(cont. from §14) Children and young people within social services (cont. SoU19)

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I am, as you will hear in my main speech later, quite concerned that the member and his party want to introduce LIV, which he also mentioned in his speech. I am also very concerned about the Prime Minister's statement where he implied that parents do not want to help their children. I absolutely do not share that view.

I would like to quote from the Association of Sweden's Social Workers' referral response regarding LIV: ”Socio-economically, it is very difficult to see how a compulsion to accept open interventions would be effective and solve the problem of a lack of consent. All change work needs to be designed with both motivation and consent as key principles. FSS analysis of why the social services to a very large extent terminate investigations based on a lack of consent is that, unfortunately, it is about resources and conditions. When the inflow to the social services is large and the needs are greater than the resources, the possibility for the persistence, endurance, and motivational work that would be needed from the social services and other important social institutions does not exist. To believe that coercion is then the solution to this is unrealistic.”

My question is: Are you really interested in ensuring that parents get the support they need, or are you just out to punish the parents?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates and the government are truly committed to ensuring that parents in need of support and help receive it. That is exactly why we have ensured that the new Social Services Act finally reaches the Riksdag's table. That is why we have made major investments in expanding parental support with the clear ambition that this shall exist in all of Sweden's 290 municipalities. And that is why we want to strengthen the projects with reinforced home visit programs and much more.

It is because we think it is important that parents who are in need also receive support and help. It is important that we lower the thresholds to the social services and that we address the challenges behind why some parents do not accept help and support.

I agree with Member Karlsson that it is often a matter of lacking prerequisites and sometimes a lack of trust. In that case, we must work on strengthening it. But I also think it is important that the social services have tools to use in cases where voluntary measures do not reach all the way. It is far too important to provide our children and young people with the interventions required to break the negative development and for them to have a good upbringing so that parents can veto interventions. Therefore, the government has appointed the inquiry on intermediate coercion.

I think the inquiry's proposal is very exciting. It has just been subjected to a referral process. We will, of course, look at the referral comments before the government proceeds with the proposal, but I think the inquiry has found a good balance and both highlights the need to be able to set higher requirements on children and young people and on their parents and looks at how one can create better conditions for them to receive help.

One of the proposals in the investigation is that a parent should be able to receive temporary parental leave benefits specifically to have the conditions required to receive assistance from the social services.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! It is therefore about parents who do not accept support or refuse an intervention from the social services being able to be liable to pay a fine. It is a proposal that comes now as we are in the process of introducing the major reform, the new Social Services Act.

There is a risk that people are deterred from seeking help. I want to continue to quote from the referral response from Sweden's social chiefs: "During the last decades, social services, schools, and psychiatry have had to endure harsh cost savings that have narrowed social services' and others' opportunities to do exactly what many advocates for children's rights, including Maskrosbarn, demand – that society acts. At the same time, societal challenges have increased in the form of gang crime, mental illness, and more children who do not manage in school."

As I see it, this results in placing the responsibility on individual parents and, furthermore, deterring them from seeking help because there is a threat of a fine. It is the politics that have not taken their responsibility to ensure that there are sufficient resources so that we can achieve the motivating and trust-building work that we need. The new Social Services Act opens up for that, but here, instead, comes a shot from the side about punishing parents. That is what is being done.

This risks deterring parents from seeking help, and furthermore, it means that the government does not have to take responsibility for the failures it has had before. Does the member think this is a responsible way to act in such a serious issue?

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, we must work to increase trust in the social services, lower the thresholds, and reduce the stigma. That is why the new Social Services Act is so important. That is why it is important that we also, linked to the new law, provide the social services with resources to actually be able to staff up and carry out the competence initiatives needed to make reality of the ambition increase that the new law entails. That is why it is good that the government, during the coming years, invests 8 billion on the implementation of the new Social Services Act.

It is also good that the government is investing in child and adolescent psychiatry with a special BUP billion and strengthening first-line psychiatry to catch children and young people. I think that we should work with voluntariness to the greatest extent possible. But it is possible that the member Karlsson and I still differ on that point.

I think it is right and proper that it can have consequences if a parent, despite great needs in the family and despite that the children are suffering, says no to the social services' interventions. It comes with parental responsibility.

