Guide dogs

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is often a bit of a challenge to debate an issue when one lacks personal experience in the subject. As politicians, we bring with us different knowledge and experiences, but none of us is human enough to carry all the collective experience on our own.

As a fully sighted person, it is difficult to imagine what it is like to live with a severe visual impairment, to lack a guide dog, or to be completely blind. Thus, it is difficult to fully understand what difference a guide dog can make. I have therefore, ahead of this discussion and this decision, which most of us participating in the debate likely share, conducted a dialogue with Synskadades Riksförbund and other interest organizations that carry experiences of living as a visually impaired person or blind in Sweden today.

I have also listened to Ida Östlund, who in a documentary on Sveriges Radio tells about her life with a guide dog and her wait for a new guide dog. Ida Östlund was in the Riksdag's Social Affairs Committee in April 2017 and spoke about the importance of guide dogs. It is a long time ago now and before I myself sat in the Social Affairs Committee, but in time still somewhere at the beginning of the process that has led us to today's debate.

In the radio documentary, Ida describes the chaos at Stockholm Central Station during rush hour so well. That chaos can be a trial for anyone, also for me who often commutes between Örebro and Stockholm. Ida uses the word catastrophe when she describes what it is like as a blind person with a white cane among stressed people running into each other. If someone runs into the cane, it can break, and then she stands there in the chaos without any aid.

Instead, going through Stockholm Central with a trained guide dog makes all the difference in the world, says Ida. Getting a trained guide dog, where the dog and handler together form a well-functioning team, requires many hours of work and a great deal of patience. But when it works and you glide through Stockholm Central Station as easily as a canoe in a lake, it is worth all the effort in the world, Ida tells.

Through that description, I at least understand a bit better what kind of freedom a guide dog can provide and that a guide dog saves a lot of time, energy, and strength that can instead be spent on other things.

Mr. Speaker! The government at the time already stated in the budget bill for 2018 that it intended to transfer the exercise of authority regarding the guide dog activities, which currently lies with Synskadades Riksförbund, to the Agency for Participation. Purely in principle, the issue is quite simple. It is of great importance that all forms of the exercise of authority are organized in such a way that no conflicts of interest arise that would cause the activity, the exercise of authority itself, to be questioned.

Today, it is therefore a non-profit association, Synskadades Riksförbund, that has the authority to grant the right of disposal for a guide dog. This applies both to the association's own members and to those who are not members. A non-profit association simultaneously has the task of safeguarding its members' interests. No matter how well a non-profit association acts in the exercise of public authority, there is a risk that those who stand outside the association perceive that the association favors its own members and therefore feel a mistrust towards the exercise of public authority. This risk is also clearly formulated in the referral responses that have preceded the processing of this matter. This justifies the change that is now before the Riksdag: to move the responsibility for the allocation of guide dogs from a non-profit association to a state administrative authority.

Mr. Speaker! Not all operational changes have been prepared for as long as the one we are now debating. The Agency for Participation has been preparing for the task since 2018. It is naturally of great importance that the experience that the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired has of carrying out the exercise of authority is taken into account, not least so that the processing does not lose momentum. On that, everyone seems to be in agreement.

The process regarding where the responsibility for the decisions on the right of disposal for guide dogs should lie has already taken many years, much energy, and much effort. It is time, energy, and effort that need to be spent on other things, such as continuing to develop the operations and ensuring that more people can get access to guide dogs faster.

Compared to our neighboring countries, Sweden has a low number of guide dog teams. In Norway, according to information from the Norwegian Guide Dog Association, there are almost twice as many guide dog teams as in Sweden in relation to the population. We should talk more about this. We should talk more about how we in Sweden can give more blind people the opportunity to use the time, energy, and power that a guide dog provides to live a freer life and to realize their deepest longings. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is good that we are now soon reaching a decision on the exercise of authority. It is also good that it is clearly stated in the government's proposition that the transfer should be followed up.

I vote in favor of the Social Affairs Committee's proposal.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Karin Sundin for the presentation.

It was pleasant to hear Ida Östlund's story about what difference it makes to have a guide dog. From the speech, one could also perceive that the discussion is about the existence or non-existence of guide dogs, but that is not the case. Sweden has had an activity with guide dogs for a long time.

It needs to be improved in various ways. The member also stated this in their speech, and we need to devote time and effort to developing the whole thing. That is precisely why it is a bit strange that the motion for a decision, i.e., the major change proposed today, is not about expanding the guide dog activity or making it more like in Norway. It is not essentially about making it better for those who have a need for guide dogs, but rather about transferring the responsibility from Synskadades Riksförbund to a state administrative authority.

The member of Parliament thought it was important to devote time, energy, and effort to what is important in this issue. One would then imagine that there must have been enormous criticism against Synskadades Riksförbund and their way of managing the guide dog activities, when what we are actually devoting time, effort, and energy to today is moving the activities from their area of responsibility to the Agency for Participation. But that is not the case. My question to the member of Parliament and the Socialdemokrater is therefore: Why is it so important to move the responsibility to a state administrative agency?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! My speech and what I told about Ida Östlund's experiences was a way to put a very technical question in its context and describe what we here in the Riksdag decide on. But the member is absolutely right that the question itself is not about the development of guide dog activities, but about how we shall exercise public authority in Sweden.

