A leadership that can be relied on

Mikael Eskilandersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the report A guardianship that can be trusted. It is a report on something very important: that people who need a guardian, a trustee, or an appointed guardian should be able to feel security that the system works.

This is a reform that has been requested for a very long time. Let me begin by reminding why it has been requested. The problem arose seriously when Sweden, for far too long, pursued an extreme and irresponsible migration policy. This goes far back in time but reached its peak when around 30,000 unaccompanied children and young people sought asylum during 2015. At that time, the municipalities were put under very severe pressure, and the state itself stated that the availability of legal guardians was insufficient. JO has described how children were forced to wait for a legal guardian because there was an extreme shortage and that it was not uncommon for legal guardians to have up to 30–40 assignments.

This is a clear example of what happens when politics chooses to turn a blind eye to the effects of its decisions and when a system built on responsibility and trust is pushed so far beyond its capacity that it simply ceases to function.

Now the Tidö government is cleaning up after the Social Democrats' failure, strengthening the protection for the individual and making the system more legally secure, more serious and more reliable. We strengthen the individual's position. We clarify what the mandate as a proxy entails. We increase the focus on the individual's will and well-being. We improve the transparency in how the mandate is managed. We also give a state agency a clearer responsibility for guidance, information, training and regulations. These are important changes that contribute to better quality and better order. We also introduce a reporting obligation in case of suspicion of certain crimes. We give the guardian decision-making authority in certain cases that are not contested, and we legislate the possibility of using employed proxies. All in all, this is a substantial reform package. It is not symbolic politics; it is concrete improvements.

At the same time, it is important to say that the vast majority of guardians and administrators do a very valuable work. They help people who would otherwise risk standing alone in difficult situations. They take responsibility for persons who need support in contact with authorities, in financial matters, and in everyday life. Many do this with great commitment and with a strong sense of responsibility. That work deserves both our respect and our appreciation.

We must be able to show our appreciation for all those who devote time and effort to helping others, while at the same time being honest that the system has not always functioned as it should. We have all heard about cases where individuals have accumulated very large amounts of assignments but made deficient efforts. We have also heard about people who have built up extensive operations around this and earned large sums of money, while those who were supposed to receive help have instead suffered. It is not acceptable. When the control fails, it affects people who are already in a vulnerable situation.

The Sweden Democrats have long highlighted the need for tightening in this area. Already when the Sweden Democrats had their first family law conference in Helsingborg in 2016, the question of guardians was something that engaged the Sweden Democrats' municipal politicians all over Sweden. At that time, few probably believed that their developed proposal for a national register would be something the government would move forward with almost exactly ten years later.

The proposal for a national register is one of many proposals that have emerged at our FRK conferences, as they are called internally, and now I finally stand here with the proposal from the government and a resounding approval of it from the Committee on Civil Affairs. Now it is happening, for real.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the reservations, we mean that they should all be rejected. The government's position is more well-considered and more accurate. Some of the reservations go further than what is reasonable at this stage, while others miss the big picture or risk creating new problems instead of solving old ones.

The Social Democrats would like to forget their participation in the refugee chaos that created the problems surrounding sponsors by presenting a symbolic policy that is more far-reaching than the government's. Or what about reporting all crimes, even those that do not have prison sentences in the sentencing scale, as the Social Democrats express it in a reservation?

But what type of crime is it that does not have imprisonment in the sentencing scale? Have you considered that? Yes, the most common crimes that lack imprisonment in the sentencing scale are insult as well as the lack of a seat belt, holding the mobile phone in one's hand while driving, pedestrians crossing the road in the wrong way, that is, going against the red man, the lack of a bicycle helmet on passengers under 15 years old, letting the bicycle or moped be towed by another vehicle, so-called "hanking", and violating various types of stop signs and yielding obligations. Now, I do not think it is these crimes that the Social Democrats are actually referring to, but it is actually what they write in their reservation.

I am not a hundred percent sure that we have landed exactly right in our balancing of which crimes should have a reporting obligation. One can certainly have views on where the line should be drawn, and it may need to be reviewed in the future. But I am quite sure that the Social Democrats have landed completely wrong. More symbolic politics was not needed here. What was needed here was legislation that works, for real.

In conclusion, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Good men and women should be important pillars of support for the people in our country and our society who are in need of representatives, but extensive deficiencies have emerged in the regulation that has existed.

It was the Social Democratic-led government that in 2019 commissioned the inquiry into a substitute system to be relied upon. It was a review aimed at improving supervision, creating better conditions for competent persons to stand as substitutes, and strengthening individuals' position and protection.