As a parent, I have a great responsibility for my children. Society should help me take it if I fall short in it. But it is most important to secure the child's future. If the parent, despite the social services' efforts to work with motivation and supportive measures, still puts their heels in the ground and says no, we cannot let the parent decide this. Then it must actually have consequences.

Now we are going to look closely at this investigation and read all the referral responses. It is a balancing act that we must perform. But yes, I believe that it must have consequences for the few parents who do not take their parental responsibility.

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report SoU19 Children and young people within social services. The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but I move for approval only to our reservation number 13.

All children should be given a safe and secure upbringing, but unfortunately, reality looks different. When support measures concerning children are implemented, the best interests of the children must always be in focus. The Social Services' mandate includes, among other things, to offer help and support to create a safe upbringing environment and to prevent social problems.

We know that the effects of this work will not be visible until much later, but that does not make the work any less important. On the contrary, it is crucial to provide individual children and young people with a tool for the future and adult life. The goal is, and must always be, that children should be allowed to grow up in good conditions and be protected from crime, abuse, and honor-related violence. Society has a responsibility and must actively work to detect and protect those children and young people who are harmed.

Madam Speaker! The public sector has, through the Social Services Act, the ultimate responsibility to protect and help children. But it is not always enough. Sometimes non-profit organizations and associations can do a very good job, and sometimes even a better job.

Several organizations working for the best interests of children provide invaluable support, for example Bris, which offers helplines and support in cases of violence and initiatives to counter mental ill-health. We have Ecpat, which combats sexual exploitation of children through reporting functions and cooperation with the police. Maskrosbarn is an organization that supports children of parents with substance abuse or mental ill-health through conversations, group support, and empowering activities.

These and other non-profit organizations are often dependent on donations and grants. Given their important work, the Sweden Democrats and the government have extended the temporary initiative in the budget and are adding further funds to non-profit children's rights organizations during the next three years.

Madam Speaker! Children in need of social care can be placed in foster homes or family homes, where families receive them either temporarily or long-term. These homes are designated by the municipality's social services. According to the law, the social services must report to Ivo if more than three children are placed in the same home. But there is no upper limit on how many children may live in one and the same family home at the same time. If several municipalities place children in the same home, the responsibility towards Ivo can be missed, which makes it difficult for the individual municipality's social services to ensure that the placement is actually suitable for the individual child.

When children are taken into care, the purpose is that they should receive a safer life with care, support, and a sense of family.

Today's regulatory framework is insufficient. We need a more quality-assured system – this is to ensure statistics and registration of how many children a foster home actually has placed. The investigation on children and young people in society's care proposes that Ivo should establish a register of foster homes. Sverigedemokraterna see this as an important first step towards a safer and more functional placement activity.

Madam Speaker! Children placed in social care often have difficulties in school. According to the Socialstyrelsen report Individ- och familjeomsorg – Lägesrapport 2024, only half of these children were eligible for upper secondary school at age 17. This can be compared with 85 percent of non-placed children. At age 20, more than 80 percent of the non-placed had a three-year upper secondary education, while only 45 percent of the placed had it. The results have looked approximately the same for several years.

School failures among placed children are often due to their previous vulnerability, gaps in schooling, stress, and low expectations.

A successful model has been a deeper cooperation between school and social services to follow up on the schooling of the placed children. We also have the school social teams, which have proven to work well. In some municipalities where they have worked with, for example, Skolfam, an initiative for children in foster homes, good results have been seen.

This shows that the results can be improved, and research shows that passing school results have a large protective effect for these children. Socialstyrelsen has also, together with Specialpedagogiska skolmyndigheten and Skolverket, developed a special support for the social services specifically to ensure continuous schooling for children who change schools upon placement.

Measures need to be taken to ensure that children placed in the community's care receive the support required for them to succeed in school and create good conditions for adult life.

(Applause)

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to ask the party that perhaps decides the most in Swedish politics: What is the situation with the youth crime boards, which were written into the Tidö Agreement? It says there: We shall test a system with youth crime boards.

We have received word from the Minister for Social Services that she is now opposed to such an attempt. Where does SD stand on this?

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Lantz!

