[ad_1]
published:
updated:
Falkenberg should not deny home service for summer guests during the crown pandemic, says the Gothenburg Administrative Court.
MP Hans Hoff (S) now wants Stefan Löfven and the government to run over the court.
“It is about reducing the spread of infection in the most vulnerable and vulnerable groups,” he says.
Falkenberg in Halland denied summer guests from other municipalities, such as Stockholm and Gothenburg, home delivery during the crown pandemic. Another 60 municipalities that also attract many summer guests wanted to do the same.
This is because home delivery is already heavily loaded and you want to reduce the risk of infection spreading by reducing the use of inexperienced staff.
Do not refuse
But the decisions have been met with fierce opposition and in Falkenberg, an individual chose to appeal. And yesterday it became clear that the Gothenburg Administrative Court grants the private person the right, which means that Falkenberg has to break his decision.
Per Svensson, chairman of the municipal council (S) in Falkenberg, is disappointed.
He claims they read the verdict and are now considering going ahead with the case and appealing.
– The situation will be unsustainable, we are already heavily employed with high staff absenteeism and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to deal with this when the summer season comes, he says.
Svensson now calls on Parliament and the government to intervene.
– There are around 60 municipalities that are at risk of presenting new users with care for the elderly during a possible illness. We do our best to protect caregivers and therefore summer guests cannot refrain from being in the summer house for a few weeks. We are responsible for both home care and home care, and it is comprehensive medical care if someone in the risk group receives the crown.
Svensson believes that it is basically a matter of civil remedy, that whoever needs home service this year refrains from going to the summer cabin.
“Unfortunately, this is not being followed and we have already denied five cases,” he says.
Photo: JONAS EKSTRÖMER / TT
Riksdag MP Hans Hoff (S). Stock Photography.
Call on the government to intervene
Halland Resident Hans Hoff has responded to the request.
Today you are sending a written question to Parliament, asking the government to act. This is supported by special legislation that is applied during the corona pandemic and whose objective is to implement measures that reduce the spread of infection.
“I think the situation of some 60 municipalities in the coming months will motivate the government to make a temporary decision on the right of the municipalities to reject home service for housing in other municipalities,” writes Hoff.
Aftonbladet has spoken to Hans Hoff, who notes that the measure to deny home service for summer guests should, of course, only be applied temporarily during the ongoing pandemic.
He notes that the Public Health Agency advises against any unnecessary travel and that a large part of the Swedish crown’s strategy is to protect older citizens.
– I think the government should use the regulations that exist to temporarily limit people’s right to home care in municipalities other than the municipality of origin. Precisely in light of the fact that there are few staff, since everyone is encouraged to stay home with the mildest symptoms, and that they should not travel across the country. Also, these are people who are at risk of infection, says Hoff.
Extract from the judgment of the Administrative Court:
“The municipality, referring to the current recommendations of the Public Health Authority to reduce the spread of covid-19 in Sweden, decided that the social service should not execute the municipality’s decision on support and assistance according to SoL.
In other words, the municipality’s decision means that it has decided not to comply with the obligation of the municipality in accordance with Chapter 2 a. 6 § SoL. The administrative law establishes that a municipality cannot choose to comply or not with the applicable legislation. Regardless of the reasons for the municipality’s decision, it is contrary to the law and, therefore, should be repealed. “
published:
