Response to interpellation 2025/26:62 on general alcohol bans in protected housing
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M notes that a protected residence that was denied a permit due to an alcohol ban has appealed and that the issue is subject to legal review 1. 2 M emphasizes that the reform aims to strengthen the rights of children and adults in protected residences and that the permit requirement is important to keep unserious actors out 2. 3 M argues that it concerns fewer than a handful of cases linked to the alcohol ban 3 and that protected residences have achieved an improved outcome in many areas from a quality perspective 3. 3 M emphasizes that safety planning, implementation plans, and written routines for documentation and threats of violence have improved 3. 4 M underlines that an authority dialogue is taking place with the government and that there is support for women's shelters with protected residences to live up to the quality requirements 4. 4 M argues that they are on the right track to ensure a safe environment for people who are subjected to violence in close relationships 4. 5 C considers it a rigid application of the legislation where the individual's right to drink alcohol weighs more heavily than the right to safety 5. 6 C argues that the government should hit the emergency brake and conduct a review of the law rather than waiting until 2027 6. 7 C stands behind the legislation but argues that it has not improved recently 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! Helena Vilhelmsson has asked me if I consider it reasonable that protected housing are not allowed to introduce general alcohol bans, how I view the consequences for non-profit actors who now risk being unable to continue their work, and if I intend to take the initiative for a review of the regulatory framework for protected housing so that these are given the same opportunities as other institutions to maintain a safe and drug-free environment.
As a Minister, I cannot comment on an individual case. I can, however, state that a protected housing facility that was denied permission with reference to an alcohol ban has appealed the decision and that the matter is currently subject to judicial review.
I want to emphasize that the government closely follows questions regarding protected housing. Children and adults in these residences are a particularly vulnerable group.
Against this background, Statskontoret has been commissioned to follow up and analyze the effects of the legislative changes that entered into force in the spring of 2024, which aim to strengthen the rights of children and adults in sheltered housing. The assignment includes, among other things, submitting proposals on how the government can develop the strategic management in the continued work with the reform, as well as submitting proposals on appropriate measures to ensure that the purpose of the reform is achieved. The assignment also includes specifically analyzing the effects of the regulatory framework for idea-driven actors. The assignment shall be partially reported by May 29, 2026, at the latest, and final reported by December 10, 2027, at the latest.
As part of the follow-up on the reform regarding protected housing, the government has also taken the initiative for a series of round-table discussions with relevant actors. The discussions take place semi-annually, and the latest discussion was held on October 14 this year.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
In my interpellation, I mention Talita, a non-profit organization that for over two decades has helped women leave prostitution, human trafficking, and other forms of exploitation and has done so with recognized successful results. This autumn, we were reached by the news that Talita and several other shelters from the Inspectorate for Health and Social Services were denied permission to continue operating protected housing, with reference to that a general alcohol ban would constitute an infringement of personal integrity.
It feels, to say the least, a bit farcical. One might ask what is most of an infringement of privacy – to be in a prison without walls, in a home where one's man exercises violence and control, or to receive protection at a residence where alcohol is not permitted.
I believe this is an expression of a rigid application of the legislation, where the individual's right to drink alcohol outweighs the individual's right to safety and recovery.
Offering a safe and drug-free environment is also not the same as requiring sobriety. Those living in protected housing, for example, are allowed to consume alcohol in places other than the specific housing where they have these rules.
This raises questions, especially since other accommodations, for example for care and treatment, are allowed to have general alcohol bans.
The Minister answers that she cannot speak about an individual case, but that is not what I have asked about either. I have asked whether she thinks it is reasonable that protected housing is not allowed to introduce general alcohol bans. I want to assert that there are so many examples of protected housing being denied permission due to this that it is no longer an "individual case" but a system, a principle.
Therefore, it is also a bit disheartening to receive answers in the style that a denying decision has been appealed and that the question is currently subject to judicial review. Of course, it is good that it is so. I stand by the legal principle we have in Sweden. But my question to the Minister becomes: Does the Minister think it is okay that society's responsibility for the protection of vulnerable, abused women should be decided in judicial instances? It takes an endless amount of time and resources – to first write the application for permission to Ivo, then appeal a negative decision, and then wait for a judgment – instead of time and resources being spent on the protection of women. I do not think it is reasonable.
If even the Minister does not think so, I believe the government should proceed with all its might in all ways that are possible without it becoming ministerial rule – dialogue, regulatory letters, agency instructions, or legislative changes if so required – to clarify as soon as possible that this criterion may not be quite appropriate and may not have been the intention of the legislative change.
I understand that reference is made to the investigation, but it is clearly not finished until 2027. There is a very long time left, and there could be much more serious effects than those we see today, where several housing projects have had permits denied and several have already been forced to close.
How does the minister view these consequences? Is the answer that we should wait until the end of 2027 to potentially take measures? Or does the minister consider that it is actually almost time to hit the emergency brake and do what can be done to rectify this?
I do not think any of us thought that this would be the result. It is not only that it feels irrelevant with such a reason for denial, but we also know that the number of women and children, for various reasons, of which this is one, is decreasing in our protected housing.
Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Helena Vilhelmsson, for the commitment to this incredibly important issue! This is a reform that I defend very strongly.
I would like to initially emphasize that the reform is not about alcohol prohibition or no alcohol prohibition. There is nothing in the legislation that addresses just that part. What the legislation is based on is that we need to have better protection for women and children who are victims of violence. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to describe what the situation looked like before April 1, 2024, when the legislation entered into force.
It was thus the case that just anyone in Sweden could start a protected residence – just anyone! I can assure the members that I have heard a few too many stories about how the quality of many protected residences has been far too low and how women who have come from very traumatizing circumstances have found themselves in a situation that has been anything but safe and secure.
It is this that makes the permit requirement so incredibly important and essential for us – that we should be able to keep unserious and even criminal actors out of this activity and that we should also be able to enhance the quality. After all, not all protected residences in Sweden have maintained high quality.
The next part of this is that children have only been seen as accompanying their mothers – it is usually mothers we are talking about. A crushing majority of our municipalities also state that they have not been able to offer schools to these children. We have compulsory schooling in this country, which everyone is well acquainted with. However, it deserves to be emphasized that children in such vulnerable situations are naturally in extra great need of receiving that important schooling. Schooling and completed education is one of the most important prevention factors we can give a young person.
What perhaps in many ways attracts the most attention is, however, that it has previously been possible for the perpetrator, if that person is also a guardian, to continue demanding visitation even when the child is in a protected residence. Most people to whom I tell this do not believe it is true that we had this arrangement in Sweden until April 1 of last year. It has therefore been possible for a violent perpetrator to continue having visitation with their child.
As everyone understands, this has led to protected residences being cleared, as the child has not been able to withstand the perpetrator, but above all to women having left their protected residences, or perhaps not even gone there in the first place, in order to at least be able to protect the child themselves.
The order in which we got this legislation in place, I hope we can all stand behind.
Then one can observe that it is very rare for all parts of a large reform fall into place directly. That is why I took the initiative for something quite unusual: We have, therefore, had three round-table discussions with follow-up since this legislation came into place.
Already after half a year, we had the first round-table discussion where we took note of a number of issues, which we also directly responded to with various assignments. I will gladly return to that in the next speech.
We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for the government's side, but we are working consistently to ensure that the objectives of this legislation are achieved.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I may have missed saying initially that the Center Party, of course, stands behind this reform. Virtually all parties did. There is no doubt about that. The Minister might have had time to answer the questions if she had not spent three minutes emphasizing and explaining the reform.
It is clear that there should be a quality assurance of protected residences. The children have been able to live in limbo, and in fact, this has also had other consequences. Today, since children are to receive their own placement, it is an extra step for many women to take to the family court. It has also led to the number of children decreasing in many protected residences. That the children do not always attend school, the protected residences and the women's shelters have highlighted for many years. It is not a new problem. We therefore stand behind the reform.
I do not understand why one cannot quickly identify the problem when society is poor at exercising authority or at exercising control when services are purchased. Regardless of whether it concerns non-profit associations, women's shelters, or private actors, one must be able to speak about what it is that one wants. When, for example, Skolverket carries out inspections, they provide the schools with lists of what they need to do and urge them to respond within a number of months before they are allowed to continue their operations. These here are not even allowed to start.
I spoke as recently as today with a municipality outside Stockholm. There, they had been told no because of an insufficient number of higher education credits. The reasonable reaction when we have decided on a law and it is to be implemented should be to provide reasonable conditions. Perhaps that is where we fail. I admit it. We perhaps do not think of everything. One cannot create enough higher education credits overnight for someone to be able to be a manager of a women's shelter or a protected residence. One must be given some time.
It has occurred that one has been denied because one did not have enough personnel resources to have a duty phone available at all hours of the day. But the number of duty calls during a year during unmanned time had been two or three. In that case, one might have been able to say that it could be solved in some way and that one could then continue with its operations. Now, one can receive a reprimand because there is one too few toilets.
I ask myself whether Ivo starts from the same premises when they are to grant permits for protected housing as they do for HVB homes. These women do not always need care; they need protection. Why does it seem as if one uses the same application process and permit process for two different operations? It is also very strange that it is supposed to cost so extremely much money to make an application.
This is about an agency activity that I cannot interfere in and perhaps the minister cannot either. But one can see that it is going wrong, despite the intention being good, and leads to something that is not good, namely that protected housing is being denied and protected housing is closing. Large areas in our country lack access to protected housing now. How are the municipalities supposed to manage that? The municipalities still have the responsibility for crime victims. I think it is time for the government to pull the emergency brake and conduct a review of this law. We cannot wait until the end of 2027.
FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN
I am not entirely convinced that either the Minister or the interpellor is sticking to the topic of general alcohol bans in protected housing right now. But please do prove me wrong.
Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! The concern is that the matter is linked to a specific residence, and a legal process is ongoing there, which therefore makes it impossible for me as a minister to comment. I am forced to simply await the legal process. That is also what I am doing.
I am glad that the Center Party and Helena Vilhelmsson stand behind this reform. There are parts in what the member says that make one hesitant as to whether that is really the case, but I hope that the member and the Center Party also stand behind the fact that we should not have ministerial rule in this country. There are usually views on that in the chamber, and I think there might possibly be some in this case as well. Therefore, it is important that we begin by ensuring that we have the facts on the table.
The member highlighted the fact that fewer children are placed. One of the important assignments linked to both Statskontoret and Socialstyrelsen concerns placed children and young people. The member perhaps missed mentioning that the number has fluctuated over a very long period. In 2011, it was 3,200 children. In 2016, it was 1,865 children. Then, in 2019, it was 6,200 children. As the member knows, this was many years before the reform was introduced.
One of the reasons why Statskontoret and Socialstyrelsen have now received different new assignments linked to this is that they are to gain a greater knowledge of why the number of children fluctuates. The starting point for the government is that the children and women who come to protected housing or who have been subjected to violence shall have optimal protection and support.
I checked up on this matter regarding the alcohol ban with Ivo. It is, therefore, about less than a handful of cases. I do not want to say that to diminish the issue, but it could sound to the member as if it were a much larger issue. It is, therefore, less than a handful of cases that are handled in connection with this.
The important thing is that protected residences are truly surrounded by the measures that these children and women deserve and should have. There has been an increase in the proportion of protected residences run by private actors, which are also not linked to the reform. In 2012, it was only 8 percent of the protected residences that were run in private hands. In 2019 it was 37 percent, and in 2024 it was 47 percent. In twelve years, it has therefore increased in many different ways.
But what is the result then? How does it look today? Yes, we have achieved an improved outcome in many areas, which I think is important to note from a quality perspective.
Security planning is carried out with adults and children in connection with moving in and moving out. This has occurred in several cases between 2019–2024. Implementation plans are established for the residents, there are written routines for how interventions shall be documented, and the residents' perceptions are followed up. Some residences also accept accompanying animals. It has been a major issue, and I understand that. One does not want to leave behind their beloved pet, which can be a very important part of life and a great source of security. There are also written routines regarding threats of violence and risk of violence in the work environment. A number of improvements have been made, and we are keen that they shall continue.
Helena Vilhelmsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! We stand behind the legislation. There is no doubt about that. We are not for ministerial rule. That was why I asked in what way the minister engages in dialogue with the authorities, so that the errors or the unexpected effects can still be commented on and rectified while awaiting the investigation which is to be completed at the end of 2027.
I completely agree that the number of children has fluctuated, but I would venture to say that my overall assessment, after having spoken with duty officers and municipalities above all, is that it has not improved recently with this legislation. It is tougher, and that is also due to what the minister says. If one may say that there is a crisis within social services, it began long before the legislation was put in place.
The social services have placed [individuals] in protected housing to a lesser extent. At least, those are the signals I am receiving. Whether it is due to savings or not, I do not know, but it has led to the fact that the protected housing already had meager finances. Different governments have changed grants and shifted conditions for them. They therefore live with a short planning horizon. But it has not made it better.
If I return to the main question of the interpellation, I may well ask the minister about even that handful of cases that were mentioned. If it were only one case, it would be one case too many. How is one to address the fact that an organization that has had an operation of very high quality for decades is suddenly told no because there is a general alcohol ban? Does the minister have any thoughts on how a dialogue can be conducted with the authority to move away from this? And why are HVB homes allowed to have general alcohol bans? I do not quite think that different actors in our society have the same conditions.
Socialtjänstministern Camilla Waltersson Grönvall (M)
Mr. Speaker! Initially, I want to emphasize that an authority dialogue is taking place with the government and the various ministers who are responsible for the authorities. Naturally, a dialogue is also taking place with Ivo in various contexts regarding this reform.
The entire issue will, in and of itself, be the subject of a legal review, which we must wait for. We will then see how we are to respond to it.
In this context, I want to point out how important the women's shelters (kvinnojourer) in Sweden have been for many years and how important their work and their alert and solid commitment and knowledge of violence in close relationships have been. This also applies to the work with protected housing. Therefore, I am glad that there continue to be many strong women's shelters operating within this area.
We are keen that it should continue, and therefore, for four years, there has been an opportunity to apply for specific funds for women's shelters with protected housing. There has thus been support so that they can meet the quality requirements.
We have also given assignments to a number of other agencies. Since the municipalities were mentioned, the National Agency for Public Procurement also deserves to be mentioned. We see a concern there. We are also concerned that adult case officers and child case officers in the municipalities reach different decisions. These are parts of the assignments that the agencies have also received so that we can address what we see today and which prevents us from fully living up to the intentions.
In large parts, we are now on the right track to ensure what is important, namely to have a safe environment for people who are subjected to violence in close relationships.
I would like to thank the members and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.