For children's rights and safety - a new law on the placement of children and young people in care

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Every child deserves to grow up in a safe family where there is time to see and affirm the children. Every child deserves to grow up in a family where one chooses to treat each other with love, care, and respect. Every child deserves to grow up in a family where the parents have the opportunity to support themselves and where the children are safe and are given the opportunity to succeed and feel hope for the future.

Sweden therefore needs a policy that supports and strengthens ordinary families in their everyday lives. We need a policy that leads to stronger and more secure families.

But the truth is, unfortunately, that far too many children do not get to grow up in a safe family. For some, it is arguments over time and money that create the insecurity. Others live with an abusing mother or an absent father, or are subjected to violence and oppression in their own home. The insecurity that this creates in the family, which should be the source of everything called love, care, and respect, makes very many children feel unwell. It makes it harder to manage school. The children risk developing substance abuse and self-harming behaviors as a kind of self-medication. Then there are children who seek belonging and community elsewhere among the criminal gangs and who themselves choose to commit crimes and exercise violence against others.

It is clear that Sweden needs to continue to do more to provide support in time for these children and their families.

It has been important for the Christian Democrats and the government during this mandate period to expand the country's family centers and parental support programs with the goal that they should be available throughout the country. We have also decided on a new Social Services Act, in order to strengthen the preventive work. We have done that so that more children can get a secure start in life – but sometimes a restart is needed. When it has gone so far that it is clear that a small child can no longer stay at home with mom and dad and that a compulsory removal is necessary to break the social vulnerability, the rest of society needs to stand ready, show heart and take responsibility.

We need to ensure together that decisions in each individual case are made based on the best interests of the child and that all children are allowed to grow up in safe families. Against this background, the Government has taken a holistic approach with the aim of changing, renewing, and improving the Act concerning Care of Young People, LVU. It is proposed that the Act be replaced by a new Act on Custody for Care of Children and Young People and a new Act on Special Powers for State Child and Youth Care.

The Christian Democrats support the government's proposal, and I want to highlight some particularly positive aspects of the new legislation.

Firstly, the children's rights perspective is strengthened and clarified through a separate chapter. The best interests of the child shall always be the starting point to ensure that it becomes as good as possible for every child and that their rights are met. Children shall be allowed to express their opinions, be informed, and be more involved in care and in decisions, for example, regarding placement or compulsory care.

Secondly, children's right to contact is expanded to include siblings, so that one can maintain a close relationship with one's sister, brother, or other close relatives in cases where one can no longer live together.

For the third time, attachment to the new foster home is introduced as a new basis for decisions on care. The starting point should, of course, be that it is best for the child to grow up with its parents, if possible, and that care should not continue longer than necessary. But with this new provision, we create a prerequisite for care to still be able to continue in certain cases due to the child's attachment if there is a tangible risk that the child's health or development will be harmed if the child is separated from the foster home and if it is considered best for the child that the care continues.

This is important because our society has all too often failed to protect vulnerable children. This was shown in the case of the eight-year-old boy Tintin, who was found dead after unsupervised contact with his father in Luleå. Tintin had expressed strong anxiety and fear regarding the visit with his father, but despite several alarms and several reports of concern from relatives, the school, and the police, the father's right to contact with the child was prioritized over Tintin's best interests. We have since limited parents' right to contact through the Tintin law during this parliamentary term so that children exposed to violence do not have to meet their perpetrators.

Another example that one will naturally think of is Lilla hjärtat, the little girl Esmeralda, who was taken into care as early as BB due to substance abuse in the family and was placed in a loving foster home. She had lived there her entire life when it was one day decided that she should be torn away from that security and instead live with her biological parents. Esmeralda was also found dead – under the bed in her biological parents' apartment, neglected to death. She was only three years old.

The Social Affairs Committee considered, on the grounds of the Lilla hjärtat case, that the social services should, among other things, be allowed to demand mandatory drug tests of the parents before visitation and before the assessment of whether care should cease. They also chose to investigate a new criterion based on the best interests of the child when assessing the cessation of care according to LVU. Now it becomes a reality. Now it is we who are changing the conditions and strengthening the children's security!

Nothing is more important for a child than growing up in a safe family. Safe children growing up in safe families is also what, more than anything else, lays the foundation for a safe society. We Christian Democrats believe in Sweden and that a brighter future for Sweden's children and young people is possible. We believe that more children could receive support to overcome their difficulties, find the right path in life, and find a safe place to call their home. We are determined that more children in Sweden shall get to grow up in safety, so that they can feel hope and faith in the future. Therefore, we move for approval of the Social Affairs Committee's report.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! When I hear someone say that children are our future, I always want to protest – not because it is not true, but because it is so far from the whole truth. Children are, above all, people here and now.

When I was a child, we had a poster on the wall at home that showed different ages with steps up to 50 years and then steps downwards. In the middle stands a 50-year-old gentleman in a hat and cheers. Life is at its peak at 50! Everything before is a striving towards it. Everything after is a slow farewell. I turn against that view, even though I am very close to that peak now.

Madam Speaker! Every summer since I was born, I have been on the beach at Haväng in Skåne. For a few years now, my two children have been running ahead of me on the boardwalk down to the beach. When I walk behind them, the age ladder feels reversed. My impressions are dampened by experience, routine, categorizations, and knowledge. It is like a time travel to see the children run past the gooseberry bushes at Haväng. I never quite reach the children's unfiltered impressions, but nothing brings me closer to life than being with my children where I myself have been a child. After the gooseberry bushes, we reach the trees. My parents had once told me about ticks that could be there. I always ran past as fast as I could. I was completely preoccupied by the fear of ticks that would jump from the trees toward me to then poison me.

The portions of happiness and terror are much greater when one is a child. The skin is so thin, life so intense. Children are on the highest step closest to life, to evil and good. But for many children, it is not ticks in trees that scare them, but dangers of a completely different kind: the fear that mom will be drunk when one comes home from school, the fear of being alone with dad who touches one in strange ways, the fear of being beaten or the fear of seeing someone one loves being beaten.

