A preventive social services act - for increased rights, obligations and opportunities

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today is a historic day. Sweden is to receive a new Social Services Act. The new Social Services Act represents the largest social policy reform in Sweden in 40 years. Regardless of which social service I have visited, for example in municipalities such as Årjäng and Gävle, this legislation has been long-awaited. It applies all around in all of Social Services Sweden.

The background is that many experience that today's legislation leads to the social services intervening too often too late – when the situation has become acute – when one could have prevented the social problems or at least been able to intervene earlier. Social services employees state that the current law makes it easy to get stuck in long investigations and administrative work when what they actually want to devote themselves to is the social work, helping human to human.

We have observed that the existing Social Services Act has been far too rigid and inflexible. It needs to be made more flexible, and the support measures need to vary so that more people can be helped to a dignified existence. This is what we are now trying to achieve. The stated goal of the new Social Services Act is that every human being shall be able to live a dignified life and be well.

The social workers who are struggling across the country want to work more preventatively. The social services are now given a clearer preventative mandate.

Staff within the social services will also be given greater freedom to design the work in a way that makes it easier to take on the social responsibility and help people toward something better. This will occur by more interventions being possible without extensive investigations and individual assessments. This will naturally free up resources and facilitate preventive work, but above all, it creates more tools for the social services, which also creates conditions for more vulnerable people to receive the support they need at an earlier stage. The social services should simply become easier to contact, and those who need support should be able to receive it more easily.

Mr. Speaker! The social services are given a special crime-preventing mandate, and it is actually entirely thanks to the Christian Democrats and the government. That crime-preventing perspective was not included at all when the Social Democrats drafted the first investigation directives. Magdalena Andersson and Lena Hallengren also told the investigator, who at that time was Margareta Winberg, that the new Social Services Act should not cost anything, at least not more than the current law. It is naturally a very strange attitude when the ambitions for the social services obviously need to be raised. But the government has, therefore, corrected those deficiencies.

The crime prevention work could, for example, involve expanding parental support programs, because we know that safe and well-functioning families are the most important factor in preventing crime.

The crime prevention work can also involve the municipality's cooperation with schools, the police, or community life in order to simply catch more young people in time. It is clear, in any case, that the social services' preventive work must not stop at its own operations, but that cooperation is necessary – and then not only with the police and schools, but also with associations in civil society and with local businesses. This has been very important for the Christian Democrats, because we realize that society is much larger than the state and the public sector, and that the whole of society needs to be involved in preventing and counteracting crime so that Sweden can become safe again.

Mr. Speaker! Another important matter that I, as a Christian Democrat, want to highlight is that children's rights are now being strengthened by adapting the provisions of the Social Services Act to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children have the right to information about their interventions. Social services shall take the child's opinions into account when assessing what is in the child's best interests. The child's best interests shall always come first in all measures concerning children. Children need to be seen and affirmed. They should be able to feel safe, and they need to be listened to. Therefore, we strengthen the child perspective in the new Social Services Act.

The new law will be better for the children but also for everyone else who receives social services, because it now appears in the new Social Services Act that the activities shall be in line with science and proven experience. The activities shall be monitored and developed. That sounds obvious, but the Socialstyrelsen's review has shown that the social services all too often use methods for which there is a lack of evidence – sometimes even counterproductive methods. We are now going to rectify that.

I am convinced that the new start and the increased ambition for Swedish social services that the new law entails will also create conditions for a better working environment and for recruiting and retaining staff within the social services.

More social workers will be given the conditions to work in an efficient and knowledge-based manner with what they are actually trained for: to help the socially vulnerable people that today's decisions are ultimately about. It is the single mother who struggles hard to make ends meet and the boy who has never seen his mother or father go to work. It is also the homeless man on the street, the father whose drinking risks tearing the family apart, the children who worry about fights at home, and the woman exposed to violence who needs protection in a protected residence. The social services are there for them.

My assessment is that many more will want to be part of the journey of change towards something better that is now gaining momentum within Swedish social services and which shall ensure that more of all these people are given the opportunity to live a dignified life.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am just as proud every time I stand at this rostrum, for this party, in this country. Sweden has historically created and distributed wealth better than any other country.

The Social Democratic Prime Minister Per Alvin Hansson stated the ideal for this journey by likening the good society to a good home: "The foundation of the home is community and empathy. The good home knows of no privileged or marginalized, no pampered children and no stepchildren. There, one does not look down on the other, there no one tries to gain an advantage at the expense of others, the strong does not oppress and plunder the weak. In the good home, equality, consideration, cooperation, and helpfulness prevail."

The analogy is unfortunately difficult to relate to for many who have grown up in insecure homes. But those with a tough upbringing are those who need the welfare state that Per Albin spoke about the most. The role of social services in the welfare state is to putty, seal, and join the cracks. It is an important task in the overall sense, and for the individual human being, it is often completely decisive.

The building blocks of an equal welfare state are, however, an equal school, that everyone who can work shall work, everyone's right to good healthcare and everyone's right to a good home. The new Social Services Act must be placed into this context.

We have an unemployment rate of 10 percent. No social services act will solve this, but for that, a labor market minister on their toes is required.

We have a terribly unequal school system that knocks children out early and where profit is allowed to take precedence over the students' best interests. The new Social Services Act will not solve this. Instead, it requires a school minister who is free from ties to the private school owners and can do what is necessary.

We have adults living at home as if they were children because they do not have a home to move to. The Social Services Act does not solve this, but a proactive and goal-oriented housing minister will tackle it.

A job of one's own with an earned salary can never be replaced with social assistance. Housing can never be replaced with beds in shelters. School failures cannot be undone through placements in HVB homes. We can never build the egalitarian society without the cornerstones of the welfare state. Social policy cannot patch over fundamental deficiencies in the general welfare.

Mr. Speaker! With that said: Finally! Finally, we are now going to vote through a new Social Services Act.

The Social Democratic government, with Lena Hallengren as Social Minister, appointed the inquiry in 2017. Margareta Winberg, who was given the trust to lead it, took the time to meet many practicing social workers. She took impressions and let many of their experiences, perspectives, and viewpoints shape the law. I see how the Minister for Social Affairs sits here today, beaming with happiness at having taken over the baton and carried it all the way here. That makes me happy. What I, however, cannot understand is why she has delayed for so long.

The previous Social Democratic government should have gone to the Riksdag with the law already in 2022, but after the election loss, the proposal ended up on the right-wing government's table. When it took so long, many of us were worried that the investigation's proposal would be fundamentally reworked, but it is an untouched proposal that we are debating today. The bill has not aged like wine or milk; it was good then, and it is good now. It is just a pity that the law's tools have not already been placed in the hands of eager social workers. The law could have made a big difference for many a long time ago.

Mr. Speaker! The last time the Riksdag adopted a new Social Services Act, over 40 years ago, many were as excited as they are today. Progressive social workers were to receive legislation at the forefront of the era's wave. They were to be given tools to be able to provide the right support at the right time.

If courts and lawyers chew on a law long enough, a kind of legal tartar builds up. New requirements are established in practice that demand investigation, documentation, and bureaucracy – and so social workers miss the window when the help actually helps. Over time, the form has sometimes become more important than the content. It is this legal tartar that we are now scraping away.

Mr. Speaker! Social services must be easily accessible in order to be able to work preventatively. This is explicitly written into the law. In the new law, many interventions will also be able to be provided without individual assistance decisions. The time-consuming bureaucracy is set aside to provide people with help in the right time. This is a change as large as requested for women who are controlled and beaten, for the elderly and frail who are afraid of falling in the home, and for worried parents who need support when their children are close to ending up in a criminal gang.

Mr. Speaker! As a Social Democrat, I dislike vagueness, fluff, and nonsense. Now, a new requirement is finally being introduced that all activities within social services shall be conducted in accordance with science and proven experience.

