Response to interpellation 2023/24:782 on the work against violence in close relationships

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me how I intend to act so that those subjected to violence do not remain in destructive situations.

I would like to thank the interpellor for the question and the commitment to strengthen society's protection and support for those affected by violence in close relationships, a commitment that I and the government share. That society should be able to protect the vulnerable and prevent violence is a self-evident and central part of the government's work against men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression.

The Government is working systematically and intensively to ensure that those affected by violence receive the support and protection they need before, during, and after processes of breaking away. In order for those affected by violence to be able to leave destructive relationships, a chain of coordinated interventions from a number of actors is needed. I would like to mention some examples of the Government's measures here.

The government is currently working on a new action program to ensure coordinated, long-term and effective work to prevent and combat men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, and honor-related violence and oppression. The new program shall apply for 2024-2026.

The government has during 2024 allocated just over 600 million kronor to strengthen the work within the gender equality policy area. Through the investments, the protection against violence and oppression can be strengthened while the support for the vulnerable is improved.

Socialstyrelsen has been commissioned in 2024 to analyze and produce proposals for a coordinated support chain for individuals subjected to violence (S2024/00720).

On 1 April 2024, a new regulatory framework entered into force, which means that protected housing becomes a housing intervention according to the Social Services Act with minimum requirements and a licensing requirement for those who operate protected housing. The reform implies strengthened rights for children in protected housing and a new possibility to protect the child from contact with a violent guardian during the stay in the housing.

The Government has also commissioned several inquiries in the field of criminal law to achieve a shift in perspective where the rules are to be designed to a greater extent from a crime victim's perspective and with consideration of society's need for protection.

As the interpellor has pointed out, the Health and Social Services Inspectorate, Ivo, has recently presented a mandate regarding reinforced supervision of the social services' and the health and medical care's work against men's violence against women, domestic violence, and honor-related violence and oppression. Ivo's supervision indicates serious deficiencies in relation to current regulations in this area. Municipalities and regions should carefully consider the supervision results and remedy the deficiencies. The social services and the health and medical care have a very important role in the work with both victims of violence and perpetrators of violence. The Government continues to work to ensure that men's violence against women ceases through interventions at all levels of society.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have posed my questions in the interpellation because the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, IVO, has carried out an extensive supervisory effort. They have done so based on a mandate from the previous government to carry out just such a supervisory effort. It concerns the work being carried out in municipalities and regions related to exposure to violence and violence.

The collective supervision shows that deficiencies in regulatory compliance and processing hinder the detection of violence and, in the worst cases, also conceal ongoing violence. The result emerging from the supervision confirms, overall, the results and conclusions from Ivos' previous supervision within the area.

The delays have serious consequences for those subjected to violence and children who witness violence. In three cases that Ivo has examined, the victims of violence have died as a result of the violence they were subjected to. In other cases, measures and interventions risk becoming neither relevant, accurate, nor sufficient. They also risk not being executed in time or not being executed at all.

It is very serious deficiencies that emerge in this extensive report on supervisory efforts. It is out there in reality, in the meeting, among regions and social services and in the regions' work that it actually makes a difference to do something for every individual exposed to violence.

The health centers are not following the Socialstyrelsen's regulations and all requirements. It concerns compliance with, among other things, the strengthened requirements for routines to ask about violence. Compliance with the requirements for cooperation is deficient.

In the supervision of the social welfare boards' work with children and adults exposed to violence and children who have witnessed violence, Ivo found deficiencies in 40 of the 46 reviewed cases. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that municipalities have not implemented decisions on interventions in 94 cases related to violence or those exposed to violence.

In the government's response, I hear that Socialstyrelsen has been tasked to analyze and develop proposals for a coordinated care chain. I think that is good, and it is completely right to do so.

But my questions remain after what we have heard today. Has the Minister for Equality called a meeting regarding SKR, or has she had discussions with them? With this report on the table, it should be a high priority in the work. What are the time aspects regarding Socialstyrelsen's mandate, and so on? I think the Minister can answer such questions later in the debate. It would be appropriate given the consequences these deficiencies have.