Just as I clearly stated in my motion, it is of great principled importance that all exercise of authority is conducted in such a way that there can be no risk of conflicts of interest. The fact that a member organization is responsible for the exercise of authority both regarding its own members and those who are not members has given rise to such a risk. This is clearly expressed in the referral responses that form the basis for today's decision, and this is something we as legislators should take into account. Therefore, it is pleasing that we are now, after many years, ready to move to a decision and change this.

It is not a criticism of the way the operations have been conducted until today, but it is a way to ensure that, going forward, there is no risk of conflicts of interest and the mistrust that it can bring about.

That we are now, after many years of discussion on this issue, ready to proceed to a decision will free up time, strength, and energy to continue the discussion on how we can develop the operations.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, we are spending time, effort, and energy discussing who should be held responsible when we could have spent that time, effort, and energy on developing the operations instead. The investigation that was conducted could have focused more on those parts.

It was under Social Democratic auspices that the investigation started. As early as 2018, the Agency for Participation was promised that this would be moved over there, and they have since prepared for it despite there having been no parliamentary decision in the matter.

What surprises me a little bit in the Social Democrats' stance on the issue is not the trust in the state authorities, for we know that it is rock-solid within social democracy, but rather the lack of trust in civil society. In other issues, the Center Party and the Social Democrats stand side by side and shoulder to shoulder to defend civil society's, the voluntary sector's, the study associations' and the non-profit organizations' ability to take responsibility, develop society and manage their tasks, but here the trust is lacking. The member says himself that it is not about any criticism of Synskadades Riksförbund and their way of managing the operations, but it is the principles that are what is important.

Sometimes one perhaps must also look at how reality looks, if there is a well-functioning operation today. We know that it works today, but we do not know how it will be when the Agency for Participation takes over. Why should one then break up the operation? Why not instead show confidence in civil society and the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired for the very good operation that they have conducted?

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am the first to defend civil society's incredibly important role for our society and for its development. But it is also important to defend the principles of the rule of law, and one of them is that the exercise of authority should be carried out by authorities. I think that the referral responses which form the basis for the discussion we have today clearly show that there is a risk with the order that applies today.

The experiences that Synskadades Riksförbund has from conducting this activity are very important to take into account. Just as Synskadades Riksförbund points out, they have the broad experience and knowledge of what it is like to live with a visual impairment or to be blind in Sweden today. It is extremely important that we continue to safeguard this. There, the authority will have an important role and task to continue to maintain a dialogue.

We need to be able to hold several thoughts in our heads at the same time. That the state, through its administrative authorities, ensures that state decisions are upheld is a principle that applies in almost all other parts of our society. It should also cover the guide dog activity.

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

Nadja Awad (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as it is also called, was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 30 December 2006. In Sweden, the Riksdag adopted the convention two years later, on 13 November 2008, and it entered into force in Sweden on 14 January 2009.

In the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there are 50 articles, and Sweden committed to following these articles when the Riksdag chose to ratify the convention. Therefore, the current government surprises me and the Left Party (V) when it proposes that the responsibility for the guide dog activity should be transferred from Synskadades Riksförbund to an administrative authority that the government will determine, if the proposal goes through.

This would mean that the government undermines the important role that organizations representing persons with disabilities have in safeguarding this group's interests during legislative changes, which is specified, among other things, in Article 4 of the convention. Article 4 states as follows: "In the design and implementation of legislation and guidelines to implement this Convention and in other decision-making processes concerning issues affecting persons with disabilities, States Parties shall consult closely with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through the organizations that represent them."

Most of the interest organizations representing the visually impaired, the blind, and persons with deaf-blindness have submitted consultation responses rejecting the government's bill.

For example, Svenska Brukshundsklubben considers that the responsibility should lie with the actor who has the unique overall picture and who can provide the best help and security for the visually impaired.

Svenska Kennelklubben considers that Synskadades Riksförbund has over a long period built up a functioning operation that has given them unique expertise and knowledge.

Synskadades Riksförbund argues that the association's holistic perspective is not found anywhere else and that the association also has good conditions to create forms for consultation and dialogue for increased co-influence in issues concerning guide dog handlers. Furthermore, the association argues that the credibility of the exercise of public authority concerns how the operations are organized, that the operations are transparent, and that the staff have the right competence to conduct the exercise of public authority and the other parts of the operations in a good way.

Other referral bodies also reject this proposal, such as Dogs in service and aid, Förbundet Sveriges Dövblinda, Kustmarkens Hundtjänst AB, Ledarhundsklubben - Stockholms och Gotlands län, and Riksorganisationen Unga med synnedsättning.

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet agrees with the mentioned referral bodies and considers that the responsibility for the guide dog activities should remain with Synskadades Riksförbund. It has worked well that the state provides the financing and support during procurement, that it is helpful with the formulation of agreements and also is responsible for the supervision of the activities. They have, as I have mentioned before, over time developed a unique expertise and competence regarding the guide dog activities that is difficult to replace if the responsibility is moved to another actor. Nor has there been any change in the conditions that make it unsuitable for Synskadades Riksförbund to exercise administrative responsibility when it comes to the allocation and withdrawal of guide dogs.

Vänsterpartiet takes a critical stance on the fact that one can invent problems that do not exist, as Vänsterpartiet considers it to be a discredit of the important and solid work that Synskadades Riksförbund has carried out all these years regarding the guide dog activities.

