Sharper tools for the Health and Social Services Inspectorate

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! People in Sweden should be able to trust the welfare and that our tax money actually goes to healthcare and care – this so that your mother or father is met with dignity and respect within an elderly care of good quality the day they need it and so that your son or daughter is given the security and care that every child needs if you as a family are faced with particular difficulties and need the support of society.

The truth is, unfortunately, that today there are far too many dishonest, shameless people in our country who, through systematically substandard operations, pure fraud, or other crime, are prepared to take away the money that ordinary people have worked to save. They are prepared to grab the taxpayers' money, that is to say our common resources, which should go to sick elderly people, people with disabilities, and society's most vulnerable children, but which instead end up in the pockets of the criminal and unscrupulous actors.

The Health and Social Care Inspectorate, Ivo's, supervision and licensing examinations unfortunately show recurring problems with unserious and criminal actors. There are many representatives of companies that apply to conduct activities that are subject to licensing according to the Social Services Act or the Act on Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments, LSS, but which lack the ability or intention to conduct a serious operation that meets the requirements for good and safe care. This means that children, young people, and the elderly do not always receive the support or the care and services that they deserve.

There are corporate representatives who, due to criminality or financial mismanagement, are directly unsuitable to operate within the welfare sector, and there are actors who provide incorrect and misleading information and conduct activities requiring a permit completely without a permit.

That crime in Sweden has become so widespread and that the unserious actors have become so numerous is, of course, primarily due to a moral decay. It is an expression of a crisis of values that we need to get to the bottom of in order to counter the crimes and seriously make Sweden safer. We need to go back to the roots – to our values. More people would need to take pride in doing what is right and proper, that is to say, taking moral responsibility for oneself and one's actions, but also for one's fellow human beings and the society we all are a part of. More people would need to respect what belongs to others.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that it cannot continue like this. We Christian Democrats will never accept that criminals and unserious actors can grab people's tax money at the expense of the safety and care for those who need society's support the most. Therefore, we are firmly determined to put a stop to welfare crime and the unserious actors who exist in welfare and who otherwise risk destroying trust.

The Government's and the Committee on Health and Welfare's assessment is that sharper tools are now needed for the Health and Social Services Inspectorate so that Ivo can tighten supervision and secure the right to good care and welfare. Therefore, it is now proposed that it should be clarified that the legal entity, including its representative, who applies for or holds a permit to conduct activities that are subject to a permit requirement according to the Social Services Act, SoL, or LSS, shall undergo a suitability assessment.

It is also proposed that operations that have a permit that has not been used for six months shall be able to have their permit revoked. Operations conducted illegally, that is, without a permit, shall be able to be prohibited immediately, and the person who conducts an operation despite a prohibition shall be able to be sentenced to a fine.

We also propose sanction fees for those who violate the conditions specified in the permit for the activity, as well as fees for those who do not perform a registry check of personnel working in activities regulated by SoL or LSS for children.

In conclusion, we are now also expanding the municipalities' reporting obligation. The municipalities shall report to Ivo such activities that require a permit if there are suspicions of serious deficiencies in a SoL or LSS activity, if there is reason to assume that permit-required activity regulated in SoL or LSS is being conducted without a permit, or if the suitability of the permit holder can be questioned.

Mr. Speaker! The proposed legislative changes are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2026, but they should have been in place a very long time ago. Already in November 2020, Ivo made a motion regarding several of these proposals to the then red-green government.

Already in November 2020, Ivo made a petition to the then red-green government regarding several of the proposals. The former government chose to proceed with only one of the proposals in Ivo's petition. Now, many more of the proposals are becoming a reality.

It is important changes with respect for the children, young people and elderly who today are in need of society's care and support. It is important changes with respect for the taxpayers, to avoid the waste of taxpayers' money that it entails when they go to unprofessional and criminal activities. It is important so that we in the future can continue to provide the support and care that is needed to those who in the future will find themselves in different types of difficult situations and need society's support.

We Christian Democrats have been driving to stop welfare crime within healthcare and elderly care. Now we are taking another step. We intend to continue doing what is required to ensure safe healthcare and elderly care for those who need it.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! The police know, the government knows, and we all know that many HVB homes are run by criminals in order to recruit children into crime, to obtain tax money, to launder drug proceeds, and so on.

Sweden takes an extreme position regarding unregulated youth care. I was recently in Germany, and I spoke with people from different sides of the political spectrum. There were reds, and there were blues. Everyone was equally surprised that we in Sweden have a system where youth who have been taken into compulsory care can end up in homes run by private companies.

They were almost shocked when I told them that many of those companies are owned and operated by criminals. The very simple and justified question they asked me was: Why do you allow this?