In the end, the investigation was about that people in our society who are in need of support and of a representative should be able to rely on that they receive the help that is needed. The investigation's report was presented in 2021 and was subject to referral process.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have been very keen that the investigation should be pursued by the current government without delay, so that the law can be improved. Therefore, we have taken this up with the Minister for Justice on numerous occasions. We have submitted written questions and interpellations, written motions, and organized meetings. We have had meetings with knowledgeable people and organizations, all over the country, including trustees, administrators, guardians, SKR, that is, Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, and Centrum för rättvisa, who have represented vulnerable and defrauded individuals who have suffered as a result of the law.

Together we have worked to ensure that the government takes the investigation further. We have pushed, to speak plainly, for several years. We have done that, Madam Speaker, because we know that many have been waiting for a new law and have needed the law to be changed.

This became clear in the case of Therese, which Uppdrag granskning highlighted this year. It was in 2024 that SVT reported on a woman who had disappeared from her home in Värmland three years earlier. Her guardian had decided that she should be kept hidden. In Uppdrag granskning, however, it emerged that those who knew the woman were convinced that the decision was wrong, and her parents were desperately searching for their daughter.

Until a few years ago, the woman, who has several functional impairments, lived at her parents' home in Värmland, with the help of assistants and a manager who represented her and managed her finances. The review describes, however, that the cooperation between the parents, the assistants, and the manager had been marred by conflicts.

The administrator applied for a restraining order against the parents, but it was rejected by the prosecutor who stated that there was no risk of threats or violence against the woman. The administrator then instead applied for protected population registration in the woman's own name with Skatteverket. The woman was moved to a secret address and disappeared from all public registers.

The parents experienced that their daughter had been kidnapped. Several people close to the family questioned why the woman was being kept hidden. There was also no documented supervision that justified her being kept hidden by the guardian. When SVT managed to track the woman, who had been moved to an apartment 65 miles from her home, she expressed a wish to be able to invite family and friends to her birthday, but she could not. She told SVT: "I don't have a phone."

Madam Speaker! What emerged in the review is extremely serious. A trustee, in this case the company Optio, has been allowed to act in this way towards vulnerable individuals and furthermore received payment from the state for it, from tax money! The company has, via its CEO, allowed it to be communicated that they have as a policy not to speak with journalists. With the help of Skatteverket, the trustee and the company were able to sweep away oversight, in a system that is already plagued by lack of supervision. The same company was also a trustee for Arne Gavelin in Västernorrland. He was placed under trusteeship against his will but, after a long struggle, won against the state in court.

Madam Speaker! It has been clear that the law has fallen short and that individuals such as Therese, Arne, and many others have suffered immensely as a result of this. It is a matter of systemic failure. We therefore welcome that the bill has finally reached the Riksdag so that we can have a new regulation in place. For example, a proxy register is now being introduced, which we Social Democrats have wanted for a long time.

Madam Speaker! Even though it is good that the government is moving forward with what we started, the government's bill has major flaws. It is a serious flaw that the government leaves private companies such as Optio free to continue to exploit individual people and receive payment from tax funds. This market failure, which many have suffered as a result of, must be removed, but the government chooses to do nothing.

Madam Speaker! The system of trustees and administrators is based on people's voluntary commitment, that is to say, that there are people who, in their spare time and for a relatively low compensation, step up and take care of another person's financial and personal affairs.

There are many proxies throughout the country who make fantastic efforts for their principals, their fellow human beings. These proxies should have our recognition and our respect. We Social Democrats share the government's assessment that voluntary commitment is a strength for society and important to preserve.

Among those who need a guardian or administrator, there are however individuals with a great need for help who have to wait a long time for a representative to be appointed. It also occurs that the chief guardian cannot find a suitable representative at all for the person who needs help.

Madam Speaker! For some years now, there have been a number of private companies that provide legal guardians. To meet the need for legal guardians in complicated cases, some municipalities have also established a so-called management unit. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has noted that municipal management units can fulfill a function when there is a shortage of legal guardians at a guardianship authority who are willing to take on new and particularly demanding assignments.

We Social Democrats agree with the government's assessment that employee representatives are needed in some cases, but we oppose the government's proposal that profit-driven private actors shall be allowed to make money from vulnerable individuals. It is not worthy to continue so.