Regarding the issue of youth crime boards, it has been said that the system would be tested. To test it means to investigate it. This has been out for consultation. It concerns how several different authorities view the use of that type of system. Through the consultation responses, it has been concluded that perhaps that is not the path we should take. We support the Minister for Social Services in that matter. We must try to find ways that work for everyone, and we shall use the best ways. The responses that have come in show that there should be other ways to carry this out.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is a pity. I think this is a proposal for something where one could seriously intervene very early in young people's lives. It could mean that one gets a collective resource to achieve a U-turn away from a criminal life. I have myself been to Denmark and met many satisfied people who work with this system today.

I must still say that I am a bit surprised by the reason. There have been many referral rounds where very many have had views on the government's policy, but it has nevertheless been chosen to push it through. It has been pointed out earlier here today that individual municipalities have had views, and all of a sudden one is listening very much to them.

I believe that many people have views on the government's economic policy. There, the responsiveness is not as great. They lower taxes for those who earn the most and do not give municipalities, regions, and schools the money they would need – also to manage the preventive work.

But I thank the member for a very clear statement. There will not be any youth crime boards during this mandate period or under this government. Now we know that.

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I did not get much to ask now, but I believe that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is leading us toward a multitude of different measures to support young people who are having a difficult time today. All the preventive measures that are included in the new Social Services Act are very important tools to be able to help these young people avoid falling into crime. That the municipalities' responsibility in the preventive work is codified is also an important tool.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country to grow up in as a child. Most children grow up in safety and get to enjoy all the opportunities and rights that our society is to secure. Sweden has also repeatedly shown the way when it comes to putting children's rights in the very forefront.

We were the first in the world, in the 1950s, to ban corporal punishment in schools. When the liberal Prime Minister Ola Ullsten in 1979 presented the bill on a ban against corporal punishment against children, we once again took the lead. These are just two of a multitude of reforms that we can be proud of.

But not all children are doing well in the leading country, Sweden. Today we are talking about all those children who are deprived of their basic rights, who do not feel or live in safety and whom society all too often has failed. It is about the children who grow up in homes where safety no longer exists – the home has been transformed from a safe and protective place into a place of insecurity. It is about children who, with a pounding heart, put the key in the lock, afraid of what awaits on the other side of the door. It is about children who are forced to learn early on to sense the mood in their surroundings to protect themselves. It is about children who are deprived of their most basic freedoms and rights and about children whose lives are governed by the norms and values of the honor culture. It is about children who have to learn to live outside society's rules and about children who grow up in a world where criminal gangs rule. It is about children who learn to look for hidden alcohol in the home and about children who are forced to take on a responsibility that no child should have to take.

During my years as a local politician, I met these children, for whom society had not done enough. Many felt betrayed, forgotten and, above all, insecure.

The drive to work in every way for a more child-friendly society is something I have carried with me for a long time. To stand here today, in the rostrum of the Swedish Riksdag, just a few weeks after being appointed as a member of parliament, makes me both extra proud and full of determination when it comes to the issue of children. The commitment I hear here in the chamber feels positive. But big words are not enough. There is only one thing that can give these children security, and that is political action.

This government does a lot. It acts. Alongside all the reforms, a genuine shift in perspective has actually occurred. The child's perspective has been strengthened in relation to the parents' rights. The parents' right is being truly challenged.

Parental rights have been all too strong, and children's rights have been all too weak. We all remember Little Heart, Esmeralda. We remember Tintin. They are not alone. All too many children have been forced to live a life in insecurity because the parents' right to be parents has been greater than the child's self-evident right to safety. It has been about a parental right that in practice has stood above the child's need for protection and support and which has been stronger than the child's plea to avoid contact with a parent who has abused.

The Liberals have long questioned the norms that have prioritized adults' demands over children's needs. This government sends a clear message: children's rights come first. It is not just about legislative changes. It is about how we view children's rights and adults' responsibilities. Protecting children from violence and fear is not only a legal but also a moral issue. That is what this debate is fundamentally about: our view on children.

Many today have highlighted the children who are placed in the society's care. Report after report, we have been able to read about placed children who have been subjected to abuse by staff and by other placed children. The grievances have been many, with children forced into placements in HVB-homes that do not function and children placed in foster homes where neither the placed child nor the foster parent receives sufficient support.

