Privacy in connection with rest periods - for increased safety and security at special youth homes

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Every child deserves to grow up in a safe family where they are met with love and care. Children should therefore, as far as possible, be allowed to grow up in family-like conditions if they cannot stay at home, but in some cases, family homes or even HVB homes are not sufficient to care for a child or a youth. More and more children in Sweden are being placed with Statens institutionsstyrelse, Sis.

Some of society's most vulnerable children come to Sis. It concerns young girls with serious self-harming behavior and young substance abusers. It also concerns heavily criminal individuals who have committed serious crimes and have either been detained according to LVU or sentenced to closed juvenile care.

The problem picture for these children and young people is often complex. Many of those detained have neuropsychiatric functional impairments and several different diagnoses at the same time. Sometimes it concerns young gang criminals who have become substance abusers because they have had to use tramadol to commit the serious crimes. As a consequence of the serious crimes, they may also have suffered from severe post-traumatic stress, which means they have great psychiatric needs.

Unfortunately, Sis has not historically been equipped with the tools required to fulfill the mission. This has naturally become particularly problematic and tangible as the care needs of those who are placed have become increasingly heavy and more and more of those who are placed at Sis have links to gang crime.

Sis reports that they currently care for as many as 200 LSU-convicted criminals. The authority assesses that approximately half of those admitted to Sis are linked to crime, if one also includes those placed under LVU.

At the same time as we see this rapid development with more and more criminals in Sis, we are coming from a situation where, until this spring, the staff were not allowed to restrict access to phones and computers. One was also not allowed to search the rooms for weapons and drugs. This led to the fact that drug deliveries could be ordered to the homes, that girls with self-harming behavior could continue to meet with perpetrators to prostitute themselves, and that escapes could be planned from inside our Sis homes.

Another problem has been that Sis has not had the authority to lock the residents in at night. This has meant, on one hand, an increased risk of escapes, and on the other, that youths have been able to attack one another. After a department with, let's say, seven or eight youths was locked around 10 p.m. in the evening, the residents were able to sneak out from their rooms to settle scores if they had something to settle with one another.

The situation during evenings, weekends, and above all nights is very serious. Both staff as well as children and young people have unfortunately encountered both threats and violence. We cannot have it this way. It concerns heavily criminal youths with significant capacity for violence. If we do not put a stop to the violence, it could very well result in a fatal outcome. The safety and security at Sis needs to be strengthened.

In today's bill, it is therefore proposed that Sis shall be given the opportunity, in certain cases, to keep children and young people in seclusion in connection with the nightly rest. This means that Sis will be given the opportunity to lock up the residents at night if it is necessary with regard to the order or security at the special youth home or to prevent the child or young person from deviating.

This is a much-requested reform, it should be said. In July 2023, Sis itself requested in a letter to the government that a possibility should be introduced to keep certain children and young people separated from each other during the night.

Now we deliver for the Christian Democrats, the government and our coalition parties on this. This is a well-balanced proposal, where we fully respect the individual youths' freedoms and rights but also the children's and staff's needs for safety and security.

As said, every child deserves to grow up in a safe family where they are met with love and care. But when that is not possible and society steps in to take the responsibility, it is also our duty to ensure the safety and security for the children. With today's decision, the safety and security for the children and young people at the special youth homes will increase. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating how we can provide expanded opportunities to keep children and young people placed in Sis homes separated during the night rest. The proposal does not target all children and young people who are placed with Sis. It is only persons who are convicted according to the Act on Special Youth Care or who are cared for according to the Act on Care of Young People in Units with Increased Security Level who are affected by the proposed rules.

The possibility of seclusion exists to maintain order in residential facilities but also to prevent escapes. Unfortunately, we have an exceptional situation in Sweden where a large part of all shootings and explosions are carried out by children and young people who have escaped from Sis-hem. This is something that must come to an immediate end.

The police have become better at solving this type of crime. But it does not help much the family that has lost a family member that the perpetrator is arrested. We must do everything in our power to prevent the crime. If we can prevent escapes from Sis-homes, we can make it more difficult for murder plans to become full-scale traumas and tragedies.

But this is only a small piece of the preventive work. Unfortunately, much important work is left undone by the government. The government's priority is crystal clear: tax cuts for those with the highest incomes.

We see a correctional system that is on the verge of collapsing, while several minors are soon to be sent there. We see schools where children with NPF diagnoses are not getting what they deserve. We see a social service struggling against the wind. On top of this, we have a cost explosion after years of high inflation.

Mr. Speaker! Still, so little is being done that can help us get out of this madness. Houses are being blown up. People are being kidnapped. Mothers and fathers are being shot just because they are mothers and fathers. Children shoot children. Still, these large tax cuts are being made.

But with that said, the small piece of the puzzle that is on the table today is important and reasonable. It is admittedly a restriction of personal freedom to not be able to move around in public spaces in the wards during the night. But that limitation can be considered relatively small and proportionate given the purpose of the measure. Most referral bodies share that view.

An important clarification in the proposed law is that it will always be possible to call for staff to get help during the period of seclusion. It is important that the level of ambition regarding care, treatment, and the work environment is not lowered as a consequence of the proposed rules. Both Sis and the government have work to do regarding this. We Social Democrats have previously submitted a motion for a ban on solo work in client-facing contacts within closed youth care as a way to ensure reasonable working conditions. Above all, it is a matter of providing reasonable conditions for good care and treatment.

The Social Democratic government began work on reforming Sis. This work involved reviewing the powers that the Sis homes have. It is good that that work is now continuing and that we can take necessary steps to increase safety at the locked youth homes. Since children and young people who are very vulnerable in life are placed in Sis homes, we must, however, be careful.

We therefore consider that the government should return to the Riksdag with an account of the effects of the introduction of rules on separation in connection with the daily rest on Sis and an evaluation of whether the application of the law on separation in connection with the daily rest has been carried out in a purposeful manner.