The answer also states that inflation is an explanation and one of the reasons for the regions' poor economy. Is this the answer from the government? Is that why the shortages exist? Should one wait for inflation to fall so that there is an opportunity to address the shortages? Is that how I should interpret the answer?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Violence in close relationships is a major problem that must be combated with the greatest force of society. It is very important that we debate precisely this issue.

With that said, I also want to thank the interpellor for submitting this interpellation. I would, however, simultaneously say that I think it is time to do it now, when one is in opposition. The Social Democrats were, after all, one of the parties that voted no to important reforms to counter men's violence against women. Why did the Social Democrats not do more on the issue when they actually sat in power?

I am, as I said, still glad that the interpellor has finally woken up and that she now sees the importance of us touching upon the issue. This is an area that is urgent every single day, because right now, someone is being subjected to violence in a close relationship.

It is difficult to understand what it is like to live a life in a relationship where one is exposed to violence and how it is experienced. There are many who do not understand why one does not leave, why one does not report it, and so on. But it is not that easy. If one has never lived a life in a close relationship bordered by violence of any kind, one does not fully know what it entails either. I know what it entails. I have, in fact, experienced it myself.

Mr. Speaker! Violence in a close relationship is a very broad issue, and it therefore needs to be combated on many levels. It can range from controlling behavior to pure punches, which is a reality that many unfortunately live in. It does not only happen with a man as the perpetrator, even though it is most often a man. It does not only happen between people who are born in Sweden; it is indeed common with violence in close relationships in parallel societies. It does not only happen physically, but psychological violence is also common. Often, these go hand in hand.

It is not only occurring in adult relationships, but violence in intimate relationships among young people has increased significantly. Almost every fourth young girl has been subjected to crime in her relationship, according to Brå.

All of this is important, and it is important that one is attentive to it. The work against violence in close relationships is one of our country's greatest failures. It is a major societal problem that we simply cannot turn a blind eye to. We must take responsibility, and we must become better at preventing this. We must protect the one who is subjected to it but also tighten the penalties.

We Sweden Democrats consider that all sentencing scales for serious crimes against any person should be tightened overall. This also applies to those who commit violence in a close relationship. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the government has any ambition to increase the sentencing scales for those who commit violence in a close relationship.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister just said in his interpellation answer that this is a task that should take place "at all levels of society." It is well known, among other things through research – I have myself asked the Minister questions about this previously – that perpetrators often use children and pets as tools to gain access to women who are victims of violence, to perpetrate violence against them, and to make them stay in or return to a violent relationship.

The Riksdag and the government have previously taken measures to make it more difficult for perpetrators of violence to use pets to get to women. During a previous parliamentary term when I myself sat in the Committee on the Constitution for the Social Democrats, we made decisions, among other things, on confidentiality-breaking provisions between social services and animal welfare control authorities to enable information sharing between the authorities. Measures have therefore been taken to prevent a perpetrator from using pets against a woman subjected to violence.

Mr. Speaker! It would be appropriate for the same perspective to be applied regarding the children.

What must society then do to prevent children from being used by a perpetrator against a woman subjected to violence? This would be for the protection of both the children and the woman.

For many women, today's family law legislation means that they remain in violent relationships because they are terrified of what the perpetrator will do to the children if the perpetrator is left alone with them. Violence in various forms, for example physical, psychological and sexual abuse, can be hidden by perpetrators for a long time. Research also shows that children are often threatened into silence, Mr. Speaker. The children are told what will happen to them themselves or to mother if they tell about the abuse and the violence. Small children have a particular vulnerability, but all children in these situations are very vulnerable and defenseless, especially in light of the family law legislation.

Just the civil legislation regarding family law has become a kind of woman trap that holds victims of violence in continued violence due to fear of what a separation would mean for the children when these are left alone with the perpetrator.

