The principle of public access with simplified rules for individual smaller principals in the school system

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the principle of public access within the independent school system. This is one of the many changes that this government is implementing, which concerns the complete renovation of the independent school system. The matter is one of many of the type of matters that we in our majority have succeeded in pushing through, but which, for example, the Social Democrats have previously failed with. It concerns precisely the complete renovation of the independent school system.

It is clear that it is reasonable that independent schools should also be covered by the principle of public access, and I am glad that this is now becoming a reality. It is about both the media's oversight, the parents' oversight, and the public's oversight of how tax money is used. It is fundamentally important, and it is important for the system to function as well as possible. This oversight naturally means that the operations themselves will improve in both the independent school sector and in publicly run schools.

Mr. Speaker! In this report, there are also a number of relaxations in the handling of the information that is to be public. This does not mean any difference regarding which pieces of information are to be public. There are no exceptions where someone will get away with not disclosing any specific type of information or any specific piece of information, but it means, for example, that a small village school run in private ownership by a staff cooperative or a parents' cooperative and which has summer holidays gets a little more time to disclose the documents that are requested. It does not mean that any other documents are covered or not covered compared to for a larger school.

There are reasonable assessments in the bill of when a school is so large that it can be expected that one has the administrative capacity required to manage this, and when the school is so small that one needs some simplified rules for it to proceed in a smooth and reasonable way.

Mr. Speaker! If one reads any of the opposition's reservations, one might get the impression that we would like to let someone escape the principle of public access. That is not the case, however, as everyone is covered in the same way, but there is also a sense of reasonableness in that the small village school that has summer holidays should be given a little longer time for its administration.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I intend to keep it brief in this debate. I think it is a fairly simple debate. The principle of public access is a reasonable principle that I and the parties on our side, as well as most Swedes, are familiar with. We believe that the principle of public access should apply to activities that are run with tax money.

I am proud that we continue to push through the complete renovation of the free school system and that we have shown that it is possible to do this through political negotiation, that is, to push forward on these issues, when others have previously failed.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is fascinating that the Liberals are so proud of the so-called complete renovation that the government now says it is carrying out. What I see is that this complete renovation consists of a bit of silver tape on a dilapidated house. They then try to tell those who are speculators on the house: Look how nice it became with this renovation! At the same time, the house is collapsing behind them.

This is what I see, because with the Liberals' and the Tidö government's complete overhaul of the independent school system, these shareholders will be able to continue laughing all the way to the bank. That is exactly what will happen.

Forssell spoke in his contribution about how the principle of public access is one of the things that this government has managed to agree on, unlike the previous government. In that case, I want to remind the members of the Chamber and the listeners that the Liberals as recently as 2024 voted against introducing a principle of public access. This could therefore have already been introduced if the government and the Liberals had voted for their own policy – but you have not done that.

I want to ask Forssell why it is so important that smaller principals should have separate legislation with exemptions from disclosing information. Smaller municipalities currently have no exemptions from disclosing documents. Should Dorotea municipality, for example, have different legislation than larger municipalities? I would like to have an answer to that. Why is it so important to protect just those smaller independent school companies?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! If we begin with the overarching question of profits in independent schools – which admittedly may lie outside the matter, but which I was nevertheless asked about initially – we proceed with a policy that, by re-regulating the school, reduces the opportunities to extract profit.

It has been high chaparral in Swedish schools for a very long time. One has been able to cut back on things that are important for the quality of teaching and thus been able to extract profit. We are regulating this up. We will ensure that the possibility of cutting back in Swedish schools to extract profit becomes increasingly non-existent. It is about precisely the large, broad re-regulation of everything from the size of children's groups to the principle of public access, librarians and so on.

At the same time, we are moving forward with a proposal that one should not be able to take out profits if one fails in their quality. I think that is very reasonable. The Liberals want to go even further, but this is the furthest any government has ever gone in Sweden. It is therefore very strange to criticize it on that basis, as the Left Party chooses to do.