It is important to get relevant tools in place in youth care, but it is at the same time important that it is done correctly. If the legislation turns out to be used in a way that we as legislators did not intend, it is important that we quickly become aware of this so that we can reconsider the legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of reservation 12.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I may have limped my way here to the rostrum, but what I primarily found to be limping was Member Lantz's reasoning in this debate.

Member of Parliament Lantz accused the Tidö parties and the government of not doing enough for preventive work. What this government has done during this mandate period, however, is to seriously begin an offensive so that we can break the criminal gangs through a combination of crime-fighting and, perhaps above all, crime-preventive measures.

It is about a battery of measures that begins with a parental responsibility and that we shall strengthen every parent's opportunity to take their responsibility. We invest in parenting support, we invest in the cooperation between school and social services with school social teams, and we invest in getting a completely new Social Services Act in place. It will come next year and has a preventive perspective.

When the previous Social Democratic government had the new Social Services Act investigated, they gave the mandate that the new law should not be cost-driving. Member of Parliament Lantz needs to answer how that is possible. How can a new Social Services Act involve higher ambitions for preventive work if the Social Democratic government gives the mandate that it may not cost more money?

We changed it, Mr. Speaker, and we did the right thing. We investigated the legislation further, and next year a new Social Services Act will come which raises the ambitions. With the implementation of the new Social Services Act follows also over 8 billion kronor. The purpose is that we should truly be able to work more preventatively, and early, in order to prevent children and young people from ending up in such serious social problems that they should need to be cared for by the State Institutional Board.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johan Hultberg, for the presentation and the question!

The Social Services Act that we hope will soon be in place was investigated by an investigator named Margareta Winberg. She was appointed by a Social Democratic government. This was a solid piece of work that we believed would be implemented in direct connection with the change of government. The investigation was finished, but the government chose to delay and procrastinate. I do not know how many times I have stood in this speaker's chair and asked when it will arrive.

Gold and green forests were promised, and it was said that it would be a completely different product than the one that Margareta Winberg had investigated and that the previous Social Democratic government had presented. However, it was the same law. It had had to give way and been placed far back in the queue in the government's work. It is very good that it is coming now, and it is very good that we get a preventive approach in the new Social Services Act. It is good that way, but do not come and say that this is the current government's work. It is very good that it is coming at last, but it has delayed far too long.

When it comes to investments in preventive work, it is teachers, social workers, and resource persons within municipalities who are to do this, as well as the regions' BUP. These are important parts, and one only has to look at the government's budget and see how they prioritize. Just as I said in my previous speech, it is large tax cuts for those who earn the most and a clear stance with smaller investments in municipalities and regions than what the Social Democrats have proposed.

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

TALMANNEN

This debate concerns amendments to the Act on Special Provisions on Care of Young People and the Act on the Execution of Closed Youth Care.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand the Speaker's point, but the issue is that we must start much earlier if we are to reach the goal we actually agree on in this chamber, namely to prevent children and young people from having to be kept separate at night in our state youth homes. We must work preventatively. That is why the new Social Services Act is so important.

But it was not ready, Member Lantz! It was at least not ready if one has proper ambitions with the legislation - yes, you see, I become so engaged that my crutches hit the floor! One cannot say that it was ready if one has such high ambitions that the legislation should truly contribute to us working early and preventatively.

The previous Social Democratic government did, indeed, appoint Margareta Winberg as the investigator of the new Social Services Act – but with the mandate that it must not drive up costs. My firm opinion is that the new Social Services Act implies higher ambitions. That drives up costs. Therefore, we have supplemented the investigation, and therefore we have redone it and done it correctly.

We have ensured that the new Social Services Act is also accompanied by significantly increased resources of 8 billion during the coming years in a special competence and staffing initiative, precisely in order to be able to live up to what Member Lantz highlights: that we need more employees in social services who meet our youth and who can intervene and act early. They should not have to wait until things have gone so crazy that an emergency removal is needed and a child or youth is placed in a youth home or HVB home, or even sentenced the youth to closed youth care.

It is now happening, Member Lantz. It is now that the socio-political paradigm shift actually occurs. Now we are seriously working to mobilize society's good forces: school, social services and police. We are tearing down secrecy barriers to improve cooperation. Now it is happening. Finally, we get a policy that can seriously address the fundamental problems. But, Mr. Speaker, we must be humble and say that it will take time before we see the real results of the work.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a long-awaited social services act, and I know that there are many within the social services across the country who truly look forward to it becoming a reality in all parts. However, it has been delayed for too long.

I find it difficult to see the difference between the proposal that the Social Democratic government put forward, which then sat on hold, and the one that is coming now. To say that this government would spend more money on municipalities, social services, and preventive work is directly incorrect.

If the government believes that crime can be solved through preventive measures and by injecting money only into a transition and the implementation of a new law, they are mistaken. These are long-term commitments where the work of municipalities and regions must be prioritized. In that case, one cannot lower the tax by billions and billions for those with the highest incomes. Sweden faces very large challenges, and some who have to stand on the front line in this are our social workers, with the Social Services Act as a tool.

I think it is good to note that we agree on much and that we can reach a conclusion regarding the proposals that are now coming in the new Social Services Act. I only regret that it has taken so long. On January 12, immediately after the change of power, the license for pubs was abolished, so there were certainly some things that were high on the agenda. This is admittedly a somewhat larger product, to be said in the name of honesty. But it is good that it finally arrives, when it now arrives.

(Applause)

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Committee's report SoU5 Separation in connection with the night's rest - for increased safety and security at special youth homes.

We have for a long time followed the discussion on the use of segregations within the activities of Statens institutionsstyrelse. It is an issue that goes straight to the core of how we as a society take responsibility for our most vulnerable children and young people. For Sverigedemokraterna, it is clear that we must maintain a constant dialogue on how we can create safe, legally secure, and developing environments for these young people while simultaneously guaranteeing a safe and secure working environment for the staff.

Segregation is a powerful tool. It is a tool that can be necessary in acute situations where the order or safety of the institution is threatened or where the young person risks harming themselves or others. But we are also fully aware that this is a method that can be very stressful for the individual, especially for children and young people in already vulnerable situations.

