Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is particularly serious when the home, which should be a place of love, care, and respect, is instead transformed into a place of violence and oppression. But all too many women in our country testify to how a quick infatuation and a relationship that may at first be happy then turns into psychological terror and physical violence.

Violence against women in Sweden has increased in recent years, and we as a society need to do much more to counter men's violence against women and to strengthen the support for the women and their children who are victims of violence. I am therefore proud that today we together take an important step forward with the report Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing.

For the thousands of women and children who are affected by violence every year, the women's shelters and their protected housing are sometimes the difference between life and death. The women's shelters take on a huge responsibility. The municipalities must also take their responsibility by offering more women a place in protected housing, and we need to follow up and ensure that this happens particularly carefully.

But it is not enough to provide more places, we must also ensure that our protected housing is safe and protective. With the decision on today's report, protected housing will therefore be regulated in the Social Services Act as a housing intervention. A licensing requirement for those who wish to operate protected housing will also be introduced. Furthermore, Ivo's new licensing process will become an important link in strengthening the protection for women exposed to violence.

Madam Speaker! When we talk about men's violence against women and violence in close relationships, children deserve a special focus. When violence in the home is directed at the woman, there are often children nearby. They hear and they see. As many as one in ten children are forced to experience that dad exerts violence against mom. The violence that the children witness has far-reaching consequences for the children themselves in the form of terror and helplessness.

Children who witness violence are crime victims, but they also risk becoming perpetrators themselves. Most gang criminals have grown up in families where violence has occurred in a close relationship or against the children themselves. We are reminded that it is precisely safe families that lay the foundation for a safe society.

In order to increase the safety of children exposed to violence who need to accompany their mother to a protected residence, they shall in the future receive an individual assessment and a decision regarding placement in a protected residence, and the social welfare committee shall have a clear responsibility to ensure that their needs are met. This may involve the social welfare committee assisting with managing a change of school, or ensuring that the children can continue with extracurricular activities, playing football or whatever it may be, in a situation where the mother exposed to violence, for understandable reasons, is fully occupied with holding herself together.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that for far too long, a violent father has been allowed to stand in the way not only of the mother's but also of the children's safety. Now we are reducing the perpetrators' power.

Firstly, the social welfare committee shall, immediately or after an application to the Administrative Court, be able to grant the child an intervention in sheltered housing even if consent from one of the parents is lacking.

Secondly, the person who is placed together with the child in the protected housing shall alone be entitled to decide on the children's participation in health examinations, the social services' interventions, and any school changes.

For the third, the social welfare committee shall decide on the non-disclosure of the place of residence and how visitation between the child and the violent guardian shall be exercised.

When I met representatives from Unizon at Forum Jämställdhet in Karlstad on Wednesday, they told me that as many as one in three children in sheltered housing have to meet their violent father. This is because the social services completely lack the tools to deny a violent guardian visitation with the child during the stay in the sheltered housing.

It is for these children's sake that we are now changing the law. The child's own will shall be allowed to be expressed, and the social services shall be allowed to put a stop to children in sheltered housing having to meet the violent perpetrator. I know that this represents a great victory for many who have fought for it to become a reality, and it represents a step in the right direction to increase the safety for some of society's most vulnerable children.

We Christian Democrats consider that, as a rule, joint custody or visitation rights should not be granted if there is a judgment regarding domestic violence. I know that preparatory work is ongoing in the Government Offices on this issue, just as it is regarding the issue of extended restraining orders and other important measures to strengthen the protection for women and children. I look forward to the government and the Committee on Social Affairs being able to take more important steps forward when it comes to strengthening the protection for women subjected to violence and the affected children. Our work in this area has only just begun.

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

Marcus Wennerström (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I agree with much of what Christian Carlsson mentioned from the rostrum. I have a specific question. With the measure we are now taking, protected housing will need to be procured according to LOU. The experiences we have of the HVB housing market and other market solutions in the country are that they are cost-driving and open up opportunities for fraud. Is the chairman of the Social Affairs Committee concerned about such a development? How does the member view the need to evaluate both the cost development and the quality development of protected housing in the near future, so that it does not result in an increased cost and deterioration for the municipalities and those who have needs?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I see a need to closely monitor how this reform develops, but it does not primarily concern the area that the member raises. Now that we are introducing this permit requirement, we also know that it entails an increase in ambition for many of the voluntarily hard-working women's shelters. There is a concern that the transition will make it difficult for some actors to manage. The Government is providing funds so that the transition will be smooth. But we must carefully monitor this, so that it turns out as well as it possibly can. We will absolutely need to follow up on the issue as we go. It is good that the Government is very clear that it intends to do so. It intends to task a specific authority with closely monitoring the development.

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

Marcus Wennerström (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It is good that we envision an evaluation of what is happening. At the same time, there is a risk that, for example, women's shelter-run activities will suffer from the development and need to be shut down. We need to see the facts: when something has once been shut down, it often becomes very difficult and expensive to restart it. How does the chairman of the Committee on Social Affairs view this? How soon and quickly will it be necessary to conduct such an evaluation? I understand that it is not primarily a question for the member, but perhaps rather a question for the government, but how quickly does the member see a need to evaluate whether the money is sufficient, so that we do not end up in a situation where these incredibly good activities, which have been built up over many years, are forced to be shut down and those types of solutions are completely lost?

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

Christian Carlsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! My focus is on how we strengthen the protection for women, strengthen the child rights perspective, implement an ambition increase, and strengthen children's rights at the expense of the perpetrators of violence. That is the great victory with this. We are allocating funds to the municipalities, so that they can manage their ambition increase. We are allocating special funds so that the voluntary women's shelters can manage the transition.

The municipalities also have in their toolbox opportunities to try to favor the types of business models that one assesses can do the job particularly well. It is possible to set aside a part of the procurement for non-profit organizations, for example. Those tools exist, and this can be assessed at the local level. But for me as a Christian Democrat, the primary thing has not been whether the actors running this are private, non-profit, or municipal, but what is important for me is that, by doing this, we strengthen the protection for women exposed to violence and some of society's most vulnerable children.

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

Marcus Wennerström (S)

Madam Speaker! "All the children and young people who cannot, can, want to, or dare to come forward and tell about their terrible experiences behind locked doors, about their fears, their anxiety, their lasting scars. There must be a more profound understanding and knowledge of them." These words are a quote found at the beginning of Fredrik Lundh Sammeli's SOU A window of opportunities. My deepest hope is that the legislation now proposed enters into force as far as possible based on such understanding and knowledge.

Parts of the new legislation are really good. It is good that we now get a regulation of protected housing. It is no longer possible to get away with any type of premises whatsoever. It is required that one applies and that one meets requirements. Organization is required, and a basic quality is required. Protected housing may generally have functioned well, but now the municipalities no longer need to buy a pig in a poke. A certain level and standard must exist.

Perhaps even more important is that protected housing is now becoming an intervention even for children. It is important to create transparency in the decisions, but it is also important because we must thereby see the child as a rights-holder and the child as a victim. Just as the opening quote emphasizes, the child carries with them the horrific things that have happened. Even the child needs protection when a guardian needs protected housing.