We know that children often have very strong bonds with their parents, but that society at the same time sometimes must protect children from the same parents through compulsory removal.

We know that laws must be general but at the same time that all children are unique. What we are discussing today is therefore difficult. It is not black or white. It is simultaneously, literally, life-saving.

Madam Speaker! The bill represents a step forward in many respects regarding viewing children as bearers of their own rights, human rights, if we so wish. The rights of children and young people are gathered in their own chapter in the law. Furthermore, it is proposed that the right to a public counsel be clarified and expanded. It has been a long process with many involved, not least children's rights organizations, previous governments, experts, and other opinion leaders who have moved the positions, and of course also the Minister for Social Services and her officials in the current government.

Madam Speaker! Many of the most important reforms in our society have grown out of a will to prevent what happened to one person from affecting someone else. How could it happen? And how shall we act so that it does not happen again? But if legislation is shaped too closely to an individual case, there is a risk that it becomes a response to yesterday's tragedy rather than tomorrow's challenges.

The political pendulum must not swing too far in any direction. Governments must be able to lift their gaze from the individual case and create legislation that is well-considered, balanced, and long-term sustainable. Compassion must be combined with prudence, otherwise the will to protect risks leading to new mistakes which in turn become the basis for the next demand for change. A child should never have to become a lesson for society so that other children do not end up poorly in the future.

The government has, I argue, gone too far when a child who is 15 years old is prevented from moving home to their parents despite the deficiencies that prompted the placement in the home having ceased and when both the child and the parents also wish to be reunited. That type of coercion does not belong in Sweden 2026.

I do not want a Lex Johan, a Lex Ali, or a Lex Amanda that makes us change this in hindsight. I want to see the change now, before anyone is affected.

We respect children's rights. We must acknowledge their will. We have long since begun the shift from a parental rights perspective to a children's rights perspective. But it must never outweigh a family home's right to a child. The proposal in this part simply goes too far. Socialstyrelsen and Rädda Barnen also think so.

Madam Speaker! When we discuss in which cases we should take children into compulsory care, we must also discuss how society takes care of these children when they are in society's care. Despite the police pointing out HVB homes run by criminals, the operations have been able to continue year after year.

We Social Democrats said: Let the police close criminal HVB homes. The government said no. We said: Let the public take back control over private HVB homes. The government said no. We said: Let the homes prove to a court that they are not criminal instead of the state having to prove that they are. The government said no.

It has been four years of no, four years of scandal after scandal within Swedish youth care, four lost years for those of us who want something else. With that, I move for approval of reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Affairs Committee's report SoU38, which deals with the bill that is largely a response to one of the most tragic child cases that Sweden has experienced, namely the case of Lilla hjärtat. A little girl who had found safety in her foster home was moved back to her biological parents and subsequently lost her life. Such a failure must never be repeated. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats support the bill.

Introducing the child's attachment as an independent basis for continued care is fundamentally correct. Children are not moving boxes that can be moved back and forth without consequences. If a child has, over a long period, built up security, relationships, and their everyday life in a family home, this must be taken into account.

I also want, Madam Speaker, to highlight another important principle. For the vast majority of children, their own family is the best place to grow up, together with their biological parents. Society's first task must therefore always be to help the family function, not to separate it.

When a report of concern is received, the social services shall work early and preventatively. The problems shall be identified. Parents shall be offered support, treatment, and other interventions. The goal shall be that the family, with the right help, shall be able to continue to be a safe place for the child.

The social services shall not only investigate families, but they shall also provide families with the conditions to succeed. It is only when support measures are not sufficient that society shall need to resort to the ultimate measure: a placement according to LVU. But even then, the work with the family must not cease.

The principle of reunification is still an important starting point. Social services shall continue to work with the deficiencies that led to the removal and give the parents the opportunity to change their situation. In the best of worlds, this leads to the child being able to safely return home. That goal we must never abandon.

Madam Speaker! We should also include the research presented by Ronja Helénsdotter. It shows that for children where there is uncertainty about whether a placement is necessary, the so-called marginal cases, a decision on compulsory placement is associated with a significantly increased risk of, among other things, suicide and mental ill-health for many years to come.

It does not mean that children who are subjected to serious care deficiencies should not be protected. But it reminds us of how intrusive a placement actually is and how crucial it is that society makes the right decision from the beginning.

A placement according to LVU is one of the most intrusive decisions society can make. Therefore, every investigation must be characterized by objectivity, impartiality, and legal certainty. There must never be a feeling that only that which strengthens the investigator's own assessment is highlighted while information that points in another direction is omitted. It is not just about legal certainty for the parents. It is, above all, about legal certainty for the child.

Madam Speaker! That is why this bill also entails a great responsibility. The greater the significance that the attachment has as a basis for continued care, the greater the requirements that the first decision on placement is truly correct. If a child is placed on incorrect or incomplete grounds, a long placement can in itself create the attachment that later becomes an independent reason for continued placement.

Therefore, the politicians in the social welfare committees across the municipalities must ensure that the investigations maintain the highest quality. The decisions must be based on facts, not assumptions. They must be objective, complete, and legally sound.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, there are children who cannot return home. The case of "Lilla hjärtat" shows this with terrifying clarity. When a child has lived in a foster home for a long period, found security, rooted themselves in school, and created relationships, it can be the child and not the adults who pay the highest price for yet another move. The child's best interests must always be decisive.

But a stronger protection for children also requires stronger legal certainty. The social services shall work preventatively with early interventions. Legal certainty must permeate the entire process, from the first report of concern to the final assessment. Only then can we truly say that we have learned from the case of "Lilla hjärtat".

Madam Speaker! I want to see this law as the beginning of an even greater work – a work that means children are protected when needed, parents and families receive the support they need before the situation becomes unsustainable, and every decision involving a child being separated from their parents is made with the greatest possible care, objectivity, and legal certainty. That is how we build a society that protects children, safeguards the rule of law, and increases trust in the social services.

