Preventive measures within social services for the protection of children and young people in cases of lack of participation

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Safety in everyday life shall increase for ordinary people and families in Sweden. It has been one of the most important tasks during the mandate period for the Christian Democrats and the government that we are a part of.

When we took power, Sweden was a country where insecurity spread as our country set new records in terms of gang crime, humiliation robberies, and shootings. We had an escalating situation where innocent children fell victim to the gangs' bullets. Their playgrounds were transformed into crime scenes. And weeping mothers were forced to bury their children.

At the same time, the police density was lower when the Social Democrats lost the election in 2022 than when they took office in 2014. Thus, Sweden could not continue to be governed. And the Swedish people voted very rightly for a change of power.

Now Sweden instead has a blue government that has invested in more police and a stronger justice system and which has given the police more tools, such as secret wiretapping, expanded camera surveillance and exclusion zones, and which has seriously tightened the penalties.

And the negative trend has reversed in several areas. The police density has risen and is now the highest in modern times. The number of shootings has decreased by at least half. Residential burglaries have decreased, and it can be read in the newspaper that the theft gangs are fleeing Sweden.

We have strengthened international police cooperation, which has led to more gang criminals being arrested, both in Sweden and abroad. And more foreign nationals who commit crimes are being deported. Furthermore, today more criminals are serving their sentences in prison, which means that more people who have been victims of crimes see justice being served.

All this makes Sweden a safer country. But the fight against crime and against insecurity is in no way won. Sweden is still in a serious societal development where ever younger perpetrators commit serious crimes. We therefore need to hold the course when it comes to safety, and we need to continue to do more to both prevent and combat the crimes.

We Christian Democrats return, as you know, often to the fact that a truly secure society is best built from the bottom up, by strong and secure families with good values, time for the children, and when there is an opportunity to feel hope for a better future. We therefore pursue a policy that supports, strengthens, and creates conditions for more secure families. And when the family does not function, it is a matter of ensuring that society's support is provided in time.

The entire society must be involved in preventing and combating crime for Sweden to truly become safer. Therefore, during the mandate period, we have given Sweden a new Social Services Act, with a clear crime prevention mandate and requirements that the social services shall strengthen cooperation to prevent crime, not just between school, police, and social services as is often discussed. It also applies to the entrepreneurs in the local business community, the voluntary sector, and the sports clubs that ensure children can have a meaningful leisure time.

That is why we have, through resource reinforcements, begun a journey towards a larger and stronger social service. The great journey of change has begun.

Now the social services also need to be given more tools to be able to strengthen their preventive work. Today, the social services' work is based on voluntariness, until the problems have grown so large that a compulsory removal of children can come into question. More tools are simply needed between these two extremes.

The Government has therefore submitted a proposal for a law on interventions within social services when consent is lacking. It is that bill that we are discussing today.

The law means that the social welfare committee shall be given the opportunity to decide on interventions for children, young people, and guardians when the interventions cannot be provided voluntarily, as well as on special conditions for the interventions. It can involve an obligation to attend school. It can involve an obligation to be sober and drug-free, which can be followed up with drug tests so that the correct support can be provided if needed. It can also involve an obligation to remain at home, in the residence, during certain times, which may be combined with electronic surveillance if needed to prevent the child or young person from committing a crime.

But I would say that today's proposal is primarily about strengthening parental responsibility. No one is as important in a child's life as mom and dad. Despite this, there are surveys showing that approximately between 30 and 50 percent of guardians refuse certain types of interventions from the social services. There are also large variations across the country. This is, of course, not acceptable. More parents need to take their parental responsibility and cooperate regarding their children.

The government therefore proposes temporary parental leave for participation in certain interventions. In this way, parents are encouraged to take their responsibility and it facilitates things for them. At the same time, it is proposed that a decision on an intervention directed at a guardian shall be accompanied by a fine if the parent chooses not to take their responsibility. It is time to take the social services seriously.

The Government also proposes a new statutory obligation for municipalities to convene a serious conversation within 24 hours after a child or a young person under 21 years of age has committed a crime that can lead to imprisonment for the first time. The purpose is for the social services to hold a special conversation within 14 days together with the police, the child or the young person in question, as well as the child's guardian, in order to be able to identify needs for support and help but also to warn of the consequences and in this way counteract the commission of new crimes.

It will be both carrot and stick, and it becomes clear that parents have a duty to support their children.

We Christian Democrats believe in Sweden. We know that a safer everyday life for ordinary people and families in Sweden is possible. We see a positive trend break. Now we are also creating better conditions for the social services to contribute to the work of preventing and combating crime, so that more children can receive support to choose the right path and so that more children can feel hope for the future. Therefore, I move for approval of the proposal in the social affairs committee's report.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! So, the time has come to begin my life's final speech here in the Riksdag! I know that my colleagues in here mostly want us to hurry things along a bit, but I take the liberty of using my final speaking time to expand and be a little personal.

I must say that during my life I have had a rather strange privilege, if one may call it that. It is almost as if I have been a fly that has been given the opportunity to sit on the walls of society's different layers and see what happens at close range. I have seen how poverty can characterize a person's entire existence. I have seen the struggle it entails. I have met children who have carried all of life's setbacks on their small shoulders. I have seen people struggle against severe substance abuse, and I have seen people get out of it. I have also seen people who have not succeeded. I have lost friends – people I grew up with and for whom the social exclusion eventually became too great. The void after them is gigantic.

But I have also had to live with the privileges of the middle class. I have been allowed to walk around here in the stronghold of democracy and make my voice heard. I have even been allowed to attend a party with the King. The most beautiful thing is that I have had the opportunity to come close to people from all these worlds. Through that, I have seen something very clear. Our paths often begin to diverge as early as childhood. What upbringing we receive and which hands offer us support along the way set the direction for our future. With the right support, a dark existence can brighten. With the wrong support, it can go just as badly as possible. Therefore, children's rights have become one of my most important political issues. It is there that we show what society we actually are and what society we actually want to become.

Mr. Speaker! To understand my criticism of the government's proposal, we need to look back. When I started in politics, the social services' child and youth care was in a severe crisis. There were too many child cases and too few resources. Newly graduated social workers were given a workload they could not cope with. The experienced ones fled the field or worked themselves into exhaustion. Of all the reports, one of them, which touched me the most, was about how much time social workers actually had at their disposal for the children they were to help. It could be about a single hour for an entire investigation.

Somewhere along the way we should have stopped and asked ourselves: What is it that we are actually doing? In the pursuit of streamlined organizations and balanced budgets, politics succeeded in forgetting something completely crucial: We were not handling cases. We were handling people. Children's lives were in our hands.

At the same time as the acute situation in social services has been uncovered, we have also seen enormous deficiencies in our child and youth care. It is about care chains that do not hold together, about criminals who own and run HVB homes, about serious deficiencies and abuses within Sis, and about children who time and again are failed by society. There is no doubt that we have and have had enormous deficiencies in our system. We have not always been able to offer children and parents the support that was best for them, and that has naturally had a high price.

But even if there are areas where we have a long way to go, not least when it comes to Sis and HVB, much has also changed. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has become Swedish law. Social work has evolved. We now have a new Social Services Act that is to be based on research, preventive work, and trust. It is an immensely important reform. Precisely because of that, the government's new bill becomes so strange, because at the same time as we are building a social service that is to work preventively and create trust, we have legislation that risks going in the opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker! We share the problem. Parents often thank us for saying no to interventions. The step between voluntariness and coercion is large. Social services need better tools to help children in vulnerable situations. But we do not agree on which tools are actually needed.

The first question the government should ask itself is: Why do parents say no? It could be about a lack of trust, about the intervention not meeting the family's needs, about not understanding what it entails, or simply about the intervention actually being wrong. The problem is that we do not know enough about why parents say no. Then the first step should be to find that out, not to start with sanctions.