Those who need protection will now have the opportunity to make decisions alone regarding the children's schooling and care and to keep their location hidden from the perpetrator of violence. It is about time, because it strengthens the children's possibility of some form of everyday life and the woman's possibility to get back on her feet. It also reduces the man's opportunity to exercise violence, both institutionally as well as mentally and physically, at least for the moment.

It is gratifying that the legislation can now be put in place. At the same time, a part of me is disappointed. I am disappointed that we do not learn from the marketization failures that the HVB home market is an example of. As a society, we should be able to do better. But now there is a risk that protected housing will become the next failure. When the housing is to be procured according to LOU, there is a high risk that women's shelter-run homes will be affected. When the lowest price is allowed to rule, it is savings that come into focus. Savings are linked in this case to staff, care, and quality. We risk losing women's shelter-run homes. It is a matter of women's shelters that, with voluntary commitment at the foundation, have built up both knowledge and organization with a single purpose: support for and care of fellow human beings.

We Social Democrats would have liked to see a solution that benefits the work of women's shelters. We therefore urge all municipalities to apply the parts of Proposition 2021/22:135 Idéburen välfärd that make it possible to reserve participation in procurements and choice systems for idea-based actors.

Another concern is the financing. The legislation places increased requirements on the housing, and increased requirements are cost-driving. We Social Democrats want to emphasize that the financing principle must be honored. We therefore want both the application of the law and its cost development to be evaluated.

In conclusion, it is unfortunate that the inquiry's original proposal to amend the so-called visitation rights through amendments to the Parental Code has been removed. We Social Democrats would have liked to see a more far-reaching amendment.

The amendment on the table today will protect children of women who, due to violence or threats of violence, need protected housing. But the problem with violence against women and children is much larger. A more far-reaching amendment to the Children and Parents Code would have been desirable.

We Social Democrats want a "lex Tintin" to be introduced to protect children from contact when the contact risks being harmful. When a parent commits violence against a child, parent, or other family member, the basic principle should be that no unprotected contact shall be ordered. The child's right to a life free from violence shall be paramount over the so-called contact principle in the Children and Parents Code.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for approval of reservation 4 regarding the work of the women's shelters. I emphasize that we also stand behind reservations 9, 18, 21 and 26.

(Applause)

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

Johan Hultberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Step by step, reform by reform, is the Moderate-led government strengthening the social safety net and providing social services with new and better tools to achieve the Social Services Act's objective paragraph of promoting people's economic and social security, equality in living conditions, as well as active participation in social life?

Step by step, reform by reform, the Moderate-led government is strengthening children's rights and position in Sweden. In just the last few weeks, the government has taken several important initiatives to achieve this. I am thinking in particular of the appointment of the special investigation that will lay the foundation for a very comprehensive and much-needed reforming of the state social child and youth care.

The bill we are now debating is a very important step in the government's methodical reform agenda to strengthen the safety and security of vulnerable children and women. The bill's proposal means that we are taking several and large steps to achieve what the bill's title says, namely strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing.

Let me begin by providing a little background on why the bill is so urgent. Many women and children live today in violent relationships. About eight out of ten crimes of assault against adult women were committed by someone close to them. It follows from this that many are forced to flee to seek protection at a special residence. In that case, it is extremely urgent that the residences are truly protected and provide the security that the victims, usually women, need and have a right to. But that is not always the case today, Madam Speaker.

Another very serious problem today is that children's own needs for school, health and medical care, and leisure activities are rarely investigated when they accompany a guardian to a protected residence. We see serious problems in the schooling of children in protected residences. Not infrequently, these children do not go to school at all or have long interruptions in their schooling. It is to fail these children.

That children in sheltered housing often do not have their rights and needs met leads, in the long run, to other serious consequences. Many women - mothers - choose to set aside their own safety and stay in a violent relationship for the purpose of ensuring that the children receive their schooling and healthcare. This is, of course, a situation that we simply must change, Madam Speaker. We are doing so now thanks to the bill that we are debating.

Through the reform, protected housing becomes a housing measure according to the Social Services Act. The reform overall means that the rights for children and adults in protected housing are strengthened. More concretely, the bill contains, among other things, proposals that mean that children who accompany a guardian to a protected housing facility become independent rights holders. The social welfare committees receive a very clear responsibility to meet children's needs for support and assistance measures, and children staying in protected housing shall be offered a health examination.

Furthermore, the reform means that the social welfare committee is given a clear right to decide on the concealment of the place of residence and to limit a parent's right of access. When a mother and her child are placed in a protected residence to be protected from the father, it should be completely obvious that the father's right of access should be limited, but the social welfare committee does not have that possibility today. We are also changing that now.

Madam Speaker! I understand if those following this debate, and who have not previously known what serious gaps exist in the legislation and in the protection of children and adults in sheltered housing, are astonished. For it is truly astonishing deficiencies that we are now plugging.

What one can also be amazed by is that for decades Sweden has required permits for dancing, for example in a restaurant, but has not required permits to conduct such an important, yes, downright life-critical activity as sheltered housing. It is truly absurd, but even that is now being changed by the Moderate-led government. The permit requirement was abolished last year. By the Riksdag voting yes to this proposition, a permit requirement will now be introduced for operating sheltered housing.

When, for example, a company, an association, or a foundation wants to operate a protected residence, they must first be reviewed and be granted a permit by the Inspectorate for Health and Care, Ivo. In this way, we strengthen the quality of protected residences and prevent criminal and unprofessional actors from establishing themselves.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal, in favor of strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing, and in favor of taking another step on the government's chosen path to methodically strengthen children as independent rights holders.

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of our motions in our supplementary motion 2023/24:2779.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Excuse me, a reservation should be submitted.)

I move for the approval of reservations 1 and 2.

All people deserve to live in safety. If someone, for various reasons, has been harmed or suffered, society must be ready with support in both psychological and physical form.

A protected residence is the type of housing provided for persons who are exposed to violence, threats, or other risk factors in their home environments. It can be children, women, men, or entire families who need protection and safety due to domestic violence, honor-related violence, human trafficking, or other forms of threats or abuse.

Protected housing is designed to provide a safe and secure environment where residents can receive support, protection, and help. The goal is to give the vulnerable the opportunity to recover and build an independent life outside the violent or threatening situation they have left behind.

These accommodations can be temporary or long-term depending on the needs of the residents. They can be operated by different organizations, including government agencies, private actors, non-profit organizations, or charitable organizations.

The organizations that operate sheltered housing do an enormously important and absolutely crucial job for those affected.

Madam Speaker! It is not uncommon for there to be children in the home when someone is subjected to violence in a close relationship. Here, society needs to stand strong, and the Sweden Democrats are therefore positive towards the fact that there are now important proposals on the table that ensure that children also are granted interventions for protected housing.

This will make the child's situation visible and strengthen the child rights perspective. The child will be given better conditions for interventions in open forms, possibly a change of school unit and preschool, and so on. That such legislation has not been in place previously is a great betrayal to all who have been exposed, but the Sverigedemokraterna argue that with what is proposed in the bill, very important steps forward are being taken.