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

I would like to conclude with the following words: Children must be protected, but every decision to separate a child from their parents must be a decision that society can stand behind, not only today but also in 10 or 20 years.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Today is a very special day for me. Today's debates are indeed the last I will participate in here in the chamber. After twelve years in the Swedish Riksdag, I am now leaving my duties, and I do so with both pride and great gratitude. To represent people in the Swedish Riksdag is the finest political trust a person can receive.

I actually cannot imagine a more symbolic conclusion than that my final debates concern children in vulnerable situations and society's responsibility for them. It is in these issues that I have placed the largest part of my political heart, and here I now also get the opportunity to close the circle.

I recently read a formulation about Europe's forest fires. They were described as an X-ray of our politics; they make visible the cracks that are otherwise easy to turn a blind eye to. I often think that the same applies to children in vulnerable situations. How we treat the children who have it hardest says more about our society than almost anything else. A society's strength is shown in how it treats those who have the least power. No one has less power than a child who is completely dependent on adults' decisions.

Madam Speaker! I have witnessed much during my years in the corridors of power, but the political development we have seen during this mandate period is exceptional. When the government describes it as a paradigm shift, they are right in some sense. We face a new political path whose consequences will be felt long after this mandate period is over – not least for people who are at the margins of society, and especially for children.

The government has implemented very many and large reforms. Some are good, others are deeply problematic. But many of them have one thing in common: They have been implemented quickly, sometimes very quickly, while simultaneously changing important parts of our society. This proposal is no exception.

It should make us a bit cautious, because legislation is not a simple political product. It must hold over time. It must function even when the political debate has settled and the headlines have disappeared. Never is the requirement for reflection more important than when the state makes decisions about a child.

Madam Speaker! The bill we are debating today is a comprehensive legislative package. The Government proposes that LVU be replaced by a new Act on Care of Children and Young People and a new Act on Special Powers within State Child and Youth Care. The proposal also contains several important reinforcements of children's rights, including by clarifying the child's position as an independent rights holder and by strengthening the right to a public counsel. We are very pleased and proud of these reinforcements of children's rights. We have been involved in developing some of them, and we are proud that they are now being introduced. But precisely because of that, we must also be clear about what we consider to be less good.

When the state takes a child into care, it is one of the most intrusive forms of authority exercise we have. It is not just about a paragraph. It is about a child's life, about a family, and about relationships that may have existed throughout the child's entire upbringing. This requires us as politicians to be able to set aside our own emotions and perceptions and ask the most important question: What is best for the child? It sounds simple, but it really is not.

We in Vänsterpartiet have for many years worked to strengthen children's rights and improve the situation for those children who need society's support. We have tried to do this with research, experience, and children's own stories as the basis – because the starting point must be that children are individual rights-holders.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child became Swedish law. It was an important step. Parts of what we are debating today are the next important step.

But rights on paper are not the same as rights in reality. It is only in the encounter with social services, the court, the foster home, or Sis that we see if the rights actually work. There is still much left to do there.

Madam Speaker! That is also why I want to say something about emotions. Questions about children evoke strong emotions, and they should. When a child is harmed, we want to intervene. When a parent cannot manage their responsibility, we want to protect the child. But it is precisely then that we must be most careful, because placed children are already in a very vulnerable situation. Their lives are often far from the secure childhood that we all hope children will receive. To split up a family is never a small matter.

We would like to think that society comes in as a saving angel, that the child leaves the difficult behind and that everything becomes good thereafter. But the reality is significantly more complicated. Children can have strong bonds to their parents even when the parents have failed them. And the care that society offers is not automatically risk-free just because it is provided by society – we know that. History shows it, and the reports and testimonies of recent years show it. Far too many children have been subjected to abuse and mistreatment under society's responsibility. This is one of the most painful contradictions in our welfare state. We take children into care to protect them, and then we must also ensure that the care we offer is truly safe, both during placement and absolutely also thereafter.

Madam Speaker! It is against that background that we must see the government's proposal on continued care due to the child's attachment to the foster home. The government wants to create a possibility to continue compulsory care when the original conditions in the home have ceased, if there is a tangible risk that the child will be harmed by being separated from the foster home and other conditions are met.

We understand the purpose and we share that view. A child who has lived in a foster home for a long time can have a very strong attachment there. That relationship should, of course, be taken seriously. But we think the government's proposal goes a bit too far. There is a crucial difference between considering the child's attachment and using attachment as a basis for continued coercion.

If the original circumstances have ceased and the parents can once again offer a safe care environment, the child's own will must carry very great weight. If the child themselves wants to stay in the foster home, this must naturally be of very great significance. But we shall not build an arrangement where a child can be kept against their own will through coercion solely because the child has formed an attachment to the foster home. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet want that continued care due to attachment to the foster home when the child has turned 15 only be able to occur with the child's consent.

Madam Speaker! Another issue where the government does not go far enough concerns the special powers within Sis. Over the past years, we have repeatedly received reports of abuse, violence, and poor conditions within state youth care. The reports and the testimonies have been appalling. Nevertheless, the government chooses to primarily transfer today's rules to a new law without making the review that so many referral bodies request. It is not enough.

When the state uses coercion against children, we must constantly ask ourselves whether the measures are truly necessary, proportionate, and compatible with children's rights, and whether they are being used in the right way. Children with trauma, mental illness, or neuropsychiatric disabilities should be met with care, treatment, and safety – not with more coercion because society lacks resources or competence.

Therefore, the Left Party considers that the government should appoint a comprehensive review of the special powers within the state child and youth care, now with children's rights in focus, as the new LVU Act is intended to entail. In such a review, the Riksdag's previous requirement to phase out separations should also be taken into account.

Madam Speaker! Words matter. Legal text matters. It does not only express law but also which values should guide those who encounter children every day. Therefore, we regret that the government has not chosen to include the wording that previous investigations have proposed: ”Care for children and young people shall be provided with consideration for and respect for the child's or the young person's individuality.” After the revelations and abuses within state child care in recent years, and when we know that precisely children cared for according to LVU often testify to precisely deficiencies in treatment and care, this should be a self-evident starting point. We therefore want the new law to be supplemented with that wording.

