A lowered age limit for open interventions on children without the guardian's consent

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In order for Sweden to become safer and for organized crime to be pushed back, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more effective tools for Swedish authorities in the fight against crime are needed. But it is also needed that more children get to grow up in safety.

The Social Welfare Board has a special responsibility to offer protection and support so that even children who have ended up in a difficult situation or are at risk of harm can experience security. Experience tells us that in cases where security is lacking, early interventions are of the utmost importance so that the clouds of worry can clear, so that even the most vulnerable children are given the opportunity to meet a bright future.

Safe families are the absolute most important crime-preventing factor. The importance of functioning families for creating a safer and more prosperous society cannot be overemphasized. Obviously, most parents want the best for their children and are also usually best suited to make decisions that ensure their own children's needs for love and care.

At the same time, we know that there are families that are struggling. Substance abuse, mental illness, domestic violence, or a grueling custody dispute following a divorce means that parents cannot always see their own child's need for support and treatment. Situations can then arise where children who are in need of social services' interventions are denied this because consent from the guardians is lacking.

Social services' interventions are largely based on voluntariness, and it is easy to understand that, as a rule, it should be the children's parents who make decisions concerning their own children. But as social development looks, with a gross organized crime creeping further down in age and the risk that parents then are unable to fulfill their parental responsibility, a larger and stronger social service with more powers to work preventatively and with early interventions is needed.

The Government therefore proposes to the Riksdag that the social welfare committees shall be given the opportunity to decide on open interventions for children who have reached the age of 12 even without the guardians' consent if it is judged appropriate and the child consents to the intervention. The social welfare committees shall also be allowed to appoint a contact person if these conditions are met and, if necessary, a specially qualified contact person to counteract the risk of abuse, crime, or other socially destructive behavior.

The suitability assessment must always take into account both the child's need for the intervention and how the intervention affects the situation in the home. If the social welfare committee concludes that an intervention without the parents' consent entails risks for the child that cannot be mitigated, the committee should not decide on an intervention. The assessment must always be made based on the child's best interests.

Madam Speaker! I am grateful for the broad consensus that exists in the committee regarding the government's bill. A lowered age limit for open interventions without the consent of a guardian will provide an increased opportunity for the social services committee to provide early interventions. It also gives the municipalities the opportunity to act early regarding children who commit crimes and better conditions to break a criminal path and a destructive lifestyle so that more children get the opportunity to live an honest life. Above all, it means that more children get to grow up in safety, which also lays the foundation for a safer Sweden.

Therefore, I conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! Finally! Today we take an important step towards a social service that can make a greater difference earlier. This work was initiated during the previous government and is today reaching its goal.

Open interventions is the name for what the social services can do for children and young people living at home. Such help can also be given to young people placed in HVB homes, foster homes, or supported housing. It can involve getting a contact person, a contact family, or support and treatment interventions, or participating in programs.

The bill means that the age limit is lowered from 15 to 12 years for when the social services can provide open interventions where the child says yes but the guardian says no. As the opposition, one should not be silent about what the government does poorly, but not either about what the government does well, and it is truly good that the law is now finally being changed.

More steps must however be taken so that the social services can become better in their preventive work. Open interventions should always first and foremost be given voluntarily. Both children and guardians should preferably consent to the social services' help so that it can have the best conditions to make a difference for the better.

Madam Speaker! It goes without saying that guardians can sabotage open interventions if they do not like that they are being provided. For some children and young people living in a context of honor, it can be very dangerous to receive help from social services if the guardians do not want it. But at the same time, it can mean a great risk for the child not to receive help.

Is this an insoluble Rubik's cube? No. Nationellt centrum mot hedersrelaterat våld och förtyck has proposed that open interventions should be able to be carried out without the guardian's knowledge. We Social Democrats see the same need. The starting point for society's interventions must be the child's best interests, and then the guardian's right to insight and communication with social services can take a backseat.

Madam Speaker! The Government writes in the bill that there is a lack of basis to accommodate these views and that they assess that such a restriction on the guardians' right to access information would require a comprehensive review of current provisions in, among others, the Children and Parents Code. Put differently, it is simply too much work for this Government. We Social Democrats say instead: Roll up your sleeves and do what is required so that we can help our most vulnerable children!

Madam Speaker! Think how much more we know about honor culture now than just a few years ago! Many have paid an incredibly high price for this increased awareness. As a resident of Uppsala, it is impossible not to think of Fadime Sahindal, who, with her life and with her death, has caused more girls to be seen and more girls to be able to be helped.

