Response to interpellation 2023/24:93 on the searchability of reports concerning children
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that the child's best interests and safety are prioritized and that the government is working to ensure that children do not fall through the cracks 1 2. M argues that it is not a question of whether reports should be searchable, but how it should be implemented to balance privacy against the child's best interests 2. M considers it important to be able to search across municipal boundaries to ensure that children do not fall through the cracks 3 4 and emphasizes that one must weigh the advantages and disadvantages in the investigation 3. S considers it a major risk that children are missed when social services cannot see previous reports 5. S considers it a serious threat to children that one cannot search old reports of concern 6 7. S argues that it is important to be able to search even when parents move children between municipalities 6 7. S expresses concern that the investigated model may take time 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me whether I and the government will proceed with the proposal to make reports concerning children searchable and, if so, what the timeline looks like.
One of the social committee's most important tasks is to ensure that children who are in a vulnerable situation receive the support and protection they need.
If the social services committee, after a report of concern, decides not to initiate an investigation, it is not given where the decision shall be documented, but it is a matter that the committee itself takes a position on. In many cases, these are documented in chronological order and are not searchable. If the child has previously had a personal file with the committee, the decision not to initiate an investigation can be documented there. In cases where a personal file does not already exist, there may be several reports of concern that have not led to an investigation regarding a child. Social services then risk missing children who need support or protection because a comprehensive picture of the child's situation may be lacking.
As Eva Lindh has noted, the National Board of Health and Welfare has submitted a legislative proposal in the report Making reports concerning children searchable - legal conditions for personal data processing. I and the government consider, however, that it is important that issues regarding children's records and the disposal of certain documents concerning children are reviewed in a context and that related proposals are kept together as far as possible so that the regulatory framework functions purposefully and effectively. Children's rights and safety are a priority area for the government. There is a need to continue ensuring that the child's best interests always come first.
The investigation on the exchange and collection of information in social services to prevent crime and increase protection for children has, among other things, been tasked with taking a position on whether the deletion provisions regarding child pornography should be changed. It has also had an expanded mandate at my initiative – among other things, the investigator was also to report on and analyze the legislative proposals that Socialstyrelsen proposes in the report and weigh the proposals submitted in the report against other possibilities for making reports of concern regarding children searchable.
The investigation submitted the memorandum More tools in the social services' work to prevent crime and strengthen protection for children (Ds 2023:15) to the Government Offices and the Ministry of Social Affairs on 8 May 2023. The memorandum has recently been subject to consultation, and the consultation points are now being analyzed within the Ministry of Social Affairs. When that work is complete, I and the government intend to return to the issue.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for that we can have this debate and discuss the issue, for it is extremely important.
The social services are responsible for ensuring that children and young people in difficult situations receive the support and help they need. Those who work within authorities that encounter children have a duty to report. We know that, and it is not strange. It is good that one has a duty to report if there is reason for concern. Also, a large number of reports of concern are received every year. During 2021, 422,000 reports of concern were received, which is a large increase in just a few years.
The social services make a kind of initial assessment: Do we have enough to initiate an investigation? If one does not have it – it could be that the report of concern is anonymous, that it is a bit vague and so on – no investigation is initiated. It is actually in quite many cases, approximately 62 percent, that no investigation is initiated based on the reports of concern that come in. In that situation, one must not make the report searchable if it is not already, as the Minister mentioned, a personal file or so exists.
It could, however, be the case that, without the social worker knowing it, six reports of concern have already been submitted during the last year and that they are unaware of it. If they had known that the reports of concern had arrived, perhaps they would have made a different assessment – quite certainly they would have made a different assessment – and initiated an investigation. Now, one is not allowed to look at the reports, and that means a great risk that we miss children who are being harmed. That must not happen.
I have experienced this; I have worked as a social secretary and sometimes personally felt that anxiety when one has to make the assessment of whether an investigation should be initiated or not. One also doesn't have a collective memory in that way, so that one can know. It has always given me a large lump in my stomach from the thought that we might have made a wrong decision about closing an investigation and then missed a child who suffers harm. When you talk to people who work as social secretaries or within social services and bring up the issue, they say: This should have been done a long time ago. Let us be united in that this is something we need to do something about!