I have met many competent sociologists who have worked structurally and based on science for a long time, but the difference between the legal requirements of healthcare and social services has long been a point of friction. It is clear that social services' interventions, just like healthcare's, must be carefully thought out and based on knowledge and proven experience. Interventions shall provide maximum benefit, and above all, they shall never, ever do more harm than good.

I wish that the government would let this perspective characterize more policy areas. Climate policy, crime policy, and fiscal policy would all benefit from an evidence-based approach – but also from common sense.

In the Tidö Agreement, it is stated that more compulsory take-overs of children is an end in itself. This seems to have more of its origin in SD's aggressive Trump rhetoric than in science and proven experience. Society must reasonably do everything to ensure that as few children as possible have to be taken into care.

The new Social Services Act is a step towards achieving this. It is about early and preventive measures being implemented to set children's lives on the right track in time. Sometimes, unfortunately, children will not be able to stay at home because they are being mistreated, and then money or legislation should not constitute an obstacle to placement. But compulsory take-overs can never, ever be an end in themselves.

Mr. Speaker! When children are suffering, society must be at the peak of its ability to detect and provide the right support. A childhood cannot be repeated. A life that is extinguished cannot be relit. The new Social Services Act makes it possible to search among reports of concern digitally. It is an important step to detect children who are suffering so that they can receive the help they need.

Current legislation states that the social services shall have the right to follow up on conditions in a family for two months after a placement has ended. The new law says six months, but many referral bodies wanted to see one year.

I hope that we will avoid reading about a single child who suffers because the follow-up was limited by an all-too narrow timeframe. It is particularly frustrating that the government has had oceans of time to look at the issue so that we could have hammered out a follow-up period of one year today. We really should have done that. We therefore move that the government shortly returns with such a proposal to the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! In my hometown Uppsala, three young people were recently shot to death in a hair salon. This senseless violence that washes over us daily is a poison. The entire society's power must be used in the fight against crime. The building blocks and putty of the society builders are needed. It is about teachers, employment officers, sports leaders, police officers, and social workers.

In that situation, the government prioritizes investing in tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. One is so eager to lower the tax for the rich that one even borrows billions that everyone will have to help pay back.

I am proud to belong to a party that prioritizes investments in welfare, housing, jobs, and social services, which is visible budget after budget, billion after billion. It makes a difference who governs Sweden. Unfortunately, more and more people are noticing that right now.

For significantly better legislation to make the difference for many people that it has the potential to make, it is required that the social workers out in the country who are to apply the new law have colleagues and resources. We Social Democrats will take that fight at every given opportunity. The social services should never have to choose between dropout programs and U-sväng programs. More gang members should drop out, and more children who are on their way toward the gangs should take a U-sväng away from them.

Mr. Speaker! I want a society where more people who have had it difficult in their family as children shall be inspired to, as adults, start a family of their own characterized by equality, consideration, cooperation, and helpfulness. I want more people to think: If the society I have encountered can be characterized by community and empathy, my family can also do so.

The new Social Services Act is a step in the right direction so that more people will have the opportunity for a better life. It is worth celebrating.

I move for approval of reservation 23.

(Applause)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech. The member began by speaking about how it is fantastic that we now have a new Social Services Act. We naturally think so too, because we are the party and the government that have brought this to fruition. The previous government did not succeed in that.

This government is investing almost 10 billion kronor to introduce the new Social Services Act. The previous government invested no money at all. We are now going to get a new Social Services Act with interventions without long investigation times, which is fantastic and can help very many families and very many children and young people.

My question to Member Gustaf Lantz is: How does the Member think now when we are investing so much money, almost 10 billion kronor? The previous government invested 0 kronor.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, it is very pleasing that many of us here today are happy about the new law. But the truth is that it is a piece of legislation that has been developed under a Social Democratic government.

It is also true that we Social Democrats have not opposed any money that has been allocated for the implementation of this legislation. But perhaps it is appropriate for the Moderates to explain a bit about how the calculation is made. 10 billion, you say – over how many years?

Let us talk about this year. Let us talk about how Mikael Damberg in his shadow budget had 9 billion more for welfare – 9 billion more to work towards preventing ill health, crime, and much more.

As my colleague Eva said, you cannot give a fantastic recipe for apple pie but not provide any apples. It makes me think of the worst gift I have received in my entire life. When I turned 18, I received a form to apply for a driving permit. But I received no money for the driving permit, which I obviously thought I had when I received the form.

That is how I believe it will be experienced out in the municipalities, where there have been enormous cost increases. Now, one finally gets legislation that removes thresholds and obstacles. But then, one does not get the resources that provide the opportunity to hire more people and truly utilize the new law to its full extent.

Why was the choice made to lower taxes for those with the highest incomes instead of giving municipalities and regions more money in the cost crisis we are now in?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Money has been paid out to the municipalities just for the implementation of the new Social Services Act. That money has gone to all municipalities. Then, of course, the municipalities have progressed differently in the work. But for most of those I have spoken with, these funds have played a role in being able to introduce the new Social Services Act.

This government has succeeded in something that the previous government actually did not succeed with, namely getting the new Social Services Act through in the state it is in today. We also need money so that it goes easily and smoothly when it is to be implemented on July 1.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I agree – it is very good that there is an expensive and elaborate instruction manual on how the new law works. Conferences, training, and internal processes are required, and it is very good that the municipalities receive coverage for that. It is nothing that the Social Democrats have opposed, but on the contrary. We have agreed to it.

But when you then have to fill this with content, you have to look budget by budget, year by year and billion by billion. Then the Moderaterna lose time and again and again. The fact is that you do what you have said. You deliver to your core voters. Those who already have a lot shall get more. It is that simple, and it is how people recognize the Moderaterna.

One should not believe that the social workers out in the municipalities, who meet reality at the very front line, feel that that prioritization is correct. There, it is about having colleagues, having resources, and being able to work with the new legislation that is now in place. It is nothing that will be solved for all time; rather, it will be up to each government to make its priorities.

I appreciate honesty. Those who already have high incomes can be satisfied with how the government has prioritized, if that is what is most important to them. But I believe that even those with high incomes see that Sweden has such problems that it is the wrong time to prioritize those with the highest incomes and that it is the right time to prioritize the municipalities that are struggling with finances, so that we can meet the challenges we have. No matter how we turn and twist things here in the chamber, it is 9 billion to welfare that separates the budgets presented for this year.

(Applause)

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating report 2024/25:SoU23 A preventive social services act – for increased rights, obligations and opportunities. I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In a time when society's challenges are growing, crime is spreading, loneliness among the elderly is increasing, and social problems are deepening, it is more important than ever that we have a social service that functions – a social service that does not just sound the alarm when something goes wrong but prevents the problems from arising in the first place. Therefore, it is very welcome that we are now facing a new, modernized Social Services Act. It is a law that seriously meets the needs of our time. The Government's proposition 2024/25:89 shows that they have listened to both research and practice, but also to the municipalities and the citizens.

Let me highlight some parts that we see as particularly positive.

First and foremost, the law has received a completely new structure. It is divided into sections, which makes the law more pedagogical, more clear, and easier to update. This is important. Social services is an area that is constantly developing and changing. Now we get a law that is both stable and adaptable.

The ambition of the investigation has been to return to the law's original idea, namely to be a framework law – a law that does not regulate in detail but provides direction, goals and responsibility while leaving room for local solutions. It is a wise and necessary change.

Mr. Speaker! One of the other important changes is that preventive work is highlighted as a core task. Social services shall not only step in when the damage has already been done – they shall detect and see the problems before they become acute. This applies to everything from support for the elderly, young people, and families to work against substance abuse and mental illness.

We know that early interventions yield results. They reduce human suffering, and it is well-invested tax money that yields results further ahead. It is common sense, and it is a way of working that we in the Sverigedemokraterna have long demanded.

Another important change is that the social services shall become easily accessible. It shall be simple to get in contact, even for those who may feel shame in seeking help, which many unfortunately still do. It shall be simple even if one does not know exactly how to proceed.