It is with courage and hard work that society is changed for the better. Let us meet Fadime's courage with hard work! Let us immerse ourselves in the provisions of the Children and Parents Code to rewrite the paragraphs if that is what is required!

With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Carita Boulwén (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Social Committee's report number 26 A lowered age limit for open interventions for children without the guardian's consent.

As it is today, the social services can decide on open interventions, contact person, and specially qualified contact person for children who have turned 15 without the guardian's consent. The proposal is now that this should be able to occur already from the age of 12 if it is appropriate and the child consents.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has changed - in all too many respects, unfortunately in completely the wrong direction. Shootings, bombings, gang wars where small children are involved, killing and being killed, robberies of humiliation where children many times are both perpetrators and crime victims, and a so-called honor culture that is spreading out has made Sweden a country far from the safe, fine country that I myself and many others here in this chamber grew up in.

We in the Sweden Democrats have for a long time warned against this development, but previous governments have been naive. An irresponsible migration policy and a senseless crime policy have brought us to where we are today. They simply woke up too late, which however does not apply to the Sweden Democrats. Sweden has laws and regulations that are not adapted for the new Violence-Sweden and which now need to be reformed.

Turning this around and making Sweden safe and good again will be no easy task. Unfortunately, it has gone all the way. It requires a proactive government that can act powerfully here and now, think long-term, work preventatively, and take decisive action against the severe and escalating crime in our country.

With the Sweden Democrats as the largest party in the government base and with the Tidö Agreement as the basis for the cooperation, the conditions now exist for exactly this. We have begun that work and will continue to do everything required to make Sweden safe and good again, so that children can grow up under safe conditions.

Today's debate therefore concerns the possibility of providing early interventions, already from the age of twelve, even if the guardian does not give their consent, in order to be able to prevent or curb an unfavorable or destructive development. As previously mentioned, we see more and more children who early on end up on the wrong track in life, are drawn into crime and exploited within criminal activities and gangs. The narcotics sales are large. The honor-related violence and oppression have gained all too strong a foothold in Sweden. All too many have broken home conditions. Parents and guardians do not always have the ability to take that responsibility or take the measures required for the children's best interests.

As a parent or guardian, one has an important responsibility to meet one's children's needs for care and security and to give them a good upbringing, guidance, and love. One has both duties and rights, which is important to safeguard.

Deciding on interventions without the guardian's consent can be an infringement on the guardian's right of decision. It is, of course, something that should not occur without a substantial basis, which would risk undermining the important role parents and guardians play in the child's life. But in many cases, it is naturally absolutely necessary.

In well-functioning families, it is the parents who have the responsibility for the children and are those who know the children and their needs and circumstances best. The parents should be able to participate in making decisions concerning the children and then also have the task of making decisions that benefit them in the best way, which most also do.

Madam Speaker! In the best of worlds, this works in all families. But we all know here in the chamber that unfortunately, that is not the case in reality. Where there are failings that cause children to risk harm, society has a duty to intervene and provide support, help, and protection. The best interests of the child shall always carry the most weight. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats are positive towards the government's bill, which strengthens exactly this.

We need to work to strengthen preventive work, strengthen parental responsibility, and increase cooperation between parents and guardians and society's resources. We also need to increase access to information, education, and counseling for both children and their guardians.

By working preventatively, we can support families in creating a safe environment for children to grow up in and support guardians to take the responsibility that is required, and thereby reduce the risk that social interventions need to be undertaken and that children and parents need to be torn apart. In cases where guardians fail in that work, society needs to stand strong and be the children's voice. No children should have to be affected within the family, and everyone deserves a safe upbringing.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! That the age limit is lowered for voluntary actions without the guardian's consent is an important change. Why is it then important? Yes, because children and young people themselves need to have the opportunity to be heard and to participate, even if their parents do not see the full scope of just this young person's best interests.

We often hear testimonies from children and young people who, during their upbringing, were placed in different foster homes or had difficult upbringing conditions and who ask themselves: Why was there no one who asked me what I wanted? Why was I not allowed to be involved in this decision? This is a measure that could facilitate things for some young people as they get to raise their hand and say: I want support, because I am not doing well in the situation I am in. But it must, of course, just like everything else, be based on an assessment by the social services based on the best interests of the children.

