedish Riksdag – to speak about that this is something that will be torn up if they win the election next year. In Estonia, this is a deeply unpopular policy.

One might think that the Moderaterna could show a bit more governing competence and ensure that bilateral agreements signed between countries also hold over time.

It was indeed this that we were told was required from Estonia's side. It was required that it should hold over time and gather a broad majority. Why have the Moderates not done the same when it comes to Estonia?

This is primarily about the government wanting to send Swedish prisoners to Estonia to serve time in an Estonian prison. Who benefits most from this – is it Estonia or Sweden? And why have the Moderaterna still not contacted their party comrades in Estonia, who are, in fact, deeply critical? Mikael Damsgaard will be held accountable when it comes to why this issue is being handled in such a clumsy manner.

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

Mikael Damsgaard (M)

Mr. Speaker! The one who is answerable is Samuel Gonzalez Westling. He says no to relieving the Swedish correctional services. We have an opportunity to create 600 places that can relieve the Swedish correctional services. Here, Samuel Gonzalez Westling is answerable.

We have had good relations with Estonia from the Swedish side. We have a good cooperation. The agreement will entail significant benefits for Sweden, which will receive a relief, but also for Estonia, which through the agreement can maintain capacity in the Estonian correctional services. They can secure important jobs but also strengthen the cooperation with Sweden in important areas.

We are in no way responsible for this, but we have worked very seriously on this issue to move in step with Estonia. It provides great advantages for Sweden. I also see that it provides gains for Estonia, which the Estonian government has also seen.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Justice's report on the temporary execution of Swedish prison sentences abroad, that is to say, that Sweden shall rent prison places in Tartu in Estonia.

Let me be completely clear from the beginning: It is with a heavy feeling that we stand here today and debate. Ultimately, I will vote in favor of the proposal, but it is not a victory for Swedish justice policy – it is a great failure. It is a failure that we, as one of the world's richest and most developed countries, have failed to maintain such a fundamental function in our society as having sufficient capacity to carry out the sentences that our courts impose.

The situation within the correctional services is beyond strained. It is acute. The occupancy rate of fixed prison places has, during recent years, been well over 100 percent, with figures of up to 130–140 percent in some places.

These are not just figures in a report. It is a reality. We see the consequences in the form of increased threats and violence between inmates, an incredibly pressured work environment for the correctional service's staff and, as many instances have warned about, a situation where the agency Kriminalvården is forced to take conscious risks that jeopardize the safety of both inmates and employees.

The possibility of conducting meaningful recidivism prevention work, something that is the hallmark of Swedish criminal justice and actually creates a safer society in the long run, has deteriorated significantly. The fundamental principle – this bears repeating – must be that Swedish criminal justice is conducted in Sweden by Swedish staff and in accordance with Swedish legislation. Everything else is an emergency solution.

But we are currently in such an emergency situation. We have a historical expansion ahead of us, where the forecasts point to a need to almost triple the number of places by 2034. But the real and long-term solution is and always will be that we expand the capacity here at home.

We need more staff, faster planning processes, and strong state steering to ensure that the shovel hits the ground. We can state that the government's expansion is not keeping up with the pace that the situation demands. In such an acute situation, a temporary and extraordinary measure such as this is necessary.

I and several members of the committee were in the prison in Tartu just in September to meet the Estonian government and the prison's management and staff. Following that visit, I felt a great confidence in the correctional services in Estonia and the requirements we have for an equivalent correctional service.

But when we are talking about Tartu and Estonia, I still want to take the opportunity to say that Estonia is a country that, unlike Sweden, is reducing its prison population. More preventive work is being done with young offenders. The Minister of Justice was aware of the number of children under 18 who were in prison – it was a single digit. Even though Estonia has more in prison per inhabitant than Sweden right now, our countries' scenarios moving forward look completely different.

This is something to take with you in the future work of breaking the Swedish development in crime. It is not just to sentence people to prison, but also to ensure through the right politics that people do not become criminals. We have previously heard from the Tidöregeringen that it is a goal that more should sit in prison, but the Center Party's goal is that fewer should commit crimes.

SD says that the expansion is unparalleled in Swedish history. But what is unparalleled is the violent crime. There we need to have a greater focus.

Mr. Speaker! There are some prerequisites for the Center Party's support in all of this. The first is that we continue the expansion here at home. The second is that this is a temporary solution. The agreement that will form the basis for the execution in Estonia is time-limited to five years with the possibility of some extension. It must not become a permanent outsourcing of Swedish correctional services.