Nevertheless, the government proposes the possibility of imposing a fine on parents who refuse or do not follow the social services' requirements. We know who risks being affected: families already living under economic and social pressure. What does a fine do to a family that is already struggling to make ends meet? The risk is that the economy will worsen further, that stress will increase, and that the parents will also begin to avoid the social services out of fear of sanctions. It would be a catastrophe. It is time, trust, competence, and resources that create the conditions for change.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of the proposal concerns the possibility of deciding that children and young people shall stay at home during certain times, in some cases with electronic surveillance and the possibility for the police to intervene. These are very far-reaching measures in something that is simultaneously described as a social and preventive intervention. There is an obvious risk that children who are in a risk zone are treated as if they were already criminals. This implies a dangerous stigma that we know can be extremely difficult to get rid of.

But there is also a child protection issue. What if the child needs to be protected from their own home! What if there is violence or control there! What if the area where the child lives is the great danger! What happens then, when society's solution becomes that the child should be locked up with a shackle? Here the paradox becomes clear. We have just introduced a social services act that is supposed to be based on research, preventive work, and trust. At the same time, we are introducing parallel legislation that risks being based on control and coercion, in direct conflict with all the knowledge we have. It is a bit difficult to reconcile.

Mr. Speaker! What role do we want the social services to have? For me, the most important role is to be an authority that people dare to turn to when life is falling apart, an authority where I dare to tell the very hardest things, especially when it concerns my children. For that to be possible, trust, time, competence and resources are required, and interventions that actually work are required.

I believe in a social service that sets requirements when necessary and that protects children when parents are unable to do so. I am prepared to go far to protect children. But I oppose laws that lack sufficient support and that risk violating the principles that we know are important for a functioning social work. I firmly oppose laws that risk making it more difficult to seek help.

The first thing we must do is to ensure that the new Social Services Act takes effect and that the social services receive the resources required to do that work. Then we must find out why parents refuse. After that, we must develop concrete measures based on research and proven experience. I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

Mr. Speaker! I will soon conclude my speech, but I want to say a few final things. It has been fantastic to work with you in the Social Affairs Committee. I have learned so much, and I am so grateful that I have had the opportunity to be a voice for those who are not always heard the most.

The Social Affairs Committee is unique. We stand up for our differences, but at the same time, we try to find ways forward with respect. It is about safeguarding democracy and showing respect for those who need society the most. I think that is very fine, so thank you very much for that!

I also want to thank all the staff here in the Riksdag. It is you, beyond the spotlight, who carry our democracy every day. For you, I am eternally grateful, and nothing would have worked without you!

I also leave the rostrum with concern. Children's rights are under historic pressure. This week alone, decisions are being made that shake all children's rights at their core. We see it in the migration policy. We see it in the social policy. We see it most notably when children now risk being held in prison.

At the same time, we see how civil society, which is what supports our children's backs, is also under severe pressure. I therefore want to send a message to all of you who will be responsible for the children's future to take this situation most seriously.

It is when the wind blows really hard that we truly show if we hold firm. It is precisely then that we must ensure that we hold our most important values highest. If there is one thing that I truly want to leave behind when I now soon step down from this podium, it is the courage to stand up for those who need it the most. Now you will need to do it for our children. Thank you so very much!

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Maj, for another speech that shows how much you care about the children and children's rights! It demonstrates the objectivity the member possesses, how well-prepared she is, and what warmth there is in her work.

She has done that work for twelve years. I have not done it for as many years. During the years that we have worked together, I have learned a great deal about children's rights. We are in complete agreement that we shall always put the children's best interests first, but it is not always that we agree on the solutions.

I have taken on the warmth that exists in her work. In my continued tenure, I will try to be just as objective in the work. The member has given me a nickname. I gave the member the wrong name at one occasion, and at the next occasion, I was called Gullet.

I want to, with this, Maj Karlsson, thank you for your fantastic work and wish you all the best!

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you so very much, Martina Johansson! I am not at all prepared to receive this.

It is something with the Social Affairs Committee and absolutely something with you, Gullet, as a person, that has enabled me to maintain the incredible balance that you and I often ended up in. We may not be completely in agreement, but we need to bounce things off each other a bit. Then perhaps we land in completely different places. We still have such great respect for each other's work. I think that has been fantastic.

Politics is not just all the stubbornness. We also manage to have fun every now and then. It has been incredibly wonderful to have worked together with you, Martina Johansson. A thousand thanks!

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I find this a bit difficult, to part ways with people whom I like very much.

You have been very important to me, Maj Karlsson. When I joined as a new member, you taught me very much, without any prestige. There was no desire at all to show off, but rather to actually teach and share the knowledge. I have benefited greatly from that.

You have been important for the committee. I believe that regardless of which group you are in, you are a very important person. You are a phenomenon. You can, for example, get members to talk far too loudly about their dreams on a flight from Scotland to Sweden. We shall not go into that further. It could shock the secretariat and other members what comes out there!

You are also important for democracy. You are something as unusual as a Left Party member who does not like polemics. It is not so bad to have that quality in these times. You often strive to understand what others actually mean. You also often strive to find a basic consensus. That quality is more important than ever today. Many thanks for the time we have had to have you in the committee!

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! A big thank you for the kind words, Gustaf Lantz. I cannot handle this at all. It is very strange to leave the Riksdag after such a long time. One tries to keep it at bay.

As Gustaf himself said, it is difficult when one has to part ways with people whom one has liked very much. I have had incredibly much fun with you, Gustaf. It has been so interesting. Gustaf sits and whispers to me as soon as any question comes up: What do you think about that? I think this. One always has to use the brain together with you. I think that is very fun.

Since then, you have been an incredibly generous person who always offers compliments. I think that is something to take away. It is incredibly fun to hear Gustaf when he says to one person or another: "How lovely you are! What a lovely blouse you have! What a lovely tie you have!"

To be able to work with such a colleague is incredible. Thank you so very much for this time, Gustaf!

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now you are going to hear a few words of truth, dear Maj! I must also thank you.

We have known each other in different roles. We met a long time ago. Even though I am new to the Riksdag since this parliamentary term, we had contact before that when, in my role as, among other things, chairperson of RFSL, I visited various members of parliament and tried to argue for our cause in different areas.

I remember a number of lunches. I believe we most often used to meet at Kulturhuset and discuss. I appreciated that very much. I also very much appreciated how you received me when we met here in the Riksdag, with all the knowledge I have been allowed to share in and the warmth that everyone has mentioned. It is truly something that characterizes you.

We have also chatted a bit about training and other things that one does outside of the parliamentary mandate. It is wonderful to feel the care for others. We have also really not been in agreement on many issues. You have tried to explain to me sometimes why certain things are better the way you think. I may have still landed on the fact that we do not think quite that way. But the continued meetings are always respectful.

It has been fantastic for me to work with you. I am not going to sing, but a text from a song popped up in my head. I think you know which one it is: ”Maj från Göteborg, hej! Jag lärde mig mycket av dig.”

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now I can hardly handle it, actually. I am becoming so incredibly moved.

Yes, Ulrika, we also met just when I was completely new in the Riksdag and in a rather complicated issue. You have been so sharp from day one. I mean, one can almost be a little afraid of you at the beginning.

(ULRIKA WESTERLUND (MP): Now it is you who finishes, Maj.)

I know, but I also have to share! I am also going to leave from here. One might not do so, but I still want to say that it is so interesting to work with a person like you, because you always provide a different perspective. You are very grounded in what you stand for.

As much as I hear all the fine words, I can truly say the same back from my heart. God, what would I have done here during all these years without you? A big thank you!

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now we shall see who cannot handle what.