But for me, this initiative is not about making changes for children and young people who risk becoming criminals. I cannot help but leave that comment in this context. In the debate on initiatives within social services, it sometimes sounds as if all children and young people are potential future criminal adults. But that is not actually the case. This initiative is just as important for children who have mental illness, have parents with mental illness, or for example have some form of NPF diagnosis. It is not solely about potential criminal young people, and that is also not the main point. If we have this debate and it sounds as if everything we do is about preventing potential future criminality among youth – who then will voluntarily seek support from social services?

Then one gets the label of being a future criminal person. That may sound harsh, but I still think it is important to bring this up in the debate.

I want to go back to the social services' work and how important it is that their investigations are carried out in a good and high-quality manner and that they have the right methods, especially when it comes to talking with young people so that one knows that it is the children's words and not some adult's words that come through.

I usually speak about these issues because we, if we are to make these changes, must know that they are being made with the right intervention. It is the early interventions that are most important – that which happens perhaps already when a child is one or two years old. This requires good cooperation between MVC, BVC, preschool, family centers, and school, and that there are structures in place to both notice and cooperate when it is discovered that children and families are in need of support.

The Children's Ombudsman also often points out that there are many small children who are not detected when they need support. As stated, cooperation is required, and it must occur in a structural way in order to be able to implement early interventions, whether they are voluntary or compulsory interventions.

Madam Speaker! I want to go back more concretely to the proposal from the government, which I fundamentally think is a good proposal. But I am missing a part in it, and it concerns the rules of procedure.

In the proposal, we give children and young people between 12 and 15 years old the right to say yes to an intervention. But if the young people do not receive the intervention that the social services investigate or that they themselves have stated they want, they do not have the right in the next instance to say that they want to appeal the decision or that they want a new investigation and that the issue should be looked at again. I think this is a deficiency. If one is allowed to say yes in one instance, one must also be given the chance to appeal. On the other hand, there is still a possibility for some guardians to appeal in that instance, but as said, not for the young people.

Madam Speaker! I must also point out that I believe there is a certain inconsistency in the issue of procedural rights. The Government does not want a twelve-year-old to be able to appeal a decision regarding an open intervention, but at the same time, the Government is talking about and will submit proposals to investigate how a twelve-year-old can be made criminally responsible.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I want to say that early interventions are needed. We need to increase cooperation with good opportunities and structured action. Voluntary open interventions are good, but we must also allow the twelve-year-old to appeal a negative decision.

With this, I move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate the government bill A lowered age limit for open interventions for children without the guardian's consent. It is, as previous speakers have said, an important bill because it gives the social services better tools and greater opportunities to act early when a child is in need of interventions.

A general and serious problem today is namely that support and help often come far too late. It comes all too often only when an individual child or even an entire family has already developed major, serious social problems and is in need of very extensive interventions.

The Moderates' and the Tidö parties' firm view is therefore that substantial reforms and an increased focus on preventive and early interventions are required. In this context, I particularly want to highlight the government's ongoing work to develop a new Social Services Act. Establishing a new Social Services Act is fundamental and necessary to create a social service that works proactively and preventively to a greater extent. A new law is needed to clarify that the operations shall be based on science and proven experience, and new legislation is needed to give the social service clear preventive mandates and tools.

Today's Social Services Act is based entirely on voluntariness, and that is fundamentally good. But looking out for the best interests of children should not be voluntary. Looking out for the best interests of children should be a self-evident obligation. Unfortunately, there are many situations and cases where parents act in conflict with their child's best interests. Sometimes parents are directly harmful to their children by exposing them to threats, violence, and abuse.

It is, however, more common that parents are unable to meet their children's needs and simply fail in their parenting. To fail in one's parenting, Madam Speaker, does not have to be something particularly strange. Being a parent is both demanding and difficult. Therefore, it is important that one can receive help and support in one's parenting. The Government is therefore investing heavily in expanding parenting support programs with the goal that they should exist in all of Sweden's 290 municipalities.

It is an important effort to strengthen parenting ability and thereby give parents better conditions to shoulder the great responsibility that it entails to be a parent. It is a responsibility that we Moderates want to emphasize and that the new government wants to strengthen.

For those parents who do not take their parental responsibility and who dismiss society's help, there actually need to be consequences. It is therefore good that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services have made it clear that it can be a question of both social and economic consequences in the form of, for example, withdrawn benefits if parents do not take their responsibility.