It is important that the convention is followed by taking into account the consultation responses that have been given by the organizations that represent those who are affected by the government's proposed legislative changes. But, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely something with the government we have and this with accommodating the interests of civil society that leads to my final point.

Mr. Speaker! The government's bill can, in fact, be criticized in light of the worrying development for civil society in Sweden that we have witnessed since the right-wing government took office. There is a desire to limit civil society's democratic voice and independence. We see this in a number of different proposals that hit various already vulnerable groups in society. Of course, I am thinking of the reduced funds for study associations, ethnic associations, and consumer organizations. This government even goes after the organizations for people with disabilities by taking away from Synskadades Riksförbund the important responsibility they have over guide dog activities when it comes to ensuring the rights, participation, and equality of the visually impaired and the blind. This can be interpreted as a desire to crack down on disability rights organizations' right to participate and influence matters concerning their rights. This is something that Vänsterpartiet strongly opposes.

The Riksdag should reject the bill, and the government should conduct a new investigation into the activity involving guide dogs with the aim of returning with a legislative proposal where the official responsibility remains with Synskadades Riksförbund. Therefore, I wish to move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Karin Sundin told about Ida, who was in the committee in 2017. I remember that day very well. I was actually sitting in the committee then, and it was in fact Ida's story about living with and without a guide dog, as well as the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired, that made me sit in my office and bury myself in these issues and produce motions and proposals in the area. Thank you for that reminder, Karin!

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report. Today we are discussing, as several others have pointed out, a very important issue, namely the proposal to transfer the guide dog operations from Synskadades Riksförbund to the Agency for Participation. This is a change that causes concern for many but also a great deal of commitment. It is often the case that a change sparks both debate and concern. One knows what one has, but one rarely knows exactly what one gets.

I thought I would do a look back with some quick facts as I have perceived them.

As early as 1988, the responsibility for the guide dog activities lay with an authority, because Statens hundskola was then converted into a pure authority. The authority was converted in 1992 into a limited company, which unfortunately was placed into bankruptcy in the spring of 2002. Another limited company bought up, among other things, the guide dog activities, a company in the group owned by Synskadades Riksförbund.

But the lack of guide dogs, increased requirements when using state funds, perceived unfair competition conditions, as well as the fact that the transparency in the process of allocating guide dogs was considered deficient, caused the government to choose in 2005 to submit a bill with proposals for changes to the operations.

When Synskadades Riksförbund in 2006 took responsibility for the guide dog activities, it was after the government had made the assessment that at that time there was no suitable authority that could be responsible for the guide dog activities. It was instead chosen to regulate the activities regarding the allocation and withdrawal of guide dogs in law, that is, the exercise of public authority.

Already when these proposals were being processed in the committee and in the Riksdag, doubts were raised regarding the fact that the exercise of public authority would be handed over to a non-profit association. This is also one of the reasons why we have today's debate.

The Agency for Participation was formed in 2014 and has been judged by the current government and the government at that time to be the right agency to have the collective responsibility for the guide dog activities. The work to consolidate the guide dog activities at one agency has therefore been ongoing for many years.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal that is now on the table involves a transfer of the responsibility for the guide dog activity to the Agency for Participation. It would mean that one and the same agency evaluates applications and allocates guide dogs and simultaneously is responsible for information, training, veterinary care, etc.

But as I said, Mr. Speaker, changes always provoke debate and anxiety. One knows what one has, but one does not know what one will get. It is this anxiety that we as a party have had previously. We have throughout the entire process previously been against a relocation of the operations. We have resisted as long as it has felt meaningful. But now the matter felt far advanced. And there is a clear majority on the issue and with it also a clear outcome.

For us, however, it is important to emphasize that Synskadades Riksförbund has for a long time been a central actor in this activity. They have built up a great deal of experience and knowledge in the field. It is important that we do not lose that valuable competence and experience in the future work. It is necessary that we ensure the transition is carried out in such a way that one does not compromise on quality or accessibility regarding service for those who are dependent on guide dogs.

It is also important that we guarantee that the authority has the resources and expertise required to ensure a smooth transition and so that it can continue to offer a high standard in terms of support and training to those who have been granted guide dogs.

Mr. Speaker! After a good dialogue with the government, I feel reassured despite everything that the proposal will not lead to any deteriorations. Furthermore, the government has listened regarding the important issue of the age limit for granting a leader's dog. It has been decided to give the Agency for Participation a mandate to review the current age limit in order to consider the advantages and disadvantages of a lowered age limit. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats move today for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member just said that we know what we have but not what we get, and that is very telling for precisely this issue. We know exactly what we have. We have Synskadades Riksförbund which has the responsibility for the guide dog operations. We know that it is a well-functioning operation; there is nothing in the underlying material that suggests otherwise. We know that there are critical voices against it, that there are those who believe that perhaps some incorrect assessment is made at some point.

If we look, on the other hand, at the state authorities that make assessments all the time, for example Försäkringskassan, we know that not everyone is completely satisfied with the decisions that come from there either. It is not a guarantee that one will be satisfied with the decisions just because it is a state administrative authority that handles them.