We must be realistic. In order for us to be able to phase out segregations, alternative and well-functioning methods must already be in place. It is not just a question of resources but also of solid training and a cultural change within the agency. The staff's safety and work environment must continue to be prioritized, and it is central that they have the tools required for the management of youths who may pose a danger to themselves or others.

Mr. Speaker! We consider the government's proposal in the bill to be well-balanced. To give Sis the opportunity to keep children and young people in seclusion in special youth homes in connection with the night's rest is a pragmatic solution to increase safety and security for everyone involved. It is not about normalizing seclusion, but about creating a structured and legally secure framework for when and how this can occur.

Seclusion in connection with daily rest shall only be used if it is absolutely necessary, for example to maintain order and safety or to prevent the young person from deviating from the home. We therefore stand behind the government's proposal and the Social Affairs Committee's recommendation that the Riksdag should adopt this.

Mr. Speaker! It is also important to remind that the young people staying at special youth homes are in a very vulnerable situation. Many of them have a history of trauma, destructive behaviors, and a lack of support from society. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are given a chance for rehabilitation and development in a safe and supportive environment.

Safety must also apply to the staff. Working at a special youth home is demanding, and without the right tools, we risk placing the staff in impossible situations. The proposal for seclusion in connection with the night rest is therefore an important step to create better conditions for both youth and staff.

The Sweden Democrats want to emphasize the importance of the authority taking its responsibility and acting proactively to reduce the need for segregation. Until the new methods are in place, we do however see it as necessary that the staff have access to tools that both protect the young person from themselves and others and provide a safe working environment.

We therefore support the government's bill and look forward to a continued dialogue on how the Sis operations can be developed to become both safer and more efficient, both for the young people who are in great need of support and for the staff who daily work with some of society's most vulnerable individuals.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that our long-term goal is clear: segregations shall be phased out. But this must occur in an orderly manner where both the safety of the staff and the young people is ensured. We have a responsibility to give Sis the support and the resources required for this goal to be realized.

With that said, we move for approval of the proposal in the bill.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Rapings, sexual assaults, strangulations, crushed kneecaps, knocked-out teeth, breathlessness, humiliation and violations - yes, the recent years' purely macabre reports of violence, abuse and mistreatment within Sis have left none of us untouched. After countless alarms from both the placed children and children's rights organizations, Ivo and JO, it is a fact that we cannot guarantee the safety or security of the children placed in Sis.

Those who expose the children we have promised to help to violence and abuse are the adults - the staff who work with the children. When the massive reporting, the testimonies, and the complaints could no longer be ignored and no more excuses could be found, a devastating picture of an agency in crisis emerged. The abuses and the poor conditions have not occurred in a vacuum. We know today that both built-in methods of violence as well as governance and leadership failures constitute the basis for a deeply dysfunctional organization. That is what we all probably agree on today.

It was in light of this that the government chose to act. Now, a massive investigation is underway to completely reform child and youth care. This is something we have worked for for a long time and which we are very pleased the government is doing. But the effects of this lie far in the future; the conditions themselves still remain. Therefore, I am very concerned about the proposal we are debating here today.

Mr. Speaker! The Government wants to give staff the opportunity to lock some of the placed children in their rooms at night. According to the Government, the background to the proposal is that they want to increase safety and security at the special youth homes. The problem is that the proposal not only violates children's rights but also that the possibility is being introduced in an operation with enormous deficiencies, which could have devastating consequences.

A number of referral bodies have been very critical as they consider it to be an excessively far-reaching intervention to lock up children for several hours, in small spaces, before other methods have been tried. They believe that the government should ensure that the authority has sufficient resources and competent staff suitable for the assignment before such restrictive measures are taken.

They further argue that it can be strongly questioned whether the new law aligns with the international conventions and recommendations to which Sweden is bound. The criticism mainly concerns that the proposal is not compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example Article 3 on the best interests of the child, Articles 20 and 24 on the right to among other things health and development, Article 12 on freedom of opinion and the right to be heard, as well as Article 37 on protection against among other things torture, other cruel treatment and punishment.

The Institute for Human Rights, Ecpat, and the Agency for Health and Social Care Analysis also point out that the proposal is not in line with the recommendations Sweden has received from the UN Committee Against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The government responds to the criticism by listing a number of measures that the authority is now working on to strengthen the quality of care and safety at the special youth homes. It is a bit like saying: We have already acted, but it has not helped - now we have no other choice but to lock the children up, for their own sake. They hardly mention the abuses that the staff have subjected the young people to - the brutal reality that has prompted the entire youth care system to be reformed.

It becomes even more remarkable when we read the Swedish National Audit Office's latest report, which arrived recently. Here it is stated that there is unsuitable staff at all the homes that the Swedish National Audit Office visited. Far from all staff have undergone the mandatory training regarding care and stabilization. Furthermore, the homes are in poor condition. The criticism continues with that Sis does not ensure good quality at the homes, as the work is not followed up to see if it yields results. The agency's management has not ensured sufficient staffing or competence.

The National Audit Office notes that the government has not ensured that Sis has the conditions required for good and effective care. The government's response is to restrict the rights of those placed - in a deeply dysfunctional organization - and simply create more incentives for violence. It is highly remarkable that the government now cannot guarantee that they are not giving a perpetrator the keys and the power to lock up a victim.

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet neither turn a blind eye to nor deny that there are major problems with riots, violence, and escapes, and that the situation on a number of occasions has become extremely serious and, of course, completely unacceptable. It is the duty of politics to act so that this does not occur, but not by violating fundamental legal principles and exposing children to violations and danger.

We therefore want the government to instead quickly review the possibility of introducing crisis teams that can come and strengthen those residents who are in need of it. With such teams, one could, when necessary, strengthen both safety and care without providing incentives for violence and without violating children's rights. With our proposal, we want to show that there are other paths to take if one simply wants to. Fundamentally, this is actually about our view on children.