I have only one thing to say to you, Maj, besides thank you, and that is: Whatever you do, never stop being you! You are welcome to become liberal, for all I care, but you have an ability. As soon as you find a small shard of something when it comes to people who are having a hard time, people who have been born with completely wrong prerequisites or have been struck by difficult things, you succeed in getting other parties to together try to take steps forward. As several others have said here: The differences never overshadow the possibility of doing good. That quality in you, it is not so common. You are fantastic in your care for other people. Thank you for that! Never stop being you!

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Well, it's no longer possible, actually.

Some of my strongest memories of when you and I started working together, Lina, are that we often used to go out, and then we used to say what we actually thought about things.

(LINA NORDQUIST (L): That was supposed to be secret!)

I know! I am not saying what we thought. But I think it has been such an incredibly fine experience for me to take away from democracy. It is still quite significant to find out that one can have very different opinions. One can think very much, and one can even be harsh towards each other in the debates. But then one can still go out and talk to each other with great respect and sometimes even admit when one has been wrong.

Somewhere, it is the case that we come here as human beings. We come here and represent democracy, but one can have different levels of actual trust in it. But in that way, I have truly taken that from you, and I think it is so incredibly beautiful. I wish that everyone could see that behind all these harsh words and everything we do here, a lot of other things are also happening. It is incredibly beautiful, I think. Many thanks, Lina, and thank you for the kind words!

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! No is said to far too many measures that the social services propose, measures that can help children who would otherwise fare poorly and keep children from ending up in a life filled with drugs, violence, and crime.

Sweden cannot afford to disregard the work of the social services. Sweden cannot afford for children not to be helped because parents say no to interventions. Our children deserve better. The social services deserve to be taken seriously. Above all, children's needs deserve to be taken seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, the work of the social services should primarily be based on voluntariness. That is also how the social services want to work. But we cannot accept that the choice lies between society shrugging its shoulders and being unable to do anything, and society snatching children from their families through a decision on compulsory removal. There must be something in between, and it is this that we are discussing today – that which is called intermediate coercion.

Sweden has a major problem with the number of young people who are recruited and lured into gangs. Organized crime in Sweden is brutal and often leads children straight into death. This influx must, of course, be stopped.

Prosecuting crimes committed will never alone tackle crime. We must achieve significantly better preventive work. In this task, it is important that the measures that the social services consider necessary are also realized.

For us Social Democrats, this is a key issue. We have insisted on establishing a national risk family program in order to be able to implement very early interventions where children live in the greatest risk.

We have also for several years demanded the possibility for the social services to pinpoint young people on the move. For this, we have demanded financial resource reinforcements to social services and school to implement measures to follow these children around the clock. For this year, 2026, we have in our shadow budgets allocated a total of 1.9 billion kronor for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker! When the government finally presented a bill, there were great hopes. But I must unfortunately say that the proposal is a disappointment in the parts concerning point marking.

Instead of using technology so that social workers can keep a close watch on youths and children, to be like a bandage with both personal presence and digital tools, we get a proposal on the table that most resembles how we punish criminals for crimes already committed.

The monitoring shall be carried out by a separate authority in an organization that does not exist today. It will likely take many years before this functions, and representatives for the social services have directed sharp criticism towards the proposals.

House arrest between certain fixed times during the evening and night with heavy technology requiring fixed installations was not what we Social Democrats envisioned when we spoke about point marking at our party congress.

Sports or other positive contexts outside the home can be an important way away from crime. We want a clear commitment, where adults who want to help young people are given the opportunity to lead youth in the right direction by having both oversight of and contact with the youth.

Handcuffs to punish people serve an absolute purpose in some cases, but here we would have wanted to see a more dynamic and forward-looking regulation that enabled sharper preventive measures.

Mr. Speaker, something that is truly good about this bill is that a parent should be able to get access to temporary parental leave pay when he or she participates in certain interventions through the social services when consent is lacking. It is important to see that there are many who live with scarce resources, where a missed work shift can be a difficult hurdle to overcome for an intervention to take place.

But we want more. We Social Democrats have higher ambitions, but we will vote for the government's proposal. We will not let the best become the good's enemy. But in the event of a change of government, we Social Democrats will take the initiative to appoint a new investigation regarding the social services' identification of young people entering into crime.

We will also continue to prioritize social services over large tax cuts for those with the highest incomes. We have shown our priorities in shadow budget after shadow budget. The government has prioritized something else. I hope I stand firm for the voters ahead of the autumn election. I believe, in fact, that most want society to do more for children and young people heading in the wrong direction.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This concerns legislation on preventive measures in cases of lack of cooperation. Even here, I want to begin by talking about the importance of working motivatingly and understanding the families who may need support. When we get to know the families, we learn what measures may be needed. It is about creating trust and confidence and meeting the families early.

Many families have their first encounter with society in some way in the form of MVC and then BVC, and we have expanded home visit programs where they cooperate very well. This is something that must continue even up into school age. We also have the possibility of school social teams that can work further, for it is here somewhere that the foundation is laid when families need support and help.

From tomorrow onwards, there will be different legislation, but in the current legislation on care of young people, there has been a possibility to make decisions on open interventions without consent. My interpretation of this is that the government now chooses to place this in a specific law to clarify in which instances decisions can be made. It has also been expanded so that the law can also apply to parents and parts have been added. Centerpartiet stands behind this.

Mr. Speaker! While I want to emphasize the importance of early interventions and say that it is important that this is based on voluntariness in order to counter mistrust, we stand behind many of the proposals that the government puts forward in this legislation. Of course, we should be able to demand sobriety and drug-freedom and that children and young people participate actively in society and integrate – or rather that we recruit children and young people into the good society instead of them being recruited into criminal gangs.

It is also very good and important to have early conversations when children and young people begin to shift their behavior outside of the norms we collectively have. It is however important that one does not threaten with the police, because that does not create much trust and confidence. It is also good that we can decide that children should be at home at night.

Above all, it is good that one can now receive temporary parental leave benefits even when participating in various interventions. I personally believe that it is one of the major reasons why one actually hasn't always done it as a parent. If one has poor finances and two jobs, it is difficult to take time off without compensation to help the one you love most: your own child. I believe this is a really good part of this.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Centre Party do not, however, stand behind all of this legislation. We see a risk with being able to decide on a fine, and we see risks with the electronic ankle bracelet.

In many parts, it is about a fine. It can be difficult to impose a fine, but I also envision this parent who wonders: Do I really dare to ask for help, or could it be that I might be hit with some form of financial fine in the next step if I fail to live up to what I am expected to do?

Who is it that is failing if the student does not go to school? Is it the parents? Is it the school that cannot receive in the right way, or is it the parents who cannot motivate? There is always a risk that we end up in a discussion that we do not want, regardless of what the reason for it is.

We believe that placing electronic surveillance on someone who has not committed a crime is an entirely too intrusive measure. We would not do it to an adult person who is not convicted of a crime, for example.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, I would like to assert that we all in this chamber are in complete agreement that it is unacceptable for children to commit serious criminal acts and that children are harmed, and that we must work together to break the behaviors that create this – both among the young people and among the parents.

Sometimes it can actually also be the society around them that creates these problems and that it has nothing to do with the family at all. There are, however, as said, limits to which intervention decisions the Center Party thinks the social services should be able to make.

We must also remember that if children are in these types of environments that are so difficult and serious, the children must actually be taken into care, and that is where we have the next legislation.

Centerpartiet has, as stated, reserved itself against a part of this legislation. This concerns partly what I mentioned regarding fines and electronic surveillance, and partly we want to review the reasons why parents decline interventions. We do not, in fact, always know exactly why, and there are different figures regarding how many it actually concerns.