According to the government's proposal, a permit from Ivo shall be required to operate protected housing professionally by a company, an association, a joint property, a foundation, or an individual. Municipalities and regions shall notify Ivo of the protected housing they operate. The Sweden Democrats are very positive about this because it is not currently possible for Ivo to perform any formal control of operations before they start.

It is actually completely reprehensible that actors who perhaps completely lack the prerequisites to operate a sheltered housing facility today can start an operation and begin selling places to municipalities without any control.

Even though the proposed supervision is positive, the Sweden Democrats do not believe that the proposed condition is sufficient to ensure a safe and secure operation with good quality in the long term. We therefore believe that the government should task Ivo with working on continuous supervision of the operations that provide protected housing, precisely to ensure that the operation constantly works qualitatively and for the right purpose. The increased organized crime within healthcare is an additional strong factor why continuous supervision is absolutely crucial for the mission.

The permit requirement is a good and important step in the right direction to increase the quality of the operations that provide sheltered housing. That private operators should apply for a permit should be obvious. In recent years, there have been reports of private actors with major deficiencies, for example, addresses on ground floors with windows facing the road and staff without medical competence who have diagnosed those in sheltered placement.

The Sweden Democrats therefore consider it important that the government follows up and reports back on the effect of the permit requirement. It is positive that it is being introduced, but the government needs to ensure that the proposal also achieves the desired effect.

Madam Speaker! The safety and security of children and young people must always come first, and there must be no doubt here. The Sweden Democrats believe that the government should have gone further in the issue of investigating the part regarding the limitation of contact with the guardian who is the reason why the vulnerable guardian and the child stay in a protected residence.

The Sweden Democrats consider that visitation is not compatible with foster care if it concerns domestic violence from one guardian to another, and we look forward to the preparation that is currently being developed on the issue.

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

Jakob Olofsgård (L)

Madam Speaker! When we talk about our children, we say exactly "our". But children are not possessions. Every child is an individual little human being with their own rights and freedoms. There is a famous quote by the poet Khalil Gibran which reads:

"Your children are not your children. They are sons and daughters of life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you. And though they live with you, they do not belong to you."

Let me repeat: A child is not a possession. It feels like a self-evident truth but it is still not. It is the very essence of the major shift in policy that the government is now carrying out to secure children's own rights and freedoms.

The reallocation is necessary for Sweden to truly be a safe country for all children and young people - for every single child. We live in one of the world's leading welfare countries, and we have a long history of creating good upbringing conditions for children and young people. There is much to be proud of in our country. Sweden was one of the earliest countries to secure general literacy skills among children and young people, by building up an education system and by establishing public preschools. We were also first in the world with legislation against child abuse.

But - and unfortunately there is a but in our country's history - in recent decades, the development has stalled. Political efforts to protect children have not developed to the same extent as society has changed.

In Sweden, we have largely succeeded in preventing parents from using violence for the purpose of upbringing. But even though serious violence against children decreased between 1969 and 2000, the positive development has stalled, and the serious violence has not decreased significantly during the 2000s.

What we are debating today, Madam Speaker, concerns society's most vulnerable people. The place where children and young people should feel the safest, the home, can sometimes become a risk zone for the children.

The number of children with immediate removal due to deficiencies in the home environment has increased. For a long time, Sweden has not dared to take the child's side when it clashes with the parents. The parents' rights have weighed more heavily than the child's rights. The most vulnerable children have paid an enormous price when authorities have not listened sufficiently to the children's voices. It can be about authorities that do not listen or who lack knowledge on how to read children and who perhaps feel discomfort or fear in visiting a guardian. The consequences can be horrific, which we have seen time and again.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating how we can strengthen the rights for children and adults in sheltered housing. It is an immensely important matter. It is urgent because there are warning signs. The calls to Bris from children in contact with society's support agencies increased by 33 percent from 2021 to 2022.

The government's reallocation to protect children is urgent. The proposals we are discussing today constitute a long-awaited reform. This shall strengthen the safety and security for those staying in protected housing but also strengthen children's rights so that their own needs are met and they are not merely seen as accompanying the adult who has moved to the protected housing. The protection against contact with a violent parent is strengthened by the proposals.

Madam Speaker! I therefore wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the motions.

I want to particularly highlight some proposals in the reform. The reform entails several improvements for children receiving services in sheltered housing when it comes to access to health care and school. It will be possible to provide protection and support to children whose one guardian does not give consent for the child's stay in sheltered housing, as well as to protect children from contact with a violent guardian during the stay in the housing.

Furthermore, I want to emphasize the importance – it has been pointed out from the rostrum earlier – of requirements for permits from the Inspectorate for Health and Social Services to operate protected housing. This also strengthens the protection against unserious actors and welfare crime in this area.

I am convinced that the wonderful women's shelters working with this – I spoke today with Talita, who visited the Riksdag at a seminar and who runs a protected housing – are now on their toes, and they should of course be able to do so, in the face of this requirement for a permit from the Inspectorate for Health and Care. It is nothing strange for them. They are, after all, concerned about the children and the women.

Given that the target group for protected housing consists of persons exposed to threats, violence, and other abuses, there are, according to the government, significant risks that the activity is not subject to a permit requirement. For persons exposed to violence and accompanying children, a stay in a protected housing of poor quality can pose threats to life, safety, and health.

With the proposals, the conditions are also strengthened so that protected housing can meet the special needs of those subject to violence, for example due to disabilities or honor-related violence and oppression.

Liberals have played an important role in step by step driving forward social reforms that increase children's freedom, from the right to school and preschool to the hard fight against child abuse and honor oppression. I am proud that we, with a liberal, bourgeois government, now take another step so that children and young people can become independent rights-holders. Why? Well, because every young person's freedom and security is our most important responsibility.

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

Mona Olin (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was not actually a reply to Jakob that I wanted. I just wanted the floor to clarify my motion. Since I requested the floor, I thought I would end up at the bottom of the speaking list. But it is, therefore, our reservation 17 that I move for approval.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! A parent, almost always a mother, who seeks protection from a violent man is, without the slightest exaggeration, a woman fleeing for her life. The right, the safety, and the security for the children who are part of this flight therefore always lie in that the one seeking help and protection receives it. That is the starting point we must have in the debate we are having here today. The blame for a child being forced to experience this terrible trauma lies with no one other than the man who commits the violence. That is the basis for the entire problem.

The proposal that we are to make a decision on is based on the investigation *Ett fönster av möjligheter*. The ambition, that is, that children's rights shall be strengthened when they are in sheltered housing, is not only welcome but completely necessary. The problem is that the decision we face risks not offering open windows. In the worst case, it could result in more high thresholds.

Madam Speaker! We must state what is actually obvious: The day a woman seeks help, the help must come quickly. Saving a person's life cannot be complicated. It cannot meet a lot of obstacles. It must be smooth and efficient. In a world where everything was perfect, the bills we are discussing here today might perhaps only be positive. But what can look good in theory does not always have to be just as good in practice.

Men's violence against women and violence in close relationships is a structural violence that must be addressed with structural means. In the proposal, the violence is decontextualized, which has the devastating consequence that we will not see the violence from its actual conditions. It is life-threatening interpretations that men's violence against women and honor-related violence are instead described as "violence between parents" or "lethal violence against an adult." It renders both perpetrators and victims invisible. It stands in stark contrast to the government's sixth gender equality policy sub-goal, that men's violence against women shall cease.