We know what we have but not what we get. On the other hand, we know, and the member highlights, that changes create debate and anxiety and that this previously caused the Sverigedemokraterna not to stand behind a relocation of the guide dog activity from Synskadades Riksförbund to a state administrative authority. But now, the member explains, there is a clear majority to do this, so then they think alike.

For me, it becomes a bit tricky. One fundamentally holds an opinion that this is an incorrect or unnecessary change that creates debate and concern. But now there is a clear majority in the Riksdag, one has had a good dialogue with the government, and then it is no longer so important what one thinks oneself, actually.

So that is how I understood the member's speech, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the member to clarify: Do the Sweden Democrats think that this is fundamentally a good and necessary change, or do the Sweden Democrats not think so?

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for a very delicate question that I will absolutely answer!

The Sweden Democrats have, as I said in my speech, long been opponents of this. We have felt that one should not touch anything that has functioned well. We have felt that one should not move it as a matter of pure principle.

The work has been ongoing for a very long time, and when the discussion flared up again not so long ago before the bill, we were still against the change. But information is never of no use, and we considered that the matter was so far advanced that there was no point in resisting. We preferred to take the opportunity to make our input and in that way be involved in the decision and make it as good as possible. That is the simple reason why we have stood behind this.

The decision has been preceded by discussions with Synskadades Riksförbund from both our side and the government's side. Synskadades Riksförbund has understood the situation and that it would turn out this way and also chosen to say that they choose to make the best of the situation. They will stand behind this and make the best of it.

In principle, we did not see that this was necessary, but in step two we wanted to make the best possible of it by being part of the process and influencing it. Instead of promptly sticking to a decision just for the sake of it, we would rather be involved and influence it in the right direction.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! That the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired is prepared to make the best of the situation is not so strange, because it is they who will be affected by the situation that the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag decides on. But we who sit in the chamber of the Riksdag and make decisions must take full responsibility for these decisions, and we can ensure that it becomes a different situation for the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired - a situation where this relocation is not carried out.

I must nevertheless say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a somewhat strange explanation from the Sweden Democrats when one says that one considers the matter to be so far advanced that it is too difficult to make a different decision. Regarding the influence in the matter, we have had the government's bill to handle. No changes have occurred in the preparation from the committee's side, and what has been highlighted from the government as a legislative proposal is what the committee has subsequently stood behind. What has been highlighted that one needs to review in the future, for example the 18-year age limit, the committee has also stood behind.

No changes have occurred in the committee, and there is very little that suggests there has been any strong Sweden Democrat influence along the way. If that were the case, the transfer to a state administrative authority from Synskadades Riksförbund probably would not have taken place.

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers I have received from the member. This does not give rise to any new question.

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

Carina Ståhl Herrstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! A bit exciting to answer a question that hasn't been asked, I think!

The chairman says that the Swedish Association of the Visually Impaired will be "affected". I still want to point out that that is not what this question is about. The question is about ensuring that those who are severely visually impaired or blind can have a guide dog. That is what it is about. As long as the operation – wherever it is located – functions, I will be satisfied, and we will also follow up on that. It appears from the documents.

Now we were given the opportunity to be involved earlier in the process and look at the proposal that was to be submitted to the committee. When we saw that it was heading in this direction, we considered it a better alternative to be involved and influence there than to promptly stick to a no.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 from the Centre Party, which means that the bill is rejected in its entirety.

Once upon a time, Mr. Speaker, I was taught that one should not fix what is not broken. It might sound like a self-evident truth. But it is not, and today's debate on lead dogs is truly a testament to this.

Despite the fact that the activities surrounding guide dogs are currently managed in an excellent manner by Synskadades Riksförbund, a majority in the Riksdag now wants to strip them of the responsibility in order to instead move it to a state agency. One might wonder why.

Basically, I would like to say that this is about the classic conflict between the state and civil society, that is to say, whom one has the most trust in. It is no secret that we in Centerpartiet have a fundamental trust in civil society and all those associations, organizations, study associations, communities and so on that every day contribute to upholding society.

We are not naive. Problems naturally occur even within the non-profit sector, and therefore control systems and clear criteria are needed in order to receive grants or be given assignments by society. To perform the exercise of public authority on behalf of the state is naturally a task that requires special knowledge, competence, and care. But precisely because of that, the government's proposal is so surprising in this case.

Mr. Speaker! The non-profit organization Synskadades Riksförbund, which today is responsible for the guide dog operations, has long and well-documented experience in the field. Of course, there are those who have been dissatisfied with decisions made by SRF and who believed that the decisions would have been different if it were a state agency that had the responsibility. Of course, there are those who have wanted to cast doubt on Synskadades Riksförbund on the basis that it is a membership organization and who believed that a state agency would have better represented them. However, there is no evidence for this.

However, I can guarantee that far from everyone is satisfied with the decisions made by our state agencies. We are all in this chamber well acquainted with the assessments made by Försäkringskassan regarding personal assistance, and we can quite bluntly state the fact that a decision made by a state agency does not necessarily mean that everyone will be satisfied.