This gives us a breathing space, but it is a breathing space that must be used well. This time must be used to forcefully accelerate the expansion of prison places in Sweden. We will closely follow the development. We will demand that the current government push forward the expansion at home. We will also ensure that the next government, which takes office after the election, does the same. We will hold fast to the goal that one day we will not need this type of overseas solutions.

Given the situation and the agreement, it is also important to say that the agreement does not concern children under 18 years of age. One must not have been convicted of terrorist offenses, high treason, or crimes against Sweden's security. There must not be a risk of escape or any serious security risk.

Centerpartiet supports both the law that we are now going to adopt and the agreement that is to be entered into with Estonia. The law makes it possible for more agreements to be entered into, but we hope that it will never come to that. What is important for everyone to know is that even a new such agreement will require a three-quarters majority in the parliament that has to make the decision.

But as I said: I really hope that this will not have to happen more times. For Swedish criminal justice, the foundation must be conducted in Sweden. Today's decision is painful but necessary. It is a receipt of previous failures. But it is also a pragmatic action to handle an acute crisis.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a rather unique measure, namely that we are to delegate parts of Swedish authority to a foreign country – in this case to Estonia, which has entered into an agreement that Estonia shall be responsible for the care and detention of persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment by a Swedish court. As previous speakers have said, this is fundamentally a failing grade for Swedish criminal policy.

Sweden should be equipped to handle this on its own. But the background to why we are now entering into this agreement is the previous government's sluggishness and inability to act when gang crime and serious violent crime escalated to unimaginable heights. Alarm reports came from the correctional services, from the union, from individual employees – yes, from all possible sides and corners. Warning flags were raised that this was about to crash. Despite the alarms, the measures remained absent.

The then Social Democratic Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, also downplayed the problems. The investments and the expansion of prison places did not materialize, and budget-wise, far less was allocated to Kriminalvården than what had been demanded.

Mr. Speaker! As early as 2019, the then opposition pushed to secure prison places abroad. The proposal was brushed aside by the then Minister of Justice with the justification that it – quote – was an expensive and cumbersome proposal. Even professional assessments regarding a continued increase in the number of detainees were neglected with the justification – again, it was Morgan Johansson – that the increased penalties would only lead to marginal cost increases. It was, obviously, an obvious misjudgment.

Already in 2018, the prisons were overcrowded, and it was even more precarious when the current government took office in 2022. We are now investing heavily in an expansion of prison places and detention centers, but it takes time to build away the shortage. While awaiting completion, the now proposed solution is the best imaginable.

Mr. Speaker! When some have spoken in the rostrum here, it has sounded as if Estonia were some kind of developing country. The truth is that Estonia has for many years been a prominent member state in the European Union.

I have personally visited Tartu and inspected the facility in question on-site and had the opportunity to speak with staff on the spot. I experience that the facility has well-educated staff and that the premises well fulfill the requirements corresponding to Swedish correctional services. There is opportunity for recreation and occupation. There are also special premises where the inmate is given the opportunity to spend time with their family undisturbed. And, as said, Estonia is an EU country. The requirements regarding rights and obligations for deprived of liberty are met – fundamental obligations that all member states have signed.

It is also the case that those who will be placed in Tartu will be carefully selected. It is then assessed that they are persons who are suitable to be at this place.

Sweden then rents, according to the agreement, 400 cells with space for 600 detainees. There is, as mentioned, also a regulatory framework specifying cases where a placement in Tartu is not applicable. Overall, I experience that the proposal is well-elaborated, indicating possibilities and limitations for or against a placement.

The agreement is, as stated, time-limited with a possibility of extension but also a possibility to terminate it if it does not work as intended. Swedish Prison and Probation Service will also have staff on site, which is also a guarantee that Estonia will live up to the terms and intentions of the agreement.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! At the risk of being repetitive, I believe I will repeat the question that I have previously posed to the Sverigedemokraterna and to the Moderaterna. I will therefore also pose it to the Kristdemokraterna. This is primarily because I have not received any clear answer from any of the other parties on the question I have posed.

The Christian Democrats' government has indeed found support in Estonia. They have gotten the Estonian government to agree to this agreement. But the Christian Democrats' sister party in Estonia, which one cooperates with in the EU Parliament, is clearly opposed to precisely this agreement about having Swedish prisoners in Estonia.

It is somewhat remarkable, one might think, that one does not have these contacts. One probably meets daily in the EU Parliament. I can imagine that the Estonian representatives there have told their Christian Democratic colleagues about precisely this situation, that one does not think this is a particularly good idea.