With a bill as extensive as this, a review is needed to ensure that the proposals are to the benefit of those exposed to violence. Otherwise, there are great risks that we miss important facts, which could cause us to end up completely wrong.

Madam Speaker! We know, for example, that those who are subjected to violence do not always meet a helping hand when they seek the society's support. In fact, this path is lined with obstacles. That is shown, if not by anything else, by the death investigation we took part in last week. There we can see in black and white that several murders could have been prevented because both the crime victim and the perpetrator tried to get the society's help but were still left alone.

I also do not believe that anyone here has missed the enormous deficiencies that exist in custody disputes, where courts have not taken into account the violence the mother has witnessed. Custody has instead fallen to a perpetrator. We see that in the bill, this fact has not been taken seriously – a consequence of not having evaluated it from a gender and equality perspective.

We mean that such an extensive change in obtaining protection must be built up with precision. In our motion, we have listened to the voluntary women's shelters, as that is where the knowledge lies. There must never, truly never, be the slightest risk that a child is left with a violent parent, first and foremost for the child's well-being. But we must also understand that if there is a risk that a mother will be forced to leave her children, she will not flee. Then the children's rights are truly in danger.

Therefore, in our motion, we have motions for a number of proposed amendments and clarifications, this in order to rectify the legislation based on the reality that those exposed to violence find themselves in. We want it to be clear in the law that the starting point shall be that the child shall accompany the parent to receive protection. There must be no risk that the place where the child is protected is cleared or that the child is left to the perpetrator. We want to strongly emphasize that even a parent under 18 years of age and a bonus parent must have the right to protect the child.

Madam Speaker! For a couple of years now, politics has opened up for making women's vulnerability a commodity. By allowing people to make money from men's violence against women and violence in close relationships, an uncontrolled market has been created with the safety of women and children at stake.

Now the government is forced to act to clean up this chaos. It is absolutely necessary. The problem is that one acts in a way that can in fact give the private, unserious actors an advantage. When one now introduces a permit requirement, it is done with a specification where there is a risk that one does not at all base it on the needs of women and those subjected to violence.

For those who are not so well-versed in the mechanisms of violence, it may of course seem logical that all victims of crime must be protected with armored glass and other security measures and that they need surveillance around the clock. But the fact is that in many cases it is precisely the opposite. What the women most often need is to encounter a profession that has the knowledge and understanding of what is required to recreate the women's own empowerment and self-determination. This is a task that must be allowed to take time. It is precisely for that reason that the voluntary women's organizations have not always built new prisons for the victim of violence, but work for long-term paths to freedom.

Madam Speaker! Even before this proposal was submitted, several non-profit protected housing facilities have been closed down. They will not be able to transition to what the government is now demanding. We see that there is an imminent risk that those who remain are the private, profit-driven actors who have created the chaos that the government now wants to clean up. It is precisely these private actors that Ivo has directed criticism towards.

Now, perhaps you think that the licensing requirement will solve all of this and that I am standing here wanting the residential homes to be completely unregulated and uncontrolled. That is, of course, not the case at all. Those who feel skeptical about what I am saying, I think, should turn their gaze towards HVB. Even this activity has been turned into a market. Despite the licensing requirement and despite control, the activities have such significant deficiencies that the government itself is now choosing to act, which is very good.

We want to emphasize with emphasis that the government should have conducted a much more extensive impact analysis of what this will entail both for the municipalities and for those exposed to violence, but above all for the children. We are very disappointed that the committee does not see what risk this entails. We want the pursuit of profit to be stopped when it comes to the women's shelters and to strengthen those operations that are based on the actual needs of those exposed to violence.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that anyone here does not want women to be offered help. I only believe that in an eagerness to protect children, one has not considered the reality we find ourselves in today. We know that authorities have not gone all the way in terms of knowledge regarding men's violence against women and violence in close relationships. We know that social services are under hard pressure, and we know that our municipalities are on their knees. Then we must not only ensure that sufficient resources are provided. We must also enact laws that are so clear that no mistakes can be made.

We in Vänsterpartiet do not guard children's rights. We demand them. One must listen to those who can, take in what they say, and then rethink. We would have gladly seen the committee stand behind our proposals so that we could ensure that nothing is done that could go wrong.

We stand behind all our motions but choose to move for approval only to reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Finally, there is a bill to regulate the protected housing. I say "finally" primarily because the child will now receive their own decision, be allowed to become their own person even when staying in a protected housing. It is important that we change the legislation so that children receive those rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child unfortunately does not permeate the legislation and the actions that take place today.

It is incredibly good that a permit will be required to carry out these activities, so that we can monitor quality, conduct follow-ups, and ensure that it is equivalent across the entire country. Once again, it is about ensuring children's rights.

Much of the bill is good. But I still miss things. I miss insights and leadership that go all the way when it comes to children's rights. The proposal states that the placement decision shall be reviewed every six months. I think that is good. But six months can be a long time in a child's life. I do not want to see that six months is questioned when it comes to the placement decision, but rather when it comes to the requirement for follow-up during those six months. How do you follow the care plan? How do you follow the implementation plans?

It is about ensuring that the child who is at the residential home actually receives the interventions that the child needs. It may not always be enough to just receive the intervention of placement. Other types of interventions may be needed while they are there. It may need to be ensured that the child has access to preschool, school, and leisure activities or contact with loved ones who are still important and who do not risk the child's safety. I think that has been missed.

When it comes to national guidelines, I usually return to the point that we need to ensure that the right methods are being used, that the right things are being followed up. We still have not done that. These are not uniform ways of working. What is it actually that is followed up to see that an intervention actually becomes what we assume it should be? Is it the right treatment, support, and interventions?

Children are sensitive. We must know that the right things are being done from the start. I find it difficult to understand why the government cannot take the lead, point out those things, and ensure that it is consistent all the way through.

Madam Speaker! There is a proposal regarding the ability to keep the place of residence confidential. It is an incredibly important decision, especially when there are two guardians where one needs to place themselves and their child in a protected residence. But here, I would also have wished that the committee had agreed to the Center Party's proposal: to require clarification in such types of decisions, on what the reasons are for keeping the place of residence confidential. Then it becomes clear to everyone involved why this child needs to be placed in a special residence.

It is needed for it to be legally secure for everyone involved. It is needed for the safety of both the child and the adults. The child also needs to be able to step back and see what made it necessary to be placed in that way.

Madam Speaker! Much is, as has been said, good. But it could have been even better.

In the investigation "Safer homes for children" (Tryggare hem för barn), there is a provision that the Swedish Courts Administration (Domstolsverket) needs training to be able to conduct risk assessments in family cases. It is therefore more than just me who have noticed the need for educational initiatives. Even in these parts, one could have gone much further to ensure that the right training and the right risk assessments are in place so that the right decision is truly made all the way through.

It will be needed in more areas. I note that hopefully there will be a majority in the chamber in more areas to strengthen children's rights to be heard. But we will have to return to that later.