But isn't a state agency, after all, a better guarantor of impartiality and objectivity? Yes, at least on paper. If it had been the case that we were to create an entirely new activity with guide dogs, it might have been natural to place it under the authority of an agency – natural, but not obvious. Now, however, it is not about creating a new activity but about moving an existing activity from civil society to the state. Is Synskadades Riksförbund alone in engaging in the exercise of authority on behalf of the state? No, it is not. Riksidrottsförbundet is another example where this occurs, and even there it does not occur without criticism. RF is an organization that has many times been criticized for its way of distributing funds to the association life. Nevertheless, I do not hear voices from the government parties that even this activity should be moved over into state authority. But perhaps it lies in that direction.

One difference, however, is that there is no obvious state agency that would take over the Swedish Sports Confederation's activities, but there is one regarding guide dogs. The Government's ambition is to centralize the responsibility with the Agency for Participation. It is an agency that has an important mission to promote, guide, and support society's actors in the work for a more equal and inclusive society. Taking over the practical responsibility for the allocation of guide dogs will become a completely new and somewhat distinct branch of activity for the agency. This move has been prepared since 2018, and it is suspected that the decision is largely about filling an agency with operational content rather than ensuring what is actually best for the activity itself.

From the Center Party's side, we want to counter a development where expert organizations in civil society are deprived of influence and responsibility. On the contrary, the influence of civil society needs to be strengthened, not least within the area of functional support. Therefore, we oppose the government's proposal for a new law on the right of disposal to guide dogs and argue that the responsibility for the operations should also in the future remain with Synskadades Riksförbund. At the same time, there is a need to review parts of the current legislation. Several things are also highlighted in the memorandum that forms the basis for the bill. For example, we argue that the requirement that an applicant must have a stable social situation needs to be removed, which is also proposed. However, there are no proposals to remove an age limit of 18 years, which today is a requirement but without sustainable justification. An investigation shall be conducted. But a lowering of the age limit is needed.

Furthermore, it also needs to be investigated whether the requirement regarding the absence of visual impairment should be changed or broadened in order to also enable persons with deaf-blindness to obtain the right of disposal to guide dogs.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Centre Party believe that the government should conduct a new investigation of the current legislation regarding guide dog activities in order to clarify and improve the legislation, but without proposals that the responsibility should be moved from the non-profit association Synskadades Riksförbund to a state administrative authority. There is simply no reason, Mr. Speaker, to fix what is not broken.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Bergenblock and I completely agree on civil society's important role in developing Sweden, that people should cooperate, educate themselves and form themselves, ensuring that we live and act in a good way for all people in Sweden. But I think Member Bergenblock quite lightly waves away the risk of conflicts of interest when a non-profit and member-based organization is to make decisions regarding the allocation of guide dogs, which is such an important activity. They are to make decisions for their own members and for those who are not members.

I wonder what the member thinks about the risk that this could ultimately lead to a distrust of the exercise of public authority. There is, after all, a decisive difference between a non-profit organization with the mandate to look after its own members' interests and the activities conducted by, for example, Försäkringskassan, which the member highlighted in their examples, which has the mandate to look after all citizens' interests.

Isn't there an important and decisive difference?

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

It is not that I wave away the risk of conflicts of interest, but I am looking at the facts. How many conflicts of interest have been highlighted? How many examples are there in the investigation or in reviews of Synskadades Riksförbund's activities, where it has been shown that incorrect assessments have been made, where people have not been allocated a guide dog, or where someone has had a guide dog withdrawn because it is Synskadades Riksförbund that has been running the whole thing? It is not that a number of such examples are being presented, but the investigation speaks mostly about theoretical risks of conflicts of interest, not that it has been so in reality.

Mr. Speaker! When Karin Sundin previously gave her speech, she spoke about the principled reasons being important, that is, the principles over the practice. In this case, we still have quite a lot of practice to look at. Synskadades Riksförbund has had the operation since 2006 without there having been any major criticism of how it has been carried out. There is, nevertheless, a rather long track record to go back on.

No, I am not waving away the risk of conflicts of interest, but I note that it has not emerged that there are any major conflicts of interest when these assessments are made.

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

Karin Sundin (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is the classic question; principle and practice. One can also imagine the theoretical possibility that the extent of criticism in practice becomes limited when one is dependent on the goodwill of an organization to receive a benefit. There is a risk that one does not dare to voice criticism when one is in a position of dependency. This applies to non-profit organizations just as much as to state agencies, and this needs to be organized.

The principles should be guidelines for how we conduct our operations in Sweden. I share the view that the role of civil society should be strengthened, and I think it is good that in the proposal on the table it is emphasized that there is a disability council in the Agency for Participation and that there is an intention to introduce a specific user council for these issues. It is a good example of how one can combine principles with practice.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of who holds the exercise of authority, it is clear that the exercise shall be governed by guidelines that are monitored and followed up. It is a self-evident matter that there shall be control mechanisms, regardless of whether we are talking about the exercise of authority by Försäkringskassan, the Agency for Participation, or a non-profit organization. I see that as an absolute self-evident matter.

In this case, it concerns an activity that has been ongoing since 2006 where there is no major criticism. Follow-ups have been made along the way, and they have also not shown any major criticism regarding how it has functioned.

But now a transfer is to be made because it has been prepared for a long time, and the Agency for Participation has been promised since 2018 that this shall be moved over entirely to its management. This leads me back to the feeling that this is more about filling the Agency for Participation with content than about actually ensuring the best interests of the operations.

We heard earlier the Sweden Democrat member point out that this creates concern and debate. It does - without it necessarily becoming better for the person who is visually impaired or has a visual impairment and who is in need of a guide dog.