An outward-facing social service that has a positive approach and is visible in society builds trust. And with trust, more will dare to seek help in time. This is crucial for the safety net to function.

The municipalities' responsibility for planning social services' interventions is now expanded to cover the entire area of operation. This means that several instances must cooperate. Cooperation is needed between social services, health and medical care, the school, the police, and civil society. This is something we Sverigedemokrater have called for for a long time, because we all know that problems rarely follow administrative boundaries.

The Social Welfare Board is also given the opportunity to offer certain interventions without first conducting a comprehensive needs assessment. This gives the social services greater room for maneuver and the opportunity to help people faster, more easily, and more on their own terms. In practice, this means that people can receive support before a case has been opened, and it is often precisely that which makes the difference.

The law also establishes that the social services shall be based on science and proven experience. This is pleasing, because in an area that affects so many people's lives, often in vulnerable situations, we should not experiment. We shall use methods that work. That is what one has every right to expect, just as when one visits healthcare to see a doctor.

This also requires the right competence. Therefore, it is now clarified that the staff shall have appropriate education and experience. This applies to all parts of the social services.

Mr. Speaker! In the new bill, the social services board is given a mandate to work on crime prevention. This is an obvious but important distinction, as we all see how criminal networks are recruiting ever younger children.

The law emphasizes that cooperation between social services, healthcare, school, and the police is not something that can happen, but something that must happen. For the safety net to function, everyone – school, social services, police, and healthcare – must pull in the same direction. Here, the role of social services becomes particularly important: to detect, react, and act before it is too late.

The municipalities also get better tools to follow up and monitor what the contractors actually deliver. This is a prerequisite for tax money to be used correctly and for quality to be maintained. It is about responsibility and about transparency.

All reports of concern concerning children shall become searchable. This is very important. Instead of preliminary assessments being placed in a folder and risking not being searched through every time a report of concern comes in, a digital, searchable file will be created, which ensures that risks can be detected in time and that children receive help before anything serious happens. This is a clear example of how modern technology can help, for example, a child before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker! Large financial investments are being made. The Government and the Sweden Democrats support the laws with large amounts in the budget from 2024 to 2028. The investments aim to enable a transition of the social services to a more preventive and knowledge-based way of working but also to strengthen the municipalities' conditions to implement the new law. It is an investment in safety, efficiency, and human dignity.

Mr. Speaker! The new Social Services Act is a major step forward. It is modern, responsible, and focused on what really makes a difference: preventive work, knowledge, accessibility, and security. It is a law that gives us the tools to help more people, earlier and better, without losing control or increasing bureaucracy. And it is a law that sets requirements but also shows trust in the municipalities, in the profession, and in the citizens.

We welcome this, for that is how one builds a stronger social service – and a stronger Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today I feel a special pride in standing at this rostrum. It is a great day. To be involved in making decisions about one of the most extensive reforms in social work in decades is somewhat historic. It is significant, long-awaited, and necessary.

Social services is perhaps one of society's most important institutions, not only because it is there when life is at its hardest, but because it embodies something even greater: our collective promise that no one shall fall out of the safety net that we build together and that all people shall have the right to a dignified life.

We must not forget that even the current Social Services Act was once a revolution. It marked the end of the era when poor relief, alcohol treatment, and childcare were characterized by moralism and control. That law was born from the insight that people are not lifted out of vulnerability through shame, but through support and respect.

The portal paragraph in the law set the tone: "The society's social services shall, on the basis of democracy and solidarity, promote people's

economic and social security,

equality in living conditions,

"active participation in community life."

It is actually really nice.

For a long time, social work was something to be proud of. It required courage and commitment. There was a belief in the social workers' professional judgment and a will to make a real difference.

But over time, the conditions changed. Society changed. Demands increased, and resources decreased. Social services had to bear the consequences of the shortcomings of other policy areas. Detailed management increased, administration swelled, and trust in the profession was eroded. Social services' time and resources went to the system, not to the human being. For those seeking help, the feeling all too often became that social services were not a support but more of a punishment.

That is why a new law is so important. After many years of investigations and discussions, some criticism and a great deal of waiting, we finally stand here, ready to take a new step for the social services and for those whom they exist for.

Mr. Speaker! Over the years, I have met countless social workers. They are the professional group that has taught me the most about what social work truly entails. But I have also met many of those for whom the social services exist – people whose voices are rarely heard in here but who carry the entire reality on their shoulders.

I have lived close to people whose lives have not been strewn with roses. I have stood side by side with single mothers who have fought their way through everyday life. I have seen people broken down by substance abuse but also seen their heroism when they have pulled themselves out of it. I have seen parents desperately trying to save their children from being drawn into crime.

And so I met Bossen. Bossen was a classic figure in the square in the district where I grew up: a ruddy beard, a twinkle in his eye, and always ready with a Gothenburg joke. Even as a child, we started a kind of cooperation. I did shopping for him, sometimes because he had pain in a leg, sometimes because he wasn't quite sober. I got a few coins for some candy.

He lived a life of heavy substance abuse, but he had a heart of gold. He kept an eye on my dog when I went into the store, and I kept a bit of an eye on him when needed. So we continued to help each other over the years. He became a part of my everyday life.

But with the years, his addiction became heavier and his life harder. Sometimes he became angry and got into fights. I saw how people shouted at him, took detours around him and spat at him. I saw a political party distributing food in an election campaign, but when he, the one who perhaps most of all needed it, reached out, he was denied. I will never forget that humiliation.

Over time I became worried. He was often bruised and increasingly exhausted. I pleaded with him to seek help. He tried but could not hold on. The shame over the relapses was heavy. So one day he told me why he suffered. He told me about the life he had lived that was completely lost. He told me about when his house burned down one night, about the children he lost that night, and about the burns all over his body that I had never noticed before.

I do not know if Bossen is alive today, but he is always with me. He taught me that no one chooses a life in vulnerability, but it is almost always a result of trauma, loss, and immense pain. It truly is a struggle.

It is with that perspective that I view the new law, and it makes me hopeful. Even though it will not solve all the problems, it has the potential to be the starting point for a necessary cultural change.

If I had met Bossen as a social secretary, I would not have wanted to meet him with bureaucracy and fragmented interventions. I would have wanted to meet him with time, trust and professional knowledge – with the conditions to build a relationship, create change and work long-term. That is what the new law enables if we do this in the right way.

Mr. Speaker! We are not finished, however. Vänsterpartiet stands largely behind the law, but we also see shortcomings.

The biggest issue is the resource question. The government has allocated funds for the implementation, which is both necessary and welcome. But it is not enough. A long-term and powerful investment in the social services' work in its entirety is required. Ambitions require economic muscles. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 28.

We also see that preventive work is crucial. Early, easily accessible interventions are the right way, but it requires a balance between preventive, investigative, and needs-based interventions. It requires coordination and clarity, so that it becomes easy to do the right thing.

We also do not want to see a development where the social services' work is governed by what happens to be available instead of what is actually needed. The risk is that availability governs before need, or that interventions do not reach the groups that need them most. We must ensure that the support is equitable and hits the mark.

It is also an enormous challenge that large parts of society are developing in a direction that rather exacerbates the problems that the social services have to handle, with for example increased economic inequalities and growing school segregation. Here, politics must take responsibility, so that the social services do not receive an even greater burden. The social services shall not bear all the responsibility alone – we must do it together.

Mr. Speaker! In many debates, we focus on young people in crime. That is important, but it is only a small part of what the social services do. We must not lose sight of the overall picture. The social services are for those living in economic hardship, single parents, women exposed to violence, and children who suffer. And everything is often interconnected.

It is therefore particularly worrying that the government, in parallel with the new Social Services Act, has a new legislative proposal regarding so-called intermediate coercion, with fines for parents who do not cooperate and ankle monitors for children, without a court review. This proposal has been met with almost unanimous criticism from the profession, researchers, and experts. The criticism is not ideological; it is grounded in reality. This does not work. It is based on incorrect assumptions that parents do not want to help their children when the reality is that they often are unable to. The solution lies in relationship and trust – not in coercion.