I am thinking particularly about the fact that one promises that, with immediate effect after the election next year, they will tear up this agreement. There is an incredible amount that indicates that the Kristdemokraternas colleagues will win the election. This question is, in fact, incredibly hotly debated in Estonia. This is one of the biggest problems that the Estonian government has right now.

Why have the Christian Democrats not ensured that support for this agreement is found among their colleagues in Estonia?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I have heard that Samuel Gonzalez Westling has asked this question on repeated occasions during the debate here. I actually experience it as a rather hypothetical reasoning: that this could happen next year if it were an election where one, so to speak, would vote it out.

At the same time, one can note that a year ago the Social Democrats stood here in the chamber and said that it was unthinkable that they would say yes to this agreement.

We do not really know what will happen next year. It is uncertain with elections, not only in Sweden but also in Estonia. We do not really know what will occur. Will the current government remain in power? Will there be a new government in Estonia? Will they then perhaps have changed their minds and say: We live up to the agreement that we have.

The reasoning that Gonzalez Westling presents is, therefore, very hypothetical. It concerns something that could happen in the future.

But one can also reflect on this: What shall we do instead, if we are not to sign this agreement? We are in an acute situation where we must arrange places for those who are admitted, who should not be left loose and free in the city.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am incredibly confused by the answers I receive from the representatives of the government parties. One asks: What would one do instead? It is the government's responsibility to ensure that one has the capacity to receive those whom one sentences to prison. It is the government's responsibility. It is an obligation that the Swedish government has, to ensure that Sweden can handle those whom one sentences to prison. That is how it is. It is not possible to blame anyone else.

You have had the power for four years, and you have not done enough to resolve these problems. The sluggishness and incompetence of the government is actually striking. And you still do not answer the question that I asked.

Even though it is hypothetical, the opposition now leads so greatly that those who are now government parties are expected to constitute approximately 30 percent. It is therefore a much larger gap than when it concerns the current government and the opposition here in Sweden. Recovering that loss will be very difficult. We can speak of it being hypothetical, but this is something that will very likely occur.

The question is still not being answered: Why have the Christian Democrats not contacted their colleagues in Estonia to ensure that the agreements they sign with Estonia will be upheld, regardless of which government wins?

I think Torsten Elofsson is responsible for that question. One cannot simply refer to it as a hypothesis. That is not how you conduct politics. You do not govern a country with hopes and guesses. You ensure that things hold up over time. Doesn't Torsten Elofsson think so?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I need to repeat this, but we are now signing an agreement with the Estonian government and not with the Estonian opposition. The normal and traditional procedure is that one signs agreements with the sitting government, not with the one that may be in government in one or two years.

When it comes to the pace of expansion in Sweden, this expansion could have been started somewhat earlier instead of just dumping it on the current government to do it in four years. The member knows very well that the planning process we have in Sweden when it comes to construction and so on takes its time. The regulatory framework has probably also been co-developed by the Left Party.

I think the government is working at the pace that is possible. I understand that the member in this case thinks it would go slowly; I sometimes think that from the opposition's side, they think the government is moving too fast. I don't really know how one should relate to that.

We are, as said, signing an agreement with the Estonian government, not with a potential incoming government.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! That more and more people end up in prison can be seen from two aspects, a positive and a negative – beyond the obvious that it is always negative that people end up in prison because it is not infrequently a result of something bad having happened.

What is positive is that the police and prosecutors are becoming increasingly successful in identifying, arresting, and prosecuting persons who commit such grave acts that they should be imprisoned. The negative is, of course, that there are still many who commit such serious crimes that they must be locked up in prison.

A negative consequence of so many having to be locked up is that our prisons are becoming overcrowded. It is getting cramped. There are therefore not enough prison places for us to be able to handle all those who are sentenced to prison.

This must be resolved. For some years now, for example, double-housing has been standard, meaning that two inmates live in the same room or the same cell. But it is still not enough. The occupancy at the Prison and Probation Service is still extremely high, and it affects both the inmates' situation and the employees' working environment.

More needs to be done, and the government has therefore proposed that Kriminalvården should rent prison places abroad. Whether we should do this or not is what we are debating today.

I think it is a good temporary solution. It is a solution for the moment, while the Prison and Probation Service can continue to build more prisons here in Sweden. I therefore see it as a necessity.