What measures does the Minister therefore intend to take within his areas of responsibility in light of the theme we are debating today, that is, how we should act so that those exposed to violence do not remain in destructive relationships - also in light of what the Minister said, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that this work must take place at all levels of society?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the Minister said in the interpellation response regarding the new legislation on protected housing. It is a very welcome legislative matter that the Riksdag has passed and which was initiated during the previous Social Democratic-led government. It is good that we have party-political unity regarding this.

We have, however, been reached by information from several women's shelters, including in Örnsköldsvik and Sundsvall, that the new legislation on protected housing means that fewer people in need of protection receive the protection from violence that they need and are entitled to because fewer children than before are now allowed to accompany their mothers. This means, Mr. Speaker, that the mothers choose not to take the place they have been allocated and are entitled to. Why? Well, because they judge that it is not in the child's best interest to be left alone with the perpetrator of violence. Here, the child abuse crime that our government helped push through and advocated for has not been taken into account.

My question is: It is very good that this is to be done at all levels, but how do we ensure that it also happens at the civil law level?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Mr. Speaker! Ivos report was incredibly important. I myself received a presentation of the report. Of course, it is good that these deficiencies are exposed, because we cannot have it this way. My view is not that this is a question of resources, but that it is largely a question of ignorance, lack of routines, and things that can be remedied. That is precisely why it is good that this is exposed.

We need to work to see why someone does not leave a violent relationship. I have heard the question very many times when talking about this: If it is so bad, why doesn't she leave the relationship? I want to tell about two women whom I have met.

I met a woman during the campaign for the parliamentary election. We can call her Anna. I participated in a panel debate on men's violence against women and violence in close relationships, and after the debate, Anna came up to me and told me that she had lived in a relationship where she was subjected to violence. After years of severe violence against her, she chose to leave the relationship. She told me that she regretted this. She did so because she felt that the situation for her children had become worse since she left the relationship. She had great anxiety because she was now exposing her child to this danger.

We must, therefore, really consider the children's perspective - not only for the children's sake, even though that is a good enough reason, but also in order to be able to enable those exposed to violence to leave the relationships.

Here we have the reform on protected housing. Of course, we will carefully analyze how it turns out, but one piece of the puzzle there is that the children receive their own protection status and that we look at how we can protect the children through protected housing.

In addition to this, the government is preparing further proposals aimed at strengthening the protection of children in connection with visitation when a parent has committed violence or committed another serious violation. We hope to be able to present proposals there as well. The question of forced visitation, quite simply, is central to this work.

The second woman I want to tell you about is a woman I met in my role as a prosecutor. We can call her Fatima. Fatima had also been subjected to extremely severe violence. She was also regularly raped by her husband. This was an incredibly strong case. She had recorded what happened on her mobile phone, and we played it back in court.

Fatima did not leave the relationship because she did not believe she could without her husband's permission. She did not know that a woman in Sweden can apply for divorce without the husband's approval. For that reason, she stayed in the relationship. She did not make these recordings to use them as evidence in any way, but she made them so that her son, if the man disappeared with the child, could see what her situation had been.

This reveals another factor that we must take into account. We must also see from that perspective what makes someone feel that they do not have the possibility to leave a violent relationship.

I will return to the concrete measures that the government is taking in light of this issue in upcoming remarks.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! From several sides, we receive stories from those subjected to violence about what it can look like. There are many such stories - far too many. This is ongoing. We will receive a new story tomorrow and the day after that.

That is why we are here. That is why we are having this debate. That is why I raise this supervision report, which so clearly shows where the shortcomings are. Again, I want to point out that Ivo, in his supervision of the social committees' work with children and adults subjected to violence, and children who have witnessed violence, found shortcomings in 40 out of 46 reviewed cases. That is an incredibly large number.

It is here that I think one needs to put the strength, the energy, and the gunpowder to get to the bottom of this – to discover it, to conduct the conversations, and to carry out the work with several of the things that have already been raised here tonight.

I am rephrasing my questions. Has the Minister had any meetings with SKR in connection with this report? If so, what was said there? I think that the Minister should have questions for SKR regarding this, and if so, what are those?