Madam Speaker! When I look at the report and read the committee's arguments for rejecting the Center Party's proposal, I do not see any strong counterarguments regarding, for example, the confidentiality of the place of residence, which I touched upon earlier. Reference is made to the fact that there are already corresponding provisions in the Act on Care of Young People. But we know that there are unclear such decisions today. It is not clear to all involved what the reasons are for detention or for it to cease. That is why I think it is important. As I said, I lack a leadership that shows the whole picture.

Madam Speaker! In summary, I still think that this is a good proposal fundamentally. But it could have been strengthened in a few places.

I naturally support all of the Center Party's reservations but move for approval only to reservation number 9.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The work against men's violence against women is an important issue for the Green Party. During our time in government, we presented, among other things, an action program with 40 points in the area of men's violence against women.

How children are affected by witnessing violence and how their perspectives can be strengthened is another issue we contributed to highlighting during our time in government. Therefore, an inquiry was commissioned in 2016 to strengthen the children's rights perspective for children staying in protected housing together with a guardian. In 2018, the report *Ett fönster av möjligheter - stärkt barnrättsperspektiv för barn i skyddat boende* was published. The proposals have been discussed, referred, and adjusted to some extent over several years. Now the government has presented a proposition, and we generally welcome the proposals.

Children who see a parent being abused are themselves crime victims. For a long time, that was not the case. The support and attention from the side of society were far from sufficient. But since then, the laws have changed; having experienced violence against a parent also makes the child a crime victim. We think that is good.

That children will now to a greater extent be seen as independent legal subjects is important. A specific decision shall be made regarding the children and the measures they need. A specific law will be put in place that ensures what applies if one of the guardians opposes.

Many problems that have been highlighted by those working at, among other places, women's shelters are now receiving a regulatory framework. This concerns, for example, the right to a medical examination. The parent in a protected residence shall be able to make decisions concerning care and school and shall not be forced to obtain permission from the abusing party, who have not infrequently exploited the situation.

The proposition also contains proposals for amendments to the Social Services Act clarifying that the social services have a broader responsibility to provide support and protection in sheltered housing even for persons in other situations. This applies, for example, to issues of honor.

Madam Speaker! Even though Miljöpartiet generally welcomes the bill, which we believe contributes to clarifying society's responsibility for serious social problems, there are, of course, some adjustments that we would have liked to see made. I highlight some of them here.

The women's shelters have a unique role in the work against men's violence against women. For a long time, the voluntary forces of the women's shelters bore the entire responsibility for the situation of the women exposed to violence while society looked the other way. Today, thanks to the work done by the shelters, there is a deep knowledge of the violence and the women's situation. Other civil society organizations have also engaged in the work regarding other types of violence in close relationships, for example among hbtqi persons. The commitment that civil society contributes is invaluable.

Concerns have been expressed regarding what the requirements of the new legislation will mean for the women's shelters and their operations, not least by the Left Party (V), which also emphasized this in its statement just now. We consider it important that the protection is to be made stronger and that children are granted a separate right to decisions. To facilitate the operations of the ideology-driven shelters in making the necessary changes, a regulation for temporary state grants was introduced in 2022. The purpose is that voluntarily run protected housing shall be able to apply for and receive funds to receive support in taking the measures that are needed.

Miljöpartiet assesses that more needs to be done and therefore allocates 50 million kronor this year for an additional general reinforcement that is broadly directed towards the women's shelters' activities. We are very keen that their activities continue to be the vital force they are, and we consider it important that the government follows the developments.

Madam Speaker! Ideburna kvinnojourer have long watched with concern a declining trend regarding placements and that the municipalities are increasingly placing with private, profit-driven actors. According to mappings conducted by Socialstyrelsen, 8 percent of the protected residences were run by private profit-driven operations in 2012, while the corresponding figure for 2020 was 37 percent. Miljöpartiet shares the concern for this development and wants to see a ban on private profit-driven companies among protected residences and that the legislator thereby takes responsibility so that it does not become a new marketized development.

We also consider that the possibility to reserve a procurement for idea-based actors should be converted into a rule that becomes mandatory for protected housing. We also consider that there should be a possibility to completely exempt women's shelters' protected housing from the procurement regulatory framework. The reason for these positions is, of course, our respect for the women's shelters' long-established competence, which not all other actors obviously have. At least the government should now evaluate how the new legislation affects the development of profit-driven and non-profit actors within protected housing.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to mention some other pressing reforms in the area. There are reasons to believe that the new regulatory framework will contribute to a strengthened view of children's rights in other ways as well, and Miljöpartiet believes that a so-called lex Tintin should be introduced. Several other speakers have touched upon similar tracks today.

No child who has been subjected to violence or become a victim of a crime by a parent exercising violence against a family member shall have to meet that parent if they do not wish to, regardless of whether the child lives in a protected residence or not.

In the proposition, it is proposed that a public counsel shall, as a rule, be available for both the child and the guardian in cases concerning protected housing. The Green Party considers this to be a clear step forward. We believe, however, that the right to a separate legal representative for the child must be extended to all cases concerning custody and visitation. It is about the child's life and rights, and therefore the child shall always have the right to assistance in advocating for their own interests.

I support all of the Green Party's reservations but only move for approval of reservation 26.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! Imagine that time after time - perhaps year after year - you are abused, beaten, and violated. It happens physically, mentally, and economically. You live with fear for your life but above all with fear for how your child is affected. Finally, you flee together with your child in what you are standing and walking in. You do not even get to take your own outerwear with you.

You arrive at a protected residence - but once there, you are left alone, and your child does not go to school, the health center, or the dentist. You also know that the law stands on the side of the violent guardian. He will still have the right to visitation with your child, despite everything he subjected you to.

I have met these women. I have heard their stories about what it is like to live in this situation. It is for them, their children, and all those who have been subjected to violence - and are being subjected to violence - that this bill is finally being presented.

The woman I told you about is not alone. Her story is a story of life and death. According to Brå, approximately 15 women are killed per year by a former or current partner. Approximately 10 children are killed per year - all too often by a guardian. 30,000 cases of assault against women are reported to the police. In eight out of ten cases, the perpetrator is known to the woman. The number of unreported cases is also large.

Madam Speaker! This is a much-awaited reform, which aims to strengthen the safety and protection for those exposed to violence in protected housing. It is most often about women and children. This bill represents a paradigm shift in Swedish politics, where children are now for the first time seen as independent rights-holders and no longer just as accompaniments to the adult.

Too many women and children live in violent relationships today. A full 80 percent of the crimes of assault against adult women were committed by someone close to them, according to Brå. Many women are forced to flee to a protected residence as a result of the violence they have been exposed to, and in many cases, children come along.

Children staying in sheltered housing have often witnessed or themselves been subjected to violence. The violence has frequently persisted for several years - sometimes throughout the child's entire life. According to research, the destructive consequences of violence can be reduced through proper support and treatment interventions. In the report Min tur att berätta, children themselves speak about the serious deficiencies that exist in sheltered housing.

The investigation preceding this bill was conducted by Member of Parliament Fredrik Lundh Sammeli, for which we are very grateful for a good investigation. It is titled A Window of Opportunities - strengthened child rights perspective for children in sheltered housing, SOU 2017:112, and unfortunately establishes that the support for children in sheltered housing is often non-existent or deficient.