I want to give an example of a group of children where there is an increased risk of this happening, and it is children who are taken away. One might not always have much on one's feet when one suspects that a child is going to be taken out of the country on so-called upbringing trips or for some other reason. There may come individual reports that are very vague - "I am worried about" or "I think that this might happen". If these children are also taken out of Sweden, it is extremely difficult to get them back to Sweden. If we could collectively see that there is concern for a child and prevent this before it happens, we would thus do a lot for the child, naturally, but also for the authorities' opportunity to support the child in the situation it lives in.
The S-led government conducted an investigation, and there is a clear proposal for a legislative amendment. Therefore, my question is: Why can we not implement it now? What should have happened 25 years ago, we can change now, as soon as possible, to resolve the problem.
Marcus Wennerström (S)
Mr. Speaker! At a seminar here in the Riksdag some time ago, one of the participants – a person with extensive experience from the Police Authority, much of it at a local level – raised a dream, namely to be able to share warning signals between several authorities. A report of concern is not automatically a warning signal, but on the other hand, a report of concern should always lead to a choice, that is, a decision to either proceed with the report of concern or not. It is in itself a very important position.
Many of the solutions included in the investigation referred to are very good, and they concern strengthening the possibilities for cooperation and information gathering. The reason for this is simple: All observations we receive tend to be snapshots, but snapshots do not stand alone but exist in a context. That context can, as expressed in the wish during the seminar, contain a connection to gang-related crime. It can also be about several mutually separate observers reporting mild concerns regarding an individual.
We agree that today's system of folders is insufficient, that individual social workers' memories cannot constitute a safety net, and that other and better alternatives are available. Against this background, Gustaf Lantz from the Socialdemokraterna submitted an interpellation to the Minister for Social Services in the spring. At that time, the answer was that this investigation had just been published and that the minister would return to the issue in the very near future. Since Gustaf Lantz is not here but is productively on parental leave, and since I am serving in his place, I believe I bear the responsibility to carry the question forward.
Our common concern is that time is running out. In meetings with representatives from the country's fantastic municipalities, a description of reality emerges that I am worried this investigation and this work do not quite capture.
When I spoke some time ago with a party colleague from Norberg in Västmanland, he described a reality where Norberg places very many children – disproportionately many children in relation to the municipality's size. What is the reason for this? It is simply because Norberg works very hard with this. They have a very low threshold for initiating cases. This leads to them placing children in families who have chosen to move to Norberg because the parents think that Norberg is a small municipality and that the municipality will never catch them. The family has been in contact with social services in some other part of Sweden and has chosen to move within the country to avoid the child being placed or to prevent the family from receiving the support that these families many times actually should receive.
My question – somewhat as an extension to the question that Eva asked earlier – is how one can make it more difficult for families who set up a system to move within the country. I actually see no reason to extend the process itself. There is sometimes a value in gathering things in large investigations and getting a holistic view, but we seem to be quite in agreement on the need and the urgency with which this matter needs to be handled. Does the Minister for Social Services in the long run see reasons to review whether this type of reports of concern, which do not lead to an investigation, could also be something that can be shared with new municipalities of residence if the family moves?
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to extend a big thank you to Eva Lindh and Marcus Wennerström for very important issues to discuss.
Strengthening the safety and security of children and young people is a very important issue for this government. It is also part of what I am responsible for, not in the capacity of Minister for Social Services but as Minister for Children's Rights. This is very strongly in focus in all the work we are now doing. I want to assert that no previous government has worked with a more unified and powerful package to address vulnerable situations for our children and young people.
Just as Eva Lindh described, the social services committee is our ultimate safety net. Therefore, it is extremely important that one has the right conditions and the right opportunities and powers to perform their work of protecting children and young people and that they receive the support and protection they need.
Just as Eva Lindh emphasized, it is important that persons with a reporting obligation report when they become aware that a child is being harmed or could be harmed. And that is indeed the case. It is important that the whole of society provides relevant information when signals are received that give cause for concern.