If it had been major reforms of the guide dog activities, that would have been one thing, but that is not the case. It is an organizational change it is about here, and it is very difficult to see the motive for why it needs to be implemented when there is no strong criticism against Synskadades Riksförbund.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Social Affairs Committee's report 2 regarding guide dogs. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

Guide dogs are an important resource for people with visual impairments. Guide dogs can provide increased quality of life and a strong sense of freedom and independence. The feelings are built up together with the dog, and the dependence on relatives and companions decreases. The dog is carefully trained to be able to navigate and guide its handler, and it constitutes an invaluable companion in everyday life.

Mr. Speaker! The advantages of having a guide dog are many. It can help its handler avoid obstacles, navigate in traffic, and find their way in different environments. Psychosocial factors also have great significance for many with a guide dog. Increased contact with the outside world provides strengthened connections and increased participation in society. A guide dog also provides a sense of security and confidence for the person with a visual impairment.

It is important to emphasize that guide dogs are not only a technical solution to help people with visual impairments but also develop a strong bond with their handlers. It is a relationship built on trust and mutual respect.

In addition to being practical aids, guide dogs are also fantastic companions and friends. Having a guide dog by one's side can contribute to reducing feelings of isolation and help increase self-confidence in persons with visual impairments.

Mr. Speaker! The government's new proposal means that a new law will be introduced for the operation of guide dogs and that the exercise of authority will be transferred from the non-profit association Synskadades Riksförbund to the administrative authority that the government decides.

In the proposition on the transfer of operations to an administrative authority, the government considers that it should be the state's responsibility to provide guide dogs to persons with visual impairments.

Synskadades Riksförbund, which is a non-profit organization, has been granted powers to exercise public authority regarding who shall have access to guide dogs over members but also over those who are not members. It is therefore important that the exercise of public authority is transferred to a government agency. It will make it easier for the government to follow up and steer the operations, and it will become a more just system.

Mr. Speaker! The Government considers that a person with a visual impairment shall be granted access to a guide dog if the person is over 18 years old, is resident in Sweden, has a visual impairment involving a lack of sight, has a need for and can use a guide dog as a mobility aid, and can provide the dog with good care and good living conditions. The guide dog shall undergo continuous training together with the person who has been granted the dog. The person who has been granted the dog also has the responsibility for veterinary costs.

During the referral period, it has been submitted that Unga med Synnedsättning opposes the 18-year age limit. But it exists today as high requirements are placed on the person who is granted the right of disposal of a guide dog and should therefore remain. The Government intends, however, to task the Agency for Participation to analyze the 18-year age limit and review the advantages and potential consequences of a lowered age limit.

Mr. Speaker! The freedom that the dog gives its owner is invaluable. It is important to continue working to improve accessibility and inclusion for people with visual impairments in society. It is about ensuring that there are enough trained guide dogs available, that public places and means of transport are adapted for people with visual impairments, and that there is awareness of and respect for guide dogs.

With the new bill, a fair system will be guaranteed that makes it easier for the government to monitor and govern the authority.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M) concurred.

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! For a person with a visual impairment, having access to a guide dog can be life-changing. With a guide dog, one gains freedom and independence and the opportunity to make one's own decisions about when and how a certain activity is to be performed. It is such things that we who are not visually impaired take for granted. It is clear for Miljöpartiet that access to guide dogs must be secured and strengthened.

Miljöpartiet agrees with the view that it should be the state's responsibility to provide guide dogs to persons with visual impairments. We believe that a unified responsibility for all guide dog activities will, in the long run, simplify things for those who have been allocated a guide dog, and it is an advantage that the same authority that assesses applications and allocates guide dogs also is responsible for information, purchase of guide dog equipment, training, and veterinary care.

But there are, of course, always challenges when an operation is moved from one actor to another. When the operation with guide dogs is to be moved to Myndigheten för delaktighet, as it likely will be, it is therefore extremely important that it happens in such a way that the knowledge and experience that Synskadades Riksförbund has developed until now is fully utilized. There must be no risk of a deteriorated operation.

We also want to point out in this context that the government should strengthen support for the entire area of support for the visually impaired. It is also about, for example, access to transport services and escort services.

When it comes to the operations for guide dogs, we want to strongly emphasize the importance of the Agency for Participation ensuring that a functioning user council is established and finding ways to continuously capture knowledge and any potential issues from both individuals and relevant organizations. In the design of the user council, views from organizations and stakeholders should be taken into account to achieve a well-functioning construction. Even the representation of young people in the user council must be ensured.

The organization Unga med Synnedsättning is pressing for a separate user council to be needed. Regardless of the construction, it is important to ensure the possibility for all affected parties to have their say.

We also believe that a clear and in-depth evaluation of the transferred operations should be carried out after some time, preferably within two years after the takeover. An appropriate authority for this could be the Agency for Health and Social Care Analysis. The Government should, of course, ensure that the evaluation is conducted.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet would like to see an analysis conducted on how the number of people who have guide dogs in Sweden potentially differs from the situation in other countries. If there are other countries where more visually impaired people have guide dogs and where the country has prioritized these issues more highly, Sweden should ideally be able to learn from this. The same applies to the waiting times – is there a possibility to shorten these without compromising on quality? An analysis of these aspects should be commissioned to the Agency for Participation.