Madam Speaker! As I now soon leave the Swedish Parliament, I do so with a strong conviction. Politics is ultimately not about propositions and paragraphs. Politics is about people. Perhaps there is no group that says more about what kind of society we want to be than the children who lack agency and their own voice and sometimes also adults who have the strength to stand up for them. If we succeed in protecting just these children, we have also built a stronger society for us all. This is the conviction I have carried with me during my years in this chamber, and it is with that conviction that, after the next debate, I will hand over to those who take over.

With this, I move for approval of reservation 2.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Moderate-led government's proposition For children's rights and safety – a new law on the care of children and young people. It concerns one of the most responsible things a society can do. It is about protecting children when their safety has been compromised and when the adults around them are no longer able to provide the care and protection that every child has a right to.

The legislation we have today is more than 35 years old. Since then, both society and our knowledge have changed. We know more about children's development, about the importance of stable relationships, and about how different forms of vulnerability affect children. In that case, the legislation needs to keep up.

This is an important part of the Moderate-led government's broader work for a social service that intervenes earlier, is based on knowledge and has better tools when children most need society's support. I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Madam Speaker! I believe that most of us here in the chamber agree that there are few decisions that are harder than separating a child from their parents. Such a decision should never be made lightly.

When voluntary efforts are not enough and society must intervene to protect a child, we also take on a great responsibility. It is not just about where the child should live, but about the child being given the opportunity to grow up under stable conditions and receive a secure foundation for the rest of their life.

Through all of this, we must include one question: What is best for the child? This is also evident in the new grounds for taking into care, where, among other things, psychological abuse, sexual exploitation, and negative social control are clarified and the child's overall vulnerability is given greater importance.

Let me give an example of why this is so important. Imagine a child who is taken into care when she is three years old. She moves to another family because her biological parents at that time cannot provide her with the care and security she needs. The years pass, and that family becomes her everyday life. She starts school, makes friends, and builds relationships that make her feel trust and that she belongs. For her, this is not just a placement – it is her home.

During the same period, the situation of the biological parents may have changed. We should, of course, rejoice at that. The starting point shall also continue to be that a child should be able to be reunited with its parents when that is possible and when it is best for the child.

But the reality is not always so simple. Sometimes it is no longer the original deficiencies that pose the greatest risk to the child. The risk can instead lie in the very upheaval – of being torn away once again from the everyday life and the relationships that one has built up over many years. Therefore, the government is introducing a new opportunity for continued care.

If a separation from the family where the child has grown up risks harming the child's health or development, the care shall be able to continue if it is judged to be in the best interests of the child. The social welfare committee then makes a comprehensive assessment of the child's situation, and the question of custody is examined by the administrative court.

So it is not about the adults' rights, but about the child's need for continuity and stability. For security is not just about an address – it is also about the people that a child dares to trust.

Madam Speaker! One of the most important and difficult trade-offs concerns the children who have managed to get older. Of course, the will of a youth who has turned 15 should carry great weight. The young person shall receive information, be able to express their opinions, advocate for themselves, and know that what he or she says is taken seriously.

But reality can also be more complicated than a general rule can capture. There can be loyalty to the parents, guilt, fear, and pressure. This must also be able to be weighed when assessing what is actually best for the child. Therefore, the government has chosen not to make the young person's will an absolute veto.

When it concerns persons who have turned 15 years old, weighty reasons must be required to go against the young person's will, and it should only be possible in exceptional cases. Listening to the child is a matter of course, but society must also dare to take responsibility for protecting the child.

Madam Speaker! The new law also strengthens the child's position throughout the process. The child shall understand what is happening, be given the opportunity to express their opinions, and know that they are taken seriously. At the same time, we strengthen legal certainty, among other things through clearer rules regarding public counsel and the right to represent oneself.

The reform also strengthens the support for parents and guardians. The social welfare committee will now have a clearer responsibility to offer support and, when it is best for the child, also create conditions for contact with family and other close relatives. This work goes hand in hand with the government's other measures to prevent violence against children and provide better support to families before, during, and after a placement. The child's need for protection and the family's need for support must be able to exist side by side.

Madam Speaker! For the Moderates, social policy is ultimately about responsibility, about society daring to intervene when a child needs protection, and about the decisions we make being based on knowledge, legal certainty, and the best interests of the child.

We cannot change a child's history, but we can take responsibility for the child's future. That is why the Moderate-led government is modernizing this legislation. When a child needs society the most, there must never be any doubt about who this law is for. It is for the child.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! I was just a bit thoughtful regarding the fact that there is a possibility in the legislation to make a decision against a child's will, if the child has turned 15, regarding reunification with their parents when the parents also want to reunite.

If the child is subjected to such pressures and it is harmful, there must be a possibility to make a new decision regarding the compulsory removal from the family. I think it sounds very intrusive to do it on this basis, against a child's will and against the biological parents' will. It would be interesting to know more exactly what a situation would look like where this is even conceivable at all.

I think that much is being done well in this legislation, which really goes in the direction of children being attributed their own rights. We are to listen to children, and children are even given expanded opportunities for representation in such matters.

I therefore think that this particular opportunity feels like something very separate, and I am simply curious about it and why it is included.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Gustaf Lantz raises a very important matter, and this is, of course, a difficult position to take.

The will of the young person shall carry very great weight, and that is also why the bar has been set very high. If the child has reached the age of 15, weighty reasons are required in order to be able to go against this will, and it will only be possible in exceptional cases.

I do not think we can say that society's responsibility to protect the child automatically ceases when the child turns 15. If a child has, over many years, built up all their security and their most important relationships in the foster home, the break itself can indeed pose a tangible risk to the child's health or development.

That the child's will should be taken most seriously is completely obvious, but the child's best interests must still be what is decisive.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! As a former lawyer, I know that the law lives its own life. We freeze the politics in law within the statutes, and then it must be interpreted and thawed every time it is to be applied.