Madam Speaker! After the report of the Proxy Investigation was presented, Professor Emerita Eva Blomberg wrote in DN Debatt this year about the investigation's proposals. She wrote, among other things: ”If I were a criminal, I would invest in this industry. Approximately 40 billion kronor are in the pot. Every day, those who could be suitable victims are advertised, and not infrequently where they live. It should not be so difficult to trick money out of them in a control system that is based solely on accounts being audited once a year by overloaded officials.”

Others have also pointed out this problem, including Uppdrag granskning, which I mentioned and which has shown how the company Optio exploited both Therese in Värmland and Arne in Västernorrland.

It is wrong that companies are allowed to continue like this. It ruins individuals' lives. At the same time, companies earn money from it, and it is financed by our Swedish tax funds. It is alarming that the government takes the side of these companies and thinks it is okay for them to continue earning money from vulnerable individuals.

We Social Democrats say no to this. Our proposal is instead that the person who, due to their employment, undertakes assignments as a legal guardian or administrator shall be appointed as such a representative within municipal administrative units or other non-profit organizations, if there are special reasons. Therefore, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Social Democrats, I move for approval of reservation 4.

Madam Speaker! Another deficiency in the government's proposal is their laxity towards crime. We Social Democrats believe that if the Chief Guardian has reason to assume that an appointed guardian, legal guardian, or administrator has committed a crime – regardless of which crime it is and regardless of who has been affected – the Chief Guardian should immediately report this to the Police Authority or a prosecutor. Why does the SD-government say no to this? Why this laxity towards crime that affects people with disabilities and the most vulnerable in society?

Madam Speaker! Let me give an example. If a proxy, for example, is suspected of having committed a child pornography crime, it constitutes a risk factor for the principal if this is a child, even if the principal in an initial stage is not suspected of being a victim of the act or if the crime has not occurred "in connection with the activity."

Another example, Madam Speaker, is if a proxy has engaged in fraud and embezzlement. In that case, there is also a risk for the principal, and it should be reported to the police even if the suspicion of fraud and embezzlement does not apply to the principal. Persons who have committed crimes should, as a rule, not simultaneously be proxies for vulnerable people. Obviously, it must be reported to the police, regardless. Why do the Moderaterna, SD, L and KD not agree with this?

Madam Speaker! The government's bill also falls significantly short when it comes to children. For vulnerable children, it is important that adults who notice concern regarding the child report this to the social services. For children with guardians, or children who have parents who have guardians, the guardian may very well be the only one who actually has insight and sees the whole picture regarding a child who is doing poorly. Just as for other municipal officials who come into contact with children, we believe there should be a duty to report in case of concern.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, we believe that children have a right to insight into matters concerning them, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law. We Social Democrats welcome the government's proposal for increased insight for the individual in the proxy's activities but argue that children's rights must be clarified.

Our proposal is that trustees and administrators shall keep the principal informed about the assignment on an ongoing basis, unless there are specific reasons against it. Appointed guardians shall also have such an obligation in relation to children who have reached the age of 16. Guardians shall also inform a younger child, if it is judged to be in the child's best interest.

We believe that it should be reported in the annual report that the appointed deputy has fulfilled their obligation to provide information. If younger children have not been informed, the reason for this should be justified in the annual report, so that it becomes transparent. What is the reason that M, SD, KD and L say no to this?

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the Government announces its plans regarding which authority shall be assigned the tasks that arise from the legislative changes. Since the Government's account of the chosen authority occupies a certain amount of space in the bill, we have presented what is missing in our follow-up motion.

Briefly, it is about the government's intention to appoint MFoF. However, the government's considerations appear deficient as nothing is mentioned regarding the major problems that have emerged concerning the agency.

In our follow-up motion, we address this. In summary, it is a matter of MFoF having exhibited extensive deficiencies regarding its application of the law and its operations. This has affected many vulnerable individuals, including many children.

It should therefore be obvious that MFoF does not have the capacity required to take on yet another area of responsibility concerning very vulnerable individuals, many of whom are children.

The Social Democrats therefore question the government's approach to making MFoF responsible. It appears to be a poorly substantiated position from the government's side. Our hope is that the government takes a new approach and places the figures elsewhere.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: It is important to follow up on whether and how the legislative changes have an effect and whether further legislative changes are justified. Experience shows that legislative changes in this area often have their real consequences first in the application, for example regarding recruitment, workload and legal certainty. Therefore, a control point should exist in three to five years, which is why we have proposed this.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Markus Kallifatides (both S) concurred.

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

Jennie Wernäng (M)

Madam Speaker! Over the years, there have been some outbursts in the speaker's chair, but I have also heard singing. I will not sing, Madam Speaker. But I would still like to send a thank you!