In all other cases, we would have asked ourselves which risks stand against the potential effects. Can we guarantee that the law will not result in children being subjected to suffering, abuse, or violence? The answer is no. Can we guarantee that the law will not be exploited for the wrong purpose? The answer is no. Can we guarantee that the premises are fire-safe, so that locking up the children does not pose a danger to life? The answer is no. Can we then establish this law before other paths have truly been tested? The answer is no. Do we believe that this will lead to safer care for the children? The answer is no.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for the proposal – that is, reservation 1 – to be rejected and move instead for approval of our proposal in reservation 2. With that, we would have received a yes on all questions posed and furthermore addressed the problems.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government is now implementing the largest social policy reforms in generations. It is about solving burning problems, addressing long-term challenges, and equipping our society for tomorrow. It is about both urgent measures to address acute deficiencies here and now, and a sustained effort to improve social services, strengthen the children's rights perspective, and develop state childcare and youth care so that it maintains higher quality and delivers better results than today.

Regarding the latter, I naturally want to highlight the investigation that the government has commissioned in order to give the state child and youth care a new start. The State Institutional Board, Sis, will not remain in its current form. Something new and better shall be created, and I know that there is a large and broad support for this.

The government's social policy initiatives are many. Of particular importance is, of course, the new Social Services Act, which is planned to enter into force on July 1 next year. The current Social Services Act was written in the early 80s, in a completely different time than today. At that time, for example, we did not have the widespread problems with gang crime that we have today. This gang crime lures in ever younger children and adolescents into its brutal and bloody activities. The need for a new Social Services Act is crying.

Finally, we will soon have a modern Social Services Act where the social services are given a clear and statutory preventive mandate and responsibility. We get a Social Services Act that establishes that the social services shall work based on knowledge and that interventions and measures shall be carried out and undertaken based on evidence and proven experience. The new Social Services Act, and the 8 billion that are linked to the reform, mark a substantial and much-needed increase in ambition. For this, I as a Moderate am very proud and happy.

Mr. Speaker! Why do I bring up the new Social Services Act when today we have to debate the government's proposal to give Sis the opportunity to keep children and young people in seclusion in connection with the overnight rest? Well, because I know that today's debate will largely be about what we can do to prevent various coercive and restrictive measures from needing to be used.

Preventive work must always come first. By preventive work, I mean in this context, of course, the work that Sis can and needs to do within its operations to create safety and security without using the new opportunity for isolation at night that the government is now proposing to be introduced. Specifically, it is about staffing, competence, suitable premises, good security routines, differentiated care departments, and much more.

But the preventive work is also about us needing to do more to prevent children and young people from being placed with Sis in the first place. That is why I highlight the new Social Services Act. That is why I highlight the 8 billion in the competence and staffing initiative. That is why I would also like to mention the government's initiatives on parenting support, on school social teams, on leisure cards, and on home visit programs. All these measures are important to prevent social problems and to prevent criminal gangs from recruiting children and young people.

Mr. Speaker! Despite the government's ambitious and extensive preventive work, many young people will need to be cared for within Sis. Now we see that more and more young people are being sentenced to closed juvenile care, largely due to the government's offensive against the criminal gangs. Work is, as is known, underway to establish special juvenile prisons that will take over the responsibility for the sentenced youths, but until they are in place, it is Sis that has the responsibility for the young people who are sentenced to closed juvenile care. In that case, Sis must have tools to maintain safety and security, and frankly, they do not have that today.

Creating safety and security at Sis's special youth homes is also elementary for the possibility of providing good care in order to help the youths back to a life free from drugs, crime, and the other social problems that are the reason they are placed within Sis. Therefore, the legislative change that the government now proposes is needed, which concerns giving Sis the possibility to, in certain cases, keep young people in seclusion during the night's rest.

Specifically, this means that we give Sis the opportunity to keep residential rooms locked at night when it is judged as necessary with regard to order and security. The possibility is, however, limited - only those who are cared for with the support of LVU on a lockable unit at a special youth home with an increased security level, or those who are serving closed youth care, can be kept separated at night.

Furthermore, the principle of proportionality must, of course, apply in the application of the possibility. The measure is also associated with clear limitations. For example, the separation may not be longer than nine hours per occasion. The youth must, of course, also always have the opportunity to call for staff.

Even though this possibility is thus both limited and strictly regulated, three of the Riksdag's parties want to reject the government's proposition. Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Miljöpartiet say no to giving Sis extended powers, despite the very serious incidents of threats, violence, and escapes from the special youth homes. I think it is remarkable, yes, downright naive, if I am to be clear.

For me and the Moderaterna, it is completely self-evident that coercive measures, such as locking residential rooms at night, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. But for me and the Moderaterna, it is also completely self-evident that we must face reality, and the reality is that many seriously criminal youths with great capacity for violence are cared for within Sis. There are youths there who have committed numerous murders, explosions, and other extremely serious violent crimes, and there have been far too many incidents of gross violence inside the homes and escapes from the homes.

This reality requires that Sis be given more tools. The work of raising the level of competence and strengthening the staffing at Sis are important tools that must continue to be developed. Through this work in combination with, among other things, differentiation, careful placements, and security assessments, I have good hopes that one will be able to prevent escapes, threats, and violence. But as legislators, we cannot base our work solely on good hopes. Restrictive measures, such as those the Riksdag has already said yes to regarding limiting access to the internet and mobile phones, and now the possibility of keeping youths separated at night, must also be in Sis's toolbox. Otherwise, the safety for both youths and staff at Sis is actually jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and thus approval of the government's proposition to give Sis better opportunities to maintain safety and security at the state's special youth homes.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that Johan Hultberg tells us about everything the government is doing that is good. We agree with much of it, and great and important steps have been taken regarding the revolutionary reform of Sis.

But now we are talking about something the government is doing that is actually bad. I do not know if the member himself has reflected on what would have happened to him as a human being if he had been locked up for nine hours, or what would have happened to his children if they had been locked up for nine hours, not once or twice but countless times. What in such a deeply restrictive handling of a child will lead to the child becoming less violent or dangerous for society? I am not naive but grounded in reality.

