(cont. from § 8) Separations at the State Institution Board's special youth homes (cont. SoU24)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the separation of children at the State Institution Board's youth homes. L lacks confidence in Sis's general director due to reports of abuse and poor conditions 1, but has full confidence in the government and the responsible minister 2. V argues that the government provides insufficient state subsidies and that compulsory care at Sis needs to be reformed as the separation of girls has increased 3. V argues that S has not stood behind the demand that separations should cease 4. C believes that the legislation must be changed to abolish separations as it is unreasonable to lock up young girls 5. C advocates for a transition period until 2026 5. MP believes that separations must cease, that a ban needs to be introduced 6 and that the government needs a plan for alternatives to Sis institutions 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! When I heard Juno Blom's contribution, I thought of the expression "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are." It is noticeable that the Liberals are associating very closely with the Sweden Democrats right now.
That the member stands in the rostrum and says that she does not have confidence in the top management of Sis requires its explanation. Who is it that is in charge? What is it that you are saying, and what is it that you want? My question is: Does Juno Blom have confidence in the director-general of Sis, and, if not, is it the government's position she has accounted for, namely that she will be fired?
Juno Blom (L)
Madam Speaker! I said in my speech that I find it difficult to have confidence in the Director General of Sis. I stand by that statement. As I explained in my speech, I simply cannot see that any changes have occurred during the time we have received all this appalling reporting.
I will always stand on the children's side. As I explained in my motion, every month five sexual assaults against children by staff are reported, and there are approximately 350 girls placed. If one had such an arrangement in a school, it would be horrific.
In my speech, I was also very clear that I have full understanding that the person who is the Director General for the State Institution Board's locked wards has an incredibly difficult task. These are problems we have seen for a very long time.
What I react so strongly to is that the person responsible for an operation with responsibility for already vulnerable children who are placed there, and who then submits their reports on what happens within the operation, is not the one who raises this. Instead, it is constantly children's rights organizations that must describe the reality of the vulnerable children.
I do not care that Member Lantz makes such comparisons. But my name is Juno Blom, and I said that I do not have confidence. I did not say that the Liberals or the government do not have it. I have the right to my opinion, and no one can take it away from me.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! There are many parties involved in governing now. The largest party in the government base is the Sweden Democrats, who govern from the back seat. But it is actually the case that Juno Blom's party, the Liberals, are part of the government. Is it the case that what the Liberals say here in the chamber stands for each and every one of them? How should a director-general who opens the newspaper in the morning and reads that it has been stated from the rostrum that it is difficult to have confidence in the director-general, and makes a comparison with a principal who allows something and that the person in question should in that case not be allowed to remain, interpret this?
Sometimes it feels as if the Liberals do not quite understand what they have done when they have allied themselves with the Sweden Democrats, but now it also begins to feel as if the Liberals do not understand that they are sitting in a government.
Sweden was mismanaged. Even if the member does not quite understand the scope of their statement, it is unfit for government to have government parties go up to the rostrum and express no confidence in a director-general without having the government and the responsible minister with them. It violates Swedish administrative tradition.
It feels more and more like the Liberals have adopted the Sweden Democrats' way of working when it comes to how this country should be governed, and I regret that.
Juno Blom (L)
Madam Speaker! I became involved in politics for a single reason: In my professional practice at an agency working with the most vulnerable children, I saw such enormous deficiencies where children's voices were not heard. This is the reason for my involvement in politics. If Member Lantz wants to draw parallels to different things, that is perfectly fine, because I was critical in this issue even during the time we had a cooperation within the framework of the January Agreement.
I will never, ever betray the children who made me decide to stand here. That I say I do not have confidence in a director-general who for such a long time has seen such enormous irregularities is not the same as saying that the director-general has caused those problems. But what worries me immensely is when one is responsible for an operation and in that operation does not clearly and transparently tell about the vulnerability that the children experience.
Despite everything, it is the case that it is my responsibility and the member's responsibility to do everything we can so that children in state care receive the help they are entitled to. When children who, for various reasons, often have their own vulnerability already when they arrive at state locked facilities do not receive care and support but are instead broken down and subjected to sexual abuse, then I think at least these vulnerable children can expect that one is clear in describing that reality.