Furthermore, I wonder about the Socialstyrelsen's assignment to analyze and submit proposals, which is raised in the government's response. When is it to be reported? How much time has Socialstyrelsen been given before they are to present the proposals on a coherent care chain?

I repeat my questions because I have not received answers to them.

I also want to emphasize that Ivo says that the deficiencies are often a matter of management and governance, and that it is often the compliance with the guidelines and rules that is lacking. It can, in many cases, have to do with what prerequisites and opportunities one has to work with systematic follow-up of the steering documents that one is to comply with. What does the quality work look like?

Finally, I wonder if there are too many employees and too much to do, what competence development exists among the leaders, and what requirements are placed on those who are managers and are to lead the work. It can be an economic question. What is the Minister's view of this, given that it is obvious that there are deficiencies?

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

Sara Gille (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the Social Democrats promising during their time in power to turn over every stone to tackle crime, violence against women, and much more, they did not do enough. Instead, we saw how it all escalated.

The Social Democrats led the self-proclaimed feminist government, and they failed not only to handle the escalating gang crime. They also failed with a collective effort against men's violence against women and with breaking the negative development. Women's vulnerability regarding sexual crimes increased significantly during the time the Social Democrats were in power. It is the Social Democrats who bear responsibility for what the current government and the Sverigedemokraterna must clean up.

Mr. Speaker! The perpetrator's right to contact has unfortunately long been more important than the victim's right to avoid being forced into the same contact. It is something that I simply cannot reconcile. Therefore, I am pleased that an investigation has recently been conducted on more effective contact prohibition legislation and increased protection for vulnerable persons, and that the legislative changes are proposed to enter into force in July 2025. It is part of all the legislative changes that should have entered into force a long time ago but which previous governments have not introduced.

Mr. Speaker! The time after a breakup from a relationship marked by some form of violence is usually not easy. It takes time to dare to relax and trust other people. For my part, I am still working on it, even though it has now been six or seven years since I became free. So it is, unfortunately, for most.

To dare to go out without having a lump in one's stomach and feeling anxiety that the perpetrator is waiting for you is not easy. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister in what way the government intends to facilitate things for the victims when it comes to just that part.

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

Laila Naraghi (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister and the other participants in this important debate tonight. It is important to see that we are pulling in the same direction and that there is great party-political unity on this. I have previously conveyed to the Minister for Justice and in the civil law discussion in the Committee on Civil Affairs, where I usually work, that we appreciate that we can try to pull in the same direction and help each other.

Under the Löfven government, we had a broad party-political consensus on the consent legislation. It has meant an enormous amount and was a paradigm shift in the view of men's violence against women. It was important that we did it together. Now, it is a matter of taking further steps. As a reformist and social democrat, I am convinced that this work must continue all the time.

In this spirit, I want to continue to raise the civil law issue. The previous government tasked the Gender Equality Authority to look at exactly how violence is used when it comes to custody, residence, and visitation. This led to the Gender Equality Authority's important report "Facts about violence are no exception."

Our government then appointed the inquiry on safer homes for children. Included in it, which the Minister knows, were, among other things, proposals to strengthen the protection for children during visitation, that which has come to be called and which is forced visitation.

Now it is a matter of proposals being submitted on this. We Social Democrats have presented what we see needs to be done. I truly welcome that the Minister clearly stated here in the rostrum earlier that we must ensure that family law legislation is not used to keep women in destructive relationships. She is welcome to say more about precisely that work.

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Mr. Speaker! I also appreciate that we have this debate and that we have a broad consensus on the issues. Consensus is not enough, however, concrete measures are required. That is also exactly what this government is working on.

Within my area of responsibility, I am currently working intensively on developing a new action program that is to commence from this year. It is a matter of finding the precise measures that actually make a difference when it comes to this issue.

In addition, the government has appointed an inquiry to produce a new national strategy to take a collective grip on the work regarding men's violence against women, violence in close relationships, honor-related violence and oppression, human trafficking and prostitution.

