6 RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE that only one resident had received a visit from a relative on one occasion during the period 24 March to 15 May 2020. Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling stated that the general restrictions on visits never included the opportunity for young residents to receive visits from guardians or parents with access rights. He then stated the following:16 “The information that emerged during the inspection indicates that the National Board of Institutional Care’s decision on restrictions had more farreaching effects at the special residential home for young people Tysslinge than the decision-maker intended. I would like to emphasise the importance of the National Board of Institutional Care taking the necessary measures to ensure that the decision is applied correctly if the agency again introduces general restrictions on visits. Furthermore, it is central that both residents and visitors receive the correct information concerning what the decision means and what consequences it may have for them.” During the inspection of the special residential home for substance abusers Hornö, details emerged indicating that residents and staff had differing views on what the temporary routine of limiting outdoor access entailed. According to staff, the routine was applied in such a way that residents were not allowed to spend time outdoors in places where other people were. Residents stated that the routine had meant that they were only permitted to have outdoor activities in order to be able to carry out 16 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 3 September 2020, ref. no. O 13-2020. “very important” matters. Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling stated the following:17 “Since these activities constitute an important element during the time spent at the institution, I would also like to highlight the importance of the National Board of Institutional Care trying to offer some form of alternative if it concludes that an activity cannot be carried out. If the National Board of Institutional Care can offer some form of time spent outside the confines of the institution, then this can help to reduce the negative consequences of the imposed restriction.” The National Board of Forensic Medicine Until the beginning of July 2020, the National Board of Forensic Medicine had not made any decision in accordance with the Restrictions on Visits for Certain Compulsory Care Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation further showed that it is not particularly common for patients covered by the Remand Prisons Act to apply to receive visits during the relatively short time they are at one of the National Board of Forensic Medicine’s examination divisions. When this does happen, the agency assesses the application before each visit, and, unlike the Prison and Probation Service, the National Board of Forensic Medicine does not issue visiting permits that are valid for an indefinite period. During Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Elisabeth Rynning’s investigation, it emerged that until July 2020, the National Board of Forensic Medicine had only assessed and rejected two applications for receiving visits. 17 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 3 September 2020, ref. no. O 13-2020. – 48 –