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has consistently had a very difficult time drawing red lines against organized crime in the welfare system. On January 29, 2024, Dagens Nyheter revealed that the district court building in Södertälje is owned by persons linked to organized crime.

It sounds like a farce, something that happened a long time ago, something that lies far away, but nothing has happened. It is the same situation today. It is the same owners and the same system. It is nothing other than a scandal.

Even the building where we are to provide redress to crime victims and hold criminals accountable is owned by organized crime itself. This happens at the same time as criminals can buy and sell HVB homes on Blocket. When children shoot and explode, when children die and kill, we must take control of all this. Everything we are to take a stand on today is welcome.

Mr. Speaker! It is about:

sanction fees

to prohibit activities without a permit

to clarify that legal entities shall be subject to a suitability assessment

that municipalities shall be obliged to report deficiencies

increased fines.

But we Social Democrats had hoped for so much more. Now we had the chance to achieve something that seriously challenges the infiltration of organized crime.

We would have liked to give the police the authority to close HVB homes that they consider to be infiltrated and taken over by organized crime.

Why should it be the state that has to prove that an HVB home is in the hands of organized crime? Why is it not the other way around? Turn it around. Turn the burden of proof. Let the private HVB homes show that the police's suspicions are incorrect. But this is not what the government is proposing.

Mr. Speaker! All the proposals today are about how we should sharpen external control. We Social Democrats do not want the public to stand on the outside and have to knock to control the youth homes.

We have heard the stories from those who have done this and have been tasked with monitoring. They are met with hostility, delays, and falsifications. They are threatened and intimidated. They are not teddy bears out there in Swedish youth care. They are individuals who are deeply involved in organized crime.

We Social Democrats want instead that it is the public sector that is on the inside, and that it is they who open the door and ensure that they receive our youth. We want full transparency, full control, over the most valuable thing we have.

Mr. Speaker! One might think it is radical to take back ownership of HVB homes that care for young criminals. I would like to assert that it is at least equally radical to remain in a system without precedent, which actually does not exist anywhere else in the world, and let things continue as usual with some adjustments. It is a radical standpoint.

I believe in the possibilities of politics. I believe that if the government really wanted to, one could tackle the problems for real. We saw during the pandemic how quickly Sweden could pivot and do things differently because we had to. I mean that we are now forced to do radical things to take back control over Swedish youth care. The market experiment has reached its end.

If Kennedy could decide that we should go to the moon, and then it happened, we must reasonably be able to have a government that can decisively ensure that we drive the criminals away from Swedish youth care and the Swedish justice chain.

Mr. Speaker! If ownership is so impossible for the government to address for ideological reasons, we must nevertheless be able to do it better than today through the control measures that we have spoken about earlier. This applies, for example, to the police being able to close HVB homes and the reverse burden of proof.

Mr. Speaker! For me, the rights of the child weigh more heavily than the right of ownership when it comes to children and welfare. A childhood cannot be repeated. Children should be happy, secure, and in a position where they can dream big. They shall be given a chance, a chance again and a chance again. That is how we shall treat our children.

I can hardly imagine anything more destructive for a child than ending up in the care of gang criminals. Nor can I imagine anything more destructive for a society than letting the most vulnerable children be thrown into the arms of serious organized crime.

That is where Sweden is today. That is what Sweden must move away from so that we can have a reasonable future where we seriously push back organized crime.

It is time to see reality as it is and do what is required. It is time to let go of the rope, the ideology, and the prestige, roll up our sleeves, and start working for the sake of our children and the good of the entire society. I move for approval of reservation 4.

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

Christian Lindefjärd (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a bill that is fundamentally about something very simple: to strengthen the security for those who are most dependent on social services and LSS activities functioning as they should. It is children, young people, persons with disabilities and elderly people who have the right to be met by serious providers, legally secure support and an operation that follows the law.

The government is therefore presenting a number of sharp and, in my opinion, well-balanced tools. The purpose is clear: to stop unserious actors, ensure that the permit requirement is taken seriously, and give municipalities and Ivo better opportunities to act quickly when something goes wrong.

I will now speak about sanction fees – finally a clear financial responsibility! One of the problems in today's system is that there is actually no proper sanction fee directed at providers within SoL or LSS when they breach permit conditions or neglect register controls. Today, the tools are either mild – reminders, dialogues, orders – or extremely intrusive, such as the revocation of permits.

The proposal to introduce sanction fees is very welcome. With the new rules, Ivo will have the opportunity to decide on a sanction fee when an operation breaches its permit conditions or when it employs staff without performing the statutory register check. These are not minor details; it is about the safety of children and users. It could, for example, concern a new employee at an HVB home who starts before the register check is complete. "It's urgent," says the employer. "We'll deal with this later!"