Therefore, it is very positive that I can answer the interpellor that it is not a question of whether appropriate opportunities should be introduced to make this searchable, but rather a question of in what way it should be done. Since November 7, there have been two different proposals on the table. These concern, on the one hand, Socialstyrelsen's proposal for a separate compilation register, and on the other hand, what the investigator Tengberg proposes in the investigation *Fler verktyg i socialtjänsternas arbete för att förebygga brott och stärka skyddet för barn*. The consultation period for this investigation expired on November 7. It is proposed here that a file for the child should always be created upon a report of concern.
In response to Marcus Wennerströms question, it is naturally possible with a construction of this. The ambition we have is that no children should fall through the cracks but that all children should be caught. When a family, for example, chooses to move to another municipality because it begins to end up on the social services' radar, it is important that one has the prerequisites to see the pattern that might possibly be revealed, for example, by means of the possibility of a digital care act that makes it possible to share information across municipal borders.
The consultation period ended on November 7. We are currently working intensively on compiling the consultation responses received in order to consider which model should be used. There are advantages and disadvantages to both proposals. It is, however, not a question of whether this should be implemented, but rather how it should be implemented, so that we can ensure this.
It is also about a kind of balance between privacy and the best interests of the child. For me and the government, it is always clear that it is the best interests of the child and the child's safety that must carry the most weight.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! We have had quite a lot of legislation in Sweden that has looked more toward the guardian than toward the children. So we shall not have that. The best interests of the child must always come first.
I think it is obvious - and I believe we agree on this - that the social services cannot initiate an investigation into everything. Reports of concern do come in regarding things that one should not initiate an investigation into. It is not that we think one should initiate investigations in connection with every single report of concern, as the social services have the competence to make that assessment. But not being able to look back is a very big problem - there are many social workers who, like me, have seen it. I do believe, however, that there are many social workers who have not raised it over the years; I imagine that there has been such things that have flown under the radar.
Now we know about this. Now we have also received an opportunity to change the legislation.
I think it is very positive that we agree that this is a problem and that we need to do something. The best interests of the child must be at the center. What worries me when I look at the referral responses that have been submitted in connection with the investigation More tools in the social services' work to prevent crime and strengthen protection for children is that one sees some complications and some things that perhaps cannot be implemented. It seems that this could take time.
The second one that was out for consultation was something that everyone was very positive about. It could go quickly, and there were also constitutional proposals on how the law could be changed so that we achieve a change so that social workers can search among old reports of concern.
I get a worried frown when this is to be seen in a larger perspective. It is clear that it is good that we see things in a larger perspective, but it is always about a trade-off. How long can it take before a change is in place? That which already exists could, after all, be implemented very quickly.
All time that exists is time that can be lost. I believe that everyone here participating in the debate knows that it can be the case that we miss a number of children during the time until this change is implemented.
This is what I am worried about, and therefore I ask the Minister again: How long can it take? What is the assessment? When could a change occur? The Minister said that the question is not if, but when. When could the change be implemented? This has been implemented regarding more tools in the social services' work. When can it become a reality?
Marcus Wennerström (S)
Mr. Speaker! Many of the thoughts I have are in line with what Member Eva Lindh has just outlined. It is quite fantastic to see, investigation after investigation and also in the legislative proposals that are presented, how the decision to make the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Swedish law leaves its mark in this work. It is very good that this underlying spirit is being fulfilled by the government.
Like, Eva Lindh, I am concerned that the Minister is pushing that it is not a question of "if" but "how", and then my follow-up question is undoubtedly "when?". As I touched upon in my first speech, there is a value in boiling things down into one giant pot, but here we have a real problem where an investigation has already been produced that can solve this problem. Every day is a potentially lost day; the Minister knows that too. The longer it takes, the more children we risk losing between the cracks.
I am positive about the answer I received to my question regarding whether we can use this in a broader sense. It remains to be solved practically how new municipalities of residence shall be able to take part in this, as it is not always completely clear how people move within the country. However, there should be no obstacles to disseminating it. But just as Eva Lindh asks, when. How much longer do we have to wait for the proposal that has been finished for a good while to become a legislative proposal?
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that Eva Lindh and I agree that this should have been done a long time ago. I am currently spending as much time as I possibly can traveling around the country's social services, and social secretaries across the country are raising this issue. I therefore do not share the interpellant's view that social secretaries and social service officers may not have raised this. This is a common question because it is a problem that one cannot follow a child and perform such a search. I find it difficult to believe that previous social services ministers or equivalents have not received exactly the same input, as I assume that they too have conducted a number of study visits. This is, therefore, very important.