The investigation finds, among other things, that children placed in protected housing together with a guardian are not always investigated and that a lack of cooperation and routines lead to the child often being without schooling or preschool - sometimes during their entire stay in the protected housing, which in some cases can amount to around one year. Furthermore, routines are lacking to ensure that the child's need for care is met, despite studies pointing out that around a quarter of the children in protected housing suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

For the investigation, experts in the field as well as the children themselves pointed out that contact with the suspected perpetrator during the child's time in the protected residence is a major problem.

Madam Speaker! Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the state shall act and provide relevant protection when a child is exposed to violence, as well as develop methods and ways of working to prevent children from being exposed to violence.

Sweden is and shall be a pioneer in the work to prevent and combat violence against children. That children in sheltered housing fall through the cracks is unacceptable. A change must occur so that the time in sheltered housing is utilized as the opportunity it actually is - a time when society can attend to the child's needs and, through support measures, work to ensure that the housing becomes a turning point in the child's life.

A national mapping from Socialstyrelsen shows that in 2020 there were 4,700 children staying in sheltered housing. The possibility to flee to and live in a sheltered housing facility can be life-saving. It is therefore important that our sheltered housings maintain high and good quality and that they do so across the entire country.

Today, however, anyone can start and run a sheltered housing because there are both no quality requirements and no licensing requirement. This leads to large quality differences and poor oversight in our sheltered housing.

Madam Speaker! The Government recognizes the problems that exist with sheltered housing. Therefore, we submit a proposition which entails the following.

Firstly, we introduce requirements for a permit from the Inspectorate for Health and Care, Ivo, to operate a protected residence. Regardless of whether a protected residence is operated by a municipality, a private entity, or a non-profit organization, quality, safety, and security must be guaranteed for the residents.

The permit requirement is also a tool to prevent welfare crime, which we see risks draining our society of resources. Through better oversight into who operates protected housing, unserious and purely criminal actors can be shut out of this market.

Secondly, children finally become independent rights holders. As I have mentioned, we know that many of the children in sheltered housing have been directly exposed to violence or have experienced violence against a guardian. The violence has devastating consequences for children's health and development. Despite this, children's own needs for, for example, care and support are rarely investigated, and despite the fact that we have compulsory schooling in our country, children have no independent rights to school, health and medical care, or leisure activities. Instead, they are and have been seen primarily as accompanying persons to the parent who is fleeing.

Many stay in a violent relationship to ensure that their children, for example, receive schooling. This means that we have women who put their own lives at stake to be able to ensure that their children receive some kind of basic security and the right to school.

For the third time, we introduce limited visitation rights. Today, the violent parent has visitation rights even if the child has moved to a protected residence, provided that this parent is the guardian. It jeopardizes the safety and security of children and women, and there is a risk that the residential address will be revealed for those who have moved to a protected residence.

We now take the side of the vulnerable and limit the visitation rights for the violent parent, and we enable the social welfare committee to keep the child's residential address confidential.

Madam Speaker! Strengthening children's rights as well as working against violence in close relationships are priority issues for our government.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight everyone who works with and within protected housing in Sweden today. I know that there are many who are following today's debate and that the proposals in this bill are very much awaited. Protecting those exposed to violence, the majority of whom are women and children, and ensuring that those who need it are met with protected housing of high quality and high competence is a team effort.

Madam Speaker! With the bill Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing, we now take the next important step in preventing welfare crime, quality-assuring our sheltered housing and – perhaps most importantly – ensuring that children become independent rights-holders.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Hultberg (M) concurred.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister understands that I am quite concerned that one has not quite taken into account the whole reality that we find ourselves in.

There is one thing that I am also very worried about, but which I think I might still have a chance to influence a little bit.

Now the municipalities will be given an enormous responsibility. We are actually shifting the entire responsibility onto the municipalities again, and the social services will need to undergo an enormous change in their work to be able to comply with what the legislation says. At the same time, enormous cuts are occurring. We have an extremely difficult economic situation, which hits the municipalities hard.

My question is how the government can guarantee that this will not affect those exposed to violence who are in need of protection when the new law enters into force.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for an important question!

It is extremely important that we now provide the right conditions. This has been so long-awaited and so highly demanded. I have also, before the referral to the Council on Legislation was written and the bill was subsequently finalized, had a long series of meetings with both children's rights organizations and women's shelters, with for example Stadsmissionen and with SKR, where we have discussed the financing.

I can state that this reform is financed with 335.5 million kronor. A total of 456 million is spent if one includes courts and investments in Ivo and so on. In addition, a sum of 8 billion is added over the coming years to ensure that the social services can shift their work to early prevention and reacting to early signals.

This is a collective effort that should not be seen in different tracks, but it is a consistent construction of strengthened rights and strengthened protection for both children and women who find themselves in vulnerable situations.

We can state that we do not agree with SKR. We have not received SKR's calculations, I should also say. They differ by quite a lot. For example, SKR wants retroactive compensation for current costs for sheltered housing.

However, it is very clear that SKR's calculation gives an estimated cost per individual that is more than twice as high as, for example, in Denmark, which is the country in the Nordics with the highest costs for sheltered housing.

We therefore clearly have different views on this. SKR considers that the municipalities have no responsibility to provide sheltered housing for victims of violence if needed. We do not share that assessment.

The question to Member Maj Karlsson is whether she shares the view that the municipalities today have no obligation to do this.

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

Maj Karlsson (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister is quite right that SKR's and the government's assessments differ quite significantly. The government has announced 321 million, it is said from SKR's side, even though the calculation is approximately 607 million. SKR believes that 2.4 billion are needed. It is said from SKR's side that the government has based its figures on incorrect calculations. You have based your figures on a total cost of 607 million kronor, which is based on 4,880 placed adults and 4,700 children, while Socialstyrelsen says 6,700 adults and 6,300 children.

To answer the Minister's question: Of course, the municipalities have a responsibility; it is clear in the Social Services Act.

But what I want to emphasize is that if we do not do it right and ensure that there are actually resources to implement this legislation, this can become devastating. It is enough for one mother to somehow end up in a situation where she cannot take her child with her. Then other mothers will not seek help. We cannot risk that situation.

We can continue here with one saying a bit this and the other a bit that, but I think that conflict is quite uninteresting. The conflict that is interesting and that I say we have right now is that we know the municipalities are on their knees. We see clearly that there is a gap when it comes to what is actually requested in order to be able to implement this. And if there are not enough resources, this legislation will become dangerous.

Therefore, my question is: How can the Minister guarantee a child's right to receive protection when they are subjected to violence?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! I truly share the view that it is incredibly important that we, with this bill and the reform, now ensure that security and safety are provided in the right way. This is also the reason why I can state today that the government will follow the implementation of and the continuation of the reform very closely.

I am not interested in any numerical trickery. But it is extremely important to take part of the experience in countries that have had permit requirements and protected housing for a long time and which have very clear statistics on this. It is responsible and important to take part of this experience when it exists.

I would therefore like to state once again that when we compare with the countries in our own vicinity whose context is similar to our own, we see that SKR's calculations are based on costs that are more than twice as high as the costs we can see in our neighboring countries. This is nevertheless an important point regarding how one ensures that the right resources are obtained.