The government has initiated a major undertaking. The state's institutional governance is being reformed, child and youth care is being strengthened, the rights of placed children are being secured, and barriers to cooperation between authorities are being dismantled.

All children have the right to a secure upbringing and a bright future. Care shall provide the security, care, and education required to improve their situation. The Government is also implementing reforms to strengthen state child and youth care with better organization, increased security, and crime prevention measures.

Madam Speaker! The municipalities also have a great responsibility for the issues we are debating today. The municipalities can make a big difference. But for the municipalities to be able to do right, tools are required to be able to act. The new Social Services Act is long-awaited, which is not the case for all laws when it comes to the municipalities. The thresholds are lowered, and it will become easier to intervene early before the needs become too great. That the social services should work according to evidence-based methods, ensure that the interventions have an effect, and avoid methods that lack scientific support or are purely harmful, we liberals have long requested. Now it becomes a reality.

Madam Speaker! School first, as we Liberals usually say. Perhaps someone who does not belong to the Liberals thinks we say it a bit too often and wonders if school really is the answer to everything. No, not everything. That is the very clear answer from me. In today's debate, I nevertheless want to highlight the school's important role, because research shows that school results for children in social care is the parameter that has the greatest significance for how a child's life develops. Failure in school is strongly linked to a noticeably higher risk of substance abuse, crime, ill health, suicide, and other premature death.

Fundamental to society's care of the children we are debating today is therefore that their schooling is secured. A school that gives all children the prerequisites to learn is one of the most important reforms to avoid exclusion.

The Liberals have long spoken about the importance of early interventions. Early interventions are crucial. Studies show that home visit programs for first-time parents identify risks early and thus support children's development. In municipalities that have such programs, parenting has become safer, and social interventions have been implemented faster.

Schools that work closely with social services with school social teams also have better school results and higher attendance of students who have fallen behind. Following up on school truancy, which is an initial important warning signal, clearly shows how important the preventive work is.

Children growing up in families where the adults have their own problems run a significantly higher risk of developing psychosocial problems, which in turn increases the risk of crime. Inconsistent upbringing, abuse and violence against children are all risk factors, as are crime and substance abuse among parents.

Everything begins at home. Violence breeds violence. Supporting families is therefore one of the most effective preventive measures we can take. We must therefore support the parents who want to, but who do not always manage. We must set clear demands on parents who neglect their children, and we must dare to acknowledge that those who subject their children to violence do not have the parenting ability that children need and are entitled to. A parent who commits violence is a perpetrator, and the child is a crime victim. We as a society must never hesitate to take into care a child who needs society's protection.

Madam Speaker! When I began to engage with the Liberals, then Folkpartiet, there was never any talk about gang-criminal children. Children should be in school, but instead they are recruited by criminal gangs. Children are pressured and threatened to perform serious criminal acts. Children shoot other children, and children carry out explosions.

We see a completely different kind of vulnerability today, vulnerability beyond comprehension. Many of us ask ourselves how we have ended up here. Our answers to that question are perhaps partly different, but we can all agree on the seriousness. It is about children who need society's help, children whom we need to see before it is too late. The preventive work is therefore absolutely crucial. It is something we in the Liberals have demanded for many years, and now several effective measures are being implemented. Above all, I want to emphasize once again that the new Social Services Act will be of great importance.

We need to collectively do everything we can to safeguard and strengthen children's rights. Even vulnerable children must dare to dream about the future.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by warmly welcoming Helene Odenjung to the Social Affairs Committee. Thank you for a very good speech!

I noted that the member referred to the new Social Services Act and the requirement for evidence and proven experience. I believe that many of us are pleased that that wording is included so that youth care and other social interventions, just like health and medical care, shall have that requirement.

At the same time, I become a bit concerned when I read the Tidö Agreement, which the Liberals have signed. It states there that LVU should be used more often to take children into compulsory care. For me, it becomes a bit strange to have as a self-stated goal to increase the number of compulsory placements when we know that it is a very poor prognosis for the children who are placed in compulsory care.