A special investigation shall now review various possibilities to strengthen parental responsibility and enable early interventions for children and young people who commit crimes or who are at risk of doing so. If we are to stop the recruitment to criminal gangs, more societal interventions are required, but also a strengthened parental responsibility.

Madam Speaker! As has been said, it is important that social services and social committees are given better opportunities to act early. That is exactly what the bill we are now debating is about. I am pleased that all parties in the Riksdag fundamentally support the government's proposal to give the social committee the possibility to make decisions on open interventions for children who have turned twelve years old without the guardian's consent, if this is judged appropriate and, as said, if the child consents to the intervention.

It is good that there is broad support for giving the social services extended powers to implement early mandatory interventions for children and/or their guardians, what we in the debate often call intermediate coercion.

Today, the distance between the voluntary interventions of the Social Services Act and the far-reaching coercive measures that may become relevant at a later stage according to the Act on Care of Young People is far too great. The distance needs to be reduced, and the gap between total voluntariness and measures according to today's LVU in the form of, for example, taking into care and placement of a child needs to be closed.

Madam Speaker! With the bill A lowered age limit for open interventions for children without the guardian's consent, I and the government take an important step, but just as has been raised in the debate and in a specific statement in the committee report and in follow-up motions, more needs to be done. And more – much more – the Moderate-led government will deliver.

Further reforms that strengthen the children's rights perspective are coming. A real paradigm shift for the child's best interests is required. Specifically, the child's best interests must, among other things, become an independent legal requirement. And as I mentioned initially, proposals for a new Social Services Act will be presented at the same time as other reforms are implemented, such as changed confidentiality rules, this in order to develop and strengthen Swedish social services. The social services shall be a hub for interventions with the possibility to work proactively and preventatively.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! This bill is long-awaited. Miljöpartiet has long worked for strengthened rights for children, and we were driving the initiative that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should become Swedish law. We have also for a long time championed the issue being debated here today, that children at a younger age than has previously been possible should have the opportunity to receive their own interventions that they themselves want, even if the parents do not give their consent. It is about applying a child perspective in practice and about interventions that we believe will be effective. Every step in the direction of children becoming independent legal subjects is important.

During Miljöpartiet's time in government, Åsa Lindhagen, as then Minister for Equality and responsible for issues regarding children's rights, pushed through that an investigation should be appointed so that legislation could be put in place. Therefore, we naturally welcome these legislative changes. They will lead to more children daring and seeing a meaning in seeking help. It is also a step towards the children's perspective and the children's rights perspective growing stronger generally.

At the same time, we would like to see further reinforcements to strengthen children's own right to interventions, and I thought I would mention some of them.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see a supplementary proposal that makes it possible even for younger children to receive open interventions without the guardian's consent. The age limit for when children can receive their own interventions, even if a parent does not consent, is now proposed to be 12 years instead of 15 years. Miljöpartiet believes that it must be possible even for younger children to receive such interventions. For example, a ten-year-old may very well want to participate in a support group with other children of parents with substance abuse problems or mental health problems, even if a parent says no.

Several organizations and authorities reason in a similar way. Bris writes in its referral response to this investigation that they do not want a fixed age limit, because, among other things, it results in younger children with sufficient maturity and understanding of the meaning and consequences of the interventions being left without help. The Children's Ombudsman also considers that there may be reasons to consider whether children younger than twelve years, depending on the circumstances, could also be allowed to participate in open interventions without the guardian's consent.

We believe that the government should return with a supplementary proposal that provides an opportunity for younger children to be included and how such a rule should best be designed.

Madam Speaker! When a child has home conditions that are difficult but the parents do not want to accept voluntary interventions and the criteria for LVU are not met, we should be able to place greater demands on interventions for the parents. Such legislation, we also believe, should be investigated.

The organization Maskrosbarn highlights in its referral response that Norway and Denmark have such compelling legislation when it comes to open interventions for guardians and that Sweden would need to appoint an inquiry to make it possible here as well. Socialstyrelsen also points out that expanded possibilities to demand that parents receive interventions could increase the conditions for achieving changes. Miljöpartiet shares this view.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet also wants to investigate lowering the age limit for legal capacity. The Government argues that it is not necessary to lower the age limit for so-called legal capacity from today's 15 years to give children from the age of 12 the right to open interventions even without a guardian's consent. But as long as children do not have this legal capacity, they cannot appeal a decision from the social services. If a child wants an open intervention that a parent says no to and that the social services do not consider necessary, or if the social services provide a different intervention than the one the child requests, the child cannot have this reviewed legally. The child also cannot make their own application for the intervention, but the need is expected to come to the social services' knowledge in other ways.