A common thread through the government's work is that we are implementing a shift in perspective, from the perpetrator to the crime victim. We must look much more clearly at the interests of the crime victims. Previous policy has been characterized by an apprehension when it comes to intervening against perpetrators. The price for this apprehension has had to be paid by those exposed to violence.

In Sweden today, far too many people are living in hiding, victims of violence, especially women. Every day they need to think about their own personal safety. Every day they are worried that their perpetrator will come and knock on the door, that the perpetrator has found them. This is a betrayal. That these women are forced to live in that way in Sweden is an incredibly great betrayal.

The government is implementing a number of measures, including within criminal policy, to address the situation. An investigation is currently looking at how we can increase the sentencing scales. In response to the member's question, we are conducting a review of the sentencing scales regarding violent and sexual crimes.

We are also reviewing the legislation on restraining orders, which is a piece of the puzzle. We believe that more restraining orders should be able to be issued, that more restraining orders should be able to be combined with electronic ankle bracelets, and that restraining orders should be able to cover larger geographical areas. It simply must be the perpetrator's freedom that is restricted to a greater extent, rather than the crime victims'.

We are also reviewing the rental legislation. It is unreasonable as it is today, as it is often the victim of violence who is forced into an insecure housing situation because they are leaving a violent relationship. We are reviewing the rental legislation so that in more cases it will be possible to evict the perpetrator, and the contract shall be able to be transferred to the person who is subjected to violence.

These are some of the many measures that the government is taking in this area. We simply think it is completely unreasonable that one continues to betray those subjected to violence in the way that has been done until today.

When it comes to Ivo's report, I want to emphasize once again that there is a very heavy responsibility on municipalities and regions to take in the criticism that the report exposes and change their routines. I mean that this is not primarily a question of economics but of routines, which can be acted upon.

I have had contact several times with SKR generally regarding the work surrounding men's violence against women. The assignment to Socialstyrelsen also exists, as stated, and it aims to support municipalities and regions in their work. That assignment is to be final reported in 2027.

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

Sofia Amloh (S)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to say that when one criticizes the previous government, it is usually about flaws in one's own policy or that one says we did nothing. If one wants to be somewhat credible and nuanced, one can certainly criticize us for, for example, having done too little or that we should rather have done something else than what we did. That is criticism I would listen to, and it would be fully relevant. But to say that we did nothing in this area - apart from everything that relates to crime victims' perspectives and perpetrators - is both numbing for the debate and quite unserious. I thank you anyway for the answer, even when it concerns the conversations that have been held with SKR.

Regarding the assignment to Socialstyrelsen which runs until 2027 - was that really what the Minister of State said? It is very many years until 2027. I think it would have been reasonable with some years, perhaps one and a half, which would still be a fairly long time to produce relevant proposals in this assignment. But if it is 2027 that applies, one can probably not consider this to be a prioritized issue where one wants to quickly get measures and proposals on the table. I think that this is being dragged out. Not having higher requirements than that is not prioritizing this issue. It has become clear in the debate tonight. I think it is sad.

I hope that one does not just tell the municipalities and regions to take the criticism to heart and rectify the deficiencies without having a real discussion about what conditions exist to rectify the deficiencies. I think it is important that the Minister shows interest in that.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Paulina Brandberg (L)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot help but be somewhat astonished by the Social Democrats' notion that they would have nevertheless done quite a lot. They sat in power for eight years! I do not think one can be particularly satisfied with the measures that have been taken when we see how the victims of violence are betrayed. And it is not only the victims of violence who are betrayed. In society at large, there are today serial rapists who serve a few years in prison before being released. They settle in areas where the consequence is that women living there do not dare to go out. It is the result of the Social Democrats' passivity during their time in government. It cannot be seen in any other way.

The government is taking a number of measures. We will also in the near future present many measures that we are taking to address the issues. We simply cannot continue to fail those exposed to violence, especially women, who are affected by this crime, in the way that has been done until now.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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