After 14 years at different levels, I will be leaving politics entirely after this mandate period. Therefore, I want to say thank you: Thank you for good cooperation, thank you for a good tone, and thank you for hard work together.

To the influencers who say that they specifically have the most important job, I would like to say: This is where it happens – the work of upholding and protecting democracy, which we must not take for granted in these times of unrest. It has been a privilege to have been a part of this work in the heart of democracy.

Madam Speaker! Today we are considering report 2025/26:CU22. I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! Four years ago, I left my position as sole guardian. The assignment gave me a very close insight into the work that is done and which is completely crucial in many people's everyday lives.

I have seen the needs and the vulnerability when what we sometimes take for granted no longer works. It can be about deaths, illnesses and old age, or about loneliness that suddenly envelops a person. You cannot imagine what it does when someone then stands up and takes that responsibility.

What I take with me from my assignment as guardian is that it is not about systems. It is about responsibility and security in life's most difficult moments.

It is our responsibility here to ensure that the work proceeds and that there are conditions in place so that people dare and want to be substitutes. But it is also a matter of ensuring that security and trust are built into the system.

Even in my job as a nursing assistant in home care, I have devoted many hours of dialogue to good men, where I have suddenly been the one who stands closest to the person in need of support.

There, one has to put together a puzzle based on that person's life. How has he or she lived? How did they want to have it? What is most important? How would the person have wanted to have it, now that the memory fails?

A guardianship that can be relied on is the title of the bill. It is a reform for increased security and self-determination. I believe that this bill contains exactly the steps that we need to take now. There are more steps that need to be taken, but this is a step on that journey.

In this speech, David Josefsson (M) agreed.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! The persons who need a guardian or curator belong to some of the most vulnerable in our society. They are children who are left without their parents and elderly people who can no longer manage their daily lives. It can also be a person with disabilities who needs support to be able to live an independent and dignified life.

Ensuring that the system of substitute decision-makers is secure and legally sound and puts the individual's best interests first is one of our most important duties.

That is why I and the Center Party are very pleased with the bill that is on the table today. This is a long-awaited and necessary reform that, in several points, both modernizes and strengthens the regulatory framework.

We particularly welcome the parts that strengthen the individual's position and influence. That the guardian's mandate becomes clearer, with an increased focus on the individual's will and well-being, is an important liberal advancement. People should not merely become objects of administration, but they shall be the main characters in their own lives, with the right to both insight and participation.

We are also very positive that a national register of proxies is now being introduced. It is something that the Center Party has pushed for for a longer time, and that a state agency is given responsibility for supervision and training.

This will increase the quality and equality across the entire country. It will make it easier for both competent and committed substitutes to carry out their assignments, and it will make it harder for unsuitable persons to act in the system. These are good and necessary reforms that strengthen the rule of law.

Madam Speaker! We welcome the bill as stated but wish that the government had gone further regarding children's rights to receive information and to be involved in their own lives.

In the law, it states that the person who has turned 16 has the right to receive information from their guardian, but I do not think that is sufficient. Even children under 16 should have that right.

There perhaps shouldn't even be a limit, but it should be obvious that everyone should receive information about what concerns them. It is as obvious as starting from the child's level of maturity.

As a parent, I have constantly included my children in matters concerning them in their lives in different ways, based on what they themselves have the ability to receive and make decisions about. This should be obvious even if these children have a guardian.

Madam Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law, and children have the right to be heard and to receive information about their lives. It is nothing we should take lightly, but rather we are obligated to ensure that it becomes so for all children.

That is why we want the government to return to that specific question. It is, as said, a good bill, but remember: Strengthen children's rights! I move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Larry Söder (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are addressing a report that deals with something of the most fundamental we have in a civilized society. It is about ensuring that every person, regardless of how vulnerable she is, receives support she can rely on.

Even though one is vulnerable and susceptible, unfortunately, the systems do not always work. One only has to google and look at what has happened within this area.

I found an article from Expressen on December 7: Good man suspected of robbing 95-year-old woman. Sveriges Radio on January 13: Good man deceived demented woman of apartment – gets prison sentence. Sveriges Television on July 17: Nearly a million kronor missing – administrator said to have deceived several people with disabilities.

We have very good intentions, but as the previous speaker has said, there are at the same time people who want to exploit the system. That is why we must have clear frameworks and ensure that it is actually the people who are vulnerable and at risk who are at the center when it comes to this. A representative that can be trusted, I think, is an important step towards a more legally secure, dignified, and efficient system for guardians and administrators.