I have full confidence in the government and in Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, which I was also clear about. But I will stand by the fact that I always stand on the children's side.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! I am somewhat confounded when I listen to the debate here in the chamber today. The representatives of the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats spoke about preventive measures so that children and young people will not be placed at Sis, and they also seem to show an interest in that the situation at Sis should be safe for children and young people.
At the same time, the insufficient state grants to municipalities and regions mean that municipalities and regions need to cut back on the school, social services, and psychiatry, which are so important for the well-being of our children and young people. While talking about preventive measures, one also wants to increase the reprisals at the other end through youth prisons, which we must assume will have more far-reaching powers than our Sis-accommodations.
Madam Speaker! I shall return to the question of Sis and the segregations. A number of reports have been published recently showing that serious irregularities occur in the compulsory care carried out at Sis. The content of the reports shows not only the importance of segregations as such ceasing, but also shows that the compulsory care at Sis needs to be reformed fundamentally.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged Sweden to ban segregations and to train staff in alternative methods to violence and coercion. Already in 2009, Sweden was recommended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child to review the segregations. Ivo has also issued powerful criticism against the state youth homes. In 19 of the 21 inspected youth homes, serious deficiencies were noted.
It is also significantly more common for girls than boys to be separated. Girls make up only one-third of those placed, but 61 percent of those separated are girls. It is remarkable. There is no reason to believe that girls specifically would act more violently or dangerously than boys who are in compulsory care.
Ivo's Director General Sofia Wallström has stated that Ivo sees serious deficiencies in all operations where young girls are cared for. The girls are subjected to threats, violations, violence, and separations that have no basis in law. Separations are carried out in many cases by holding the girls down against a floor, against a wall, or in their bed, which is very serious. These girls are placed outside their own home. They constitute a vulnerable group with complex needs and, in many cases, mental illness. The girls have the right to good care and a safe environment.
Despite the years of criticism regarding the exclusions at Sis, we cannot see that they are in any way about to cease, even though they decreased slightly in 2022. Exclusions of girls have almost doubled between 2019 and 2021. This is a symptom of too few staff, lack of competence, and also a lack of management of the operations.
Recently, the National Board for Children's Rights and Childhood released a report stating that sexual abuse occurs at Sis youth home. The report also shows that sexual abuse occurs at all but one of a total of 21 youth homes. This, in combination with the rest of the picture that emerges, including among other things isolations, indicates very serious deficiencies and poor conditions within the state's compulsory care.
With the occasion of the Left Party submitting a proposal for a committee initiative in the Social Affairs Committee, where we demanded that an investigation be appointed to reform compulsory care, that Ivo's supervision and control should be increased, and that the separations should be abolished immediately.
Madam Speaker! We mean that a proper reforming of compulsory care is required. A comprehensive change is needed to address the problems that exist at Sis. Both the previous and the current government have said that change work is underway within Sis through, among other things, reduced group sizes in wards for girls and particularly reinforced care wards.
But that is not enough. The situation has been the same for decades. The attempts to address the problems have been ongoing for a long time, and in the meantime, the children pay the price. It is a legal scandal. The extensive problems are not something that additional measures can solve, but to tackle the problems, a comprehensive reforming and change of Sis is required.
The government's measures are insufficient. The letter we are discussing today should contain two parts, partly an assessment of the effect of Sis's measures to reduce the number of separations, and partly what further efforts are required for the separations to cease. We have received no answer on how the separations shall cease.
A review of alternative methods to coercive measures, including segregations, is now to be carried out. But there is, therefore, no goal from the government that the segregations should cease, only that they should be reduced.
We think that is too weak. Vänsterpartiet believes that there should be a zero vision regarding separations. Therefore, the government should return within six months with a new communication outlining which efforts and measures are required for the separations to cease.
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! I have only one short question. It concerns the Social Democrats' follow-up motion to stop the joint work within Sis. I would like to know why the Left Party is voting against that proposal.
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Now I believe the member knows that this is not actually my area. It is Maj Karlsson who usually represents Vänsterpartiet in debates on the Social Affairs Committee's reports.
What I know is that our proposal is that the separations shall cease. The Social Democrats have not stood behind that. Even if one prohibits unilateral action, which we can certainly imagine standing behind, it does not mean that the separations need to cease. Therefore, I want to ask the member: Why do the Social Democrats not stand behind the requirement that the separations shall cease?