There is information in the investigation that 40 percent refuse interventions, and there is information from research at Stockholm University about 12 percent. I have also at some point heard Minister Gunnar Strömmer say 100 percent, and that figure feels even stranger to me.

This is the reason, because if we do not know why parents say no, we also cannot have the right interventions. It could be about trust. It could be about not knowing the family and therefore actually not providing an effective intervention to the family. It could also be due to what I touched upon earlier, i.e., that parents actually do not have the means.

The point for me and the Centre Party with this is that we also must find out why it is like this.

Mr. Speaker! We have another reservation concerning the evaluation of what has already been decided. I fully support some parts of it, while I have been hesitant about others. However, we must ensure that the laws, ordinances, and regulatory letters – both within the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Justice – that we have decided upon lead where we want them to lead: to fewer children suffering, fewer children ending up in crime, and that society and the adult world are there for our children.

I feel that this is becoming more and more urgent. It is a matter of us not building fine houses that are not sustainable, but that fall like houses of cards when we poke at the foundation a little and that do not give us what we want at all – regardless of how beautiful it sounds when we all agree in the chamber, which actually can be true.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for this term and wish everyone a pleasant summer. I hope to meet many of you when the Riksdag reopens in September!

I move for approval of reservation 6.

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! More and more children and young people are being drawn into serious abuse and crime. Recruitment into criminal networks is occurring at increasingly younger ages. It can involve thefts, burglaries, fraud, and drug sales, as well as acts of gross violence and, in the worst cases, contract killings. Many grow up in environments where the gangs have more power than the parents, and in some cases, the parents themselves are part of the criminal environment. This is, to say the least, a frightening development that must be curbed by all means.

I and with the new Social Services Act, the social services have received a clearer mandate to detect early on children and young people who are entering or risk falling into, for example, substance abuse and crime. They have been given a mandate to prevent a negative development as far as possible, among other things through cooperation with parents, school, police and other authorities.

Targeted interventions for parents are today based on tradition on trust and voluntariness and on parents or guardians actively participating in meetings and following proposed measures in order to get a child or a youth back on the right track. We have, however, seen, Mr. Speaker, that far too many parents or guardians – almost half actually – do not participate in the voluntary interventions that are offered. This has placed us at a crossroads. Shall we let it continue, or shall we intervene? Shall we act while it is still possible to turn the development around or wait until the problems have become so large that only the most intrusive measures, such as compulsory placement, remain?

Mr. Speaker! It is against that background that we should see this bill, for today there is simply a gap between voluntary efforts and the situation where compulsory care according to LVU becomes relevant. In between, a child can manage to start abusing drugs, stop going to school and be recruited into crime. The question is: Shall we let it continue, or shall we intervene? Of course we shall intervene. We shall act, which we are also doing now. Not to do so would be highly irresponsible both towards the child or the young person and towards society as a whole.

We are now ensuring that the social services will be able to decide on binding interventions in the future even when consent is lacking. This can involve requirements for schooling, sobriety and drug-free status, drug tests, or that a youth must be at home during certain times of the day. This is not a step from voluntariness to coercion as a general rule; it is a step from a situation where the social services sometimes lack tools to a situation where it is actually possible to act. In many cases, it is simply not enough to say that we have offered help and stop there; sometimes we need to be able to demand that the help is actually accepted.

Mr. Speaker! We Sverigedemokrater have respect for the criticism that has been directed at this proposal. Privacy and legal certainty are important issues. The tools can be intrusive and must therefore be used proportionately and only when they are truly needed.

The referral bodies have been many, but there is one referral body that we believe is missing both here and in the general debate, namely the parents who want to take responsibility but whose own ability is not sufficient. It could be the single mother who works nights and cannot manage to monitor where the teenager at home is. It could be the father who has done everything he can in terms of commitment and setting boundaries but still sees his child being drawn into substance abuse and crime. For them, this is not about giving up their parenthood but about getting help to exercise it.

Mr. Speaker! Measures such as drug tests, temporary detention, and electronic surveillance are intrusive and sometimes powerful tools. But the fact that a measure is intrusive does not mean that it is wrong or that it is not needed. The question must be: Is it legally sound, is it proportionate, and is it used to protect the child or the young person – or perhaps others in the surroundings? We must, after all, protect children's privacy, but we must also protect children from crime, abuse, and destructive environments.

These measures should, of course, not be the first step. Just as I mentioned earlier, school and social services now have a mandate to act early – to detect the problems before crime and substance abuse have had time to become a lifestyle.

As part of this, we believe that the so-called serious talks are important. When a young person is suspected for the first time of a crime that can lead to imprisonment, the social services board shall hold a special talk where the police can also participate. It should preferably be more than just a meeting; it should be a turning point. It should be an opportunity to identify what support the young person actually needs, but also an opportunity to clearly signal: Yes, we see what is happening, and we do not accept it – but we also do not intend to give up on you.

It is precisely that combination that is needed: clear boundaries and a way back – and not only that, but also a way forward, with clear requirements but also clear support.

Mr. Speaker! As I have mentioned, the social services must be built on trust and good relations at their core. But trust must not mean that society stands idly by when a child is heading in the wrong direction. Voluntariness must not become a nicer word for passivity when voluntariness has failed. Behind every decision, there is a human being – a young person who perhaps does not yet understand the consequences of the choices being made but who can still be saved and caught if society acts in time. We shall simply see what is happening and set clear boundaries, but we shall also provide a way out, a way back, and a way forward.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

I also, here at the very end, want to throw in that I wish you great luck, Maj Karlsson. We haven't seen each other that much – I don't think we have had any duels here in the chamber – but I have seen that your commitment has been huge. Great luck in the future!

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As late as in July last year, the new, long-awaited Social Services Act entered into force. It is an important piece of legislation that will strengthen the work of social services and which places great emphasis on the important preventive work.

Against that background, we think that the proposal the government is now presenting is remarkable. The bill contains a number of proposals that the Green Party considers risk undermining trust in the social services and hindering precisely that preventive work.

A large majority of the referral bodies were also negative towards the proposals from the investigation that forms the basis for the bill, including the Children's Ombudsman, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Association of Sweden's Social Managers. On an overall level, it can be said that the referral bodies highlight three serious consequences of the proposals.

To begin with, it is considered that the proposals risk undermining trust in the social services, something that the investigation also noted and reflected upon. Making the use of coercive measures a part of the social services' tasks risks reducing people's willingness to turn to and want to receive support and help from the social services. The National Board of Health and Welfare highlights that the core mission of the social services is to act in a supportive and helping manner and that the investigation's proposals involve a risk that the focus shifts toward more control and repression.

Furthermore, the referral bodies point out that the proposals are based on a lack of research and experience. The investigation itself noted that the available research regarding social work, interventions, and treatment methods largely concerns those conducted on a voluntary basis. The investigation could not demonstrate any scientific support for how coercive measures should lead to a positive change for children. Research shows instead that own will, trust-based methods, and participation are important prerequisites for interventions within social work to lead to long-term sustainable changes.

Finally, it is therefore considered that this proposal opposes the new Social Services Act. This is noted by, among others, Rädda Barnen, who point out that the goal of the Social Services Act is to work preventatively and create trust and accessibility, and they express concern about how these proposals clash with those goals. In the new Social Services Act, there are also requirements that the social services' work shall be conducted in accordance with science and proven experience, which becomes difficult because these proposals, as stated, lack scientific support.

Furthermore, the transition to the new Social Services Act in Sweden's 290 municipalities is something that requires resources and peace of mind, not parallel new ways of working for coercion.

We agree with the criticism. If repressive measures are to be targeted at children and young people, there must be clear indications that the measures yield positive effects, and we believe that is not the case here.