When one opens such a valve, one also opens up for great risks. There can be new abuses of children, and the children may come to experience situations that are very distressing. There was talk about the risk of influence. One can turn it around: If the child lives in a foster home, there is almost a greater possibility of influencing and putting a child under pressure where the child actually lives. It therefore applies in both directions.

Personally, I think one should be very careful with this type of valves and openings because they can lead to something that we cannot foresee. If one still wants to have this, I believe one must be much more precise regarding when it can be used and in which situations. This should be described much more clearly in the preparatory works than what has been done now. This makes me wonder.

I do not distrust the government at all, and I do not believe that there would be any bad intention with this. I do not believe that the government has intended for it to go wrong in the end. But I believe that there is an all too great risk that it actually will go wrong, and that is what I feel concerned about. That is what I want to convey here.

As I said in my speech, I think it is important that in our endeavor to increase the child rights perspective, we do not instead have it swing over into a foster home perspective where the foster home's will should prevail over the child's. We have now reached a situation where we have moved away from the parental right and replaced it with a much clearer child rights perspective. In that case, I think it is a pity if we let the pendulum swing too far.

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

Cecilia Gustafsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree. The child's voice must never be ignored in these contexts.

The responsibility of the adult world does not cease the day the child turns 15. The possibility of going against the young person's will is very limited, and weighty reasons are required for this.

I think that we both need to be able to listen to the child and take responsibility for the child's right to protection. They are not opposites, but we must be able to manage both.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start at the beginning with early support, even though we are now talking about the Act on Care, and emphasize how important it is that we provide early support to children, parents, and families who for some reason need it. It is only in this way that we can prevent a child from needing to be placed into care in the end.

It is about early home visit programs. It is about different types of open interventions, about school social teams also in primary and middle school, and about many of the parts that the new Social Services Act points out. Relationships need to be built between social services, families and children, but also between children and adults in some cases.

Where there are deficiencies in parenting ability, one needs to be present and able to meet parents and children who risk being exposed to violence. We need to become much better at identifying children early and see if we can find some kind of trauma screening, just as the Children's Ombudsman requests. We need to do all of this to prevent a future removal, regardless of whether it concerns the child's own behavior or deficiencies in parenting ability.

Madam Speaker! It is very good that this legislation has now arrived, and we have all in different ways been involved in the fact that it is actually on the Riksdag's table today. As previous members have expressed, I also feel a sense of pride in having been part of leading the process forward.

It is good that we are modernizing the law based on how things look today and highlighting children's rights. It is also good that attachment can be a basis, even though it in turn is also raised as a problem by the undersigned with several others. It is about security for the child.

If we do not succeed with the early interventions and in preventing the removal, Madam Speaker, it is a matter of taking the child into care. In that case, it is necessary to continue working with the family and to provide support to the birth family so that the child can return, as far as is possible.

It is also about the child's best interests; that is the foundation of this. It is about the child's needs and wishes regarding the relationship to both parents and siblings and perhaps also to grandparents. It needs to be clear why the care takes place, specifically so that one can support a change in the parents but also in the young person, depending on what the reason is.

The young person who is taken into care must receive continued support regardless of whether they are placed in a foster home, at an HVB, or at Sis. They must be able to receive support and advice. There are many out there who testify that it is difficult to access specialized psychiatric support, for example at BUP, and that is an important factor.

Then there is, above all, the aftercare. A child who has been placed in some form must also receive substantial support when the care ends, in order to be able to return to their family or begin an adult life on their own.

Today, there are 18-year-olds who are released because they have no one to receive them, and instead, they have to manage quite much on their own. This must not be a lottery depending on where one lives, but it must work in the whole country. There is much to work on here. I would never let my child manage completely on her own when she has turned 18, because I remain there as a support.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to attachment and that it could be a basis for continued care, that is good. Sometimes the reason for the parents' care actually ceases, but the child has a strong attachment to its foster home. It must be able to carry great weight if it is for the child's best interests.

As has been said earlier in the chamber, however, it must also not be the case that the family home has greater influence in these matters than the child itself. If we are talking about older children, they must themselves be able to decide which family they have the connection to that makes them want to continue living with them.

That is the reason why we have followed up on the reservation, and I hereby move for approval of reservation 2.

I would like to conclude by mentioning the specific statement that the Center Party has regarding the bill. It is about the fact that we need to ensure that we get a substantial evaluation of the decisions that have been made in the area concerning support for children and young people, regardless of whether it concerns decisions made from the Social Affairs Department's or the Justice Department's area.

We have made a number of decisions in the chamber during this parliamentary term, and the government has made decisions in regulatory letters and ordinances concerning the strengthening of children's and young people's rights. This is very good, and the Center Party stands behind a good deal of these proposals.

What I am looking for is that we need a collective evaluation. Have we received what we want? Have we gotten more children and young people who are doing well? Have we gotten fewer children who are doing poorly? Have we gotten fewer children who are drawn into crime? Are the decisions correct, is something missing, do we need to adjust something, or is it something that actually should be removed, even if we collectively think it is good?

This is something that I miss and that I hope the next government can review so that we truly know that we are doing the right thing. When society takes over the responsibility for our children and young people, we must know that it is the right thing. The best interests of the child shall apply in all situations.

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

Camilla Mårtensen (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to tell you about Angelica, who is a girl from Landskrona where I am chairman of the Individual and Family Committee. Angelica was taken into care and placed in a foster home six years ago. Every six months since then, we have brought the case up in the Social Affairs Committee to consider whether Angelica should remain in the only home she knows. Every six months, Angelica's mother has requested that the care be terminated.

During these six years, Angelica and her foster home have spent the sixth month anxiously waiting for news on whether she will be allowed to remain in the security of the foster home where she has been since the age of one – the foster home where she calls the foster mother simply mom, where she safely quarrels with both older and younger siblings, and where she takes her backpack with light steps in the morning and runs off to her classmates at school.