Today, this type of transgression can go unpunished without consequences. With a sanction fee, it becomes clear that carelessness is not acceptable. This creates order and clarity, and it benefits those operations that are already doing the right thing.

It is further about faster stops for unserious operators. It may sound strange, but with today's legislation, Ivo cannot immediately shut down an operation that lacks a permit – even though it is illegal to run it.

The reason is that SoL and LSS have until now lacked a provision on immediately enforceable prohibition decisions. This means that even if Ivo discovers an illegal activity, the authority must first make a decision, then notify, and then provide an opportunity to comment. During that time, the activity continues. There have been cases where illegal HVB homes and LSS residences have been able to continue for weeks or months before the process is complete.

It is this inadequacy that is now being corrected when Ivo is given the opportunity to stop the activity immediately. It is one of the proposition's strongest and most concrete reinforcements of the supervision. This is exactly how supervision should function: quickly, clearly, and with the safety of the vulnerable at the center.

If the permit is not utilized, it can be revoked. The Government proposes that permits should be able to be revoked if they are not used for six months. This is a smart move. It counteracts actors accumulating permits in anticipation of future business opportunities without actually conducting serious activities.

We have seen examples where companies have had an entire portfolio of permits, not infrequently in order to be able to sell them or quickly scale up. That is not the purpose of the social services' regulatory framework. Permits should be used to help people, not for speculation. We have even seen advertisements on Blocket regarding permits.

Mr. Speaker! The fitness test clarifies responsibility for legal entities. Clarifying that legal entities, and not just their representatives, shall be assessed in the fitness test is a very good tightening. This means that the entire organization's credibility becomes subject to assessment and not just the person who happens to sign the application. This is particularly important in an industry where companies can quickly change owners, boards, or names. The proposal strengthens Ivo's tools and raises the bar for serious business operations.

The municipalities' reporting obligation is expanded. Another central part is therefore the expanded reporting obligation to Ivo. The municipalities will now have to report all types of activities within SoL and LSS that they suspect lack a permit or where there are serious deficiencies.

It could, for example, be an aid inspector who conducts a follow-up visit at a home care service and discovers that users are left without supervision, that documentation is missing, and that staff do not speak Swedish. Today, the municipality's obligation to report may be unclear, but with the new reporting obligation, this shall be reported directly to Ivo. It is a logical and important change. The municipalities are often the first on the scene when something is not working. This is a reinforcement of the entire supervision system.

A special fee will be increased when municipalities do not execute decisions. The proposal to increase the special fee when municipalities do not execute decisions within a reasonable time is necessary. The person who has received a favorable decision regarding an intervention, a place, or a support has the right to receive this in practice. This is not about an administrative delay but about a violation of a right. When the fee is increased, the consequence becomes clearer if the municipality lets a decision lie. The increased fee makes it clear that decisions must be put into action, and it strengthens the rule of law for both children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker! It can be about a person who is granted an LSS intervention but has to wait an entire year before the municipality finds a solution. This means that the person is left completely without the support that, in the decided intervention, it has been determined that he or she is entitled to. Increased fees mean that this can no longer be regarded as a waiting period. It becomes, instead, a violation of the right and costs accordingly.

In summary, the bill fills several important gaps in today's regulatory framework. It gives Ivo sharper tools, increases the responsibility of operators, clarifies the role of the municipalities, and strengthens the security for those who need the support most.

With this, I vote in favor of the government bill and the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Christian Lindefjärd, for the speech!

My simple question is actually: Are the Sweden Democrats satisfied with the proposals that are now on the table, or would one have wished for more? Would one have wanted to be a bit tougher and do a bit more to resolve the problems? Would one have wished for an order where the police can close HVB homes that are suspected to be hijacked by organized crime? Are the Sweden Democrats open to taking back control of the private HVB homes that care for young criminals to the public sector?

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

Christian Lindefjärd (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gustaf Lantz, for your questions!

I can say that I am clearly always for tougher measures. I think we need to be tougher. We must remember that the criminals know the law. They will adapt and be able to see the loopholes, so we must constantly stay one step ahead. We must keep up with them, tighten the controls, and find their loopholes. It is very important, because the criminals hire lawyers who show them the loopholes in the laws, and then they jump in there. We must remember that.

I and my party want it to be tougher. We must find the loopholes, and we must constantly become tougher against the criminals. They will not just stop with running HVB-homes, but they will find new forms of housing and new forms of employment. Here we must find new and tougher measures all the time.

It may sound very good that a municipality should run a HVB home. But I have heard this question before, even in the municipalities: How do the Social Democrats intend – should the municipality run the HVB home in its own municipality or in some other municipality? That is my counter-question.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question! Municipalities will, of course, be able to join forces and solve this together.

I think it is noticeable to some extent that Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna socialize very much in the Riksdag building but also on the other side of the water, in the Government Offices. They seem to enjoy each other's company very well, and they seem to have a very cozy time.