This is evidenced, in particular, by the proposal that the social services committee may decide that guardians, children, and young people shall participate in open interventions when consent is lacking. Research shows that guardians who have trust in the social services are more inclined to seek help at an early stage, which can prevent problems from deepening. If trust is lacking, there is a risk that the guardians will instead avoid contact with the social services, which can worsen the possibilities of meeting the child's need for support.

Mr. Speaker! Today, there is a lack of underlying data on why parents refuse the social services' interventions. We have heard different types of estimates here, and sometimes one hears that 40 percent refuse the interventions.

In our opinion, this demonstrates the need for a deeper analysis of why children, young people, or parents decline. It would be better to understand how voluntary interventions can continue to be guiding but be offered in other ways. Above all, children's rights organizations highlight that their experience shows that a lack of trust, fear of the authorities, or that the interventions are not adapted to the family's needs are some reasons why guardians decline.

The Government further proposes that interventions without consent may be combined with special regulations, including fines against the parents. The purpose of a fine order shall be that the social welfare committee's decision on interventions without the guardians' consent is complied with by the guardians. This is part of the proposal that the Green Party, as well as organizations such as SOS Children's Villages and the Children's Rights Bureau, are very critical of. The proposal also stems from an incorrect picture of why guardians do not accept interventions. As the Association of Sweden's Social Services Managers, FSS, emphasizes, it is usually about the fact that guardians do not have the right conditions, ability, understanding, or trust in society's support. This is not remedied through fine orders but requires other methods and ways of working.

For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that the proposal on penalty payments will affect families that are already economically vulnerable and guardians with weak parenting skills or low understanding of and trust in society's support. This cannot be addressed through a penalty payment.

Mr. Speaker! Further regulations that could be targeted at children, which the Green Party opposes, concern drug testing and ankle bracelets. Extensive criticism is also directed against these proposals from the referral bodies. Among others, JO, Save the Children, the Bar Association, Bris, the Institute for Human Rights, and the National Board of Health and Welfare are critical.

That the social services committee shall work for and take initiatives to prevent and counteract harmful use and addiction is a matter of course, and it is evident from today's regulatory framework in the Social Services Act. As several referral bodies point out, the proposal in the bill risks instead undermining interventions within outpatient care. Drug testing and ankle monitors are very intrusive measures and a major infringement on the individual's privacy. It does not appear to be a proportionate preventive measure but rather a disciplinary measure. We also believe that it risks conflicting with, for example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

According to Miljöpartiet, the proposal regarding ankle bracelets is particularly noteworthy. Today, an ankle bracelet is only relevant for someone who has been convicted of a crime or who has received an extended restraining order and risks violating it. In those cases, it is a useful tool. However, there is a risk that a child who receives an ankle bracelet may be perceived as a criminal person by both those around them and by the supervised person themselves. Several referral bodies also refer to experiences from Denmark, where the possibility of using electronic surveillance was abolished only two years after its introduction. The reason for the abolition was that the possibility of electronic surveillance was not the right way to go to prevent criminal and antisocial behavior.

Miljöpartiet agrees with the government's description that the development regarding children's involvement in crime is very serious. Social services, together with the justice system, have an important role in strengthening preventive work and contributing to ensuring that more children can both be prevented from being drawn into crime and can receive help to leave it.

We do not, however, share the view that more interventions without consent, coercive measures, fines, drug tests, and ankle bracelets will contribute to helping more children and their families. An introduction of coercion as a tool to achieve social change work risks becoming counterproductive by damaging the trust, motivation, and participation of children and young people.

I vote in favor of reservation 5.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are addressing the Social Affairs Committee's report 39 on preventive measures within social services to protect children and young people in cases of lack of participation. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

A society is not judged only by how it reacts when a child has already ended up in crime or substance abuse, but it is also judged by how early it dares to act to prevent it from happening. It is precisely this that this bill is about. The Government takes responsibility. We do not settle for intervening when the damage has already been done. We strengthen the social services' possibilities to help children and families before the problems grow, so that care according to LVU does not become the only remaining solution. It is an important change.

Mr. Speaker! For far too long, the social services have stood powerless in situations where it was known that a child was heading down the wrong path and where the risks were obvious, but where necessary interventions were blocked because guardians said no or did not cooperate. The consequence has been that society has often been forced to wait until the problems became larger, until the crime became more serious, or until the child became a victim of a crime or became a perpetrator themselves.

That time is now over. With this bill, we are giving the social services tools to act earlier. When voluntary efforts are not enough, society must be able to make decisions on necessary interventions for both children and guardians. It is not about taking over the parents' responsibility, but about ensuring that the parental responsibility is actually fulfilled. There are situations where children are left without the support and guidance they need. In those cases, society cannot stand by and hope that the problems solve themselves.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of the bill concerns strengthening the parents' responsibility. If the social services decide on interventions, guardians shall also be able to be required to participate. That is a reasonable arrangement. The parents are the child's most important adults. If a child is heading towards crime or other destructive development, the adults around the child must be part of the solution. Therefore, the government introduces the possibility of combining certain decisions with a fine. It is not about punishing the parents, but it is about ensuring that necessary interventions are actually carried out. The one who wants to help their child shall receive the society's support, but the one who refuses to take their responsibility shall not be able to stop interventions that are crucial for the child's future.

The proposition also contains the possibility to decide on special conditions for children and young people. In some cases, it may mean that the child shall stay at home for a certain period. When electronic surveillance is put into use, it will be a tool to ensure that the decision is followed. It is not about surveillance for the sake of surveillance, but it is about protecting children from being drawn deeper into crime, gang environments, or other destructive influences. It is a significantly less intrusive measure than a detention, and precisely for that reason, it is an important tool. The earlier society can intervene with the right measure, the greater the chance of avoiding significantly more intrusive measures later.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is also strengthening the cooperation between social services and the Police Authority. If a child violates a decision to stay at home, the police shall be able to temporarily take the child into custody. It is not about criminalizing children. It is about ensuring that society's decisions actually take effect. Laws and decisions that cannot be upheld risk becoming empty words, and that serves neither the children nor society.

Another important part of the bill is the introduction of serious talks. The first time a child is suspected of a crime that can lead to imprisonment, the social services board shall hold a special talk. It is a clear signal. The first contact with the justice system must never be regarded as a trifle. On the contrary, it is often then that the opportunity to break the development is greatest. Early interventions are not an expression of weakness, but they are an expression of responsibility. We know that many young people who later became involved in serious crime started with less serious crimes. Therefore, society must react early – not later.

Mr. Speaker! The Government also shows understanding for the families' situation. Parents who participate in interventions decided by the social services shall be able to receive temporary parental leave benefits. It is an important announcement. No one should have to choose between participating in interventions that can change a child's life and being able to support their family. We set requirements, but we also provide support. It is a policy that is built on both responsibility and humanity.

This bill is another example of the realignment of Swedish politics that the government is carrying out. We do not accept that children are recruited by criminal networks. We do not accept that the social services are left without tools. We do not accept that society should have to wait until the problems have become so large that compulsory care is the only remaining possibility.

Instead, we are building a society where interventions are made earlier, where parental responsibility is strengthened, where social services are given better opportunities to help, and where children get a greater chance to choose a different path than the crime that has taken hold of their lives.

Mr. Speaker! That is how a responsible society functions. The government does not wait for the next headline, for the next shooting, or for the next child who is exploited by the gangs. The government acts in time, and that is exactly what the government is doing with this bill.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have no comments on the speech. As usual, you speak about your own policy, and you are an honorable opponent whom I have truly appreciated during my years in the Social Affairs Committee.

I would describe you as a typical people's movement moderate, which is fantastic. It shows that you have your roots in the sports movement. It also shows that you have a people's movement leadership in the group. One can talk about formal and informal leaders, and it is clear that you have a large informal leadership responsibility within the Moderates in the Riksdag. I believe you have been very important for that group, just as you have been for the Social Affairs Committee.