To expand children's rights linked to this change, we believe that the government should appoint an inquiry into lowering the age limit for legal capacity. In that case, both the advantages and disadvantages of such a change should, of course, be considered. It will affect children even in other situations, but it is highly relevant for this context.

To strengthen children's legal standing, I also want to remind that Miljöpartiet advocates that children should have the right to their own representative in all cases concerning housing, custody, and visitation. That too would make a big difference from a children's rights perspective.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: All that we are talking about here today – children's rights, good investigations, good interventions, considerations and follow-ups – places great demands on a functioning social service with the prerequisites to do a good job and act preventatively. This, in turn, obviously requires that the social service has the economic and personnel resources that are required. To develop methods to take children's needs and opinions seriously in all social work requires new thinking and time. Children's experiences and thoughts must be requested and taken seriously both at the beginning as well as during and after contact with the social service.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It is not actually common for us to debate or make decisions on issues concerning shootings and gang crime in the Committee on Social Affairs. On the other hand, the issue has been debated even more diligently in the Committee on Justice, this completely independent of whether it has been a Social Democratic-led government or as now a government led by the Sweden Democrats.

The reason why stricter punishments and tougher measures have been the only response from politics is that it has been more important for it to look like politics is actually doing something than to achieve lasting solutions. For even though there may be reasons to tighten punishments, every claim that it would remedy the problems is simply not true. For this, a much more extensive work is required than that.

Madam Speaker! That is why I am very pleased that we are now, for once, actually debating the preventive work, for it is here that the gunpowder needs to be placed. It is a task that will take time. But the fact is that there is no quick fix for such large and far-reaching problems.

In this proposal, the committee proposes that the age limit should be lowered from 15 to 12 years for interventions without parental consent. The reason for the proposal is that it is perceived that parents can become an obstacle when children need support from society. In a situation where we see that brutal violence among our children is increasing, there is a need to be able to implement interventions as quickly as possible. Here, we completely agree.

Where our opinions differ somewhat, or at least need to be broadened a bit, it concerns why parents oppose support and what effect such a proposal could have in reality.

Madam Speaker! Even though we stand behind the committee's proposal, I want to emphasize the shortcomings we see in it. We believe that one of the reasons why parents do not always want to cooperate with the social services can be that the trust in the authority is sometimes very low. At the same time, we believe that it is often important, precisely for the child's best interests, to build good relations both between the authority and the parents as well as between the child and the parents. We therefore consider that we actually must see the parents as an important part of the work to help the children.

If our perception is that parents simply do not want to help their children and therefore should not be involved, there is also a risk that we miss the fact that a perceived reluctance may have its causes. That parents oppose cooperation can be due to the fact that the social services have not been able to carry out preventive measures or have not been perceived as accessible or relevant to provide the support that families felt they needed.

We must absolutely not turn a blind eye to the fact that politics has allowed the social services to be neglected for many years and that the social services therefore do not always have the right conditions to carry out their mandate. It is also extremely important that we take the lack of trust that many feel towards the social services seriously. Working to build trust between the social services and our citizens is extremely important for all of us. Many of the social workers I have spoken with have a great understanding that the exercise of authority that they are capable of, that is, in the worst case taking a child into care, creates great anxiety. Therefore, they also work actively to meet people's fear and to build good relationships. It is a task that we believe is fundamental for people to feel that they can ask for help themselves and not just be forced to the social services when the crisis is already a fact.

The second question we must ask ourselves is whether the legislative change will have any effect. It is quite true that there are occasions where parents say no to open interventions for their children. The reasons can be many and varied and depend on the families' different situations. If the parents say no to interventions, the social services engage in a dialogue with the family. And if the social services judge that it is to the detriment of the child, they can initiate an investigation. If the parents say no many times to an intervention, it is also this that will occur.

Therefore, I assess that the new law alone will not be able to have such a great effect. However, we do not see any major risks with lowering the age limit and think it is very good. But my point is that much greater measures are required from the political side if one wants to invest in the preventive work.