When the prison and probation service says they are confident in how the prison in Estonia will function, I am also confident that it will function.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! One can at least not blame Martin Melin's party for not having done the job of securing their party comrades' support, because it is their party comrades who lead the Estonian government. Martin Melin has, therefore, done the job.

I wonder how the Liberals view the fact that the agreement we are debating today will very likely be terminated if the opposition wins the election in Estonia next year, which is quite likely. It is very easy to Google and see what the opinion polls look like. One of the current government parties has fallen down to 2 percent, an incredibly poor opinion standing when entering an election campaign.

How does Martin Melin view how his government colleagues have handled the job? We have heard here that the Estonian government set requirements that the Social Democrats should join, that is, that you should get the Social Democrats on board in order for an agreement with Sweden could be signed at all. How does Martin Melin view that his own government colleagues have not done the same job when it comes to the Estonian parliament?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I could speak for two minutes about how it feels to have 2 percent support when entering an election campaign. But I will not do that. I suffer with my party colleagues in Estonia.

I think the member's question is both justified and interesting. When nations enter into agreements with other nations, it is done between the existing governments, just as we heard earlier. But one must also have a plan B. What happens if a government is replaced? That is what the member's question is about, and I have reflected on it during the debate.

In my world, it is such that an agreement is an agreement. This agreement applies for five years. That is what applies. For a new government to break the agreement, it requires quite a lot. The party we are talking about now has about 25 percent, which means they must get the rest of the parliament in Estonia on board. I am not so sure that they can get that. But the risk exists, and that must be factored in.

We also have a madman in Russia who might decide that he wants to attack Estonia and take over the country. Then we will have a completely different situation. A lot can happen ahead that we in Sweden cannot control.

What we can do is to proceed based on the situation that exists now. That is what we did when we concluded an agreement with the existing government in Estonia. We have no guarantees that this agreement will not be torn up by an opposition that comes into power.

The committee members also asked how we should handle it if it becomes so, and it is more interesting to talk about that. In that case, it is such that the Swedish correctional services are prepared to be able to take back 500 prisoners. The occupancy today is 93 percent, so in the worst case, there is room for it.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! This was the most impressive answer during the entire debate, I would like to say. Thank you very much for that, Martin Melin!

The question remains, however. The sister party of the Moderates and the Christian Democrats is, according to the opinion polls, the largest party in Estonia; they could perhaps be described as more moderate in their stance. I suspect that the Sverigedemokraternas sister parties are slightly less disposed to uphold this type of agreement. But what do I know – I am not so deeply involved in Estonian politics.

I still think it is relevant to include this in the calculation when concluding agreements with other states. What does the situation look like in that country, and what consequences does it have in the long run?

This is about a bilateral agreement between Sweden and Estonia, and when one concludes agreements, one needs to ensure that these agreements can be accepted over time. Even though this agreement extends over five years, the opposition in Estonia has announced that they will tear up the agreement with immediate effect, and they have also been clear that they see that there is a possibility to do so.

It would mean that the government governing Sweden next spring will find itself in a difficult situation. Even if we have the capacity to receive the prisoners who are there, it will partly be a capital failure for this government, and partly something that complicates and makes the process in Sweden more expensive.

People are now talking about the cost being two-thirds of the current one. How much will it cost Sweden if prisoners who are no longer allowed to be in Estonia must be brought back quickly?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I repeat that I believe the question is justified. However, I do not see how such an agreement can be torn up overnight. If an agreement is torn up, I imagine there is an action plan that extends over a certain period. It is not the case that, overnight, there are 500 prisoners waiting to be transferred to Sweden.

Estonia is a civilized country, an EU country. By tradition, Sweden has had ties with Estonia for 250 years. It is not the case that they will throw these prisoners over the Baltic Sea, but it will be handled civilly if it comes to that. I therefore still think the issue is justified, but I am not worried that it will become chaos.

Is it a defeat? As always when Sweden concludes agreements with other countries – it could be about aid, and it could be about companies establishing themselves abroad – things can happen. The world is changing, and we must not turn a blind eye to that. We must also take into account that the world is changing and be prepared for the fact that changes can occur in the world.

When I speak with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, I still hear somewhere that there are action plans for things that are going to happen, but no one can prepare for everything. The more I think about the question, I must however say that I am confident. I do not believe that the agreement will be terminated, and if it were to be terminated, I am confident that this will be able to be handled during the time it takes to renegotiate or terminate the agreement.

I am, therefore, confident in the situation we have today, and I still think that this is the best temporary solution for the burden that Kriminalvården has today.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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