Let me ask the member the questions I asked in my speech. Can the member guarantee that the law will not result in children being subjected to suffering, abuse, or violence? Can the member guarantee that the law will not be exploited for improper purposes? Can the member guarantee that the premises are fire-safe so that locking in children will not pose a danger to life? Last but not least: What facts support that this will make placed children less violent?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we must be incredibly humble regarding the difficulties one has to manage within Sis. One encounters young people with large, complex needs that one is not equipped to meet. We know that the cooperation does not function well enough with other resources and agencies in society, which must take their responsibility so that these young people can receive help with the underlying causes of why they are outgoing, violent, and so on. We have good examples of integrated care forms where regions come much closer to the Sis homes and can treat the young people. This needs to be developed, and that is very much what the long-term investigation and the reform of the state child and youth care aims for.

But the chairman Karlsson and I also agree that we have acute and serious problems within Sis. Therefore, the government is working in parallel with the long-term reform and with addressing the acute problems, which concern safety, lack of space, and lack of quality of care. Therefore, Sis has received a changed instruction, therefore a special director-general has been appointed, and therefore Sis has received substantial reinforcements in the appropriation in both the spring revision budget and the autumn budgets so that staffing can be increased and work can be done with increased differentiation.

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to give guarantees. But when new legislation on additional restriction possibilities is introduced, Sis must make investments in the premises. Before the new legislation can be used, Sis must invest in fire protection measures, new doors, and much more. Adjustments are obviously required before the new law can be applied in practice.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer. Should I take it as that the law will not be introduced before these measures are taken? That would be fantastic in that case.

I agree with the National Audit Office that the government has implemented good measures, but here one is completely wrong. Suddenly, one no longer sees the deficiencies where one previously had such a high tone regarding rectification.

Not all ends justify the means, especially not when it concerns children and when we know that it will not have any effect. A desperate person is a very dangerous person.

I share the view that we have situations that are very serious, and it is not without reason that children are placed at Sis. But the Left Party's alternative proposal is that one could deploy reinforcement teams at those times when the institutions need support. It would be humane and effective and certainly much better for the staff, if we are to consider their well-being. No one feels good about a system where we work with more methods of violence in an already violent organization.

Back to my question: Will these measures be taken before the law is introduced?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Parallel work is ongoing. In order for Sis to be able to keep young people separated at night, the legislation needs to be in place. But obviously, Sis also needs to make adjustments to the premises, and therefore the government has already reinforced Sis with additional appropriations so that investments can be made in the physical environment. It is unclear when Sis will be able to apply the new legislation in practice because investments will be required in, among other things, new doors in order for the legislation to be applicable.

Let me be clear that this is about an opportunity. It is not about anyone in the chamber, in the government, or in the leadership of Sis wanting to keep children and young people separated at night. But it is about giving Sis the opportunity if it is necessary to maintain safety and order. That is how it is formulated in the legislation.

I receive questions from Member Karlsson as to whether I can guarantee one thing or the other. Can Member Karlsson guarantee that no child, no youth or staff member is beaten to death at Sis because we do not have these possibilities today? No, Member Karlsson cannot. That is how the bitter reality looks.

We need to make trade-offs between different values and objectives. For me, the Moderaterna, and the government, it is very important to continue the work of raising the quality of care, strengthening staffing, and working more with differentiation. But there must also be opportunities for Sis to handle acute safety issues.

I do not want to wake up one morning and hear that a youth or staff member has been beaten to death at a state youth home and know that if we had given Sis other tools, it could have been prevented. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this legislation was unfortunately needed.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that society has failed in the care and support of some of the children and young people who need some form of support from society. We now see the consequences of interventions for families in need not arriving early enough, while at the same time society has not been able to protect children and young people with previous problems from being drawn into crime.

The result of these failures is that some children and young people commit very serious crimes. Not infrequently, it concerns children with mental ill-health, neuropsychiatric diagnoses, and social vulnerability. In order for these children to get on the right track in life and be able to live a normal life, proper care and treatment are needed. Restrictive or coercive measures against young people should, as a general rule, only be used in exceptional cases. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been Swedish law since 2020 and implies that all decisions shall be made based on the best interests of the child.

Mr. Speaker! The failures in society have persisted for many years under several governments, several regional governments and several municipal governments. The children and young people are paying the price because the adult society has failed them.

That children and young people behave badly and commit horrific acts is nothing new, but it has not occurred to such an extent previously, and it has not been such serious crimes. It is a sign that society has failed to protect the children.

Providing the right support to children and young people is what we must focus on, partly to counteract more people being drawn into crime, and partly so that more can gain faith in the future and be able to live without the gangs. More should leave social services and live a so-called normal life.

A principal I met on Monday said something wise, which I feel we sometimes need to use in this debate. If a student does not manage school, it is not the student's fault but the staff at the school who have not given the student the right conditions. We should therefore focus on the fact that if a young person has committed a crime, it is not the young person's fault but adult society that has failed to provide the right support at the right time.

Mr. Speaker! The children and young people with the greatest need for support, care, and attention who are either convicted of a crime or have been taken into compulsory care with the support of LVU and are in Sis's highest security-classified residences have a couple of things in common. They are children, that is, under 18 years old, and adult society has failed to protect them and provide the right support, care, and treatment early enough.

Mr. Speaker! If society has failed, is it the children who should bear the consequences? Is it the children who should be punished by being locked in their rooms at night because we have not provided the right support in time to the family? Is it the children who should be punished because we do not have sufficient competence and sufficient treatment methods at our Sis homes? Is it the children who should be punished because we do not have sufficient staffing at night that can create calm even then?

Locking a child in their room at night is not compatible with children's rights; we must remember that. But, Mr. Speaker, even I and the Center Party unfortunately see that we need to address this today, even though restrictive measures should be the last resort to protect children and young people.

Centerpartiet has concluded that it will move for a rejection of the bill currently on the table today. At the same time, we propose a corresponding law – but we want to time-limit it. It should be valid for one year. We want that law to include that healthcare personnel shall be involved in making the decision regarding separation during rest periods, just as with care in private. There must also be clear documentation of risk behaviors and that other measures are not sufficient to maintain safety.