Madam Speaker! We in the Left Party have a long series of proposals on how we can strengthen the social services so that they become more present and accessible for those who need its support. We want to build a very strong social service that will have such low thresholds and that we can all have such strong trust in that we can feel that we can use it and turn to it when we need help. We believe that it is completely central that the social services are given the opportunity to be present at as early a stage as possible and that, together with the families, they can design which interventions are needed for just them. It is a way of working that will cost and take time but which we believe is the best way to work preventatively.

In order for the best interests of children to truly be in focus, the social services must be given the resources they need to be able to perform their work. Now, instead, the government is forcing our municipalities to go to their knees. It doesn't matter much what legislative changes one makes if, at the same time, the prerequisites for implementing them are withdrawn.

Preventive work, as has been said, takes time, Madam Speaker. But if we had started with it 10-15 years ago, when gang crime and shootings gained a firm foothold, we might have had a completely different situation than the one we have now. We have tried the path of the hard doctrine for a long time, and with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it does not yield such good results. Given the very serious situation we find ourselves in now, where children are exposed to brutal violence and are even perpetrators, politics must act with strength, knowledge, and courage. We in Vänsterpartiet believe, therefore, that it is truly high time to prioritize the preventive work with the resources required to ensure in the long term that all citizens can live in safety. That simply requires significantly more muscle than this.

We support the proposal but have a specific statement where we clarify our positions.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I took the floor primarily to have the opportunity to discuss precisely the need to further strengthen the preventive work. There is no difference of opinion whatsoever between myself and Member Maj Karlsson on that matter.

This is just one step in what needs to be done. The social services need to get more and better tools in their toolbox. Today, the toolbox is far too empty, and as has been said, there is a large gap between the voluntary interventions of the Social Services Act and the very extensive interventions that can be made when the situation has become extremely serious and it is justified by, for example, a placement.

I believe that the government which I support and which recently took office has already taken action to strengthen preventive work with initiatives on, for example, parental support programs. Now, in the spring budget, there were initiatives for school social teams—precisely what I perceive is being requested in the Left Party's special statement.

Madam Speaker! I want to make it clear to the audience that this is one step among many. Many more steps will be needed, but even now, other important steps have also been taken. The most fundamental thing is – to return to what I highlighted in my speech – that we establish a new Social Services Act where the preventive perspective in particular is much clearer and where one also needs to look at the possibility of, for example, carrying out interventions without even conducting an individual needs assessment. That would have truly lowered the thresholds for early action from the social services and would hopefully have contributed to creating the trust that Member Karlsson highlighted in his speech.

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government will truly carry out ambitious work so that we can prevent social problems and exclusion. The most fundamental aspect also concerns a strong work line and a school that ensures our children get a good start in life.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the opportunity to expand the debate somewhat.

There is much that we agree on in what the member is saying now. I think the proposal is good, and it is important that we get the preventive work started and focus on the social services and children's rights within the social services. My problem with the government's and the Moderaternas entry into these issues is that on one hand, you have the hard doctrine which is about having harsher punishments without connecting all the other work with the resources.

Social services are on their knees in our municipalities. Enormous cuts are being made. How are they supposed to have the opportunity to carry out this work if they do not also get the muscles to do it? It is so easy for us in politics to sit and say that now we do this, but my point is that if you do not also pump in what is needed to be able to carry it out, it will be ineffective.

I believe that we need to have an attitude based on research, we need to start from proven experience, and we need to ensure that the resources needed are provided directly so that people have the tools.

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not agree with the description that Member Karlsson makes of the Moderaternas and the government's policy. My firm opinion is that the Moderaternas and the government stand for a policy that both involves providing resources to the social services and supporting the municipalities in their important preventive work, and also involves standing firm against the criminal gangs that recruit our young people into a criminal path and profit from the misfortune of socially vulnerable people.

We can take just a few examples. Now, family home placements are subsidized in the budget so that it is not a cost issue for the municipalities to be able to carry out that type of intervention. We invest in support for parent support programs. We are making a very large investment in leisure cards, which are specifically aimed at young people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, to ensure that our children and young people both have a good school to go to and have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful leisure activity.

I mean that for the first time in a very long time, we finally have a government that both works with the soft measures, the preventive measures, and does not yield an inch when it comes to actually going hard against the criminals. We need to imprison those who commit serious, grave crimes, and do so for a longer period. We need more police, and we need better tools to be able to protect all law-abiding citizens in this country from those who commit grave crimes.