I will unfortunately never vote for you, partly because I do not live in Dalarna, partly because I am a Social Democrat. But if we had lived in the same housing cooperative, I would have definitely voted for you as chairperson, because I have great confidence in you. You have exactly that leadership that sees, confirms, and creates a good atmosphere in a group, plus you are always well-read, knowledgeable, and well-prepared. You will leave a large void behind you, but I wish you luck in the future.

(Applause)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the kind and friendly words. You often mention us women in the group and praise our clothes, and that is something I have taken note of.

At some point in the future, maybe we'll end up in the same housing cooperative – you never know where life will take you – and then we'll just have to see what happens. Maybe it's just like with kittens – that over time you open your eyes.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! If you ask Fredrik or Christian, you will be told that the men are not spared from my compliments either – just so that it is clear. But it must be fine clothes; I do not do it out of habit.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think the exchanges today are pleasant.

You and I, Malin, have for natural reasons not worked as closely as Maj and I have, since you represent the government and I the opposition. But I have felt your warmth and how important children's rights are to you, and we have worked together in different ways.

As a young adult, I lived in Dalarna for a few years, and my heart always burns for Dalarna. We might end up in the same municipality in the future, who knows? But let me here and now express a big thank you to you.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank member Martina Johansson for the kind words.

Who knows? Maybe the member moves to Dalarna in the future, which would be very nice, or maybe she shows up during the Vasaloppet week.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! You and I, Malin, stand far apart from each other politically for entirely natural reasons. You are on the right wing and I am on the left wing. We have also not had such close cooperation. But we have had a fine relationship in the committee. You have, in fact, a unique quality, a very fine ability to be the social glue in a group. It is not always so incredibly easy in a political context where everyone has very different opinions. But in all contexts where you make your voice heard, you do so with warmth, and you ensure that we always have a pleasant time and always meet your colleagues with a smile. I have appreciated this incredibly much, and I want to thank you for your time. It has been a joy to work together with you.

(Applause)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Maj Karlsson for her kind words.

Just as the member says, we stand on opposite sides in the political work, but that does not mean that one cannot have good conversations. The Minister sitting behind me right now has said that legislation is a work that requires patience, and the Social Affairs Committee has both now and previously had a good ability to work well together and produce good things.

Many thanks, Maj Karlsson, for the kind words! See you during Vasaloppet week 2027!

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to say to all the people in your constituency, Malin, that I hope they understand what a hard worker they have had here in the Riksdag.

I am so impressed that despite more than two decades of political engagement, you never seem to have been close to seeing it as a regular job, but have always seen it as a trust. Now you say yourself that you are going to step aside precisely because it is a trust and not a job. It takes an enormous amount of toil to do this really well, and you are one of those who has toiled the hardest. I hope therefore that they know who they have had here.

(Applause)

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Warm thanks for the kind words, Member Lina Nordquist! It was very nice to hear. I say as I have said to other colleagues: A warm welcome to the Vasaloppet week 2027 and home to me! It will be very pleasant.

It is exactly as the member says: After 25 years in politics, I am stepping down and letting other forces take over. I wish both them and all of you who remain good luck. A warm thank you!

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

Jessica Stegrud (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member and I have not had much to do with each other. I will willingly admit that during my year in the Social Affairs Committee, I have been fully occupied with my own work. I have also not been able to join any committee trips. But during our meetings and in all other contexts, the member has always been so incredibly pleasant to deal with, and I know that my close colleagues Mona and Carita have appreciated the member immensely.

We are going in different directions, because after 25 years in politics, the member chooses to do something else, while I, after 25 years in the business world, chose to enter politics a few years ago. I believe it is good to see both worlds. Best of luck!

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Jessica Stegrud for her warming words.

Just as the member says, we have passed each other a bit during the year the member has sat in the committee. But I have had a fantastically good cooperation with the member's party colleagues. Warm thanks!

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

Lina Nordquist (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating laws that will save lives, both literally and – of course – figuratively. They will give life that, without these laws, would have been much darker.

Very many children in Sweden live in difficult times. Ever younger children are drawn into gangs and induced to commit serious crimes. Many of us can probably agree that it can be difficult to be a parent even if one has the most wonderful and easy-going children. It can be completely exhausting.

If our children end up on the wrong track, it becomes truly heavy. That is why it is incredibly important that there are now finally better opportunities for parents to be present and help their child when it is needed most. This is happening thanks to the hard work of many parties and many people, and not least the enormous work that Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall has done over very many years, long before she became minister.

We also take a firm grip on parents who do not see or are unable to provide what their children so desperately need, Mr. Speaker. The social services will now have the opportunity to decide on interventions even when it is not possible to persuade a parent to accept significant support.

Finally, an opportunity is being introduced to do more when the seriousness is escalating, before it has gone so far that the child must be taken into care. When the child – no one else – needs it, the social welfare committee must be able to force the parents to accept help for themselves and their child even when they do not want to. The child's protection and future must come first.

The social services will be able to decide on drug-free status and also on schooling. It will also be possible to impose curfews on young people during certain times. If there are concrete circumstances indicating that the child will break the curfew and commit a crime, the administrative court shall be able to make decisions on electronic surveillance, for the child's best interests, Mr. Speaker.

The legislative changes are absolutely crucial tools against gangs and against destructive environments, for the child and for the child's future. If the criminals know that the child will not be able to run their errands, the risk that they even contact the child naturally decreases.

There are more changes that we are debating today and will decide on. When parents help their child and their family together with the social services, they shall be able to be away from work and receive temporary parental leave. One should never have to choose between providing for one's family or helping one's child, paying the rent or helping one's child, or being of service to the employer or helping one's child.

The Social Welfare Board shall also hold serious talks with a child or a young person who is suspected for the first time of a crime that could lead to imprisonment, naturally in the hope that the gravity of the situation will truly sink in. Where are you headed? What have you done? Where is this leading?

I am proud that we are implementing this, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall for never giving up on the way toward this. This law will help many children who previously had not had a chance. Now they receive the adult world's help to get a future and a better life.

(Applause)

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Before I begin my speech, I would like to take the opportunity to send a warm thank you to two members who are very dear to my heart. I hope that I will continue to have contact with Malin Höglund in many different ways, and I hope that I will have it with Maj Karlsson as well.

In the Social Affairs Committee, I and Maj Karlsson go far back. At the risk of giving the member a bad reputation, I want to thank you for the support that I have felt many times, even as minister. I have been questioned and criticized, but I have also received very much support. I have appreciated that, both as a colleague in the committee and as minister. We have actually shared both committee initiatives, reservations, and even press releases. It may not be so common between Moderates and Left Party members, but that is how it is.

A very warm thank you to both of you! And a very warm thank you for everything we have been able to accomplish together, Maj! It has been and will be significant. A big thank you for that!

Mr. Speaker! What we are debating today is simply whether society should choose to look away when a child is harmed or if we should do everything in our power to make a difference, and whether we should choose to accept that guardians refuse when it risks becoming an LVU at the other end.

It is not the case that the social services do not work with coercion already today. They even work with the most intrusive form of coercion: making decisions regarding an LVU. It lies there if the family cannot manage to sort things out when a child is about to end up in the wrong situation.

This government will never choose to look away, but we are prepared to ensure that legislation and reforms are put in place so that not a single child falls through the cracks.

The government is carrying out the largest transformation of Swedish social services and Swedish social policy in over 40 years. During this mandate period, we have developed and implemented the new Social Services Act, which several members have mentioned, with its requirements for preventive and knowledge-based work. We have also developed a new law on care, which we discussed here in the chamber a short while ago. Now we are also discussing new legislation that shall provide additional tools to social services in cases of lack of participation.