When it comes to the principle of public access, I think it is reasonable that when one introduces this type of legislation that has not applied previously, one takes into account that different operations have different circumstances. Fundamentally, we believe that the principle of public access should apply to everyone, but there is also a reasonableness in that those who are too small to have their own administrator or their own registrar employed – and everything that this entails – and who have not had this requirement imposed on them previously, are given a bit more time.

It is not about oceans of time, and it is not about any departure from the principle. It is about being able to release documents in a reasonable manner and to do that work with high quality.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The high chaparral that Forssell is talking about will continue in the independent school sector. During this parliamentary term, you have secured the continued profits of the large corporations. Academedia's shares soared after the government's announcement regarding what will happen with the profit investigation. It is completely obvious that this government is still doing everything to protect the large school companies.

I actually do not understand why specifically smaller independent schools should have exemptions from the obligation to disclose public documents. There are no such exemptions for smaller municipalities. Of course, it is also difficult for them to have administrators and a lot of officials sitting and working. They are also only a few people, and of course, it is cost-driving even for the small municipalities. Ask Dorotea, Bjurholm, or any other small municipality! It is very burdensome with all the tasks that a municipality needs to engage in. Still, they need to do it. If one is to conduct public activities, there must also be transparency in them.

The big problem has been that there has been no principle of public access and that one has not had to account for a single thing regarding what one does with the municipal funds one receives. One can issue joy grades, run horse high schools without horses, and make profits in completely unreasonable ways.

I want to ask Forssell about how he views the fact that many of the private school companies' actions can still be regarded as trade secrets. This principle of public access also risks leading to much of the information that we have the right to access still being regarded as trade secrets. How does Forssell view that?

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! That the Left Party sounds angry may not surprise those who are watching – it is somewhat of the Left Party's modus operandi – but it is exciting that the Left Party sounds like an angry liberal.

We are implementing much of what Member Mixter requests. One should not be able to run a horse high school without horses, have instruction without licensed teachers, run a school without libraries, and so on. This is precisely the re-regulation that I mean we are implementing. It entails exactly what Member Mixter is seeking in his speech, namely that the possibility of extracting profit is drastically worsened for these companies. That is precisely our ambition, namely to increase quality and reduce profits.

What the member points out is entirely correct: money that is to go to school and education should go to school and education – to the students. It is, however, not correct that the principle of public access should cover different things in different schools – it is a misconception that I believe I read between the lines from several in the opposition.

There are therefore no exceptions in the legislation regarding which documents one can request from different private schools. All schools, regardless of size, will need to provide the same documents. There is no difference in the legislation. However, one may be granted a bit more time if one, as in the example in my speech, runs a small village school where the administrator who may exist is on summer vacation. There are therefore reasonable considerations to be made here. There are, however, no exceptions regarding which documents are provided from different private schools.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now that one has heard Joar Forssell use the terms small village schools and summer holidays one, two and perhaps even three times so far during this debate and this exchange of remarks, one must ask oneself how large a small village school is. The exceptions therefore apply to preschool units of up to 100 and school units of 450 children and students. The small village schools that Joar Forssell talks about are still quite large schools. We must still be clear about that in the debate.

According to the bill, 70–86 percent of all primary schools and preschools in that size class, which means that they are covered by relief rules regarding when they should submit documents, how fast it should go, and so on. I believe that the average person thinks there is a fairly large difference between a small village school and a school with 450 students. I think it is important to point out. Having such extensive relief rules is still a problem with this product. That one must still be able to admit.

The Liberals should actually agree that the principle of public access is indeed important. When we exempt so many as 70–86 percent of all independent schools, we are not talking about the small village school, but about completely different things.

One must ask if the Liberals are satisfied that trade secrets will still be a significant part of this legislation. If one looks at the legislation and sees which parts are to be classified as public documents and which not, it will still be very difficult to ignore that the corporate schools and the company-run schools will be able to classify very much as business and operational secrets. Is it the Liberals' opinion that so many people still will not know how the school is run?

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Sigvardsson for the questions.

It was a bundle of questions. I will start with the first one about the small village school. It is completely correct: We have set a ceiling or a floor – however one wants to express it – for how large a school must be in order to be able to receive some different relief rules and a bit more time.