The Moderates are capable of holding several thoughts in their heads at the same time. The question is whether the Left Party is capable of this, Madam Speaker. When it comes to investments, the greatest threat to the municipal economy is the Left Party's policy. It is a textbook example of how to drive up inflation and make the municipalities poorer. God forbid the Left Party's policy if we want a strong social service!

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The member and I are absolutely not in agreement on that. I believe it is no secret to every municipal politician sitting around in the country that they are in an enormously difficult economic situation right now because of the policy the government is pursuing. One must be out and talk to politicians to see that it is an enormously difficult situation.

I want to return to this regarding the investments. It is absolutely good that measures are being taken, but we must also remember that the social services are in such a situation that they manage to meet a youth for perhaps one hour - one hour is what one has to talk to a child within the social services today. It is completely impossible to do the work that these children require and need with the small margin we have. Here, it is absolutely blank from the government's side, I believe.

One of the striking problems with the Moderaternas policy is that on one hand, they say they will implement open interventions for children at the age of twelve, while at the same time they want to put children in prison. This very strange conflict they have in their perception regarding these children, I find, is very frightening. Somewhere we must agree to base ourselves on the research that exists regarding what is needed for children who end up in vulnerability or in crime. It is not harsher punishments they need. They need every single krona within welfare, school, healthcare, elderly care, and social services to get what they need.

(Applause)

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate is about children who have turned twelve being able to receive interventions without the guardian's consent if it is judged appropriate and the child consents to the intervention. It will also be possible to appoint a contact person or a specially qualified contact person for a child without the parents being involved in it.

The law aims to increase the social welfare committee's possibilities to provide support to children even if consent from guardians is not present and in cases where criteria for a placement are lacking. Early interventions are extremely important. Parental rights must be challenged and the child rights perspective strengthened, but to strengthen the child rights perspective, one must also guarantee that children feel safe with the decisions being made. I can feel a certain concern regarding some parts of this legislation. I expressed this concern even during the previous parliamentary term, when the directives for the investigation were written. However, I did not receive support for this from the government parties.

The LVU campaign that has been directed at the social services is an active measure to direct mistrust towards Swedish authorities. It is important to see and understand why this campaign has arisen. It is a serious campaign that risks affecting social workers in their exercise of authority.

The LVU campaign has not emerged in a vacuum, which has been revealed in a report from the Swedish Defence University, the LVU campaign, which Magnus Ranstorp and Linda Ahlerup have produced. In the report, mistrust and a lack of trust in Swedish authorities and their exercise of authority are highlighted. There are indeed people who want this feeling to exist among guardians who would never at all be candidates for interventions from the social services, because they take responsibility for their parenthood, and who want to create fear among parents. At the same time, there are indeed parents who to the highest degree endanger their children, and in these cases, there is a risk that the social services are influenced in their decision-making.

In the report, it was spoken of clashes between cultural and religious values and the Swedish legislation that regulates individual freedoms and rights. The report highlights that this primarily concerns the rights that children have through Swedish law.

When there is a risk that this affects the exercise of public authority, it is important that this law – which is of a less intrusive nature, just as it stands in the proposals – must never be used instead of the important interventions that children who are truly vulnerable may need.

It is our responsibility as politicians to provide support to all those social workers who live in a reality that is very vulnerable. The campaign itself is a threat both to Sweden's democracy and to vulnerable children's right to freedom.

Another concern that I have expressed is how this can affect children living with the norms and values of the honor culture. We know that the risk of vulnerability increases significantly in cases where guardians become aware that the child has spoken to authorities about their conditions at home. A clear piece of evidence for this is all the children who have been taken out of the country despite one or more authorities having been aware of the risk without the authorities taking protective measures, which both the Gender Equality Authority and the National Centre for Honor-Related Violence and Oppression highlight.

According to the Gender Equality Authority's report Removed Children and Young People, the most common reason for children being taken out of the country is that the family does not want the authorities to interfere. This occurs despite the fact that we today have legislation that makes it possible to issue travel bans.

When the social services now receive new legislation on their desk, it is therefore important that these risks are taken into account. It also shows how necessary it is that we continue with educational initiatives, so that one understands what the norms and values of the honor culture look like, how they affect the individual, and in what context this occurs.

On an overall level, I think we must consider what it is that makes a parent choose not to consent to the child receiving an intervention if the surroundings see the need and the child feels a need. It can, as a result of this campaign, be that one feels a lack of trust. In that case, it becomes extremely important to be involved with families early and create trust in the social services.