We also know that there are situations where one must forcibly take children into care, but there is so much we can do long before that. My hope is that the new Social Services Act will mean that it does not need to go as far as to forced take-overs.

I am therefore curious about the member's view on the wording that exists in the Tidö Agreement versus what has now happened in the area of social rights with the new Social Services Act. Does the wording in the Tidö Agreement still apply?

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe it was quite clearly stated in my speech that it is primarily about the preventive work. Furthermore, I do not think one should downplay the fact that several placements have been avoided because they could not be carried out or because home-based solutions were used in different situations and therefore they were not used.

The wording is there, but it is not an end in itself that there should be more care measures. If we succeed in the preventive work, there will be fewer, and I believe we are all actually inspired by ensuring that no one falls through the cracks. At the same time, it is a utopia to believe that we would not need LVU in the future.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the member. It is a utopia to believe that we will not need compulsory take-overs. But I still have the ambition in my political life to contribute to fewer children suffering. Fewer children should need to be subject to compulsory take-overs. There should never be a lack of money or anything else that prevents a municipality from doing what must be done. But I think it is sad if one uses LVU and compulsory legislation as something to be swung around quite lightly in the political debate on crime or criminality.

I think we must work preventatively, just as the member said. I believe we are actually in complete agreement. Perhaps the member could have a talk with their party colleagues who have signed the agreement and hear how things actually stand? I really think we are obligated to work more preventatively to ensure that children do not end up in a situation where they must be taken into compulsory care. The goal must be that children should feel as well as possible and that we should be as early on the ball as possible to resolve hopeless situations before they occur.

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

Helene Odenjung (L)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite understand the second question. It was about me talking to my party colleagues. I can reassure the member that I do that every day.

I think this is very important and I have perceived that we are in complete agreement when it comes to the implementation of the Social Services Act. It has been long-awaited, as I said earlier. It is actually not many laws in the municipalities that are.

I would also like to emphasize how important the preventive work is and that the opportunities for preventive work increase with the new Social Services Act. Much has been hindered by the fact that there has been secrecy between different authorities. The school has had difficulty obtaining information due to parts of the Social Services Act regarding interventions made by the social services office. In those cases, they may have even had the completely opposite effect.

I will take an example regarding how, for a long period, absences from school were not followed up properly. That meant that many could be away for long periods. In my concrete example, the student was not even inquired about when they did not come to school. What does it do to a youth when no one asks about them? One slides further and further away from the important work that is nevertheless done in school. At the same time, the social services could have spoken about what this youth was doing. I want, therefore, to again emphasize the importance of the preventive work. It will be absolutely crucial. But we will also need to have LVU as an intervention in the future.

(Applause)

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet want children at all stages of life to know that we as a society hold their hands and that we in the adult world always have their back, precisely because they are children with their own full rights and with extra strong protection.

Those who have had the opportunity to be close to a child, as a relative or in some other way, may have perhaps seen in the depths what a child truly is and experienced the completely unconditional love one can feel for a small individual who meets the world with open arms and a naturally naive curiosity. During the course of life, the innocent child will grow up and encounter life's difficulties – sometimes in the small and sometimes in the truly great. For some children, a lost teddy bear may be the first experience of losing something one holds dear. For other children, dad's violence against mom may be the first experience of real fear, perhaps even severe trauma. Children's upbringing conditions are terrifyingly different.

Mr. Speaker! No children are born criminals or choose vulnerability. It is the result of life's deepest injustice. The role of politics and society is to reduce the effects of this injustice.

In a debate last week, Social Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall did not want to answer why the government is not introducing the strategy against violence against children. On the other hand, she was quick to tell about a great deal of other things they actually are doing. She said that we may never have made such large changes as now. Since we in Vänsterpartiet have been strongly driving several of the changes that are occurring, I am inclined to agree.

We are facing the introduction of a completely new and very long-awaited Social Services Act. In just a few weeks, the major investigation on child and youth care is to be presented. We have also been promised that we will soon receive a proposal for a new law where the child's rights shall prevail when it comes to LVU.

The government is completely right when they say they have never made such large changes as now – but unfortunately also sometimes in completely the wrong direction. I think it is quite strange that at the same time as we are about to take part in an investigation that has been commissioned due to the information about the horrific abuses and the neglect that has emerged at Sis, they are enacting laws on increased powers against children who are currently placed before we can guarantee their safety.