Gustaf Lantz (S)
Madam Speaker! These questions are not dependent on each other. There are several reasons to be against working alone in an operation as sensitive as Sis. That one should stand alone without colleagues at hand when handling some of the most complex youths we have, I do not think is fair. There, I think we should draw a red line from the political side and say that this is not okay.
I am convinced that it is also a good way to improve safety for those living in Sis-homes and reduce the number of separations, which we must do.
But the question remains: Why can the Left Party not stand behind such a proposal, which has also been driven by the trade union Seko and those who work in this activity and see what the lack of cooperation means for their health and the quality within Sis?
Isabell Mixter (V)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lantz, for the question! The Member is very well acquainted with how it works in the Riksdag. One submits one's own motions and most often votes for them.
Vänsterpartiet has been the party that has gone furthest forward and had the most powerful criticism for many years when it comes to how Sis functions. I think it is a bit unsightly of Lantz to then demand that we should stand behind the Social Democrats' proposal when you have now finally ended up in opposition and are demanding some type of measures when it comes to Sis. You have sat in power and not addressed this previously.
Vänsterpartiet would like to see the solitary cooperation end, but much more extensive measures are required to address the serious problems that exist at Sis. The Social Democrats have not stood behind that. You could, for example, have joined Vänsterpartiet's proposal for a committee initiative. If I am not misinformed, you have not done so. There, we demand powerful measures to put a stop to the separations and to reform and ensure that the work functions in a good way fundamentally. The Social Democrats have not stood behind that.
The only thing you say is that one should not be alone in the work. But that does not mean that all problems are solved. We need to solve the problems with Sis fundamentally.
Martina Johansson (C)
Madam Speaker! The State Institution Board has received a lot of criticism. It has been about sexual violations. It has been about the difference between girls and boys. It has been about the treatment of children and young people. It is also about incorrect separations.
There are various reasons why this criticism is directed at an important activity in our society. There are also various ways to address the criticism and counteract the repetition of these irregularities and the violation of the rights of children and young people. Different measures are required for this.
We can all agree that we need to strengthen knowledge. We need more early interventions. Children and young people who have some form of neuropsychiatric disability perhaps should not even need to be in this type of housing if we do things right from the beginning.
But it is not just about methods of work, but also about what we allow in Swedish law. It sets norms for how we behave in different contexts.
Quite a few years ago, it was completely okay in Sweden to use corporal punishment when it came to one's own children. When we decided to ban corporal punishment in Sweden, it also became norm-breaking and made it a self-evident fact today that we do not hit our children for disciplinary purposes. We do, however, allow for exceptions in the State Institutions Board. What I mean is that by changing the legislation, we can also change norms.
The government places a lot of focus on knowledge building, and that is good. I also usually speak about the importance of knowledge and research. But I do not think that is enough. We must also tackle the divisions. It should not be permitted by law.
If I as a parent were to use a corresponding method and lock up my child, I would probably be reported in a report of concern, which is completely justified in that context, and be subject to an investigation. If my behavior then does not change, my children will be taken into care. But we allow, according to law, the employees within Statens institutionsstyrelse to do the same thing.
Madam Speaker! Sweden has received criticism from many different sides. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticized Sweden for this both in 2009 and in a review they conducted now, in 2023. The UN Committee Against Torture has also criticized Sweden. Our own Parliamentary Ombudsmen have also done so.
Whether detentions may be used is based on whether the young person, for example, behaves violently or is under the influence of intoxicants. It is then not about the intoxicant itself, but about the fact that one cannot maintain order.
The statistics show that there are more girls than boys where separations are used, but there are more boys than girls who live in our institutions. To me, it becomes very strange that girls are separated more often than boys. It concerns eleven- and twelve-year-old girls who are separated.
The government and our responsible minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall often receive a lot of praise for their commitment to children's rights issues, and I am prepared to agree. I have also worked together with Camilla during the previous parliamentary term in the Committee on Social Affairs. But I also hope that that commitment soon yields concrete change, that things happen. It is not enough with investigations and that assignments have been given, we must also see a result.
Regarding the exclusions specifically, the Moderaterna have not previously voted for those proposals, so it is not strange that one does not vote for our proposal today. Nor have the Socialdemokraterna voted to remove exclusions previously. The Centerpartiet's proposal in this matter is not about us banning exclusions tomorrow, but it is about a transition period. It is about 2026. It is therefore in three years, so that we can actually do what we must do. We must increase knowledge and review which methods can be used so that these situations do not occur.