It may sound decisive to talk about fines and shackles, but it does not yield results. It counteracts everything we are now trying to achieve with the new Social Services Act. I therefore want to appeal to the government to take the stinging criticism to heart and withdraw the proposal for the so-called LIV. Let the new Social Services Act take effect instead. Give it a real chance!

Mr. Speaker! After a few serious lines, I now want to conclude where I began, with pride and hope. If we do this right, it can be the beginning of a new chapter in Sweden's social policy history. We can create real opportunities for change. We can strengthen a profession that deserves our respect and our resources. We can meet people, not with mistrust, but with humanity – for the Bossen, for the children, and for the future.

(Applause)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating something that many, including myself, have long been waiting for, namely a new, preventive social services act, for increased rights, obligations and opportunities. I want to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! It is happening now. Today we are debating a proposal that is historic: a new Social Services Act – the largest reform in over four decades. We are taking a necessary step away from an old Social Services Act that in practice has been a fire brigade dispatch system and towards a modern, preventive, and future-proof regulatory framework. The bill that now lies on the Riksdag's table marks an important shift from a social service that often intervenes when problems have become acute to a social service that acts preventively and shall be accessible, knowledge-based, and close to people's everyday lives.

Why was a new Social Services Act needed then? Well, society has changed. We see children who suffer in silence, young people who lose their footing, and elderly people who live in involuntary loneliness. We see people who do not seek help until it is almost too late. The legislation that governs our social services must be adapted to our time's reality, not yesterday's.

Mr. Speaker! With the new Social Services Act, we get a tool that better prepares Sweden for the future.

Firstly, the law emphasizes preventive work. This means that social services should be able to meet people early, before the problems have had time to grow large. It is wise, humane, and economically responsible.

But it is also about something more, namely trust. When we say that people must dare to contact social services, we must ensure that the thresholds are lowered. The new law makes it possible to provide certain interventions without first conducting a comprehensive needs assessment. It is a shift from suspicion to trust.

Secondly, the new law means that rights are strengthened. People will receive clearer information about what they can expect. It should not matter whether you live in a small municipality or in a large city – you should be met by a professional and accessible social service where the quality is equivalent.

But the law is not just about rights. It also places demands on us as decision-makers, on the municipalities, and also on society as a whole. This is because this is not a task for the social worker alone, as several others have mentioned here in the debate. It is about cooperation between school, healthcare, civil society, the justice system, and not least the citizens – us.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates and the government have been clear that we want a social service that focuses on giving people the tools to be able to take power over their own lives. Those who can work shall also work. Those who have responsibility for children shall also take that responsibility. And those who need support shall receive it – early, in a legally secure manner, and with dignity.

The government has allocated significant resources to make the legislative change possible in practice. An extra 1 billion is currently going to the municipalities to strengthen the social services' transition work. Competence development, digitalization and evaluation – all of this is required for the intentions in the law to become reality.

Mr. Speaker! I want to particularly highlight that the new Social Services Act gives children and young people a stronger voice. Children's right to be heard becomes clearer. It is crucial. It is in the children's experiences, needs, and anxieties that much of the preventive work must begin.

Thus, the possibility for support in vulnerable areas is strengthened, among newcomers and for families who are struggling. It is a recognition that social risks are complex but not insoluble. With the right intervention at the right time, it is possible to reverse a development.

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to say that we should invest in prevention. It is harder to do it for real. It requires courage, it requires priorities, and it requires patience. But that is exactly what we are doing now. We are changing the legislation fundamentally to give the social services tools and people better opportunities.

When the Social Democrats previously investigated a new Social Services Act, it was not allowed to cost any money. This government, which has a Moderate Social Services Minister, Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, is spending almost 10 billion kronor on the implementation. Today, I am extra proud to be a Moderate.

A new Social Services Act is an opportunity to build a stronger, more humane and more sustainable welfare society.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Hultberg (M) concurred.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a long-awaited piece of legislation, just as many others who have stood in the speaker's chair before me have said. It has an increased focus on open interventions, children's perspectives, early interventions, and crime prevention work – which is slightly different from early interventions, at least in my thoughts. It also has a focus on cooperation within the municipality and between different authorities. It is a new piece of legislation that has an increased focus on quality assurance, evidence-based methods, and data collection, in order to be able to follow up on what is done every day in Sweden's municipalities.

Mr. Speaker! It is also a law that has brought in more of a child perspective. It concerns, among other things, searchable reports of concern, access to interventions without a decision, and increased knowledge to uphold children's rights. But it also requires close cooperation, for example, with the regions' work to support children and young people with mental ill-health.

When it comes to the children's perspective, the Center Party would have wanted to go a bit further for children between 12 and 15 years old and their opportunities to say yes to open interventions even if the guardian does not consent. Even though I, like many others, am satisfied with this legislation, there are of course certain things that the Center Party would have wanted to see differently.

Mr. Speaker! The open interventions are based on voluntariness, early interventions, lowered thresholds, and increased trust. It is important that we now follow the implementation of this, so that it becomes good and so that a reasonable amount is documented regarding the interventions. We also need to ensure that someone follows the individual, the child or the adult, so that no one falls between the cracks.

Centerpartiet and all other parties are fundamentally in agreement on this legislation. This is step one. It is a step that means we must hold on and persevere. It is the municipalities and the regions that are to do the work. We do the easy part by making the decision on a law, but the work is done in our municipalities and in our regions.

It is a matter of us, from a national level, continuing and having the strength to provide support to the implementation that has begun and ensuring that work is sustained, in order to be able to develop the methods that are to be used every day. What should they look like? Who should own the model? How will it be evaluated moving forward? Here, our national authorities can be a support.

Let the law work! Let this legislation become the change we want! I ask the government not to proceed with many other new parts, which could risk that the implementation of this law stalls or, in the worst case, clashes with the new proposals that may potentially be put on the table. We want, namely, that this legislation becomes as good as we wish.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party thinks that the government has done a good job. I will continue to say that. But of course, as said, there are things in this big change that the Centre Party would have liked to have a bit different. We would, for example, have liked to see that the levels had been changed when it comes to maintenance support and the calculation of youths' incomes. Then more youths could have felt that it was worth taking that extra weekend shift, without the family's maintenance support being affected. In that way, they could contribute to breaking a pattern and to their own self-sufficiency.

We also would have liked to see that even children between 12 and 15 years of age should be able to say yes to open interventions, which I touched upon earlier. And we would have liked to see that the follow-up period after completed community planning should be twelve months instead of six months. We also would have liked that the purging of records had been reviewed, so that a young adult or adult received greater opportunities to go back and see which interventions one had received as a child.

We would also like to avoid seeing that difference in view on people that appears when there is talk of return migration. In the bill, the government highlights under the heading "Preventive work" what it considers to be an important part: that one should strongly stimulate and increase voluntary return migration and that this can be done with the right support and information, so that more people will return.

The question is simply who it is that should be guided. Who decides who they are? Which people have we given up hope on? The risk exists then that one might choose to work with repatriation instead of measures so that the child, for example, should manage in school.

How does this contribute to strengthening trust? We must remember that legislation is normative in terms of how we view different parts.

Mr. Speaker! With the amendments, where the Center Party had wanted to see something else, I nevertheless want to say in conclusion that I am happy and proud. This is a historic decision.

I hope that in the future people will say: "We saw at the preschool that it could be difficult for this child, and therefore we implemented these measures." I hope that people will not say as they have said so many times: "We saw at the preschool that this could happen." I hope that it is now we turn it around so that one can say that one is going to help this person.

This is a good law fundamentally with an increased child perspective and early interventions that provide opportunities. It is a matter of holding on and persevering. Let the law be implemented, so that we do not introduce new interventions that could risk clashing!