The Government should ensure that independent children's representatives are now introduced at Sis and return within a year with an account of the effects of the introduction of limitation measures - including previous ones - that we have decided on, so that we know they provide the effect we want.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has responded to a report from the Swedish National Audit Office with many good measures to improve quality, including in Sis. When the decisions take effect, the need for locking should decrease.

We have, as we have said, decided on the limitation of electronic communication and visits, but what effect has that had? We must get an answer to that before I want to make a decision on whether Sis shall have the possibility to make this type of decision for the time being.

Mr. Speaker! I must ask Member Johan Hultberg, who previously stood at the rostrum and said that the Center Party is naive to want to move for a rejection of the bill, to read our entire proposal. We actually say that this type of legislation was needed, but not that it should apply indefinitely. It must constantly be questioned whether this is what is needed. The law should contain provisions on who makes the decisions and what requirements for documentation should apply.

Above all, we must not forget that children's representatives at Sis are needed now. This will affect our children and young people.

Centerpartiet stands by all its reservations, and I move for approval of reservation number 9.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I had not actually intended to respond to Member Johansson's speech, but she addressed me so clearly that I feel compelled to do so.

Yes, I think the Center Party is naive. I really do. I wish that this legislation was not needed. I wish that we had greater security and safety in the youth homes. I wish that we did not have 15-20-year-olds who have committed murder and bombings and who have a capacity for violence that is incredibly difficult to curb. I wish that reality were different. But reality is what reality is.

We need to give Sis the tools to maintain security and order. For me and the Moderaterna, it is very clear that that work is primarily about strengthening competence, making investments in premises, working with differentiation, ensuring that the care chain functions better, that more resources come in from psychiatry and the regions, and that one works with good security assessments and individual placements so that rival gang criminals do not end up on the same ward – all of that is the foundation.

If Sis judges that it is necessary to maintain security and order or to prevent an escape, I think it is reasonable that Sis has the possibility to hold youths in seclusion. Why does Member Johansson think we should wait with that? Should we wait until the first death occurs at a Sis institution? I do not think so.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It sounds as if Member Hultberg and I are far apart, but we actually are not. I agree that competence needs to increase, that the premises need to be changed, and that a different type of differentiation and a completely different care chain are needed. Much of what I addressed in my speech is about how adult society has many times failed.

We agree that as the situation stands now, this type of law is needed. What distinguishes me from Member Hultberg is that I do not want this law to apply indefinitely. I want it to be a law that is required to be reconsidered at regular intervals so that we do not have it if we do not really need it.

As a member of Parliament, I have the tool to reject a proposal and submit a counter-proposal that says: Come back with a similar law that applies for one year! That is the tool I have.

I have proposed to the government that we gather together regarding the rights of children and young people and the different types of interventions that we are currently implementing, where we are often in agreement. We should do this jointly, the government and all parties in the Riksdag, under an umbrella where we could work to ensure that we are truly doing the right things and do not miss anything along the way.

But since the government does not let the Center Party and other parties into that type of discussion where we can take a holistic approach under a holistic umbrella, I must use the tool I have: to reject the proposal but to ask the government to make a law that is temporary so that we do not allow these types of restrictions for longer than necessary.

So no, I am not naive. But I see that the law needs to be time-limited.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! What does a rejection of the bill mean? It means that Sis does not have the possibility to, if it is deemed necessary, keep children and young people in seclusion at night. Then that possibility does not exist. That is what Member Johansson's and the Center Party's proposal means.

I had to read the reservation and the consideration several times before I even understood what the Center Party's point was. But now I have understood that it is actually the same legislation that is desired, but that it should be time-limited.

Mr. Speaker! Then it is still appropriate to remind that this chamber, with a simple stroke of the gavel, can repeal any legislation whatsoever. It is introducing new legislation that is time-consuming; abolishing legislation is fundamentally not a particularly time-consuming or long process.

If the clouds in the sky were to clear, reality brightened, security at Sis improved, and the authority stated that these powers are no longer needed, we could simply abolish the legislation. But I think it would be unfortunate to set a date in advance for when the possibility should disappear, especially given that we do not know when the new legislation can practically begin to be applied. Sis also needs to make investments in its homes physically in order to be able to utilize the new legislation.

Mr. Speaker! It is a naive proposal from the Center Party to reject the bill. But I am pleased that we have a consensus on how we should work to improve the quality within Sis and on the long-term ambition. We also agree on the view that, to the greatest extent possible and in the best of worlds, we should never have to use these types of measures. But that also requires that we face the reality here and now and handle both the long-term challenges and the acute problems.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we can have an exchange of remarks so that we can clarify what it is we stand for. What is it that we agree on, and where do we differ?

It is clear that a new law is time-consuming. But again: I saw that this was the tool that I and the Center Party could use to clarify what we want. We do not think that this is a restrictive measure that should exist for the time being.

Let me ask a rhetorical question to the member and hope that the Moderates and the governing parties can take the outstretched hand that I am currently offering anyway. I would like to see that we could work together, because I am completely convinced that we would go even further then. We would get even better early interventions, care and treatment of the children and young people who need it – because that is what we completely agree on.

I have asked several times why the government does not provide clear feedback on the measures the government takes that are good. I ask again: What effect do they have? It is important to know so that we do not miss the mark or miss anything. We should not have measures that do not give us what we want.

I conclude with this rhetorical question and a wish for joint efforts so that we know that we are truly doing everything we can so that no more children fall into crime and so that more children return to society.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have received accounts of a society where safety is lost. We see a development where parents struggle to keep their children away from the gangs but stand powerless. It is a reality where many children's everyday lives are marked by violence, insecurity, and betrayal. It is children who are betrayed by those closest to them and by society, and boys with a dangerous capital of violence, who are a threat to their surroundings and to themselves.