I want to once again emphasize that we will very closely follow the introduction of this bill and how it is implemented in our municipalities. For the government, it is incredibly important that we can provide the basic security that has been demanded for a long time. We can state today, not least after having listened to children's own voices, that it does not exist today. We have significant quality deficiencies, in a number of different ways, at the protected residences in Sweden today. We also have extremely high quality - it is also important to highlight that. But with this reform, we now get other conditions to be able to ensure that everyone who flees to protected residences can feel a sense of security and can receive support and help based on the needs they have.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Camilla Waltersson Grönvall, for your speech earlier! We completely agree that we need to change the legislation and make new decisions to secure children's rights. But we also need to know that what we decide provides the effect we want – that children are heard, which is an important factor in the investigation *Ett fönster av möjligheter*, which showed children's feeling of not being important and not belonging.

It is very good when we have frameworks and so on, but what I miss in the government's work and what I often return to is that the government does not take a leadership role and say: We need to get good monitoring instruments and uniform methods. The Minister himself mentioned that there are missing routines for providing healthcare to these children. How is the government then working to ensure that this changes? How does the government follow up that children actually receive healthcare, not just that there is a routine for it to happen, and that children do not continue to fall through the cracks but actually get a chance to be heard and receive the interventions they need?

We are, as said, in agreement that we need to change the legislation and clarify and strengthen children's rights. But how does the government follow up to ensure that it actually happens?

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Member, for the question! For this government, it is extremely important to ensure that we achieve increased safety, not least for our children and young people, where particularly vulnerable children and young people are specifically in focus.

We are building a cathedral of safety. It is about all the reforms that have been partially mentioned by other members in the speaker's chair today, but also about all the ongoing work to ensure that children's voices are heard. This shall not only be words but also something that is pervasive in society's work, and the government's work naturally becomes extremely important as a role model. Therefore, it is an important part of not least the mandate I have to ensure that children's voices are included in directive writing, in connection with investigations, and also when it comes to evaluating different reforms.

Madam Speaker! This bill has not even entered into force yet, but I can assure and reassure the members and perhaps other members that follow-ups are perhaps the Moderaternas' dull but also quite reliable hallmark. It is also very clear from the government's side that we do not only intend to follow the implementation but naturally also shall ensure that the intentions that exist in this important investigation and this important bill are realized.

Evaluation and follow-up should be a natural part of every reform that is implemented, but one can quickly observe that looking back in time, it has not always been so. But if we are to know that this has the effect that I perceive everyone in the chamber today is striving for, it is naturally important that there is a follow-up and an evaluation. This proposition has, however, not entered into force yet, so let us return to follow-up and evaluation.

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

Martina Johansson (C)

Madam Speaker! No, this legislation has not entered into force yet. But we have had this government for a fairly long period now. The government has for a long time had the opportunity to start asking the question and follow up, regardless of which reforms we are talking about, at the individual level within these areas. We have agreed on other changes being made, but how do we follow up that it actually makes a difference for the individual child?

It is important that children are given a voice when we write directives and when we evaluate different matters. But how do we ensure that the rights of the individual child are strengthened in an intervention? It could be about protected housing, foster care placement, the National Board for Residential Care (Statens institutionsstyrelse), or HVB homes; there are many different activities where the government has a responsibility. I do not see that the question has been addressed and that work is being done to follow up that the reinforcements being made actually make a difference and that the money allocated to different activities goes toward strengthening the individual child's rights.

I therefore wonder how the government will follow up on whether this reform, even though it has not yet entered into force, actually delivers what we want, namely that children are heard and receive a secure upbringing.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! I truly appreciate the member's wholehearted commitment to ensuring that the rights of children and young people are taken into account. That being said, I must hope that the member can feel some consolation, regardless of how long the government has been in power or not.

This is about a proposition that has not even come into effect yet, and we will, of course, return to how we evaluate it. The municipalities are now given a clear responsibility to follow up on this as well when it concerns the decisions regarding children that are now, for the first time, to be made.

It is almost difficult to grasp the fact that even in 2024, at least until April 1, we do not have a situation where children who come to sheltered housing receive their own assistance decisions. We are changing that now. Just this provides an opportunity to be able to evaluate for the first time.

Before this legislation is in place, it is incredibly difficult to evaluate what it will deliver. I believe the member agrees with that.

We will also ensure that the Children's Ombudsman, which is the authority that specifically works with children's rights, shall follow up on this legislation to ensure that its intentions are realized.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! Through the current bill, important changes are being made to protect children and parents exposed to violence. Most often, it concerns mothers. This is the result of a long process of work from many women's shelters, other organizations and parties. As my party colleague Marcus Wennerström has pointed out, it is the investigation by the deputy chairman of the Committee on Social Affairs, Fredrik Lundh Sammelis, that forms the basis for the entire bill.

Madam Speaker! What is now being debated is however limited to protected housing, but naturally, all children must be protected from violence regardless of where they live. We Social Democrats therefore want to see broader possibilities for visitation restrictions for guardians who have committed violence. We believe that a "lex Tintin" should be introduced to protect children from visitation when the visitation risks being harmful. When a parent has committed violence against a child, a parent, or another family member, the basic principle should be that no unprotected visitation shall be ordered. The child's right to a life free from violence shall be paramount over the so-called contact principle in the Children and Parents Code.

These issues are handled within family law and in the Committee on Civil Affairs, where I work. I am pleased with the good and close cross-committee cooperation we have on this with Fredrik Lundh Sammeli and Marcus Wennerström. We Social Democrats welcome the broad party-political unity that exists in the Committee on Civil Affairs regarding the fact that today's family law needs to be changed and children's rights strengthened.

Madam Speaker! It has been just over a year since the boy Tintin was murdered in Luleå by his father during a social gathering. He was forced into the gathering despite his fear, despite his mother's warnings, and despite several authorities being aware of the risks. Tintin was forced into the gathering, and he was murdered during the gathering. Tintin and his mother did not live in protected housing. The legislative change that is on our table today would therefore not have helped him or the very many children who every week and every day are forced into gatherings where there is a risk of violence and who therefore do not live in protected housing.

Therefore, more legislative changes are required to protect the lives and health of children exposed to violence. This is something we Social Democrats have also pressed the government on, not least responsible minister Gunnar Strömmer. We now look forward to the close dialogue that Gunnar Strömmer has promised us regarding the upcoming referral to the Council of Legislation of T ryggare hem för barn. We assume that the high level of ambition that the government expresses here today shall also apply to other legislative matters, the high level of ambition to protect children from all violence.

Madam Speaker! One question that the Minister for Social Services could have made more of here and now is the proposal that the investigator Fredrik Lundh Sammeli raised regarding visitation with visitation support in the aforementioned SOU. Proposition 2009/10:192 contained a proposal for a regulation in the Parental Code stating that the court in cases of visitation shall have the opportunity to decide that a person appointed by the social welfare committee shall participate in the visitation, so-called visitation support. In its opinion to the Reinfeldt government on the proposal, the Council on Legislation questioned the appropriateness of it not being possible to make a separate decision on visitation support. It was argued that there could be a need for an opportunity for the court to specifically make a separate decision on this. But the Reinfeldt government did not follow the Council on Legislation.