With that, I move for approval of reservation number 5, but I naturally stand behind all reservations from Centerpartiet.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is a great day, as several have pointed out. Today we debate and decide on one of the most decisive social policy reforms of the mandate period, namely the introduction of a new Social Services Act. I am, just like many others here today, very proud. I have been part of the entire journey – albeit from a different position, in a municipality – and have longed for a new Social Services Act to be put in place.

This report does not only concern technicalities, but it is fundamentally about what kind of society we want to build, which principles should guide the support for people in vulnerable life situations, how we can prevent social problems instead of just addressing them, and how we create a social service that is legally secure, accessible, and adapted for the future.

The Social Affairs Committee's report A preventive social services law – for increased rights, obligations and opportunities is a powerful answer to these questions. From the liberal side, we stand wholeheartedly behind the proposal, even though we as liberals would, of course, have liked to see clearer connections made to the school.

Mr. Speaker! The current Social Services Act entered into force in 2001. It has served us well, but it reflects a society that no longer exists. During the more than 20 years that have passed, society's challenges have changed. We have seen increased demands for individual adaptation, greater complexity in life situations, and an increased awareness of the importance of early interventions. It is therefore high time that we replace the old law with a new law that is modern, fair, and preventive.

Perhaps the most decisive change in the new law is that it shifts the focus from reactive to proactive. Today, the social services are often forced to intervene only when the problems are already large – when children are harmed, when families have broken down and when the abuse is advanced. The new bill reverses this. It stipulates that the municipalities shall work more preventatively and outreach-oriented. This is not only wise but also necessary. We know that early interventions do not just save resources. They save lives, relationships, and future prospects.

This is classic liberal welfare policy. The support is provided in time, not too late. We build people, not dependencies.

Another important change is the possibility to offer certain social interventions without individual means-testing. It may sound bureaucratic, but in practice, it means that people who need support at an early stage should not be forced to wait for a formal decision. The municipalities get greater room for maneuver to work with low thresholds and quickly. We Liberals see this as an important tool to reduce stigma and increase accessibility. Daring to ask for help should not be associated with a long investigation or the feeling of being questioned. The help should be there – early, clearly, and simply.

Mr. Speaker! We are also very pleased that the best interests of the child are highlighted more clearly in the new law. It is actually a self-evident matter, but it has not always been a reality. Children should not only be a part of a family, but they are also individual rights-holders. The new bill means that the children's voices shall be heard, that the children's opinions shall be taken into account, and that the children's best interests shall always be guiding in interventions concerning them. It is an important step toward realizing the Convention on the Rights of the Child in practice, and it is an expression of a society that takes children's rights and needs seriously.

A social services act is not just a steering document for authorities. It is a law that people should be able to understand. Therefore, it is welcome that the new law receives a clearer structure with nine thematic sections and a modernized, more accessible language. Legal certainty presupposes that people know what they are entitled to. It also presupposes that social services staff have good conditions to work fairly and consistently. An understandable law is a tool for both.

Two specific additions to the laws are worth highlighting.

Firstly, an overarching goal is introduced to promote equal living conditions. This means that the social services shall take into account the different life situations of women and men and work towards equal treatment. It is an important signal and a practical tool for a more egalitarian society.

Secondly, the social committee's crime prevention responsibility is clarified, especially when it concerns young people. Here we see a direct connection to the broader work for safety and social sustainability. Preventive social work is one of our most powerful tools against crime. This law strengthens that work.

Mr. Speaker! We are, of course, aware that this law entails a major transition for the municipalities. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that the state takes its responsibility in the implementation. We note with satisfaction that both Socialstyrelsen and Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner have been tasked with providing guidance and support.

We will follow this closely. A good law must also be implemented in a good way. Here, as legislators, we have a common responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that the social services are one of the cornerstones of the Swedish welfare state. Every day, they meet people in difficult situations. Sometimes the social services are the last resort. Sometimes they are the only hope. The new Social Services Act is not just a technical update, but it is a values-driven reform. It expresses a belief that people can grow, that society can support without suffocating, and that together we can build security through freedom.

From the Liberals' side, we are proud to stand behind this report. It is a reform for the time and for the future. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helene Odenjung, for the speech!

The Liberals and the Centre Party are usually in agreement when it comes to liberal values, but with the cooperation that the Liberals are in right now, I increasingly experience that our parties differ.

The debate we are engaged in today is fundamentally about very good legislation that we completely agree on. However, a mandate has crept in under the heading "Preventive work," which states that the social welfare committee may be allowed to work with repatriation after contact with the national coordinator. My question to the member from the Liberals is: Who shall judge whether measures should be taken so that a student can manage in school, or if the parents should be motivated to return to the country they once fled from?

Mr. Speaker! It was, in fact, the case that the government's investigators strongly advised the government against introducing the return migration grant. It would single out individuals as undesirable, harm integration, and have small economic effects. It is, I believe, the exact opposite of preventive work with inclusion in society, which the Social Services Act shall contribute to.

My question to the member is: Where has the liberal watchdog in the government, which the Liberals claimed they would be, gone? How could the Liberals let through such an illiberal part in such an important law?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member of Parliament Johansson is worried that the Social Services Act will lead to more people returning rather than the school making the right interventions. I am not at all worried about that. This Social Services Act creates greater opportunities for the social services to make the right interventions. The concern I possibly have is that the school is not better included in the preventive work, but there we will be the watchdog and ensure that interventions are made.

That the member implies that people working at the social services should start choosing between performing interventions of a social nature and encouraging return migration, I think is almost on the limit. If someone would like to return, there is the possibility to do so – nothing else.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I sincerely hope and am quite convinced that with the new legislation we will achieve much better cooperation and more early interventions for the vast majority.

But since this is included in the bill, there is still a will and an approach that this should also be a part of the work. It stands under the heading "Preventive work", which is very strange to me.

If one has two sides of the same coin and both are to work actively with repatriation and sit with people who need help and perhaps have had difficulties with integration, I am quite convinced that one will sometimes end up in an ethical dilemma. I do not want the municipality's employees to have to face this ethical dilemma, but I cannot turn a blind eye to what is stated in the bill.

How could the Liberals let these sentences remain in the bill if they now mean nothing?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Mr. Speaker! I must repeat the answer I just gave to Member Johansson: This is a tool that can be used, and I feel confident that it will not be used in the way Member Johansson fears. I trust that the social services' staff are so professional that they see what those seeking help need.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I had a bit of difficulty choosing among all of the Environment Party's fantastic reservations, so this time I move for exceptional approval of both reservation 1 and 18.

Miljöpartiet welcomes the new law. The work on it began when we were in government with the Socialdemokraterna. The purpose is that the social services should be able to work more preventatively and be more knowledge-based and easily accessible.

I am, however, a little afraid that the law, despite all the parties' praise, will not have the great effect we desire when it comes to working more preventatively. The preventative work is not solely the responsibility of the social services, but it is, above all, a joint municipal and societal responsibility.

Let me begin with my dear Umeå, where they have worked very collectively. Umeå has 2 kronor higher municipal tax than comparable municipalities, which the Moderaterna often point out. They have retained a large public utility, which owns 50 percent of all rental apartments, which enables people to get a rental apartment in all the municipality's districts. Umeå invests more than any other municipality in culture, leisure, and civil society, and the urban planners deliberately work with mixed housing forms so that all residents can live everywhere. In Umeå, 75 percent of the upper secondary schools are municipal, as well as an overwhelming majority of the pre-schools and primary schools. All of this contributes to the fact that the municipality can work collectively and preventatively, and the social services work actively on the front line by being out in the fields.

The underfunding of the public welfare concerns me. It has been ongoing for a long time, and more and more municipalities are struggling financially. A municipal politician knows that the first thing you cut when finances are tight is everything that falls outside of the statutory requirements, which means much of the preventive work.

Encouraging preventive work is laudable, but if we from the state level want municipalities and social services to work more preventively, we must also be prepared to support them more financially in this.