At the same time as we beat our breasts and say that the child's right should be a separate criterion to strengthen children's rights in compulsory placement, the government is in full swing with building prisons where other children will be locked up, caged in on adult terms. That in itself violates children's rights enough, but that it risks reducing the opportunities for these children to access education is very serious. We know that education is one of the most important measures for children to be able to start a new life. What future is there for these children then?

I must admit that it almost defies my understanding that the government, which so proudly wants to introduce the new Social Services Act, simultaneously wants to introduce LIV. With it, they want, among other things, to impose fines on parents who say no to interventions from social services and to be able to place ankle bracelets on children. That these requirements in themselves will certainly not have any effect, as coercion very rarely leads to positive change, is bad enough. But that one with this risks scaring parents away from seeking help from social services is directly dangerous.

Unfortunately, the list can be made historically long if we add deportations and the splitting of families, the threat of limiting maintenance support for families with children, and the fact that more and more children are being evicted. It is absolutely central to see all these changes in their entirety. The fact is that the missteps we take today with children in vulnerable situations will become the social services' problem tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker! In the face of those who now think that tougher measures and more muscle are needed, we in politics must be completely transparent about what help children have received in the past. We must admit that politics over the decades has failed to build a robust system for children in vulnerable situations. On the other hand, politics has succeeded quite well in making it more difficult. In the name of honesty, there is no functioning child and youth care chain today, and perhaps there never really has been.

We have a very dark history when it comes to both placed children and children within psychiatry. The social services have for a long time been tasked with taking care of everything that politics does not want to tackle with rope, but have neither been given the tools nor the resources to cope. Politics has even opened up for criminal actors to take care of our most vulnerable children. Sometimes I can think that it must be the absolutely most powerful people in the world who work in this heavily faltering system and yet succeed in helping so many children and young people to a better life. It is that, despite everything we say here today, actually many who do.

My point is that we must see what major deficiencies we have in order to understand why it does not always go well. For all too many years now, we have slowly but surely pulled the rug out from under society's most vulnerable. It is a fact that hits children very hard. But now we risk building a system where children will pay the price because we adults have not done what we should have.

To hold children by the hand and show that you have their back during their upbringing means building robust systems for care of their well-being, that we see them and that we act when they need it. That is not how it looks today.

We in Vänsterpartiet want the policy to focus on welfare from a child's perspective. To say that we have their backs during the children's upbringing means that we have the courage to stand by even when they fall, and that we do not yield an inch from the fact that children should have specific rights that may not be violated even when they do wrong.

We therefore want the society's child and youth care to be based on children's needs but have as a clear goal that they shall return within the society's frameworks and rules. We want the social services' work to be prioritized and given the weight it actually has to help children in vulnerable situations.

There should be a care chain that closes tightly from the first sign that a child is not doing well until we have gotten the child fully back on track. In the report, we also have proposals for new forms of placement for children and young people with addiction and mental illness. I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 16.

We stand in the middle of a paradigm shift. As I have described, one can go in two different directions. We will soon make decisions on a completely new Social Services Act that can give us a great chance for cultural change. We can move towards working preventatively and relationally with the profession's competence at the forefront. We really want this work to be given a real chance. Therefore, we provide some breathing room for this to happen before we continue pushing forward with large amendment proposals. I truly wish that the government could do the same.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Children and young people are the most important thing we have. No child should have to suffer. Therefore, we must focus on early interventions and counteract violence and other things that children are sometimes exposed to.

It is a matter of this being done very early in a child's life and that those who meet the children can pick up on signals and cooperate to, above all, motivate parents to help and support their children in the right way or receive help in cases where they fall short. Sometimes three-year-old children come to preschool with dirty clothes. That is where we need to implement interventions.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, I and the Center Party experience that one often starts at the wrong end when speaking about early interventions. When one speaks about preventive interventions, it concerns a later period, when the three-year-olds have been missed, and what it leads to if the children do not receive the help and support they need.

The focus in the debate, even when it concerns the area of social services, is often on countering and reducing crime. Of course, it must be done, but that is not everything. To counter crime, we must start at the right end.