One can still be surprised when the Moderaterna open their mouths and come up with the most astonishing proposals, which endanger legal certainty. One can also be surprised that the Sverigedemokraterna are so soft. We have often been accused of pursuing a "juice-and-bun" policy, but this is soft if ever anything! You let the situation continue with HVB homes that are infiltrated by organized crime, and the only thing you come up with are sanction fees and a few controls on the sidelines for Ivo. You do that instead of charging ahead, taking over and saying: Here is the limit! We draw a red line. You have nothing to do with our children, you must get out of this market. We are going to take back control!

So, the Sweden Democrats probably would have allowed it ten years ago, but this is perhaps some kind of champagne-and-canapé politics, where one does not tackle the market. That is where the shoe pinches; when it concerns individuals, it is easy to be hard and brutal, but when one sees companies that are infiltrated by organized crime, it becomes significantly more difficult.

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

Christian Lindefjärd (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gustaf, for your remarks!

I can turn this around. The Social Democrats have ruled this country for all these years. Why haven't you yourselves done anything earlier? You are talking now about tough measures, but you have had several years to do something without doing anything. You talk a lot about tougher measures. Now that we are taking action on this, it is apparently too little, but you have had so many years to do this and still haven't done anything. That is my great wonder to you.

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

Christofer Bergenblock (C)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 under point 2 in the report.

I believe that all of us sitting in this chamber have had enough regarding irregularities within important welfare activities, whether it concerns the care of children and young people, support for people with disabilities, or elderly care. Many of us feel that enough is enough now.

The latest in a series of many scandals concerned the municipal home care service in Uddevalla, where all night staff were suspended in early September after a series of irregularities were discovered. A mapping conducted by Dagens Nyheter showed that during the last five years, hundreds of deviation reports and 16 lex Sarah reports had been submitted. It has concerned a person who did not receive their digital supervision for 21 nights in a row, one who repeatedly did not receive a change of incontinence protection, and one who lay in dried feces.

Even at a municipal nursing home in Uppsala, it emerged during the summer that there were major deficiencies both within the care and among the staff. A culture of silence had developed among the staff, combined with deficiencies in the care of the residents. This has concerned residents who have not received help in time, who have been left behind in the toilet, or who have been socially isolated. This is, of course, unacceptable.

We have also been able to follow several examples of how HVB homes have been run by gang criminals, with the risk that the homes are used as a base for recruiting young people into criminal networks. That this is an absurd situation is understood by everyone. When a child or a young person is placed in an HVB home, one also takes over the parents' responsibility for the person and has the task of providing the safety and stability that the person needs in an environment free from violence, drugs, and crime. This should, naturally, be a matter of course.

After the serious incidents that have occurred at the state youth home Vemyra in Sollefteå, Ivo decided on Friday that the operations may no longer be continued. Today, Mr. Speaker, the home is to be closed and all boys are to be evacuated and placed in other residences. The criticism that has been raised has included, among other things, escapes, lack of competence among the staff, and that the youths have to some extent taken over the youth home. Ivo argues that Sis, the State Institution Board, simply cannot guarantee the children's life and health under the current conditions. It is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker! Common to these scandals is not who is running the operations – we see that deficiencies occur within private, municipal, and state operations. What is common instead is the lack of follow-up and control. To a large extent, it is the municipalities, regions, and the state that themselves need to control and guarantee the quality within the operations, whether they are run in their own capacity or in private capacity. There is, however, no doubt about, and this the Center Party has highlighted for a long time, that Ivo needs sharper tools, a more nuanced palette of tools, to be able to address deficiencies in our welfare – hence the bill that we are debating today and which concerns both LSS and the Social Services Act.

Through the proposed changes, Ivo will receive expanded opportunities to intervene against activities that do not meet the requirements of the legislation.

One of the instruments that is now being introduced is the possibility for Ivo to demand a sanction fee from those who violate the conditions specified in the operating permit or do not perform the required register check. From the Center Party's side, we have long requested a ladder of measures, and this possibility becomes a step on that ladder. However, we are critical that the sanction fee only targets activities requiring a permit, which means that municipalities, regions, and the state completely escape the possibility of being subject to sanction fees. We therefore believe that sanction fees should also be able to be imposed on activities requiring notification in the public sector.

It is obvious that care and nursing shall maintain a high quality regardless of who provides it. That there are quality deficiencies among both the private and the public actors is beyond doubt, based on the examples I just raised.

Sanction fees will also be able to be imposed when there has been negligence regarding the register checks to be carried out by staff within the operations. This is, of course, excellent, but I also want to highlight that there are deficiencies in the current register check laws. Today, register checks must be performed against both the criminal record register and the suspicion register for staff at residential facilities that receive children, but when performing register checks on staff who perform certain interventions for children with disabilities, one is not allowed to extract information from the suspicion register. It is, of course, not acceptable that children with disabilities have less protection than children in general. The government must move forward with this.