I repeat what I have said a bit earlier here in the exchange of remarks, that for me it is completely unreasonable that one is allowed to lock up young girls in our state institutions.
Ulrika Westerlund (MP)
Madam Speaker! The criticism regarding the use of seclusion in the State Institution Board's special youth homes is very extensive and has been ongoing for a very long time. Already in 2010, for example, the Children's Ombudsman wrote about this subject in his annual report and quoted youths who had been admitted to Sis. One of these told the Children's Ombudsman about his experiences:
The first time I was assaulted in connection with that. I reported it to the police but nothing happened. There was an argument between me and the staff. Two people held me down, one hit and kneeed me. I was completely swollen over one eye and the lip, the white of the eye was bloodshot.
The second time I basically entered the isolation and was very calm. There was no reason to keep me there for that long. I became even angrier inside and thought what they are doing. I know they are not allowed to do this.
The Children's Ombudsman placed great emphasis on ensuring that young people who themselves had been exposed would be able to speak out in this report, this because they had not been able to speak out when Sis itself conducted a review after receiving a government assignment that came after the separations had been widely highlighted in the media during 2009.
The Children's Ombudsman also noted in 2010 that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child had criticized Sweden for the use of isolation of young people. This occurred as early as 2007. At that time, the committee maintained that disciplinary measures such as isolation and other punishments that harm children's physical and mental health are strictly prohibited. This means that segregation should only be used in very exceptional cases. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended that Sweden shorten the permitted time for segregation with the goal of completely abolishing the measure - that is, in 2007. In 2010, the National Board of Health and Welfare was also commissioned by the government to carry out a special supervision of the application of segregation at the special youth homes during the year.
Today's debate, therefore, concerns an issue that has both been highlighted and criticized for a long time. Furthermore, a large number of measures have been taken by several different governments, but too little has happened. The report we are debating today concerns the work on the parliamentary announcement regarding the effect of the State Institution Board's measures to reduce the number of separations and what further efforts are required for the separations to cease. The Riksdag decided on that announcement in April 2022.
In 2021, the civil society organization Barnrättsbyrån published a report on the separations titled ". and I could not breathe" - an examination of violence against children at the state youth homes. Barnrättsbyrån states in its preamble: "That children and young people testify to conditions at SiS is unfortunately no news. For decades, we have been reached by reports in the media and testimonies from children, relatives, and professionals about violence, isolation, offensive treatment, and abuse. Supervisory authorities and investigations have repeatedly identified conditions, and individual institutions have been forced to close down. At the same time, rows of action packages from both the government and SiS itself have been implemented. But the problems persist." Barnrättsbyrån's report also shows that the majority of those separated are girls, even though these are in the minority of the young people admitted to SiS.
The National Board for Children's Rights has also published two additional reports on problems at Sis – a follow-up to the 2021 report on separations which arrived in 2022, and a report titled Who should believe me? which dealt with sexual abuse. The latter was produced together with the organization Childhood. This report also contained shocking readings. When 193 cases are documented where staff are perpetrators of sexual violations and violence against the children they are tasked to protect and care for, there is a very serious systemic failure. The Government and Sis must ensure that not a single more child is subjected to sexual abuse.
In addition to civil society's continued attention to the issue, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also – once again – this year criticized Sweden and recommended that we legislate in such a way that segregation and isolation are explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, we are recommended to ensure that children who are admitted have access to complaint mechanisms in order to be able to report abuses.
I consider, in line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, that the separations must cease. A ban needs to be introduced. It is valuable that SBU has been tasked to evaluate alternative methods and ways of working to coercive measures within Sis's activities as well as within psychiatric coercive care and forensic psychiatric care, but it appears insufficient. Given the serious situation, the government should return with a communication regarding the development of the Sis homes in general, including the development for the separations to cease. I also consider that the government needs to have a plan for the development of alternatives to Sis institutions and how to lift the entire area to obtain truly adapted and effective interventions for those in need of them.
We demand a public apology to all those who have been wrongly isolated and to those who have been subjected to abuse by staff at Sis. They should also be entitled to compensation. We also demand that those placed at Sis are granted strengthened rights to legal counsel and that legal certainty is strengthened generally.
I stand behind both of our reservations, but for time-saving reasons, I only move for approval of reservation 3.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.