Every six months we bring the matter up in the municipal social committee where Angelica's biological mother Carina wants Angelica to move home to her. The most recent times the investigations have become longer because Carina has changed her life. She is drug-free and has obtained a so-called simple job in the municipality's laundry. She has created a home and wants Angelica to be a part of that home instead of meeting her every month at the foster home.

The fact is that Carina's better life has largely resulted from her goal of finally bringing Angelica home. If that doesn't happen, Carina does not know if she can manage to stay on the right course.

As a mother, it is very easy to understand Carina. Previously, the relocation was initiated with Carina's best interests in mind. But what is best for Angelica? As chairperson of the individual and family committee in Landskrona, this is not theory for me but a matter on my desk. These are decisions made by me together with my political colleagues and capable officials who try to balance between law, heart, and brain.

It is about children who are completely dependent on us adults being able to see their reality – not just the paragraphs. These are difficult and complicated decisions that I often carry home with me after today's work to my own family and my children and grandchildren. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with this bill. The new law does three things that really matter.

Firstly, Angelica is made a separate rights holder. The rights of children and young people are gathered in a separate chapter. It may sound technical, but it is a shift in attitude. The child is no longer an appendix to the parents' affairs but the main character in their own life. Angelica's voice gains a different weight.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me! I must only emphasize that we may not have a debate about or refer to individual cases, even if one is involved. Persons may not be mentioned by their real names.)

I did not do that, of course, but I hear what you are saying.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wanted to ensure that it was not so.)

No, of course not!

Secondly, and this is the core, we have the new attachment basis. Even though the home conditions have formally improved, the child's actual security and attachment weigh heavier than a legal technicality. A child should not have to be moved from the only home it remembers just because the law views the matter more strictly than reality does.

For the third time, the grounds for taking children into care are being tightened when it concerns homes with, for example, honor-related oppression or close links to organized crime. These children are often most invisible, because the control in the home is so strong that it becomes difficult to call for help oneself, but also because we within the municipalities have had difficulty addressing this issue. That the legislation is now becoming clearer on that point is a matter of the individual's freedom – the freedom to no longer be imprisoned in one's own family.

Madam Speaker! I know that several parties here in the chamber have objections to the attachment ground being applicable without the child's explicit consent even after the age of 15. It is a reasonable argument that we must take seriously. I understand the concern that the child's own voice will weigh too lightly. But listen to what the ground actually regulates! It applies when a child risks being forced away from the security they themselves have built up, not when the child wants to leave.

The best interests of the child, and the child's own attachment, are the very core of the assessment. Making consent an absolute requirement risks opening just the door we want to close, namely that a guardian who formally meets the requirements can pressure a fragile 15, 16, or 17-year-old to say yes to a move they actually fear.

This is a reality that I have seen several times with children who have been taken into care due to honor. In Landskrona, we have worked structurally and purposefully with these issues regarding young boys and girls whose freedom is strongly restricted due to the family's rules and demands. The staff has continuous continuing education, we have honor coordinators with extended knowledge, we use the tools that exist to detect honor structures, and the city has developed a common honor policy with action plans. Regardless of where or what you work with in the city, you are expected to act.

When a girl who was taken into care at the age of 12 and has a protected address says that when she turns 17 she wants to move back home to the family that has restricted and threatened her, it is not often part of a larger pattern. These girls and boys who long so much to meet their siblings and their family and to be part of something bigger believe they can handle the structures and norms that have previously subjected them so harshly. Not often do these young people believe they will manage the situation. It is not strange at all when one wants to go back so sincerely.

This is not just about asking, but about asking the right questions and protecting the one who does not always dare to answer honestly. The child should, of course, have their own voice in the process, a public advocate, an adult who represents the child's specific interest – not a veto that can be pressured forward by relatives in the family.

Madam Speaker! This is children's rights policy that is based on reality, not just on principle. It is the kind of policy that the families in Landskrona need and the children of Sweden deserve.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz (S) agreed.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

As all members know, individuals may not be referred to in a way that allows them to be identified. This is important for the debate.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Hello, dear colleagues! It feels good to visit this committee in these important debates.

Miljöpartiet welcomes the government's initiative to conduct a comprehensive review of LVU. The law regulates some of the most intrusive decisions that society can make against a child and the child's family. Therefore, the legislation must be clear, predictable, and fully anchored in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international commitments on human rights.

It is very positive that the government wants to clarify the child as an independent rights holder, strengthens the right to a public counsel, and ensures that children's rights according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child are met to a greater extent.

We do, however, mean that the government's bill as a whole lacks preparation and child rights analysis. It is also for that reason that we have a motion to reject.

For Miljöpartiet, LVU is surrounded by a chain of measures that must be strengthened in their entirety. Measures must be able to be implemented early and preventatively before the situation has become unsustainable, including safe and stable placements, uninterrupted schooling, access to health and medical care, as well as long-term support during and after the placement.

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear that Miljöpartiet shares the same view as the government regarding a new basis for care due to the child's attachment to the foster home. Now, as we have said, we have submitted a motion to reject the government's proposition, but we would, therefore, like to see that just this part is introduced in a new LVU legislation.

For a child who has been placed for a long time, the foster home can be the child's safest and most stable care environment. An abrupt break can have serious consequences for the child's health and development. We have also seen examples of incredibly tragic cases where the child's best interests have absolutely not been in focus, with horrific results – "Lilla hjärtat" has indeed been mentioned several times in today's debate.

The child's right to security, continuity, stability and close relationships must be able to carry more weight than today. Therefore, it is positive that the government proposes that greater consideration should be given to attachment in the family home.

At the same time, it is important that attachment to the foster home is always linked to the child's best interests and that assessments are not made lightly. The mere fact that time passes must not automatically convert a temporary placement into a permanent custody. The child's own attitude, relationship to parents and siblings, schooling, and the conditions for reunification with the original family must be included in an individual assessment.

In light of this, we also want to see a careful evaluation to see how this has functioned.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet shares the government's view that the legislation on state child and youth care needs to be clear, legally secure, and easy to apply. It is also positive that the rights of children and young people are given a more prominent place in the regulations.