Furthermore, we point out that register checks in connection with employment are not sufficient; continuous and recurring follow-ups must also be carried out for those who are employed or have assignments in the operations.

In addition to sanction fees, Ivo is now given the possibility to immediately prohibit an activity that is in conflict with requirements for permit obligation. It is, of course, completely obvious that an activity that is subject to permit obligation but lacks a permit should be able to be shut down immediately.

Now the municipalities are also given the obligation to report to Ivo activities that are suspected to be conducted without a permit or where the permit holder is considered unsuitable. This is not only good, but it is also completely obvious that it should be done.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, as a parent of a child placed in an institution, one must be able to be assured that the environment the child is in is safe and secure. As an elderly person, one should be able to be certain that one will actually receive the help and support one needs through home care or in an elderly care home. As a person with a disability, one should not have to doubt that the interventions within LSS are carried out by serious actors in the best possible way.

Therefore, it is very good that we are now strengthening Ivo's tools, but these tools must also be able to be used against both private and public actors in the welfare sector. The individual should know that regardless of who operates the activity, it is done in a serious and qualitatively good way. We are now giving Ivo better tools to follow up on this.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the bill Sharper tools for the Health and Social Services Inspectorate. It is a bill that concerns the very foundation of the Swedish welfare state: our ability to protect individuals when they find themselves in life situations where they are completely dependent on society functioning. The proposals aim to improve the conditions for effective supervision that safeguards legal certainty, quality, and safety within health and social services.

I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

Mr. Speaker! When we discuss the supervision of health and social care, we are not talking about administrative details and technicalities. We are talking about children's safety in foster homes, about elderly people who need care around the clock, and about people with disabilities who need support to be able to live their lives. We are talking about people who cannot themselves choose to opt out of a deficient operation and who must therefore be able to trust that the state sees, reacts, and acts when the quality falters. These people have a right to a welfare system that works in practice, not just in theory. Therefore, the society's supervision must also be powerful, swift, and effective.

Mr. Speaker! We have for all too long seen examples of deficiencies that are allowed to persist without anyone having had the opportunity to intervene sufficiently clearly. Ivo has done important work, but the authority has also lacked tools to stop activities that have repeatedly shown to have major deficiencies. There have been actors who, despite warnings and injunctions, have been able to continue conducting activities and sometimes even continued to work despite prohibitions. It is not acceptable, and it is also not worthy of a constitutional state. And it is definitely not worthy of a welfare society that is supposed to function for everyone.

We have also seen ambiguities and lack of reporting from some municipalities regarding non-executed decisions, which has resulted in people, often the most vulnerable, being left without support. It can be about children, about persons with developmental disabilities or about persons with great care needs. When interventions are not executed in time, it is not figures on paper that are affected, but it is their lives.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderate-led government has therefore chosen to act forcefully. We are now giving Ivo the tools that the authorities have requested for a long time. We are introducing sanction fees for operations that do not follow the law because consequences were needed. It should never pay to compromise on quality to save money. It should never pay to risk people's safety. We are also making it possible for Ivo to immediately stop operations conducted without a permit. This is one of the most important parts of the reform. No human being should have to live, be cared for, or reside in an operation where safety is not guaranteed. They should not have to wait for weeks or months before an action can be taken.

We are also introducing criminal liability for those who continue to operate despite prohibitions. It sends a clear signal, namely that care and nursing is not an industry for unserious actors. It is an industry where lawbreaking must not be seen as a calculated risk, but rather where the highest moral and professional requirements shall apply.

We also ensure that permits that have been dormant for a long time can be revoked. We ensure that the suitability assessment upon granting of a permit covers both individuals and the legal entity that operates the business. The entire organization shall stand up for the quality.

Mr. Speaker! We also give the municipalities an expanded responsibility to report when decisions are not implemented. The special fee is increased. Every missed intervention represents an individual person's lost time and a lost opportunity. We cannot have a system where decisions are made formally but in practice are not carried out.

This is politics that puts the human being, quality, and safety first. This is politics that also takes responsibility.

Naturally, there must be diversity within health and care. Both public and private actors are making fantastic contributions today. Sweden has many role models; companies, non-profit organizations, and municipal providers. Every day, they make life better for those who need support. But diversity must be combined with order and high quality requirements, and that requires strong supervision.

Mr. Speaker! This is how you build a welfare that is truly sustainable, a welfare where people can trust that help will come, that the care maintains high quality, that operations are audited and that deficiencies have consequences. This is how the Moderaterna view welfare policy, that is to say order and clarity as well as responsibility and quality.