Miljöpartiet wants the staff to have better conditions. Social services' invaluable employees, the trained social workers, find themselves in difficult situations many times when they try to help families struggling with children who have started to get into trouble. Miljöpartiet therefore believes in establishing specialist training for social workers so that they can specialize after the broad, general social worker education. Social workers work in many areas, and when it comes to, for example, addiction issues, they may need to be given the opportunity to specialize. The same applies to those who work with children, young people, and families.

The Green Party wants the children's rights perspective to be strengthened. The best interests of the child should not only be considered in care interventions but in all decisions concerning children, including financial assistance. The government is making a dangerous delimitation here that stands in direct contrast to the law's goal of equal living conditions. The consequence is that children in poverty are hit hardest. They are forced to forgo extracurricular activities, worry about their parents' rent, and perhaps work extra even at school age. Such testimonies are already heard from children in economically vulnerable families. Children should not be made responsible for the family's finances; on the contrary, society has an obligation to secure equal upbringing conditions for all children. Therefore, the children's rights perspective must permeate the entire Social Services Act.

It is also unfortunate that the government is removing the explicit obligation to clarify the child's position if the child does not express their opinions themselves. This goes directly against what both experts and the UN demand. Several referral bodies, including Barnafrid at Linköping University, the Children's Rights Agency, and the Gender Equality Authority, point out that children often have difficulty speaking freely, especially if they feel loyalty or fear. In such cases, social services must still actively attempt to obtain the child's opinions in other ways. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recently directed sharp criticism at Sweden because children are rarely given a voice in decisions affecting them, for example within social services. The Committee urges Sweden to legislate that children must always be allowed to express their opinions in matters concerning their lives, whether it concerns social services, migration, or otherwise.

The law also needs to safeguard respectful treatment and equal treatment. Many testify to how important a good reception is. It can determine whether one dares to seek help and how one experiences the contact. A majority of the referral bodies supported the investigation's proposal to include a specific provision on respectful treatment in the law, and it is therefore regrettable that the government has chosen to omit this. In the social services' work with people in vulnerable situations, respect and dignity must be a self-evident starting point. By codifying it, a clear signal would be sent that no one should have to feel violated or ill-treated when seeking support. We do, however, know that in certain groups, trust in the social services unfortunately lacks, and every year the Discrimination Ombudsman receives approximately 150 reports of discrimination, primarily concerning ethnicity or disability.

Finally, I want to address two of the most harmful proposals according to us: the repatriation mission and the so-called middle-way.

The government proposes that the social services should inform about and encourage voluntary return. This does not belong in the Social Services Act. The basic mandate of the social services is to help people toward social and economic security and participation in Swedish society. To then simultaneously task social services staff with urging some to leave the country is deeply counterproductive. It is migration policy gone wrong, to quote Akademikerförbundet SSR. The profession and the experts are clear that the proposal risks seriously undermining trust. The social services should not be the extended arm of migration policy; instead, they should focus on those who need support here and now.

Regarding intermediate coercion, that is, being able to impose interventions on families without consent, we understand the desire to act early for the child's best interests. But the path of coercion is the wrong way to go. Research and experience show that voluntariness and motivation are the keys to lasting changes.

There is a lack of support in research that more coercion has a positive effect; on the contrary, it risks damaging trust. This is stated, among others, by Heike Erkers, chairperson of SSR. The government's intermediate coercion investigation proposed drastic measures such as fines and ankle monitors for youths over 15 years old, as well as that parents should be able to be forced into, for example, parenting support programs. The response has been strongly critical from, among others, Bris, Rädda Barnen, Föreningen Sveriges socialchefer, Vision and SSR, who have jointly urged the government to pause the legislation.

Let us instead take the path that is based on trust, better communication, alliance-building with families, and reduced stigma surrounding the social services. It is precisely this spirit that the new law claims to have.

In summary, Miljöpartiet supports the intentions of a new Social Services Act, but we will never accept that fine words about preventive work and the best interests of the child are eroded by lack of resources, ambiguity, and political agendas that do not belong in social services. We want to see a Social Services Act that provides tools and resources to make a difference, that fully funds the preventive work, that strengthens professionalism, and that puts human rights at the center.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are indeed making a historic decision. It is not possible to describe what we are now about to decide on as anything other than a historic milestone in Swedish social policy.

The Swedish social safety net is widely discussed. It is an international model, and it is something that many strive to emulate. It is also something that we Swedes should be proud of. It is far from the case in all countries that there is a social service and a social services act when life is tough for shorter or longer periods.

The foundation of our safety net is the Social Services Act. It is that which steps in when people most need society's support. It is that which a Swede can lean on when one cannot stand on one's own feet for certain periods. The current Social Services Act was developed during the 70s and was decided and began to apply in the early 80s. Since then, it has been patched and repaired.

Society has developed during this time, and we can unfortunately observe that in many respects it has been in a negative direction. The problems we see in society today could hardly be imagined when the old Social Services Act was drafted. We have simply tried to solve today's problems with yesterday's tools.

Today we take the first step towards giving the social services new, modern tools that can truly tackle the societal problems. Let us be honest: We have major societal challenges that have emerged over a long period and which have become deeply entrenched in our society. These are problems with large-scale exclusion, exploitation of the benefit system and, not least, a growing youth crime.

A police officer told me about an eight-year-old who was trapped in the gangs' claws – that is the absolute youngest I have heard of. It is inconceivable and something that should not be able to happen in our country, but it is a fact that organized crime completely cynically exploits children, young people, and people with disabilities and gets them to commit very serious crimes. If we continue to work as we have done until now, this development will continue. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we change the way we approach the problems.

The new Social Services Act is the fruit of many years of work. It has been a very large product to push forward to the Riksdag's table, so that we can decide on it here today. In fact, it is the second largest legislative product that the Ministry of Social Affairs has produced. The largest, I can inform you, is the Social Insurance Code, which was produced in 2009.

I am very proud of having succeeded in what previous governments have not succeeded in. There are many who try to take credit for the new law, but the truth is that the investigation directives that the Social Democrats gave to the investigator Margareta Winberg spoke their clear language about what ambition the Social Democrats had. The truth is that there was very little ambition, because Winberg was not allowed to submit any cost-driving proposals. The investigation was therefore not allowed to be ambition-raising.

The law we are discussing today is truly ambition-raising. It will, at least initially, cost a lot of money, and it is going to cost a lot of money. The Government is injecting almost 10 billion kronor over five years to the municipalities for implementation and transition to the new law and the new ways of working. This is a historically large investment in the social services in Sweden. This can be contrasted with the Social Democrats' directive, where nothing was allowed to cost money – a law that was not allowed to be ambition-raising.

There are more differences in the new legislation. We are strengthening the child's rights in a clearer way – this is what this government has developed. We are adapting the provisions to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Greater consideration is also taken of something that is very important: the child's opinions. It shall no longer be possible for a guardian to speak on behalf of the child. Children are experts on their own lives and their own situations, and an adult can never fully express the child's position. This is a common thread in several of the laws that the government is developing. We are placing a clear child perspective ahead of the adult and parental perspective.

Perhaps the best example of how the law will make a difference for children and young people is that it now contains that reports of concern shall be digitally searchable. Some such proposals were not included in the original investigation. This means that when a report of concern is received, a digital child file shall be established, regardless of whether the report leads to an intervention or not. This means concretely that the social services can detect children who risk being harmed earlier and that the social services can help more children.

Until now, these reports have ended up in a folder, and I believe many of us feel that many children have fallen through the cracks. That ends now. Through the digital care act, children who are suffering will be detected.

Another very important part for meeting today's challenges, which was also not included in the original investigation, is that the social services are now given a crime-preventive responsibility, both for adults as well as for children and young people. If we are to break up the criminal gangs and stop the recruitment of children, it is necessary that all parts of public Sweden contribute to this. There, the social services naturally play an immensely important role. It will even be a key factor in ensuring, through early interventions, that children and young people are not drawn into crime.