It is also important to emphasize that the Socialstyrelsen report shows both advantages and disadvantages. There was a reason for me to give an expanded mandate to the Inquiry on the exchange and retrieval of information in social services to prevent crime and increase protection for children, not only to keep together issues regarding child abuse and the disposal of certain documents so that they are reviewed in a context, but also to analyze Socialstyrelsen's legislative proposal and weigh the proposals submitted in the reports against other possibilities to make reports of concern regarding children searchable. It is about making certain trade-offs, and I think one should be honest enough to say that. We therefore need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages against each other.
This is also a part of the investigation I received a few months ago, where the referral period ended on November 7. There are also proposals here on how information can be moved across municipal boundaries, which is also important in this context.
There is, therefore, a coherence in the investigation and the supplementary directives I submitted to the investigation that will be extremely significant when we are to make our combined assessment and produce the final proposal for how this shall be designed.
An important part of this is, of course, also the government's work with confidentiality rules to lower thresholds in various ways. The new Social Services Act is part of being able to work preventatively towards children at an early stage. The new confidentiality rules also make it possible for social services and the police to be able to sit around the same table and thus be able to share information with each other.
All this is aimed at us being able to identify children who are suffering earlier and being able to implement the correct measures.
Other things that the social services raise concern ensuring that parents take their responsibility—that responsibility which is obvious for the vast majority of parents. With today's legislation, one unfortunately has very little room with the entirely voluntary Social Services Act and the far-reaching and intrusive LVU. Here, the government is reviewing the possibility of also getting the parents more engaged and involved in the work we want to carry out.
It is about a series of measures, and I note that when it comes to the limitations of the Social Services Act, given the directives from Lena Hallengren to Margareta Winberg that the law was not to be cost-driving, the Social Services Data Register Act will be very significant as part of a large package to better protect our children.
Eva Lindh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I choose not to address the misinterpretation the Minister made of what I said. I have worked as a social secretary since 1995, so what I said about whether this has been noticed or not is about what perspective one has.
In any case, we know that it is a major problem that one cannot search in old reports of concern because we then risk missing children who are suffering. It is a serious threat to every child who is affected. The social services' work is aimed at providing the support and help children need, regardless of whether it concerns children who risk being taken away, children who are abused by a parent, or whatever it may be. This issue is about the fact that we unnecessarily risk missing children who are suffering because we cannot search backwards.
We need to change that, and I still do not understand, despite the Minister's description, why we cannot implement this legislative change. There are concrete proposals on the table, so it could be implemented here and now. The fact that it has not worked previously is not a reason not to make this important legislative change as quickly as possible.
Finally: The change of the secrecy legislation is extremely important in order for people to be able to talk to each other. The Minister says that she will look into whether information should be able to be transferred between municipalities, but that only applies in cases of suspected crime, not in the situations that we primarily address. Just as Marcus Wennerström says, it is an expanded issue because some parents move their children when the social services discover deficiencies.
I thank you for the debate and hope that the Minister can answer my question: Why?
Statsrådet Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! There is no doubt that this needs to be addressed. As I began the debate by saying, the question is not whether it should happen, but in what way it should be designed and that it should be as comprehensive and good a support as possible for municipalities and social services. For the government, it is extremely important that one can best ensure that no children fall through the cracks.
I am personally very concerned that we today have families who, when they appear on the social services' radar, choose to change municipalities and in that way escape the reports of concern that may exist in one or more previous municipalities. Therefore, it is important that regardless of the chosen model - a separate compilation register or a digital care act - one can search for and find the information needed also across municipal boundaries. If families move across municipal boundaries to escape what needs to happen from the society's side, for example in the case of severe lack of care, it must be ensured that these pieces of information can also do so.
This is an important part when we are going to stand our ground. On November 7, all referral responses were received, and now we are conducting a synthesis and preparation of these. These are important issues, and the ground must be stood on in the right place. But as soon as it is possible, we will return with a referral to the Council of State and then a government bill to the Riksdag. Ensuring that children are safe will continue to be a priority issue for the government.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.