The government's proposal to collect the special powers in a new law however raises serious questions about coercive measures against children and young people, for example if it risks normalizing and formalizing them without the need for these powers having been sufficiently analyzed.

Several referral bodies reject this, among other reasons. As examples, I can mention Bris, Funktionsrätt Sverige, Rädda Barnen, Stockholm University, and Unicef Sverige. The criticism concerns, among other things, that a separate law on special powers risks weakening the connection to the fundamental character of LVU as protective legislation.

Miljöpartiet shares this concern. Coercive measures within child and youth care must always be understood in relation to the purpose of the care, the child's rights, and society's responsibility to offer safety, support, and treatment. We think it is problematic that the government proceeds with the proposal without first having conducted a collective review of the need for all special powers and a deeper child rights analysis of how the powers have been applied.

We know that the National Board for Children and Youth (Statens institutionsstyrelse) has for a long time received recurring criticism regarding children's and young people's rights, the use of coercive measures, and deficiencies in the quality of care.

Against this background, the starting point should be to reduce the need for coercion and strengthen the preventive, treatment-based, and rights-based interventions, not to transfer the powers in a new law without a sufficiently thorough review.

Madam Speaker! I also want to briefly mention two additional areas where we have some objections.

We are critical of the design regarding which types of behavior shall constitute grounds for detention. We advise against the proposal that the expression "socially destructive behavior" should be supplemented with "any other destructive behavior".

Here, there are also a number of referral bodies that have comments. They think, for example, that this expression is vague and that the expansion risks shifting the responsibility for the intended target group from health and medical care to social services.

The National Council for Children's Rights emphasizes that the proposal and the description risk blaming children for vulnerability that is in fact a consequence of abuse, mental illness, or lack of protection from the adult world. It also risks affecting subsequent interventions so that children, instead of receiving care and protection from vulnerability as crime victims, are deprived of liberty and receive interventions with the aim of changing their behavior.

We also reject the proposal that the current provisions regarding keeping children and young people in custody separated should be transferred to the new law. Here we know that, among others, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that Sweden ban the separation and isolation of children. We have previously pointed out the great seriousness of the problem at Sis and the importance of making far-reaching changes in the entire chain of care for children who risk being harmed.

To the image, it is heard that children who are placed risk having a worse start in life than children who are not. I heard a previous speaker mention the report Surviving Childhood: effects of compulsory placement of children, which is based on 21,000 Swedish court cases on compulsory placement supported by LVU and which shows that more young people who are placed risk dying prematurely.

This shows that the responsibility when the state takes into care and places children is very great regarding what the content of the care looks like. It is clear that a very large transformation work needs to take place.

Now I intended to move for approval of reservation 5, which is not our motion to reject the entire bill but concerns the review of special powers. I do so because when we wrote our supplementary motion, we actually did not have a motion to reject the entire proposition but had listed the various objections that I have now accounted for. However, the Chamber Office did not consider that to be a particularly good order, so it was therefore formulated in this way.

I would like to clarify that we do not have objections to everything, and particularly not to the part concerning what has been called lex "Lilla hjärtat". Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! All children have the right to parents who provide them with care, security, and a good upbringing. But some parents have abused their rights regarding the child. In Sweden, children have their own rights. In Sweden, children's right to grow up safely shall weigh more heavily than parents' rights to their children.

The terrible case of Esmeralda, who came to be "Little Heart" to the entire Swedish people, shed light on precisely this problem. When her case became widely known in the spring of 2020, it became apparent that we lacked sufficient tools to protect children. We could conclude that parents' rights have taken precedence over the children's best interests, and that we cannot accept.

In Sweden, the best interests of the child shall come first. In all of the government's work in the social policy area, the child's best interests have also been at the center. The Moderates therefore took the initiative for an investigation to review LVU, the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young People. This is a task that has been ongoing for an unusually long time. It has been ongoing for six years and truly cannot be described as any half-hearted work.

The law could have been in place several years ago, but the previous Social Democratic government refused to call a majority in the Swedish Riksdag to a meeting. It was a majority of six parties: Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, Sverigedemokraterna, Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. We all stood behind the fact that children's rights must come before adults'.

A new government was required, a Moderate-led government that gets things done – things that make a real difference in people's lives, things that strengthen children's rights and the protection of children. This is a vital task.

We are carrying out the largest transformation of Swedish social services and social policy in over 40 years. During the mandate period, we have developed and implemented the new Social Services Act with its requirements for preventive and knowledge-based work. In a short while, we are going to discuss legislation that will provide additional tools for social services regarding lack of participation. And we have also developed a new LVU, which is the subject of this discussion.

It has now been over 35 years since the current LVU came into force. It was therefore written in the 80s. The old Social Services Act was written in the 70s. We are talking about old, outdated legislation. Society has changed in many different ways since then.

LVU is, as everyone knows, a protective legislation for children. Society is given the opportunity and the obligation to intervene when voluntary efforts are no longer sufficient. Children and young people who need protection according to the law shall receive it when it comes to being protected from both harmful home environments and their own dangerous behaviors.

The social changes that have occurred in recent years, for example honor-related violence and oppression and that all younger children are being drawn into serious crime, require legislation that provides protection for children and young people in a different way.

To make the legislation as clear as possible, it is proposed that LVU be replaced by two new laws. What is primarily important for the government in the new legislation is what several have already mentioned, namely that we strengthen the child perspective. The new laws imply a stronger child rights perspective than before. They have as a starting point that children and young people who are taken into care are individual rights holders.

Just as in the new Social Services Act, it is proposed that the rights of children and young people shall appear in a separate, centrally placed chapter in the laws. Children's right to information and children's opportunity to be heard are clarified and strengthened in the new law, as they are in other legislation that this government is drafting. We made the same reinforcement of children's rights in the new Social Services Act, and we have, for example, done so in the form of safer homes for children, what is sometimes called lex Tintin, to mention two examples. But there are many more.