However, there may also be other warning bells that must ring, and that is important. When a parent says no, the social services must dig deeper and find out what is happening. In cases where the parent has opposed an intervention, one must also find out what happens when the child comes home to the family – how does the family react to the child receiving this measure?

When it concerns children who are placed according to SoL, and who thus have a voluntary placement, it truly facilitates for the social services to be able to take measures without the guardians having to consent to it. This is a very important basis.

We in the Liberals naturally stand behind the proposal in the report, but we will be clear that the legislation must be followed up closely. Members have previously spoken about the Children and Parents Code. I believe that in many areas there are difficulties when it comes to legislation that is intended to protect children and parental rights. There is a conflict in the borderline between a guardian being unsuitable and them doing something illegal. Of course, these are issues that must be handled further.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Juno Blom for a very interesting contribution. When it comes to the issue of honor, Juno Blom has fantastic experience and knowledge that we all appreciate.

Therefore, my question is why the Liberals choose not to vote to review the possibility of introducing open interventions without the guardian's knowledge. Just when it concerns families with honor issues, Juno Blom is well aware that there are problems within the family. If the family becomes aware of this, it becomes difficult to seek support, to get help, and perhaps to get a contact person who can guide a young person living in a family characterized by an honor culture.

My question is actually: Why do the Liberals choose not to vote to review this possibility?

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! When these directives were signed during the previous parliamentary term, I was very clear that this risked leading to consequences for children in an honor context. We know that it is sufficient that the authorities become aware of the whole matter.

We entered into a cooperation with the previous government during this period. However, we broke away when it came to just this directive, because it was not within the framework of the January agreement. I feel that there is a risk that some children can be affected by it. Since the directives came back, I have, of course, done what I can to clarify these risk factors, so that it becomes clear in the social welfare committee.

I share the member's view that one generally must look at the Children and Parents Code in a much larger perspective. This is something that I am pushing for and which I say clearly.

I have personally reflected a lot on this. Initially, my thoughts were about the family not being aware that the child is receiving interventions. At the same time, I know, having worked very much in these families, that it is not entirely easy for these children to explain everything if they have been away with a contact person. It is also about the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the child's right to freedom of conscience.

How to do this is a tricky balancing act, but I definitely believe it must be clarified that there are obvious risks here. How to then do it is something that I have raised further – it must be investigated in a much deeper way. For some children it fits; for some children it can be very good. Then we must also take into custody the children for whom it does not fit. That is why I was very clear in my speech, which I also have been regarding the directives and now that this has come out. I have done what I can.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I was not quite clear on the answer. Would Juno Blom personally have wanted to vote with the Social Democrats because she has not been heard by her party or by the government parties, or does she not think that the open measures should be reviewed? It would be good to have a clarification.

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

Juno Blom (L)

Madam Speaker! Then I shall be clear again. From the beginning, I also thought it would be simple to do this without knowledge and that the right to do so would apply generally, for all children.

I feel, however, that there is a practical difficulty linked to this, given that these children do not have the same freedom of movement. They are clocked many times on their way to and from school, and one is not allowed to socialize. How would one then explain that one has an assignment at another time?

That is why I mean that the work I do is important, and the member can be completely calm that I am staying on this the whole time. But I believe that a deeper review must be made. One must be very clear in the legislation, and the risk factors have been clarified as opposed to in the investigation that came. I believe, however, that one must be even clearer, and I am thinking of the risks that I raised linked to the threat and hate campaign against social workers. There is an obvious risk if this is not done, and I want to say clearly that this needs to be reviewed.

However, I believe that the Children and Parents Code must be reviewed in a much more systematic way. You say that I should have stood behind your proposal. I may have changed my opinion on that: It might not be so simple to just write in "without knowledge." But that one must take into account these children's special circumstances is absolutely clear.

You are asking me as a member of Parliament now. I fought in the previous government for there to be clearer wording in these issues. I was told no by the previous government. I have fought just as much now and nevertheless been able to wash away certain things and clarify others. I therefore feel completely secure. The question is perhaps rather why the previous government did not listen. Then we would have had a much better investigation basis, and we could have gone further right from the start.

But we do not give up, and it is good that we see the difficulties from different perspectives. I know that Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall also does so, as she has a clear children's rights perspective.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 May.)

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