At one end of the scale, we have large school corporations, such as Academedia, which was mentioned earlier in the debate, and it is not some small village school; we agree on that. At the other end, we have the very smallest village school in the very smallest municipality, which has the least possibility of carrying out administration of this kind at the speed that the principle of public access usually requires.

We have not looked at what percentage of schools we think should be covered by the relief rules. 75 percent was mentioned here. Okay, so it can be – that is how we describe it. But that is not what we have started from. We have started from when a school becomes so large that it can be assumed that it is reasonable for it to have the administrative capacity required to do this promptly, which the principle of public access normally requires.

We have started from what possibilities the schools have to do this in a prompt manner. In a small school run under municipal management, there is often even in a small municipality a registrar or administrator who is employed by the municipality. It is something else.

That is why we, in response to Sigvardsson's first question, have set a limit. I see that I may not have time to answer the second one, but the member is welcome to repeat it later. The small village school and Academedia are stylized examples, but there is a long scale between them. The point is that it must be reasonable to be able to disclose information at the speed that is required. Therefore, these easing rules need to exist here, but everyone must always disclose all information.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Joar Forssell focused on the exemption rules and the size of schools, but it is also interesting to see that parts of the exemption rules concern which documents one should be able to distribute on-site and the like. It is a restriction of the principle of public access compared to in municipal schools, given how the exemption rules look.

If we look at the principle of public access in principle, one of the core issues, which Joar Forssell also touched upon, is that it is fundamentally important that publicly funded activities are also covered by the principle of public access. In a very large part, we still will not quite be able to know how much constitutes trade secrets and operational secrets with the legislation that is currently in place and that which we will vote on next week in this chamber. It is still very unclear what will be able to be classified as a trade secret in a corporate group.

That is the whole principle: Should the logic of the market and corporations be present in the school? We Social Democrats do not think so. In the debate, the Liberals usually do not have that view on this either.

School is for our children and students so that they can learn as much as possible and so that we get an equal school. Therefore, we believe that market logic cannot be the driving force. This legislation, which Joar Forssell is very pleased with, unfortunately will not help, as there will still be very much that we will not be able to see. We will not be able to see how the companies work with their different types of calculation models, with marketing, and with everything related to that. According to the bill, this is not included in these parts. What is included is very narrow and specific.

How do the Liberals and Joar Forssell view the fact that a very large amount of the publicly funded, private-company-run school system will still be trade secrets?

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is about a few different things here.

It is clear that there is a difference between being a municipality, with all that it entails in terms of the administrative superstructure one then has, and being an independent actor. There is a difference. There is a difference between being a small school that does not have the entire superstructure and administration that a municipality has and being a municipally run school. There is a difference, and it is reasonable that it should be so.

It absolutely does not mean that we think there should be any market logic, as the member expressed it, or corporate logic in this. On the contrary: Re-regulation of Swedish school, limitation of profits, the principle of public access that we are debating here today and so on are parts of the package that means we leave the market school that the Liberals have also been critical of.

I am not satisfied, however. When one looks at the debates right now, it seems to be a word that the Social Democrats want to drum in during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker – that our side should be satisfied. We are not satisfied, but we want much more. We want to go much further, the Liberals included. But I am proud that we have taken these steps. I am proud that we are taking the steps that the Social Democrats year after year have failed to take.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if one, as a Social Democrat, is satisfied with the years one has had in government, when one has driven Sweden into the ground in a lot of different ways and failed to re-regulate the school system. One has failed to take the free school sector by the scruff of the neck and ensure that the money goes to the students. We are doing this now. We are taking steps forward. Do I want to go a bit further on a lot of different issues? Yes, gladly! But we are doing something. We get things done. We are carrying out the largest reform of the Swedish school system in decades.

It is the difference between liberals and social democrats in the Ministry of Education: We get things done while the Social Democrats do not have particularly much to look back on and be proud of. The principle of public access is one such thing, which is very important.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The risk is perhaps that the debate goes around and around in the same tracks, and that becomes tedious for both us and the listeners.