Overall, these are three very large, very important and very necessary reforms for the social services to have the prerequisites to meet today's challenges.

Youth crime and the vulnerability of children and young people are increasing in Sweden. Even though the shootings are decreasing and we see signs that the development is finally heading in the right direction, it is too early to relax. We must continue the work of preventing gangs from exploiting children and young people.

We must also find better tools to help children and young people in need of support, regardless of whether it occurs with or without the guardians' consent. Social services have a completely decisive role in this but have for far too long lacked the tools to meet the developments.

The new Social Services Act, just like the old one, is based on voluntariness. That is very good. The work of the social services shall also be characterized by voluntariness in the future. We know – the research is clear on this – that those who voluntarily participate in help and support are much more motivated. Then the interventions we make have a much greater chance of succeeding.

Therefore, the law we are now discussing, which we call the law on intermediate coercion, also proceeds from the principle that interventions should be provided voluntarily, if there is an opportunity for that. Voluntariness shall always be tested first before any form of coercion is implemented. One can almost say that it is the law that one hopes will never be used, because the Social Services Act has truly succeeded fully.

The problem today is that the social services, if a child, a young person or a guardian opposes interventions, can only stand by and watch until the problems have grown so large that there is ultimately a basis for a placement according to the Act Concerning Certain Provisions on the Care of Young People, that is to say, to make an LVU.

It is unfortunately all too common that the person judged to need care opposes the intervention. Almost half – between 40 and 50 percent, depending on where one looks – of the families who are offered interventions are reported to refuse them. In the meantime, children and young people suffer.

We thus have a large gap in the legislation between the entirely voluntary Social Services Act and the much more intrusive LVU. The law, the content of which I will shortly describe, will fill this gap. The purpose of the law is not for more coercion to be used or for the social services to be more repressive – on the contrary. The purpose of the law is to prevent and stop children and young people from suffering through additional protection and support. Through earlier interventions, the social services shall be able to remedy problems before another LVU decision must be made.

We hope, therefore, that the law will ultimately lead to more preventive work and fewer intrusive measures.

When almost half of the families with children who need support refuse interventions, while at the same time more and more children suffer from crime and honor oppression, I will never accept that society stands by and watches.

I note that the opposition is divided even on this issue. To the parties that demand a rejection of the proposal for this law, I ask: Why do you want to stand by and watch when children suffer? Why do you not want to give the social services all the tools available to help the children?

I believe that we clearly see the difference between our government options in the autumn election. It is a government base that agrees to tackle the societal challenges, and it is a divided opposition that still cannot agree even on the description of the problems, let alone on the solutions.

The law we are discussing, Mr. Speaker, contains a number of different tools that the social services will now have at their disposal. Interventions for individuals shall, in the first instance, be provided with consent according to the provisions of the Social Services Act. But with the new law on intermediate coercion, the social services committee shall be able to decide on interventions for guardians, children, and young people when there is no consent.

The measures shall then be considered to prevent or preclude certain conditions in the home or behaviors in the child. Social services may then set requirements for these persons, so-called special conditions. It is not unreasonable conditions that social services shall set for the individual. For children, it can involve participating in school instruction, staying home at night, and being sober and drug-free. For the guardian, it can involve participating in parenting education, attending parent meetings at school, maintaining routines, and ensuring that the child goes to school and activities – one can even receive help with that. These are, therefore, completely reasonable things that we request of a guardian and of the child or the young person.

When conditions are set to support and help children, it is also important to ensure that they are complied with. To ensure sobriety and freedom from drugs, the social services shall be able to decide that the child or the young person shall be urged to undergo drug testing. To ensure that a young person complies with the condition to stay at home at night, the social welfare committee may in some cases decide that compliance shall be monitored with electronic surveillance. This shall in no way be seen as a punishment. It is clear that it becomes the last available possibility before the next step, which will probably be an LVU decision. It is about the last possibility to ensure that a young person who is out and moving in harmful environments at night does not do so. Electronic surveillance shall be possible from the age of 13.

The social services can also issue a coercive fine to compel the guardian to carry out the interventions that the committee considers necessary to prevent and avert harm to the child. According to the Act on Fines, a fine shall be determined at an amount so high that the individual will comply with the decision, while taking into account economic circumstances. An application for the imposition of a fine is made to a court.

In addition, the bill contains proposals that the social services shall be supplemented with so-called serious talks. This means that a child or a young person suspected of their first crime shall be called to a talk with guardian, social services and police. The summons shall be made within 24 hours from when the social services received information about the suspicion of a crime.

Serious conversations will be part of the social services' early, preventive work. The purpose of such a conversation shall be to identify what needs for support and help the child or the young person and the guardian may have, as well as to inform about the risks and consequences of becoming involved in crime. This represents an early and clear marking from society that criminal behavior is noticed and not accepted.

It is naturally of the utmost importance that guardians take their parental responsibility and ensure that everything is done so that children and young people do not come to harm. Therefore, it is also important that society provides guardians with the right conditions to be able to take on this responsibility. Therefore, we now also propose a possibility for temporary parental leave pay when the parent needs to refrain from work in connection with participation in an intervention aimed at supporting or protecting the child.

The right to temporary parental allowance applies both if the intervention is decided by the social welfare committee without consent supported by the new law on intermediate measures and if it is decided with consent supported by the Social Services Act.

The government's entire work within the area of social services is based on the best interests of the child. All new legislation puts the best interests of the child at the center, so does the law on intermediate measures. The law is another step in the social services' transition to previously preventive work.

If a guardian refuses to cooperate with the social services when their child is suffering, society must be able to set requirements and ensure they are met. Some may think this sounds harsh, but for the government and for me, the choice is simple. We will always stand on the child's side. Reluctant parents who do not take their parental responsibility must not be allowed to hinder the child's right to support – that is, stop their own child's rights. We will not stand by and watch as children suffer.

With the new Social Services Act, the Act on Intermediate Measures, and the law we discussed earlier regarding care, the government strengthens the protection for children and increases children's rights – all the way from early preventive work to later and more intrusive measures.

We will not look away when children suffer, because all children deserve to have a bright and beautiful future.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I was crystal clear in my contribution earlier. The Social Democrats will vote for the proposal on intermediate coercion. We have pushed for it for a longer period. We think it is good. We give the thumbs up.

But on the Minister's Facebook page it says this: Should vulnerable children be able to get help even if the parents say no? Then you have answered the Social Democrats: No idea!

This is sabotage of democracy. Democracy is built on the fact that we openly and honestly discuss what we think. We can have different opinions about things. But when a government minister says that a party thinks something that it does not think and deliberately spreads it on social media, then one lowers the level of Swedish democracy and makes it harder for the voters to make rational choices.

Let us be at odds and discuss openly about the things we do not agree on. But do not put words in others' mouths that are not correct at all! I think it is better that we have this discussion now before the election campaign enters the final stretch, because this is not how we usually conduct election campaigns in Sweden. It can be spliced and groomed, but this is, like, a new level.

I wonder if the Minister is sent out by her party or if it is she herself who is driving this slush in Swedish democracy and the Swedish election campaign. There is actually something called integrity. One decides for oneself what one stands for, and if one has integrity and the party says that one should go out with this dung, one can actually say no.

(Applause)

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has been clear that we are not prepared to look away when children are harmed. We have worked intensively on some of the largest legislative packages that the Ministry of Social Affairs has seen. Only the Social Insurance Code has been larger.

It is clear that as we make all these major changes now, we are concerned about what would happen if misfortune strikes and there is a change of government. When it is so clear that all friends in the opposition are saying no, the question is how the Social Democrats will be able to handle what is today an opposition group and potentially in the future a government base where there is no support to make these interventions, that is to say where Gustaf Lantz and his party are surrounded by parties that are prepared to continue looking away.