As a Christian Democrat, I see every human being as unique and valuable. This applies not only to the healthy and the strong, but it applies to the highest degree to those who, due to mental illness, disability, or other reasons, can no longer manage their own affairs. For these citizens, guardianship is not a bureaucratic formality, but it is a matter of trust between the one who manages it and the one who needs it.

It is about someone else being allowed to make decisions regarding finances, housing, healthcare, and personal matters. These decisions affect the individual human being.

I mean that the government's bill addresses the deficiencies that have existed for too long. The frameworks for the assignment become clearer for the one who undertakes it, and the individual's will shall carry more weight. I believe that in the conversations I have had, it can be demonstrated that the guardian sometimes does not take responsibility for finding solutions for individuals' wishes to be near loved ones and relatives, but actually sometimes isolates the one who needs a guardian or representative. I believe it is very good that we have a focus on the individual in this bill. The focus should be on well-being and not just on administration.

A national register of executors is being introduced, which I think is very good. It is a tool that both increases transparency and makes it easier for competent executors and administrators to do a good job. They must be able to show a qualification when they meet with banks and the like, and there are countless examples of executors not having been able to do what they are appointed to do because they have not been able to demonstrate that they are executors.

How many are there actually, the proxies? A survey was conducted at the end of the 10s, and then there were 150,000 trustees and 150,000 administrators. When we have a register, maybe we will find out exactly how many there are, because no one has a handle on it. This is also good with the register.

We strengthen the individual's position while simultaneously increasing the quality of the operations and making it easier for those who step up as proxies. It is not always so easy to recruit or retain good forces. Many do this voluntarily and are driven by humanity and responsibility. A member spoke earlier about the democratic role one has, and I believe that it is a democratic role that proxies also have. They take their social responsibility in that way and help another fellow human being. I want to assert that they deserve better support and clearer rules.

We Christian Democrats believe in a society where no one is left alone and where families and relatives can be involved and provide support as far as possible, but where society steps in when it is actually needed in a way that safeguards both freedom and security for the individual.

I think this report is a step in the right direction. Of course, more things can be done, and we will certainly discover more things we need to do in the future, but then we must help each other to find them and move them forward.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

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

Amanda Palmstierna (MP)

Madam Speaker! Guardians are needed when people are particularly vulnerable. As we have heard, this applies to children without parents, the elderly, and in the case of illness. It is therefore very pleasing that we today are debating legislative changes aimed at strengthening the individual's rights and at creating better opportunities to recruit and retain competent guardians and administrators.

According to information from Riksförbundet frivilliga samhällsarbetare, there are approximately 128,000 proxies in Sweden today, and the trend is increasing – more people need proxies now than before.

Representatives can be guardians or trustees. At present, not everyone who needs a representative has the opportunity to get one due to a lack of people who are willing to take on the assignment. Reasons can be the administrative hassle and the lack of structures to support this assignment. For example, liability insurance for the assignment is not included in the home insurance and is also not available from the municipality, and many are not aware of this.

The Swedish Association of Voluntary Community Workers and organizations that represent those in need of legal guardians, such as JAG, meaning Jämlikhet Assistans Gemenskap, have long advocated for several measures to improve within the field. Among others, they have highlighted the importance of precisely a national legal guardian register.

In a debate article from the spring of 2025, RFS, i.e., Riksförbundet frivilliga samhällsarbetare, together with other organizations among others, write that a national proxy register means that it can become easier and smoother for proxies to demonstrate their authorization as well as for banks, authorities and other actors to check a proxy's authorization. They write that it must become easier for everyone to have and be a proxy and that there should not need to be any uncertainty regarding who has a proxy, who is a proxy and what the proxy is authorized to do.

The investigation on guardians and curators was submitted in 2021 and presented a number of proposals that included changes to, among other things, the Children and Parents Code and the Inheritance Code. The idea of a national representative register was also included in the investigation. It is very pleasing that this will now become a reality, and we have had a great consensus on it. The directive did not, however, cover everything that needed to be reviewed. Several other measures would need to be taken.

In the reminder, Riksförbundet frivilliga samhällsarbetare also wrote that an update of the regulatory framework regarding proxies is required so that it is better adapted to the digital tools that are often used to manage, for example, banking matters.

It is therefore good that the idea of a substitute register has been moved forward, but other good and relevant points were raised during the referral process, so we would very much like to continue working on this so that it becomes a secure, legally sound and sustainable system both for those who need substitutes and for those who are substitutes.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 1.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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