Mr. Speaker! It is an alarming development we are seeing. The violence is escalating, and the gangs are recruiting ever younger children. Society's responsibility is clear: We must protect these children from falling even deeper while we have a duty to create safety for everyone who risks being affected by the gangs' violence.

Not even the special residences that are supposed to be a safe place for the children who have been placed there are a sanctuary from the gangs' world of violent crime. Conflicts are brought in, flare up, and escalate. New members are recruited. Revenge actions are planned. Staff are threatened, and the violence increases. It is no exaggeration to assert that the situation is serious and requires action.

It is in that perspective that the proposal we have to debate today should be seen. It is about strengthening security and increasing safety at our special youth homes and cutting off the gangs' tentacles in there.

The proposal provides an opportunity for staff to use seclusion as a last resort in acute situations where no other measures have worked and where there is a high risk that young people will harm themselves or others.

It is important to emphasize that the new law shall be carefully regulated. Segregation will only be used for youths cared for with support of LVU at special youth homes with increased security or for those serving the sentence of closed youth care.

The maximum time for isolation will be nine hours, and such a decision shall always be appealable. I think it is a good balance between, on the one hand, protecting and caring for young people and, on the other hand, safeguarding the safety of everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker! In an ideal world, coercive measures would be superfluous. Sis-homes are intended to help, care for, and protect some of society's most vulnerable children. But reality looks different. We have to deal with a reality where threats and violence have become part of everyday life. The problems are deeply rooted, and it requires long-term solutions. But to not act would be a great betrayal.

The government has already taken measures to improve the quality of care, increase safety, and strengthen the governance of Sis. These are important, but not sufficient, measures. More reforms are required to create a safer environment in our youth homes.

At the same time, some opposition parties in this debate have tried to create a misleading picture of the proposal. They resort to exaggerations and try to paint a picture of the government wanting to lock up children without caring about their future. Just as I said initially, proportionality will of course prevail. Segregation shall always be used with the utmost caution. But to not give the staff the necessary tools to guarantee a safe environment at the special youth homes is to turn one's back on the problems that exist. These are problems whose existence none of us in this chamber can deny.

Mr. Speaker! The main mission for Sis is and shall remain to work protectively and with a clear crime-preventive focus. At the same time, we must be honest about how reality looks. The violence has already caused great suffering. Families have lost their children to the gangs, and innocent people have fallen victim to a spiral of violence that must be broken.

The measure the government proposes is not a solution to all problems, but it constitutes a necessary step to create safety for the children living in these homes, for the staff who daily face a tough reality, and for society as a whole. It is about giving young people a chance for care and support in a safe environment while we protect others.

Mr. Speaker! Ensuring safety for children in our Sis-homes is a matter of responsibility. It is about acting against violence and crime that have transformed these homes from protected environments into places where threats and insecurity are everyday occurrences.

The government's proposal is part of the solution - a tool to strengthen security and create safety for both children and staff. Our mission is clear. We must meet reality with measures that make a difference. It is our duty to act here and now.

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

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker and members of the House! This is becoming a bit strange for me. Even though I am on the left, in these issues I have mostly cooperated with parties to the right. The Liberals are one of the parties I have cooperated with most through the years to protect children placed in Sis. We have been very much in agreement that we are not out to protect criminals. We want to prevent crime. We want to prevent people from being subjected to gross violence. But we stand up for that children should not be subjected to violence without receiving care and treatment. We have been completely in agreement on those issues.

The Liberals were one of the parties that, together with us, pushed for the issue of completely banning seclusion. That is what becomes a bit strange in this discussion: It sounds like Sis does not have the tools, but they have the possibility to use both care in seclusion and segregation - a rather extensive method. Those possibilities already exist.

This proposal is about children being locked up for a very long time in a dysfunctional organization. I believe that the Liberals shared my view a few years ago. Now you seem to have changed your mind.

The Chairperson felt in her speech that we were exaggerating. I sincerely wish she were right. Report after report has, however, shown the opposite.

My question is: Does the member believe that it will prevent more violence out in society if one makes it possible to lock up children who are in need of society's care for many hours?

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Maj Karlsson!

The Liberals will always fight to ensure that children living in vulnerability receive the best care and the best security. But the Liberals also live in a reality where we see how society has developed. We see the reality that prevails at the special youth homes in Sis, where a large group of the residents are boys who, for various reasons, have been drawn into gang crime and carry with them a strong capacity for violence.

We must take many different measures. To Member Karlsson, it sounds as if this is the only measure. In my opening statement, I was clear that this must be the last resort that the staff at the special youth homes can take. Many steps are required before one ends up there.

To not see the development with the enormous amount of violence that affects not only the individual children but also others is to turn a blind eye to reality. The Liberals will not turn a blind eye to that reality.

To Member Karlsson, it sounds as if the government is sitting with its arms crossed. Has the Member missed all the measures that the government has taken regarding the important crime prevention work to stop this spiral of violence and ensure that no more children are drawn into this horrific gang crime?

We see the reality, and we act based on the reality that prevails. One step in the very important work to change Sis is to give the staff the tools required to maintain safety and security and create a good environment for the children and young people who are in these homes.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if the member missed that I clearly declared everything well that the government has done. We have been very persistent in that. I also began my speech by saying that the member's party and I have cooperated in these issues with exactly the same goal and purpose: We want children and young people to receive care. That has been our common point. I have not questioned that with a single word.

What I have been talking about is this bill, which I believe is devastating. The reason is that it is being introduced in a dysfunctional organization. The reason we wanted to remove privacy was that we see it being abused. Then children become in danger. That is the whole point here.

We are not naive. It is very easy to label someone as such, but it is not naive to want children to receive care and support. What the referral bodies say about the bill and what Sis itself says is that more staff is needed. Better resources were needed. Reinforcement was needed. Therefore, it is precisely this we propose – that we get resource teams that can come in and support Sis when it spirals out of control, because it does. We know what kind of youths we are dealing with, and we also know that this will not have an effect.

I raised this with the member from the Moderaterna. One can only imagine: What happens to me as a human being if I am locked in for nine hours? I will not come out and be calm and harmonious. I will be in a very cramped situation.