Naturally, certain requirements are placed on the person who is awarded a guide dog, for example, that the person must be able to take good care of the dog. That is obvious, but Miljöpartiet would like to see changes in two areas: the fixed 18-year age limit and the requirement of lack of vision.

The age limit to be able to have a guide dog is today 18 years. There are, of course, young people even under 18 years who would be sufficiently mature and responsible to be able to take care of a guide dog in the way that is required. Having access to a guide dog would to a large extent facilitate everyday life and contribute to greater independence even for these.

The Government writes that it intends to task the Agency for Participation to analyze the current age limit as well as review the advantages and disadvantages and potential consequences of a lowered one. That is good.

We think that the mandate could include that exceptions can already now be made from the age limit for a younger person if there are good reasons for it, alternatively that a system is introduced that is based solely on a suitability assessment. The latter is a proposal from Riksorganisationen Unga med Synnedsättning.

The Swedish Association of the Deafblind and the National Board of Health and Welfare consider that even persons with deafblindness should be able to be granted the right of disposal of a guide dog even if the persons have residual vision. The Green Party shares that view and considers that any challenges should be able to be overcome through special training of the dogs.

Miljöpartiet supports the relocation of the operations. We have, however, submitted reservations that capture some of what I have tried to address in my speech here. I stand behind both of our reservations but move for approval only of reservation 3.

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

Dan Hovskär (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

We in the Tidö parties now propose a changed responsibility for the exercise of authority regarding the guide dog activities in Sweden. The proposal means that the exercise of authority is transferred from the non-profit association Synskadades Riksförbund to an administrative authority.

By consolidating the responsibility for guide dog activities within one agency, we simplify things for those who are awarded a guide dog. The transfer also simplifies the management, control, and follow-up of state funds. It is a major advantage that the same agency that evaluates the applications and awards guide dogs is also responsible for the information.

We Christian Democrats stand for a view of humanity based on the inviolable value of human beings and that all people are different. Based on their own conditions, everyone shall have the right to full participation in society and equal living conditions. This provides quality of life, self-determination, and participation in society. With this new proposal, we believe it will become simpler and clearer for those who are in need of a guide dog.

Today, the association Synskadades Riksförbund is responsible for the guide dog activities. The reason it was given that responsibility in 2006 was that there was no authority with the right competence for the area at that time. The guide dog activities have therefore been an exception to the main rule that the exercise of public authority is performed by an authority.

In 2014, the Agency for Participation was formed. Since then, it has been responsible for the procurement of guide dogs and has prepared itself to be able to take over the guide dog operations from 2018. The Agency for Participation is an agency that has the right competence to have a unified responsibility for the guide dog operations.

Mr. Speaker! We now present the proposal which entails that all other activities concerning guide dogs, for example the responsibility for organizing training, information about the activity and providing support to those who have a guide dog, are transferred to the Agency for Participation.

Changes create anxiety when something new is to be introduced. The Government believes that the authority responsible for the leader dog activities will be able to have a holistic perspective and possess the expertise and knowledge that the activities require.

When it comes to the transparency of the operations, we believe that it will increase with an agency responsible for the operations. The agency will be able to ensure competence through both the transfer of existing staff and the procurement of certain services. It is an important point, we Kristdemokrater think.

Persons with visual impairments shall be provided with guide dogs through the right of disposal. According to the proposal, an application for the right of disposal to guide dogs shall be granted by the decision-making authority until further notice. The applicant shall be at least 18 years old, be resident in Sweden and have a visual impairment involving a lack of sight. The applicant shall have a need for and be able to use a guide dog as a mobility aid and provide the dog with good care and good living conditions.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, the proposal implies that the person who has been granted the right of disposal of a guide dog shall be allocated a guide dog within a reasonable time. The proposal also implies requirements that the person who has been allocated a guide dog shall undergo continuous training together with the dog as well as be responsible for ensuring that the dog receives the veterinary care needed according to the Animal Welfare Act and undergoes regular health checks with a veterinarian during the time the dog is disposed.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats believe that it is important that persons with visual impairments should be provided with guide dogs in a good way and that it should become easier and at the same time the follow-up should become clearer. A guide dog can be completely life-saving.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I note to my great joy that we have a guide dog and, of course, the guide dog handler in the public gallery here tonight listening to the debate. In other contexts, I have motioned a number of times about how difficult it can be to enter various public premises with a guide dog and that it is a form of discrimination. So it is naturally not in the Riksdag, to my great joy.

A guide dog is an enormous support for those who cannot see. It gives people with visual impairments a freedom that is difficult to achieve in any other way. You can take a spontaneous walk without having to book assistance. It is your eyes when you need to navigate public transport on your way to work or if you want to take a trip into town. If the bus stop has been temporarily moved forward or if another obstacle exists along the way, it can lead you correctly. It is, of course, an incredible security for those who cannot navigate a difficult traffic situation in any other way.

Matching a guide dog and a guide dog handler is a very important task. It requires specialized expertise and good knowledge of both the person and the guide dog. Furthermore, guide dogs need to be trained for the task, just as the guide dog handler needs training.

The guide dog activity has a long history. Synskadades Riksförbund entered the picture in 1994 when the state withdrew from the activity and has since continued to run it in various forms within SRF's activities.