It is something that should concern many in our country and which I believe will most severely affect those children who, with the help of the new legislation, can actually receive support and help in a timely manner. It is a major problem, for it is one of the greatest societal challenges we face.

Now we see that many figures are moving in the right direction. We have succeeded in putting a stop to large parts of the lethal gun violence. We are not finished on a long way, but it is moving in the right direction. But this question will be so decisive for whether we can save more children.

The question back to Gustaf Lantz is therefore: How will the Social Democrats be able to manage it when the others say no?

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I obviously receive no answers regarding the forms of democracy and what a government minister can do in an election campaign.

The question was, therefore, whether vulnerable children should be able to receive help even if the parents say no. The answer from us today is yes, and it has been for a long time. But you write "no idea." Do not try to make it about different government options, because you have also put words in the mouths of Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet! If it were only a matter of whether a government basis can push through its policy in the way you describe, that would be one thing. Camilla Waltersson Grönvall is a very talented person, and she knows this.

It is obvious that the Moderaterna dislike the Socialdemokrater more than one likes the truth, at least in this election campaign. But the question remains: To make false claims, is that the Moderaterna's way of conducting an election campaign, or is it the government's way of conducting an election campaign? If we are to be able to collectively protect ourselves from foreign powers influencing our election campaign with false claims, a government must behave better than putting false words into the mouths of others, something that causes voters to risk making their choice on false grounds.

I gladly engage in tough debates, and I have loved debating with the Minister. I have felt the deepest respect. We have not only discussed things here in the chamber, but I have also tried to influence for the better, not least for women exposed to violence. But I must say that on a personal level, I am actually incredibly disappointed. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to back down here, and then we will run an election campaign with fair means.

(Applause)

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Gustaf Lantz, in both of his remarks, has put more energy into being very sad and disappointed by the treatment of his own party instead of actually standing up for what matters politically.

We are in an election campaign, that is correct. We are handling very important issues, and the bills we are discussing today are serious. Therefore, the discussions deserve to be about precisely those bills that will play a role in whether children are to be protected from involvement in criminal gangs or not. But Gustaf Lantz chooses to place the focus somewhere else entirely.

However, this is what it is fundamentally about: How can there be a government alternative that can truly and with force push through reforms that save Sweden's children?

For four years, we have shown that with great force and determination, we together agree to make these changes. But when one takes part of what is in the follow-up motions and what Gustaf Lantz also says he stands against, one sees that the Social Democrats are not prepared to go all the way to protect children in vulnerable situations. We also heard that in his contribution.

What is even more serious, however, is that so many of the other opposition parties will actually oppose the content of what is the gap between voluntariness and the most intrusive compulsion that exists in Swedish social services legislation. And there, my friends, Gustaf Lantz is still the answer liable.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I wanted to speak with Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, but I became so incredibly upset by the discussion that was just now that I completely lost focus.

I must genuinely say that I am a bit disappointed by the debate. I am disappointed that it is assumed that we in here do not want to do the right thing, that we do not want there to be a proper difference for children. There is no one in here who does not understand what an incredibly difficult situation we are facing.

I will try to compose myself a bit and express myself as I had intended from the beginning. I have enormous respect for Camilla Waltersson Grönvall's work. I have supported large parts of your work, precisely because I think you have done it correctly and properly in very large parts.

One of the most important reforms that the minister has implemented is the new Social Services Act. I made very clear in my speech why I am concerned about the law on intermediate coercion. I also imagine that a number of referral bodies have the same objective as both I and the minister, but they still feel very, very concerned regarding this law.

So, criticism of the law has indeed been received. How does the Minister feel if it were the case that we – who do not think anything of this at all and do not want these children well – are actually right in our criticism, that is to say, that parents will not dare to seek help or that we will lock up children in situations that are very threatening? Should we redo a system that the Minister himself has done well? I just want to hear a reflection on that.

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Maj Karlsson, for the question! I do not, of course, question that everyone wants the best for children, but I see that not everyone is prepared to make the necessary reforms to stop, among other things, the gangs' recruitment of children and young people.

I have traveled a lot both during my time in opposition and as a minister and met many of the children who today are in Swedish social care. What they often express is that they sent signals throughout their entire upbringing that they needed support and help, but that there was never anyone there. Many of them have also experienced extensive violence and vulnerability in their homes and signaled that as well, but did not receive support and help.

It is therefore clear that we need to do much more, and that is where the new Social Services Act is incredibly important and significant so that early preventive and outreach interventions can be carried out. I also want to mention the secrecy legislation that entered into force on December 1. It makes it possible to share information now. I know there is concern linked to that as well, but it is not about any information whatsoever, but about relevant information that can enable the social services, the police, and the school to, in necessary cases where there are connections, carry out early interventions. If one does not have information, it is difficult to know that something serious is happening.

I want to once again emphasize that the new Social Services Act is the starting point for all work. I would, in principle, wish that the intermediate step was never needed, but we see that many guardians refuse. We see that the recruitment is fast. It is sometimes a matter of two or three weeks, and then there must be opportunities to make rapid interventions.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have also gathered myself a bit now. I think like this: The new Social Services Act is a superb basis for the work, just as the Minister says. I am completely convinced that if we pump in resources so that this becomes a reality across the whole country and ensure that the social services can manage the assignment, we will probably get a very long way. This also applies together with, for example, the legislation we debated earlier today regarding children's rights.

I also share the view one hundred percent that many children have been missed and have not received help in time and ultimately have to bear the punishment for the vulnerability they have experienced. The problem is that I believe that this legislation can continue to contribute to precisely that development.

We really want to find a solution when it comes to parents who refuse. That is why we say that it is necessary to map out and see the underlying causes.

As I said in my post, we have a historical huge debt to pay back. The social services have fallen terribly behind with the work regarding children. One is behind in the entire care chain. There is a hole that must be plugged, and it is here I think the legislation becomes so tricky. It comes in from the side and punishes both children and parents.

It is clear that one can want to punish someone who does not take their responsibility. I have that feeling too. It is just that the research points out that it is rather motivation that brings about lasting change. There are projects where work is being done very actively and incredibly successfully with motivating parents who are unmotivated. It does not have to mean that they do not care about their children. There can be completely other reasons. That is why Centerpartiet also says that we must see what the reasons are. That is what I want to send with. I am afraid that this will not give the right results.

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

Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Maj Karlsson!

There were fantastic opportunities already ten years ago. Enough for the LVU campaign to have fueled the skepticism towards the social services, which we had the greatest concerns with during 2022 and 2023, but there has actually been a large stigma linked to the social services for a very long time. According to the reports I receive, the number of "no's" is increasing, but we have had "no's" earlier as well. There were opportunities for previous governments of many colors to do something about this. It will take time, but I and the government are not prepared to let a single more year pass without these tools being in place.

Sometimes it sounds as if the entire social services are against this, but I meet a lot of social workers who say: "Give us the tools to get the guardians on board, because without them we won't get anywhere, and then only LVU remains. Give us this opportunity!" There are also those social workers who pull me aside before I'm about to leave and, even when it might not be politically correct to say it publicly, still say: "All my colleagues might not agree, but we must get tools to push for parental responsibility."

It is clear that we are to evaluate all laws. There are more members pushing for it. I just want to say that these are self-evident matters for a Moderate-led government. But we cannot evaluate laws that have not even been implemented yet, and it usually needs to be a year or two.

It is clear that we shall follow up on this and see where it leads. But here and now, children and young people are being recruited into crime. Parents sometimes do not manage the responsibility themselves, but much of what we request are quite reasonable things, such as that one should participate in parenting education and parent meetings and ensure that one's child attends school. Then one can receive support and help linked to one's child.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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