Despite the differences, there is broad support for the main features of the law. I am very pleased about that, and it is very important. Social services employees must know that there is long-term perspective in the methods of work and that the policy does not make a flip-flop every four years. Therefore, I want to extend my sincere thanks to everyone, regardless of party affiliation, who has contributed to the new law now being implemented, for it is, as mentioned, much needed.

The biggest change in the new Social Services Act, compared to the old one, is the transition to a more preventive way of working. We are making this a mandatory requirement for the municipalities. It is no longer an optional choice whether one should work with preventive measures or not. No one shall longer be able to prioritize away social investments in the future.

The social services today work with a number of different interventions and methods. Many of them are good, well-functioning, and evidence-based, but far too many methods lack a scientific basis and anchoring. Naturally, that cannot continue. In the same way that one can rely on a doctor treating a sick person with evidence-based care, the social services shall help and support people with evidence-based methods. The new law sets requirements that the interventions shall be based on knowledge and proven experience.

Unfortunately, it is the case in Sweden today that the population has weak confidence in the social services. There has always been a stigma linked to the social services, but what is truly serious is that the lowest confidence lies with those who have never had anything to do with the social services but who may be those who need it the most.

That is why it is important that the new law sets requirements for the social services to be more accessible, both physically and in terms of its content. By lowering the thresholds and offering earlier interventions, support, and help, more people can benefit from the preventive measures. In that way, trust can also be strengthened in the long run.

The social services also have an investigation requirement for their interventions today. This means that before a person can receive support and help and be granted interventions, a proper investigation must be carried out. This is fundamentally good, and the social services' activities should, of course, also in the future be means-tested to be deployed where they do the most good. But I have met so many social workers who state: This is not what I trained for. I wanted to make a difference for the most vulnerable, but I mostly sit behind a screen.

The investigation requirement clearly hinders things at times. When a window opens and a person is receptive to an intervention, it is important that the intervention arrives quickly. Therefore, we are now opening up the possibility for municipalities to offer interventions without individual needs assessments in order to be able to provide help right then and there. This means that in the future we will be able to ensure that the social services are spared redundant investigations of certain interventions, which there is also a risk of being denied, and instead can deploy interventions when the window is open.

In conclusion, I want to address all the people who have chosen to work in social services across our long country – to you who go to work every day and want to make a real difference and who want to help people, children as well as adults, who are doing poorly or are at risk of doing poorly. I have traveled around the country and met many of you. I have heard about problems with many heavy child welfare cases, about disinformation campaigns, about the feeling of inadequacy when the law does not provide room for help as early as one actually wants.

I want to extend a warm thanks to our trade unions and professional associations Akademikerförbundet and Vision, Sveriges socialchefer and SKR who, together with the government, have developed this legislation. It has been an almost unique piece of work, where I have learned a great deal. I am very happy that we have been able to join forces on these changes.

I hope and believe that the law we decide on today will give you who work in social services the conditions to make an even greater difference than you already do. It is the case that we here in government and parliament can produce whatever laws we want, but if the profession is not on board and is willing to be part of a journey of change, nothing will happen. Change requires that we do this together.

The new law, with its preventive perspective, its requirements for knowledge and proven experience, and its requirements for accessibility, will make Sweden safer and more secure. Perhaps not already tomorrow, but in the long run, this is the best investment we can make in children and their future. Therefore, I would like to say thank you once again in conclusion.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Hultberg, Malin Höglund and Thomas Ragnarsson (all M), Mona Olin (SD), Christian Carlsson (KD) and Helene Odenjung (L) agreed.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to thank the Minister. The work she has put in to get the new Social Services Act in place has been solid, and she deserves praise for that work.

But – and it is a big but – I want to once again direct sharp criticism towards the proposal to introduce LIV, a law that means parents can be hit with a fine if they refuse interventions and that children can be fitted with ankle bracelets without even being convicted of a crime.

As I have previously highlighted, both in my speech and in previous debates, it is not only Vänsterpartiet that is critical. We have with us large parts of civil society, trade unions, and Sweden's social managers. A broad front of expertise asserts in its referral responses that the proposal is not based on knowledge and science, that it risks restricting fundamental rights, is unclear in its application, is based on vague assumptions about why parents refuse support – and, most importantly, that there is a lack of support for it providing any actual effect.

Coercion does not create change, no matter how much one wishes it. This goes directly against the new Social Services Act's purpose of working preventatively and building trust for a knowledge-based social service. This risks undermining the entire work.

My question to the Minister is: Is she prepared to risk all the important and ambitious work she has now launched by introducing a law that is poorly substantiated and lacks broad support? It even risks having the opposite effect.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to Member Maj Karlsson for the question!

I think it is important to signal to those listening to this that we are not discussing intermediate coercion today. What is on the table is a proposal concerning the new Social Services Act.

The law that the member is referring to is something that has been presented as a proposal for the government. Work is being done on it in different ways and it is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.

Let me first say that today we have a situation that very few countries in the world have and where we stand out. We have very young people who are being recruited into crime. I mentioned an 8-year-old in my speech, but it is not uncommon that we see 12–15-year-olds committing the absolute worst acts of violence one can imagine.

All work that takes place in the new Social Services Act is voluntary. We also know that work on a voluntary basis has the best conditions for success. Today, however, we have a situation where almost half of the guardians who are contacted by the social services and who are offered interventions from the social services decline. In disadvantaged areas, it is not uncommon for that figure to be upwards of 70 percent.

We therefore cannot have a continued situation where parents do not take an active responsibility to ensure that their children get a bright future. I will not watch as this development, where very young people are recruited into crime and we do nothing, continues. The new Social Services Act shall be given all the conditions to function, but we must also ensure that the parents are with us.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker and Minister! The Minister is quite right that it is not this bill we are discussing today. The reason I bring it up is that it risks undermining the fantastic work the Minister has now done. I share the view that parents must be involved and support their children. I simply do not share the view of what the cause is or what will help against this.

We stand before a very important crossroads here. There are many who want to support and help in strengthening children's rights. In that case, it is not enough to just want well, but we must implement changes that actually have an effect.

Children growing up in vulnerability need adults who believe in them – not shackles. Parents who are struggling need support that works – not fines. And social services need tools to build relationships – not more reasons to lose trust. The new Social Services Act is an opportunity to do just this. It is a fantastic opportunity to get exactly this through. But then we must also be brave.

We must be brave enough to say no to proposals that risk breaking the trust in the social services even further. The whole point is that through the new Social Services Act, which we are making a decision on today, we have the opportunity to create trust and confidence. When this comes as a blow from the side, it means that people will not dare to seek help. Then we are in a bad position.

My final question to the Minister is: Are you really prepared to sacrifice the children's trust in the new and completely fantastic opportunity for a new Social Services Act – with everything that entails – for a measure that surely will not have any effect?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Maj Karlsson once again!

The starting point is, just as I described, that voluntary work is what leads to the best results. The vast majority of parents want the best for their children and are prepared to do very much to support and help their children. The government has also allocated resources and is building support in the form of, among other things, parenting support for those who do not really help. Building a safety net for both children and parents is an important part of the work that the government is now carrying out.

It is, however, still a fact that far too many parents choose to actively say no. It can be for economic reasons, and there are also proposals in the investigation stating that one should then be able to pay out temporary parental leave benefits to support precisely the economic part. It is therefore important that the investigation looks at the problem from the beginning. One also wants to determine what the reasons are for saying no.

In the neighboring country Denmark, they have chosen to remove various types of benefits – subsistence support, housing benefits, child benefits and so on. The investigation speaks of fines. I naturally hope that we will never have to use those kinds of measures. Perhaps even the mere threat of such measures existing can make more parents participate, because parents are the key.

There is nothing that says the social services cannot continue to build trust. If one succeeds with this, no other legislation will become relevant, but the government and I will not stand by and watch while thousands more children are recruited into crime. It will not happen.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the speech and for the commitment and drive that exists to move the issues of children's and young people's rights forward.