Today's guide dog activities possess extensive and unique competence for the task that has been built up over very many years. However, the relocation of the guide dog activities to the Agency for Participation has been an ongoing process for a long time. This was already announced in 2018 in the budget by the government at that time.

Mr. Speaker! There are certain reasons to transfer the operation to the Agency for Participation. But it is very important that the operation also continues to maintain the same high quality and that the competence that exists today is utilized so that we continue to have a functioning matching of guide dogs and guide dog handlers.

It is also important that the transfer of operations is evaluated from a user perspective. The goal must be continued high quality for the operation and increased transparency in the exercise of public authority. These goals need to be achieved and evaluated. Therefore, it is welcome that the Agency for Health and Social Care Analysis is given this assignment to carry out such an evaluation. We will carefully follow what emerges in it.

An important issue for us Liberals, as the matter has been worked out, has also been that opportunities for influence are created for both the sled dog handlers and the interest organization, and it is now also the responsibility of the Agency for Participation to establish this type of user council.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: It appears from the matter that 30 people today are in queue to receive a guide dog. The number of new guide dogs per year is 40. At the same time, 39 guide dogs are taken out of service every year. Therefore, we hope now, when the Agency for Participation takes over the responsibility, that the agency also, within the framework of its mandate, works to provide more opportunities for the freedom that a guide dog entails, even if that is not what the matter is about today.

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

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! Malin Danielsson also states that this is a process that has been ongoing since 2018. That has emerged from several different members. It is said that it is a process that has been ongoing for a longer period that the guide dog activities should be moved from Synskadades Riksförbund to the Agency for Participation - just as if the process were something that was self-running and that cannot be stopped!

Mr. Speaker! It is actually the case that it is this chamber and the Riksdag that decides whether we want that process or not. We heard an earlier contribution stating that the process is so far advanced that it is now too late to stop it and that we must complete it. But that is not at all the case! Next week, this chamber here in the Swedish Riksdag will sit and make a decision on whether we want to complete or stop the process.

For the Center Party, it has been clear: We want to stop it. We see no need for the transfer, and the entire debate we have had here today strengthens me in that opinion. There are no strong, good, and valid arguments for moving the guide dog operations from Synskadades Riksförbund to a state administrative authority.

As I have said before, Mr. Speaker: If there had been enormous criticism of SRF's way of managing the whole thing, I would have understood the debate. But there is no criticism.

My question to the Liberals is therefore: What is the strong reason from the Liberals' side to move a well-functioning operation to a state agency without knowing whether it will continue to be a well-functioning operation?

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for the question! Just as I have explained, there are certain reasons for this. It is about transparency, and it is about the rule of law. It is also something that has been raised during the referral process.

But for me, what is important in the matter is that we continue to have a good quality in the guide dog activities regardless of where they are located. Therefore, it has been important for us to push for evaluation during the process, but also for user councils so that there is good insight for guide dog handlers and interest organizations. But it is also important that it becomes an external evaluation and that we see that the activities continue to maintain the high and good quality that they have today.

Transparency is always difficult. When an authority does something, one wants insight from the outside, and when an organization, such as SRF in this case, does something, one wants insight from the authority's side. Here, both the previous and the current government seem to make the assessment that the right balance has not been found and that they therefore want to test a different model.

Let us introduce this, evaluate it, and see if it is the way forward. Another important part for us in the matter is that it becomes a business transfer so that the competence is not lost along the way.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! I fully agree that the most important thing is that we have a continued operation with good quality. It is absolutely essential that those who have a need for a guide dog have that need assessed and met.

It would have been desirable to have a bill that also in some way had expanded the possibilities, for example by lowering or removing the 18-year age limit and broadening this so that even those who are deaf-blind are given the opportunity to apply for a guide dog.

But that is not what this is about. The debate is not about broadening, expanding, or improving the quality. It is about, at best, not worsening the quality. We have heard several times in the debate, and most recently now by the member here, that it is important that the transfer of operations does not mean that it becomes a deterioration for those who are visually impaired. It is well obviously important that it does not become a deterioration! But if there is any risk at all of a deterioration compared to today – why should we then carry out the change?

Again: If there had been very significant criticism of the current activity, I would have understood the debate. But there is no such criticism, and therefore it is very difficult to understand the motive for why, at all costs, the guide dog activity should be moved from a non-profit organization that manages it well to a state administrative authority.

For me, this is fundamentally about the view of civil society versus the state. As a member of the Centre Party, I can only state that I have a strong confidence in civil society, but that this strong confidence is not present in all other parts of this chamber.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Christofer Bergenblock, for the statement! I did not perceive any real question in it all, but I can repeat once again that it is important to me that we get a good guide dog operation in place, that it continues to maintain the high quality, that we evaluate it and that we ensure that users have both insight and the opportunity to influence throughout the entire process. When the evaluation is then on our table, we can take part in it and discuss it.

I can also note that I hope that moving forward we will have the opportunity to discuss these issues, and then perhaps with a more future-oriented focus, when it comes to how we can develop guide dog activities and other parts needed for persons with disabilities. We have very much to deal with regarding both assistive devices as well as discrimination and support in different ways to achieve a functioning everyday life where we actually remove obstacles for people. Let us return in more debates on this theme!

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 November.)

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