It has now been more than ten years. Several cases of irregularities during visitation have been noted. Children are also the only crime victims who are forced to meet their perpetrators. I have previously mentioned Tintin, who was murdered during visitation. Unfortunately, there are many more examples of violence against children during visitation. Often, social services and the district court have knowledge that a risk of violence exists, but the children have nevertheless been forced into the perpetrators' homes, with abuse and violence as a result. Society fails these children every day.

Research and authority reports show that mothers subjected to violence are often left alone to protect their children from violent fathers. It is not about isolated cases or exceptions. On the contrary, it is the case that children and mothers subjected to violence are systematically left alone by society's support systems and the justice system to be forced to defend themselves against the violence.

There is plenty of research and reports. This is well known. Now it is up to us in the Swedish Riksdag whether we will achieve a practical change for these children. No child should be forced into contact with perpetrators, and no child should have to experience violence. And no mother should have to be left alone with protecting the children both against the father's violence and against society's silence regarding and upholding the violence.

Madam Speaker! Society needs to acquire more tools to ensure that visitation does not lead to violence and abuse. One of several such tools is an expanded possibility for district courts to decide on visitation with visitation support in line with what the Council on Legislation has said. If the district court judges that it is in the child's best interest to have visitation despite a risk of violence and abuse, society must take responsibility to ensure that violence and abuse cannot occur. Society must not give the perpetrator of violence a free pass to continue.

It is about having the strength to shift the perspective and see the role and responsibility of legislation in preventing social gatherings from becoming an arena where children, as they are today, are repeatedly subjected to violence and abuse.

Madam Speaker! In the aforementioned SOU, it is proposed that the government should investigate how social support is applied in practice. That would have been a way to also address the Council on Legislation's objection. We regret that the Minister and the government did not take this opportunity when other parts of the investigation are being handled in today's matter. But we continue to press on.

The handling of social support was an important reform introduced during the Reinfeldt government, and it should now be expanded. Just as we have succeeded in convincing the Moderaterna regarding what is now before the Riksdag concerning children and mothers in protected housing, we hope the Social Democrats can also convince the Moderaterna regarding this.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! I always welcome committed members when it comes to the rights of children and young people. Even though I believe that Fredrik Lundh Sammeli has left the chamber, I want to emphasize that the investigation which forms the basis for the bill that we are debating here today was conducted by him.

It is almost painful to have to point out that it has been seven years since that investigation was presented. It means that no Social Democratic government has succeeded in presenting a bill that has led to us actually taking a step forward when it comes to protected housing and the rights of children and young people linked to this.

I note that this government has the rights of children and young people and increased safety in strong focus. We presented an expanded travel ban a short while ago. We continue to work with lex Lilla hjärtat. The previous Social Democratic government failed to take the step to make children independent rights holders, even though that is what would have saved the girl in Norrköping.

Now we take steps one by one to build children's safety. We are working with Fredrik Malmberg's investigation, which concerns a strategy against violence against children. We are also working with the investigation called Safer homes for children, which is under the Ministry of Justice and which involves a number of different proposals to increase children's safety.

I therefore state with emphasis, and not without a certain pride, that I represent a government that moves from words to action, in contrast to the government we saw previously.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Madam Speaker! I think it is very nice that the Minister requests a reply, for it is not particularly often that a member receives a reply from a Minister. I therefore thank you for the opportunity and state that many of the things that the government is now putting forward are products that we started under the previous government.

The Minister raised Safer homes for children. Now that I have the opportunity, I would therefore like to ask the Minister, who has been involved in this debate earlier, about what was raised earlier: Will the government have an equally clear level of ambition regarding children's right to avoid contact with a perpetrator also when it concerns children who do not live in protected housing?

I know that there are many mothers and children affected by violence who follow the debates surrounding this. There are very many children and mothers affected by violence who do not get a place in protected housing and who live with the violence every week. It is called post-violence when one has left the violent relationship, but there is no "after" in that violence. It is happening here and now. Will the government have the same high level of ambition to prevent violent parents from being able to have contact with the victims - the children, the survivors of violence - in the same way as has been proposed in this bill?

The Minister also highlights the strategy for a childhood free from violence. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to ask whether what was presented in that investigation – which was also commissioned by the previous government – will have consequences for what is now being presented in Safer Homes for Children.

I want to say that I am proceeding from what the Minister for Justice has told us about the fact that there will be a good and close dialogue. That is what we hope for and trust in.

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

Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member himself points out, Safer homes for children is an investigation that falls under the Ministry of Justice. I would not dare to precede the Minister of Justice in the dialogue that he has promised with the Committee on Civil Affairs, but I note that work is being carried out intensively on the investigations that are now on the government's table. We also have a great deal of contact between the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. I have, not least myself, sometimes noted that the Social Services Act falls under the Ministry of Social Affairs and myself, while the Children and Parents Code falls under the Ministry of Justice and the Minister of Justice. This naturally means that the government must work together in order to be able to build the cathedral of safety that is the government's intention when it comes to the policy surrounding children and young people.

It is a bit silly to have to point this out, but I note that the investigations that I am now receiving and that the Ministry of Justice is receiving are indeed the result of a very powerful piece of work in the Committee on Social Affairs, where I had the privilege of sitting with many parties that were also very engaged in children's and youth issues.

We have a large number of motions that forced the previous government to appoint inquiries, and I therefore note that it is these motions that form the basis for the inquiries that this government is now taking part in. In that way, we are building the policy that we began, not least in the Committee on Social Affairs and the Committee on Justice.

I understand that it can be particularly distressing for a member with such great commitment to these issues that the previous years resulted in very few concrete proposals for children. Now this government is taking this further.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, I appreciate that the Minister took my point. I think that bodes well for future exchanges as well between our parties. I come from a municipality where we Social Democrats govern with the Moderates. It is very effective, and one goes far when one can cooperate.

Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing

I also note that it was pressure from our party in the Committee on Civil Affairs that led to a unanimous committee obtaining a report on division processes. I truly believe that cooperation across party lines is possible.

But now that I have the opportunity, and the Moderaterna have such a high level of tail-following regarding that you go first, I can state that in the survey that Rädda Barnen presented last week, seven out of eight parties in this chamber said that they were prepared to give a child their own representative in disputes over custody, housing, and visitation. Children should not be protected from processes; they should be protected in processes.

Which party was it that did not think so? Yes, it was the party of the Minister for Social Services and the so-called Minister for Children's Rights, the Moderaterna – the only party here in the chamber that says no to children being allowed to have their own representative in these disputes!

I really wish that the Moderaterna could join us other parties and take action also on the words the minister uttered earlier in his speech regarding that children's voices should be heard. We look forward to that, because I truly believe that we have very much in common, and we will indeed continue to talk about these issues in the Social Affairs Committee, in the Justice Committee, and in the Civil Affairs Committee where there are also several members.

I am completely certain that there are good conditions to strengthen the rights of children exposed to violence, regardless of whether they have a protected residence or whether they have not been given such a place.

Strengthened rights for children and adults in sheltered housing

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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