With the legislative change that is now being implemented, we are strengthening legal certainty, quality, and supervision throughout the country. We see that deficiencies are not only detected but also rectified. We protect those who cannot protect themselves, and we show that Swedish welfare should not be a lottery where quality is decided by chance. This is a step in the right direction towards safer, stronger, and more just healthcare and care, and this is a step that the Moderate-led government has taken with full force and full responsibility.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Malin Höglund for a very good speech in many respects. We share much of the description of the problem, and there is an insight in the member regarding the serious situation we find ourselves in.

We differ in the conclusion of what we should do about the matter. We Social Democrats have presented a proposal that the private HVB homes that provide care for young criminals should come under public management. This is something that has not sat well with the Prime Minister; the party colleague of Malin Höglund. He responded to the proposal by saying that it would be like banning private real estate companies, and that it would be meaningless.

I intended to ask a question to Malin Höglund: Does she share her party leader's position on this part? Is it comparable to take back control of HVB homes that care for criminal youths to the public compared to real estate companies? Is there an opening among other Moderates here in the Riksdag?

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lantz for the question.

Naturally, I agree with my own Prime Minister. Anything else would be strange.

I believe that we need more actors, not fewer. It is often said that it takes a whole village to raise a child. I do not believe in having only certain actors; rather, many more actors are needed for us to deal with what is happening in our society.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Well, it depends on which village it is; if it is a village populated by criminals, it is not a good environment for young people. Unfortunately, there are many young people who, at HVB homes, meet other gang criminals and managers who are linked to serious organized crime.

I think the Moderates are at their best when they are pragmatic, which is something that actually only Social Democrats and Moderates can be sometimes when we are at our best. Then they can actually see that the market experiment has reached its end.

Here we must also look at the ownership. Ownership is not an insignificant matter. The constant inspections have led nowhere. Of course, we can tweak them a bit, but it is impossible to escape the fact that profit from the operations goes to the one who owns them and that it is the owner who holds the key to the operations, to the premises. All of this must the one who controls it navigate through. I mean that the enormous problems that exist within Swedish youth care require completely new insights and a pragmatism that allows us to set ideology aside. Then we can see that certain operations are not suitable to be conducted privately, and that is because the market has become so infested by criminal actors that it is too dangerous for the youth. I can only humbly ask the Moderaterna to rethink.

During my remaining 20 seconds of speaking time, I am thinking of the following question, which I believe will come: Why did the Social Democrats do nothing? Since I do not have the right to an additional reply, I say already now that the election campaign shall be about the future. Sweden has developed in the wrong direction, for which many are responsible, but now three years of the mandate period have passed, and we hope for a change. I do not care who carries it out, as long as it happens.

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

Malin Höglund (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Lantz for the question.

The government is working incredibly actively on issues regarding crime. Residences have been closed. Now, Member Lantz does not have the right to a further reply, but I want to remind you that you governed for eight years – and not particularly much happened. This government has, however, taken these issues very seriously, and as the Member knows, residences have been closed.

I think, therefore, that we do what we are supposed to do right now. But we need to continue working on this track and cannot stop now. I also still believe that there should be both municipal, private, and non-profit housing. I believe in diversity.

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet supports the bill and the changes proposed to give the Health and Social Services Inspectorate sharper tools to be able to strengthen the supervision within social services and LSS. But I also want to move for approval of reservation 4.

The proposal entails important improvements. The Health and Social Care Inspectorate will have clearer opportunities to intervene when operations are deficient. The authority can revoke suspended permits, stop operations that continue despite a ban, and set higher requirements for suitability for both the representative, the legal entity behind the operation, and the staff who are employed.

We also view the strengthening of the municipality's reporting obligation positively. It gives Ivo better opportunities to identify activities conducted without a permit or where the quality is insufficient. Overall, the bill contributes to a sharper and more legally secure system.

In this context, I also want to highlight reservation 4, which focuses on the private HVB home market, where unserious and in some cases criminal actors can today operate activities where children and young people are placed. It is a development that must be met with stricter requirements, better control, and more consistent supervision. It is good that the Social Democrats raised this in their follow-up motion.

We in Miljöpartiet are critical of the fact that this HVB housing market, with unserious and criminal actors who can buy and sell operations and permits, is allowed to continue. We believe that the state must act forcefully to close the door for actors who expose children and young people to risks and undermine trust in the welfare system.

HVB homes play a crucial role for the children and young people who are placed there. Today, however, we have a dysfunctional market with varying quality and major deficiencies. This risks having devastating consequences for the children and young people who are placed in the homes. We need to make a major overhaul regarding HVB homes, and we in Miljöpartiet will return with sharp proposals for a well-functioning structure with HVB homes in public ownership, which are available and provide the support that the children and young people who are placed need and deserve.