The national follow-up of the social services' transition reports completed child welfare investigations. There we can see that the reason one becomes relevant to the social services in 26 percent of cases is conflict in family relationships. In 24 percent of cases, the reason is that the child has been subjected to physical or psychological violence. In 21 percent of cases, it concerns a failure in care. In 5 percent of cases, it concerns the child's own criminality.

I do not want to downplay this, but I still want to point out that we must start much earlier instead of putting all the energy into talking about crime prevention measures. Otherwise, that is the result when we miss the early years.

Mr. Speaker! It is such a breadth that we in the Center Party lack in the conversation about transforming a society so that all children and young people get a chance to feel well. If we are to be able to break gang crime in the long run, we must ensure that all children can grow up safely in order to become safe young adults in the future and then safe adults.

Centerpartiet often speaks about quality follow-up. I agree with the government that many good things are being done. I too am waiting for the new Social Services Act, which is to be based on evidence-based methods. It is quite strange that we have waited until 2025 before we say that we are going to have evidence-based methods in social services. Here, we are therefore in complete agreement. But I still miss a follow-up on the quality. We must get what we want when we make different decisions here in the chamber and when we give authorities different assignments.

If we cannot follow up on the quality so that we know that what we do leads to something better for individual children and young people, we also do not know which interventions we should make next and which decisions we should make next time. Proposals and decisions that come forward often sound good in each individual part, but when we put them together, we do not know if it will actually be good for children and young people. I lack answers on this.

Let me give an example of when we in Centerpartiet have reacted. Often we discuss Sis, the agency that is to take care of the most vulnerable children. Recently, the agency has reported a measure of quality improvement – the number of escapes has decreased. It is very good that children and young people do not escape from the facility where they are to receive care and support. But we do not know if the escapes have decreased because one is better at locking the door or because the care and support have become better. Perhaps they no longer feel a need to escape but rather see that they are receiving support and help to break their behavior.

I asked the director-general how the quality is followed up. In response, I was told that it is done through intake and discharge interviews with the children and the young people when they arrive at the facility and when they leave it. Most seemed to think that it is good.

If this is the quality follow-up one has, I am afraid. There is so much more to follow up on. I do not hope and believe that this is the only quality follow-up, but I really hope that one has more. But if this is the answer I get when I ask such a question, then these cannot be questions that are often asked, that is to say, how one follows up on the quality. Otherwise, I hope that one would have answered that it is done in more ways.

Mr. Speaker! I have been in on the fact that in many areas we agree with the government that we need to do things and which things we need to do. Here, the Center Party wants to continue to contribute. We want to cooperate with both the government and all other parties in the chamber. I believe that all parties want that, because in reality, we all want crime to decrease and that all children and young people should receive the interventions they need.

At the beginning of January last year, the government invited us to a meeting where we were to talk about how we could work together to solve the problems. At the meeting, it was said that we would meet again to continue the work. In the room, it was nevertheless perceived that there was an interest in working further. It has now been over a year, and we have not been invited to any new meeting to work together.

This is one of the reasons why the Center Party is now proposing a children's rights committee that can work on these issues. Then we can jointly take step by step to increase the quality and get a holistic perspective on the social services' work. It cannot be a new issue for every new government, but it must be something that applies over the mandate period so that we can ensure that all children and young people receive the help they need.

The Social Department is working well and with commitment, but it does not rub off on all the other work that the government does, which a previous speaker also touched upon.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize the Center Party's view on these issues, Mr. Speaker. Children are children. They need care and attention early in life. If we miss that, we will have to continue with the symptoms that result from children and young people suffering and ending up in crime. We must become better at following up on quality to know that our interventions make a difference.

I move for approval of reservation 19, but we naturally stand behind our other reservations.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving to approve the Green Party's reservation 7 under point 5. We naturally also stand behind the other reservations we have.

I thought I would start by talking about something that I believe is important regarding the preventive work. The better support we have around a child, from its birth to its adult years, the fewer interventions from the social services we need to use.