I think this is a dangerous proposal.

I also think we should be careful not to impose things on each other that we do not stand for. On the other hand, in such a serious situation, we must discuss which measures will be effective. Locking up children has never proven to be good. Locking up children under the conditions specified in the bill will not have a positive effect in the long term.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Maj Karlsson says that Sis is a dysfunctional organization. We agree on this. The question then is why nothing was done about the matter when Vänsterpartiet was a coalition partner to the Socialdemokraterna for eight years. Now, there is a new awakening and they see the enormous problems that exist at Sis. It is precisely what this government is addressing.

I was clear, and my colleagues from the government side were clear, that the bill is a last resort to be taken in special situations in order to maintain safety and security at the specific youth homes during the night. There is a clear regulation for the law.

The Liberals are, of course, always open to following up and evaluating new laws and seeing if they hit the mark. But to not act, to not ensure that safety and security are created and the environment is strengthened for the children and young people cared for in the youth homes, is to betray the children and young people who have already been betrayed by those closest to them, who have not seen how they have been drawn into gang crime, but also by society.

Of course, both crime-fighting measures and crime-preventing interventions are needed. Above all, preventive interventions are needed to stop the spiral of violence that has plagued our entire society, which has destroyed the lives of so many children and crushed so many families. But not daring to see reality and also not daring to use tools that can be perceived as tough is also a betrayal of the children who are already suffering.

While Member of Parliament Maj Karlsson continues to criticize and fail to see reality, the Liberals will continue to take responsibility for reversing the development.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet proposes that this bill, which we are debating here today, should be rejected. We have explained the reasons for this quite extensively in our follow-up motion. In my contribution here today, perhaps as a conclusion to this discussion, I intend to spend some time telling what others besides Miljöpartiet and the opposition have to say about this proposal. It is, in fact, a significant contributing factor to why Miljöpartiet has landed where we have landed.

We have a great understanding of the seriousness of the situation. We also think that the security and safety at the Sis homes must increase. But we primarily share the concern that has been raised by a number of large referral bodies. They emphasize what has already been put forward by others in this debate; they see that the possibilities proposed in this proposal risk contributing to increasing the problem rather than improving it.

It is also important to remember that according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, children who are placed also have specific rights, just as all other children have.

I want to mention, for example, the National Board of Health and Welfare. They highlight the recommendation from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to take legislative measures to explicitly prohibit the use of, among other things, isolation and segregation of children in these types of care environments.

The Children's Ombudsman argues that there are excessively great risks with the proposed regulation on privacy during night rest and believes that it could affect children and their rights in a far-reaching way.

Save the Children highlights the fact that being isolated against one's will risks leading to risks for children in both the short and long term, especially for children with mental ill-health and experiences of trauma and other risk factors.

The Gender Equality Authority reminds of girls' vulnerability and that audits and supervision have shown that Sis in recurring cases has applied its special powers in an impermissible manner, that it has affected girls to a greater extent, and that more girls already feel insecure at home.

In this context, I also want to highlight new research that was presented a couple of weeks ago. It shows that the risk of a child not surviving childhood increases when the society intervenes and takes the child into care. This is, of course, very worrying new knowledge. When the state takes into care and places children, the responsibility is therefore very great regarding what the content of the care looks like. It is clear that a very large transformation work needs to take place.

Madam Speaker! The Government has appointed a large number of different inquiries within the area of children in social care. It is clear that there is a great commitment to the issue. That is, of course, very positive. And it is clear in this debate that many of us share that commitment. No one wants children to be harmed. No one wants children to expose themselves or others to risk or crime. We believe, however, that there is a certain bias towards repression in the Government's stance, which we believe could lead to a negative development.

The children's perspective must achieve greater impact. It requires higher staffing density, better content in care, and close contact and dialogue with children and young people as well as with organizations that represent children and young people. It is a prerequisite.

One must also remember that many young people who are in the care of society come from socially disadvantaged circumstances; many have mental ill-health and/or disabilities. This places very high demands on society and on the care.

Madam Speaker! The Authority for Health and Care Analysis has presented a number of requirements that they believe must be met for the proposal to be implemented in a good way. They argue, among other things, that the legislation should be temporary – we heard that being debated earlier – pending the completion of the review of the state child and youth care's mandate. They also argue that a provision should be introduced stating that health and medical care personnel shall continuously evaluate the child's or the young person's well-being when there is a decision on separation during the night rest.

Miljöpartiet considers these requirements to be good. We think that the government should take them into account, if the proposal is now implemented.

The government itself proposes that the intended legislative changes should be followed up and in September gave a mandate to Sis to follow up on the application of, among other things, separation in connection with the daily rest. It is a good measure.

We consider, however, that different measures within Sis need to be followed up through an independent evaluation carried out by an actor other than Sis itself. Such a follow-up needs to be comprehensive and qualitative and clearly include the child and legal certainty perspective. The child's representative needs to be able to be present in an appropriate manner in such a follow-up. And obviously, it is most central that children's own experiences and perceptions are expressed.

Miljöpartiet also considers that there needs to be independent observers at the Sis homes whom children and young people should be able to contact in case of irregularities and when their rights are not taken seriously. An effective and well-functioning complaint function is also needed. The one that exists today at Ivo is not sufficient.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to mention something about the most important thing in this context, which has also been highlighted several times by other speakers: the State needs to take a much greater responsibility for the entire area, in order to prevent children from being harmed or drawn into criminal activity in the way we have seen in recent years.

Miljöpartiet allocates 1 billion in its budget to crime prevention work and 1 billion to the social services to enable their work. Recently, it has been highlighted, for example in the media, that social secretaries and social service managers experience that they cannot carry out urgent placements of young people because there is no financial room in reality. It is obvious that the state needs to contribute more resources. The government needs to take the issue most seriously and make other budget priorities.

I stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval of reservation 11 regarding specifically the independent complaints function and the observers.

Seclusion in connection with rest periods - for increased safety and security at special youth homes

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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