HVB homes are a costly measure. But it is an incredibly profitable investment when it helps a child on the right track. However, it can have devastating consequences when an HVB home is run with deficient quality or is even in the hands of unserious and criminal actors. It has devastating consequences for children and young people, who risk being pushed into a destructive spiral filled with drugs and crime.

For me, it is inconceivable that today's debate is so focused on harsher punishments while this dysfunctional HVB home market is allowed to continue in the shadows. We must regain control and ensure that we invest in well-functioning HVB homes in public ownership, which are operated with quality and with care. Our children and young people who are placed there deserve it.

A central issue also concerns Ivo's prerequisites. The bill strengthens the authority's powers, but in order for the tools to be usable, resources, competence, and capacity are needed. The Swedish National Audit Office's review from November shows that processing times are still unreasonably long and that the authority is struggling to keep up with its mandate. This applies particularly to the supervision of operations where deficiencies can pose serious risks for children and young people and persons with disabilities. If the supervision is to become more effective, it is required that the government ensures that the authority has resources that correspond to the mandate.

Mr. Speaker! The bill is a step in the right direction. It tightens supervision, raises requirements for providers, and strengthens protection for persons who are dependent on support from social services and from LSS. But the continued work will be central both to ensure a more equal quality between municipalities and to give the Health and Social Services Inspectorate the conditions needed to carry out its mandate.

(Applause)

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin my speech with the very starting point for our debate and our conversation – the most important thing. It is about the people who in one way or another are in need of another human being helping and supporting them so that life can be full. With our hand on our hearts, we all want that – that other people should help and support us too in our lives. But those we are talking about here and whom the debate focuses on are perhaps an older person who opens their door to receive help from home care, a teenager who has had a very tough start in life and has been placed in society's care, or a person who has functional variations and only requests their statutory right to live a full life. These people hand over their part of freedom to someone else, to society, in trust that they will receive help and support of high quality.

It is always the human being who is the starting point. Every human being has a right to security, freedom, and self-determination. And the state, that is, we, the politics, have a responsibility to secure these rights, especially when a human being finds themselves in a very vulnerable situation.

That is why this proposal for sharper tools for the Health and Social Services Inspectorate is so incredibly important. It is not primarily about bureaucracy or control for the sake of control. It is about our state, our public sector, our common sphere, being strong where it is needed most, namely in the encounter with the human being, the individual, in welfare and care.

Criminal and unserious actors have no place in welfare. This proposal is a clear message from the government: The care of people shall instead be characterized by freedom of choice and safety.

We must remind ourselves that most people, everywhere in our society, behave themselves. Most are serious, and most mean well. The belief that humans can care for and look after someone else is something we must not abandon. Therefore, we must never capitulate to criminals who want to come in and destroy that care. We shall not sacrifice people's freedom of choice.

Mr. Speaker! Trust is a democratic cornerstone. Trust requires accountability, and accountability requires these tools. Today, Ivo has too weak opportunities to act when operations do not live up to the law or to the citizens' rights. A society built on freedom and choices must also have strong, robust systems that guarantee that quality is not dependent on where in Sweden one lives or which provider one encounters.

I want to highlight three decisive reinforcements in this proposal.

Firstly: clearer and more effective sanction fees when the regulatory framework is not followed. If you breach the conditions and if you do not perform background checks on personnel, there will be sanction fees. This is what is so important: to safeguard a society with entrepreneurship and personal commitment, but never at the expense of people's safety. When crimes are committed, there must be consequences that are felt. It creates equal conditions and prevents the unserious actors from undermining the trust in an entire sector.

Secondly: Municipalities shall have an expanded reporting obligation to authorities. Now, risks can be identified earlier, which can facilitate matters for Ivo when serious irregularities are detected.

It is important to remember that when care of a municipal resident is handed over to another provider, the person does not cease to be a municipal resident. The municipality always bears the ultimate responsibility, and therefore it is important that the municipalities receive an expanded reporting obligation.

Transparency is central for it to work. An operation that knows that inspection can occur has stronger incentives to maintain good quality every day.

For the third: We introduce a possibility to more quickly close operations that are deficient and to withdraw dormant permits that have not been used for six months. No individual should have to be left at the mercy of a care provider that has repeatedly shown that it cannot fulfill its mission. A dormant permit should not be able to be used to cheat the system.

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear: a sharper tool for Ivo is not primarily about increased micro-management – it is about the state being strong where it must be strong and taking a step forward. It is also about the state being able to take a step back when it is not needed. When an activity functions well, it should have the freedom to develop, improve, and find solutions. But when unserious or purely criminal actors try to exploit the elderly, children, or people in vulnerable situations, the state must be able to act quickly and powerfully.