A child's prerequisites to manage and, conversely, the risk of ending up on the wrong track – in drug problems, crime, and mental ill-health – when they grow up depends very much on there being many layers around the child, many shells of protection. It concerns everything from the immediate family and the parents to the extended family, friends and acquaintances one has, the residential area one grows up in, and the school one attends. There is very much around a child that, when everything functions together, provides the best prerequisites for the child to grow up and succeed well in life. But when these shells, in particular the closest ones, are fragile or even non-existent, the risk for a child to end up on the wrong track increases. And if all the layers are fragile, the risk is unfortunately great.

What I am trying to say with this is that the work with support for children and young people is built on a whole that one must take into account. It is clear that the municipalities have a large role in all of this. We can work in all ways and forms to achieve, for example, a municipality or a city without segregation and exclusion and without a strong residential segregation. We can ensure that we work to have a good and well-functioning municipal school in all areas where the children are. We can ensure that we work on many different levels to ensure that our children and young people have access to a meaningful leisure time, with civil society around them where one can find many role models. If all this is in place, the risk of children ending up on the wrong track is reduced.

I am very much looking forward to the preventive social services act that is coming. This was a piece of work that was initiated when we were in government. It is a well-elaborated proposal that is now being presented. Then, of course, we have our own opinions and views on the final product, but this is still something that many of us view positively.

When it comes to support for children, we first agree with what the Social Democrats have written regarding the need to strengthen family healthcare and, in particular, for new support for at-risk families. I believe it is quite important to catch them during the child's first thousand days.

Then I would like to focus a bit on foster home placement. When one ends up in that situation where one needs to place a child, it is incredibly important that the child can receive strong and good support. Here, I believe very much in the role of the foster home. But we see how municipality after municipality struggles and has difficulty, for example, finding foster homes and obtaining the continuity that is needed. Here, we need to invest more in supporting and strengthening the foster homes we have.

That is why we in Miljöpartiet have put forward a number of proposals regarding exactly this, in order to ensure that a foster home placement works well from the beginning. We want to be able to give foster parents the time and opportunity to provide the child with a secure attachment from the start. Therefore, we would like to see, for example, that the rules for parental leave are reviewed so that foster parents are given the opportunity, in addition to the compensation from the municipality, to take out parental leave to be able to stay home with a placed child in the same way as when a child is born or adopted into a family. This should also apply to children of school age, as the importance of spending time on attachment may be even greater – if it does not work, the experiences of broken attachment can be suspected to be aggravating.

Foster homes must also receive better support than they have today. We hear many testimonies from foster homes about how difficult it is to get support and guidance from the municipalities. We would like to see resources be allocated so that the foster homes receive the support they need.

Foster care placement is not just a way for the municipality to manage children who cannot live with their guardian. It is also an incredibly important tool to prevent ill health, mental illness, crime, and vulnerability later in life. To seriously invest in the compensation and support for foster homes is a direct investment in children's well-being and a saving for society. Every krona invested in safe placements to give children the best upbringing conditions will pay off in the long run in the form of reduced costs for society, but first and foremost a reduced human suffering. Therefore, we want to see a greater state financial responsibility for foster care placements.

I will also mention HVB homes briefly, because I feel great concern about the HVB home market we have today, with all the private actors. A number of different reports and reviews regarding this have been issued. Here, I believe we need to take a new approach in many ways to strengthen the support that becomes the next step when foster home placement is not sufficient. In particular, we must – here I share the Social Democrats' view – work with a repossession in public hands of HVB homes for children who have already ended up in crime.

Then I want to highlight the investigation report SOU 2023:66, For children and young people in social care. I think the investigation has presented incredibly many good conclusions – it is a very well-executed investigation. I really think it is important that one moves forward and ensures that what can be implemented is carried out. There are some investigations regarding a number of the proposals, but I hope that does not mean that the already presented proposals will be put on hold.

Children and young people within social services

The last thing I want to say concerns child poverty. In some way, the economy is also one of these shells surrounding a child. Therefore, I think it is laudable to work towards a zero vision when it comes to child poverty. When the family around the child has the economic means to take care of the child and the child gets the opportunity to participate, for example, when friends have different extracurricular activities and other things, the child gets a positive upbringing; the economy plays a major role. Here we need to work to strengthen the families with children in several different ways.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 March.)

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