The Center Party and the Moderates are usually in agreement when it comes to everyone's own drive and everyone's inherent possibilities to – if one has the right support and incentives – be a participant in society, a participant in the labor market and a part of a whole. We are also usually in agreement about children's rights to good and secure upbringing conditions, which is of course completely obvious. The minister and I have been in agreement on this during both the previous parliamentary term and this parliamentary term.

I have praised, and I will praise, the work concerning the new legislation. But it is with some bitterness in the cup.

I wonder if the belief in the inherent power does not exist when it concerns everyone, when the minister, under the heading Preventive work, allows in questions about justifying return migration. Who is it then who is to stand on the child's side when the ethical dilemma arises about what should decide whether to provide interventions to the child in school or in preschool, or whether one should, with the help of finances, justify to the parents to return to a country they have fled from?

I wonder if the situation will arise where a municipality with a poor economy actually ends up in that choice situation. Where then are the children's rights?

When did the Moderaterna stop believing in all people's inherent strength and possibility to actually become a part of society with the right incentives and support and to give children and young people a secure upbringing?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Martina Johansson, whom I have worked with with great pleasure for a couple of parliamentary terms – just as the Member emphasizes.

One of the parts I think is so fine with this law is that it starts from the individual. It is very clear. Today and in many debates, the focus is on children who are drawn into crime, but it is naturally also important that all individuals are included here. It can be about persons with disabilities, and it can be older people – who for their part in no way are a homogeneous group – who need support and other conditions.

That means that this becomes legislation that does not only concern the social services administration and the social welfare committee. This is the entire municipality's legislation, where, for example, the community building administration is given an important role in ensuring accessibility.

Today, several people have pointed out that there should be a mandate for the social services when it comes to voluntary return. There is, therefore, no mandate in this Social Services Act, but it concerns a description of how the social services can have contact with the coordinator for voluntary return who is to be stationed on-site.

The work with voluntary return was highlighted, among other things, in the Government Bill 2024. It is something that can reduce exclusion and the many problems we know that exclusion entails. Since the social services can come into contact with people who on a voluntary basis wish to return, there is simply a descriptive text in the bill on how this could take place.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!

It was exactly what the minister concluded with that we found when we read the bill. We were very surprised that there was such a wording: that an important measure for the coordinator should be able to be to initiate a dialogue with the municipalities' social services in order to strengthen the work of guiding, informing about, and encouraging voluntary return.

I read earlier in the bill, page 215.

This is, therefore, in combination with the view that I sometimes perceive permeates the government's work, which is about pointing out certain groups. It becomes a problem when one writes in that the social services absolutely can work with this when they are simultaneously supposed to work with preventive and early interventions and motivate people to accept help. All children who are in Sweden should be able to get help to manage school and get a good upbringing and a secure life. At the same time, they shall then be put in contact with a coordinator who works to get people to leave Sweden for a country that they once fled from.

It is as the government's own investigator said when they strongly advised against just this part. It is to single out individuals who are not desirable. It harms integration.

I am a bit worried that this is in this writing. It could affect the work, and that was what I wanted to counteract. I didn't even want it to be there.

It is a good law, but it matters that it holds all the way.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! This law is based on the individual, and individuals have different circumstances and different needs. There is therefore nothing in what the member highlights that contradicts the fact that it can also be information or a contact when one feels that the exclusion is great and there is a desire for voluntary return.

I want to emphasize this. It is about voluntary return. If someone wishes it, there should also be a referral to a national coordinator, and that person shall have a dialogue with the municipalities to get an idea of, for example, whether the need is greater or smaller. I see that as quite natural.

It will not affect the intention of this law, but it is simply a matter of that individuals have different circumstances and should have different circumstances. If one needs support regarding school or other interventions, one should receive it. If one wishes to voluntarily return, support should also be able to be provided for that. We will get a national coordinator who will take responsibility for that matter.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister very much for being here today and participating in the debate, and I thank her for the work that she and the department have put in so that we can stand here today. It is also wonderful to see the humility and to hear the Minister's thanks to previous ministers, investigators, and everyone who has become involved. I naturally agree with that.

Now I see that the Minister is very curious about which question I will choose. It will actually be one that I do not know the answer to. I had intended to talk about the resource supplement to the municipalities – we wanted to give 9 billion more. But we have talked about that a lot. Therefore, I intend instead to ask the question about the follow-up after an investigation regarding protection and support for a child or a completed placement. In that case, regarding the law, it is proposed that it should go from two to six months, but many referral bodies would rather have seen one year.

My questions to the Minister are: Why was a year not proposed now? Does the Government intend to return to the Riksdag later in the matter?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much to Gustaf Lantz for the words and for the questions!

I find it difficult to hide my joy at now having an opportunity to discuss with a Social Democrat that we should have a follow-up that is longer than six months. I had this discussion with the former Minister Lena Hallengren when we worked on the bill and the proposal regarding lex Lilla hjärtat. There, the result, when it came to the follow-up of placed children, was a maximum of half a year. We from the opposition side demanded a longer time than that – that it should at least be a year and that there should be an opportunity for even longer follow-up if the individual case so required.

Today, the situation is as follows: With the previous Social Democratic legislation, one could live up to the intentions of the law with three weeks of follow-up. We tried to reach out to the previous government, but we were not successful. This has led to the current LVU investigation. Yes, we will return to the Riksdag with a proposal for a longer follow-up period, in accordance with the proposal that we once pushed in opposition to the Social Democrats, who opposed it.

I am pleased that it seems that this, when the government presents the proposal, will be able to take place in quite large or perhaps even very large agreement.

The proposal is on its way. Work is being done in an investigation. We need to have prepared proposals, which the member surely is aware of, that we can present as real legislative proposals. They are on their way.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister is perhaps the most history-interested minister in the government, for we often end up in discussions about how it was in the past.

I joined the Social Affairs Committee during this parliamentary term. For me, it feels very uninteresting to discuss previous positions that are four years back in time, and I believe it feels that way for the voters as well.

But the Minister is actually a Minister in this government, which had the luck to win the election and which sits in power. It has also been many years since 2022, when Winberg's investigation was completed, where this issue was touched upon. For me, it becomes a bit incomprehensible why we must wait for the LVU investigation and why we could not have hammered this out today – if there is indeed a consensus and if there is also a will to do something about this.

My question then becomes: Why did one not use the time after the investigation was completed with the proposal to look more closely at the issue and bake this into the new Social Services Act, which, judging by everything, we will pass this afternoon?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! History is interesting if one is interested in which parties have taken responsibility and which have originally driven issues. It is pleasing that more are adopting the wisdom that has existed previously. But it is still interesting to see: Who has made this possible? Who has pushed for it? Which initiatives have resulted in us having a social services act in place?

It is as much dishonest as it is untruthful to claim that there was a finished Social Services Act when the current government entered the Ministry of Social Affairs. It is even very far from the truth.

We have used this time to expand this and ensure that we have a child rights perspective, that there are searchable reports of concern, and that children's rights are now not just fine words that exist in other legislations but also part of the foundation of the new Social Services Act.

A preventive social services act – for increased rights, obligations and opportunities

The crime prevention perspective was not included at all. But perhaps the most serious thing in what almost becomes a charade from the Social Democrats' side is that one criticizes the means, when one oneself submitted directives stating that the investigation was not allowed to produce a law that would cost money or be ambition-raising through that.

This government is now writing legislation that is both strengthened and improved. We will include parts that Margareta Winberg noted in her investigation that she did not have a mandate for. It concerns the social services data register act, other parts, and other tools that will give social services the opportunity to make a real difference.

One thing Gustaf Lantz was right about – in his previous speech. It matters who is in power. This government takes responsibility and ensures that there is progress in Swedish social services.

(Applause)

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am not here to prolong the debate, but because I discovered that a printing error had crept into my notes. I wish to move for the approval of reservations 3 and 18, and nothing else.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for a very pleasant debate and wish all the employees and passionate individuals across the country, not only in social services but also in schools and in the voluntary sector, good luck for their invaluable work with children and young people.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 8.)

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