Now we are putting a stop to those who try to exploit the welfare's resources, so that the resources can instead go towards safe care and high-quality healthcare.

At the same time, we must not forget that supervision is part of something larger, a whole. For welfare to maintain a high quality and be long-term, it requires investments in the staff, in the leadership, and in the work environment. It requires that we listen to the professionals, let knowledge and research guide, and give employees the conditions to do their very best. Sharper supervision should not be seen as a threat to those who work in welfare. On the contrary, it is a protection.

Mr. Speaker! I believe in a society where people are allowed to grow, live freely and feel safe. For this to be possible, the welfare system must function, not just sometimes but always. Sharper tools for Ivo means that we take our share of the responsibility for the individual's rights, for qualities in care and nursing, and for a welfare model that is built on freedom and responsibility and choices, with guarantees and human dignity as the foundation.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jakob Olofsgård, for a very good speech in many respects! I wonder, however, if the Liberals might have wanted to go further given the situation we have.

The Social Democrats have submitted proposals to give the police the authority to immediately close HVB homes that are infiltrated by criminals. We have also submitted proposals to take back ownership to the public when it concerns the HVB homes that care for youths in crime.

I have a hope that the Liberals could still bite on this. They do have the toughness in themselves. That has been seen recently. It has concerned, for example, punishing children in school, often children with NPF diagnoses.

It is easy to be tough there, but how easy is it to be tough against market forces when you sit in a government led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson? Are you prepared to do what is required and take back ownership of a wrecked and corrupt market where the most vulnerable children are found?

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gustaf Lantz, for your questions! I am, however, perplexed when Gustaf Lantz claims that the Liberals want to punish them with NPF diagnoses.

When it comes to going further, I want to say that we are implementing these proposals in order to be able to close certain operations and deal with the crime. We are doing something, Mr. Speaker. During the eight years preceding this mandate period, very little was done to deal with this. Gustav Lantz is welcome to tell what the Social Democrats did to deal with the whole thing.

I naturally welcome the Social Democrats' awakening. We need to get this right.

Do we want to go further then? We continue to work on this area. We are looking at more opportunities to make the welfare market function in a better and wiser way. We believe that private initiatives can improve things for people.

The vast majority of those who work in this sector behave themselves. The member speaks of a completely wrecked market. There are clear problems, yes, but it is not reasonable to say that those who behave themselves, do good and have their hearts in the right place should be forced to close their business. It hurts me when I hear Gustaf Lantz say this.

I am speaking about the people who behave themselves and truly help young people with a criminal background at HVB homes. It puzzles me that one wants to close such places that work well.

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

Gustaf Lantz (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many of the youths who fight and cause trouble in school and many of those who end up in HVB homes have experienced violence at home. Many also have NPF diagnoses. It is a matter of understanding how these children function and where they come from. Then, it is sometimes very simple solutions. It is clear that children with NPF diagnoses will be affected by the type of measures in school that the Liberals have proposed. But now, this is not a school policy debate. It was only an example of how liberals can be harsh.

It is obvious that it is harder to be tough on the companies that operate HVB homes in Sweden. There are many examples, and it hurts me to see how young people have ended up in the clutches of gang criminals and that society has had so little defense and has not been able to do anything about this. It is clear that control is facilitated if the public sector operates the activity itself.

I believe that fundamentally it is about how one assesses the situation: How serious do you think this is? There, we probably stand on different sides.

Once again we return to the question: But what about the Social Democrats? I believe that the voters are interested in a forward-looking election campaign. And is it the case that as a politician one dreams of other election campaigns, where one is to counterfactually go back and have opinions on things that have been and compare now and then, I believe that the voters are uninterested.

I want to solve problems, and I do not need any credit for it at all. I would be very happy if the government took this issue seriously. The government does not need to thank me for the fact that we Social Democrats came up with the proposals.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Gustaf Lantz, for the remark! We are not really on different sides, after all, because we agree on the measures today and stand behind what the government wants to implement. We are not on completely different sides. Then there may be nuances to the whole thing.

I want to return to the fact that we in the government continue to work with these issues and move forward.

I myself grew up in a family home. My parents took in criminal youths who came to our home. We four brothers had to meet youths with criminal backgrounds and take care of them. I have sometimes met them later in life and seen how it has gone for them.

Mr. Speaker! I want to say that it has gone well for them all. They were able to come to a private home. They were able to come to someone who cared about them.

The Social Democrats do not believe in freedom of choice. They do not believe that humans are capable of taking care of criminals. But people with their hearts in the right place can, of course, be found both in municipal administration and in the private sector.

If the Social Democrats do not believe in private initiatives, I regret that. I have personally witnessed that they can work, and they work today. We are not going to close them, are we? We should encourage them, and there should be more of them.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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