Then we have the second and perhaps biggest and most important news today, namely a completely new basis for care. It is therefore about attachment to a foster home being the basis for continued care. This is the basis for why we say that this is lex Lilla hjärtat for real. In some cases, the child shall be allowed to stay in a foster home to which he or she has formed a strong attachment and where this attachment to the biological parents is lacking. This proposal means that the child's best interests shall weigh heaviest in every individual case.

This is what the previous government did not want to legislate in the bill they called lex Lilla hjärtat, but this is the legislation that will make a real difference. It would have saved Esmeralda's life, and it will save the lives of children who find themselves in Esmeralda's situation. This is lex Lilla hjärtat for real.

The third major change is that the prerequisite for a placement is adjusted to better meet the needs for protection and support that children and young people have today. This makes it easier to protect children from honor-related violence and from criminal environments. Furthermore, we are limiting the possibility for a request for home placement, so that six months must pass from a rejection before a new request for home placement can be submitted. This creates security and predictability for placed children.

The child's right to a public counsel is clarified, and a right to a public counsel is introduced for both the child and the guardian in connection with decisions regarding visitation and concealment of whereabouts.

Regarding the Act on Special Powers for State Child and Youth Care, most of the current provisions on special powers will be retained. Some changes are proposed. The principle of proportionality is highlighted even more clearly in the Act to mark and remind that such an assessment is necessary for decisions on special powers.

Right to a public counsel is introduced for children over 15 and young people who wish to appeal decisions on deprivation of liberty measures at the special youth homes.

During body searches and superficial body inspections, the person performing this shall, as a general rule, be of the same gender as the child or the young person.

I want to extend a warm thanks to the parties that have been part of the journey. It pleases me extra to hear today that Miljöpartiet – at the time when we began the work, I myself sat in opposition in the Social Affairs Committee, but I worked together with five other parties – joins what is the very core of the changes that we are now proposing. I note that the Socialdemokraterna choose once again not to understand what is the child's best interest. It is in focus.

The government always puts the child's best interests first. The new LVU legislation is further evidence of this. It is a clear strengthening of children's rights. Far too many children, my friends, are still suffering in Sweden, and that is why the legislative changes are so long-awaited. We are now clearly showing that no child should have to be drawn into crime or be forced to live under honor oppression. We show that society will always stand on the side of a vulnerable child. We show that a child's right to care, safety, and good upbringing takes precedence over parents' rights to the child.

This, Madam Speaker, is another step in the government's extensive work to give all children in Sweden a secure upbringing and a bright future.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand nothing! The Minister said that the Social Democrats do not understand what is in the child's best interest. What makes the Minister draw that conclusion? Has she listened to the debate?

The opposition parties have a common reservation. There is nothing else in the matter that distinguishes the Social Democrats from the other parties.

The Minister chooses to portray the Social Democrats as a party that does not understand the best interests of the child. The election campaign feels long if it is to begin in that way. The Minister is welcome to explain themselves.

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! The work began during the spring of 2020. Six parties repeatedly attempted to convince the Social Democrats that it was reasonable to incorporate the best interests of the child into the legislation.

This was denied. We had no interest in starting a specific legislative work in the House. But when it became clear that we would receive no support, that work was commenced.

The investigation that I subsequently received in my capacity as Minister was supported by the majority of the Social Affairs Committee. I look at several committee members with whom I have had the pleasure of having a very fine cooperation. I have continued that work. This is a legislative work that has taken six years, but the law could have been in place already during the previous mandate period if the Social Democrats had not opposed it.

I listened to the member's speech. It is clear that one chooses not to understand. Or is it that one does not want to, given that it is a campaign?

It feels, based on what the member has said, strange that one does not understand that it is the child's voice and the child's opinion that will be guiding. It is therefore not a child who will be forced to remain in a foster home. But there have been too many children who have been forced over to a biological home where they have no attachment and security. Now we make it possible to do it in a different way.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister said that the Social Democrats, unlike the other parties today, here and now, do not understand what is in the best interests of the child. There is a common reservation from the opposition in the matter. If we are talking about here and now, then what the Minister says is directly incorrect.

I like vintage, but not so much that I want to go back and have the 2018 election campaign on repeat. That is what the Minister wants. She wants to talk about what the Social Democrats have thought previously and not about our legislative proposals here today. The history is also much more complicated than the Minister makes it appear. It is a simplification that is not worthy of a Minister.

Talking about the history in that way, about how it has been and what initiatives previous governments have taken, we do not have time to go into. And the Minister is such a polished politician that she knows it is she who has the last word when I have finished here. Then we will hear very much that I will not be able to answer.

This is just too flashy. What we are talking about is important. It is about children. The Minister knows that. I know that the Minister has met many children's rights organizations and that she is passionate about these issues. But why continue with this slush? It is actually unworthy.

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a way to try to shift the focus from what is nevertheless the most important thing in this legislation and in all the legislation that this government has worked on: to ensure that children's rights are strengthened.

When I arrived at the Ministry of Social Affairs, there was very little that was prepared in that area. I believe the member is also aware of that. Since then, there has been a strong effort. I have appreciated many of the debates that have taken place and perceived that there is a genuine commitment. But that one brings up, for example, the HVB issue in this debate is perhaps a sign that it is still an election campaign and that one is trying to shift the focus from the fact that one actually hasn't really cared about children's rights. I recognized that in 2020, and I recognize it in the argumentation I heard from the member a short while ago.

For us, the government together with the Sweden Democrats, it has been important that legislation strengthens children's rights. We have done so in the new Social Services Act. We have written central chapters in both the Social Services Act and the new LVU. We have done so in a number of other pieces of legislation. I also mentioned lex Tintin in my speech.

We have also done it linked to HVB. There, we have done everything that the Social Democratic government did not do, even though they received 40 legislative parts from Ivo to be able to carry out this change of the legislation. We have provided the money, we have produced the legislation, and we have provided mandates and tools. And even there, we have ensured that the child's best interests are guiding. We have closed 56 homes so far, while the Social Democrats did nothing.

My friends! Children's rights are at the center. I am very proud that we have accomplished it together.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 13 August.)

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