I become very curious when Joar Forssell says that Tidösidan wants to go much further, Mr. Speaker. I will keep it brief: How fun and great! How much further do you want to go, Joar Forssell? You have had four years. What are the things that you together have not come up with during these four years? This concerns, for example, the principle of public access in the entire school.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker and members! It is very simple to answer that question. We have presented a lot of things that we want to do. There are things that we are still debating in the committee and which are on their way to the Riksdag's table, and there are things that we are going to investigate and things that we want to investigate.

We are continuing the reform of the school system. This means that we are going further in the ambition to re-regulate the school and ensure that the school once again becomes a temple of knowledge and not a forum for general fluff. We ensure that we reduce the possibility of taking out profits at the expense of quality, which we do by regulating up the quality. Anyone who follows Swedish school policy knows this, Mr. Speaker, and I would venture to say that I believe even the member in front of me is aware of it. It can be no secret.

Earlier in the debate, it was discussed that we do not know how the law will turn out. But it is also something that the members likely know: If it turns out that the law is not sufficient for us to achieve the goals we want to achieve – that is to say, that the principle of public access should apply on a principled level in the entire Swedish school system, including in the independent schools – we will probably have to return with new legislation. That is how the legislative process works.

It is a bit silly to be a politician in Sweden's Riksdag and not acknowledge that all legislative processes work that way, Mr. Speaker. You move forward with a law, and then you see exactly how it turns out. After that, you go back, investigate, adjust, and move forward with something new. Politics is not a race where you reach a finish line; politics is all the time a process where we need to tweak further or change something to achieve the goals we have.

In this case, the goals are that the principle of public access shall apply in Swedish schools, that students shall receive a share of the money that we take from people's tax funds through their education, that it shall be of good quality, and so on. We continue to have very high ambitions for that.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the committee chair for the answer. It may be so that the member thinks it is silly that I do not have a grasp of the legislative process. The member knows, however, that I do; we sit in the same committee meetings, after all. It also makes me surprised by how many words one can use to say that one had nothing more to contribute. Everything has already been made public.

I was curious, because I genuinely thought there was something more that people agreed on and that would stop the market school, something that would ensure that this legislation actually became a public law in full, on equal terms, for all schools, regardless of whether they are public or private. But it was just very many words to say that there is nothing more that people agree on, Mr. Speaker.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Then we shall take it once more.

We have thus pushed through in Swedish politics – and the Riksdag will vote for – a principle of public access in independent schools. No such principle has applied previously, and it has been a problem. Now we are pushing it through. It is about media, employees, students' parents, and the general public getting insight even in independent schools.

This is what Miljöpartiet has failed to do in a government position. This is what the Socialdemokraterna have failed to do in a government position. This is what Vänsterpartiet has failed to do when they have been a support party to the government – they have certainly not sat in the government. Now, however, it becomes a reality, Mr. Speaker. Now we are implementing the largest reform of Swedish schools in decades, and that includes the independent school system.

It includes a re-regulation of Swedish school, where the municipalization, the free school system and so on have resulted in us having far too little regulation. We have too few guarantees for high quality in the entire school across the whole country, regardless of who is the head of the school. This is a re-regulation point by point, and we have many points left. I believe that the member also actually knows this.

The principle of public access is such a thing. Let me repeat the following: There is therefore no exception for different types of independent schools, but all independent schools are covered in the same way in this legislation. But there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding on the left wing regarding that certain independent schools would get away with it and others would not. You do not get away with it, Mr. Speaker. Now it becomes a principle of public access.

This is what I am proud of. However, it does not mean that I am satisfied and finished with renovating the Swedish school system and the private school system.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I move for approval of reservations 2 and 4.

This report is fundamentally about a very simple principle: Those who receive tax funds to run a school must tolerate oversight and transparency. School is not just any activity. It is about our children's future. It is about safety, support measures, student health, and grades – and about how our common resources are used. Running a school is, in that sense, a public administrative task, and this applies regardless of whether the provider is municipal or independent.

Therefore, it is fundamentally good that the principle of public access is now proposed to be introduced at individual principals. It is a step in the right direction. However, it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, because the government takes a step forward but stops halfway. One says to want openness but simultaneously builds in exceptions. One says to want to strengthen transparency but accepts that central parts will continue to be able to be withheld. One says to want to take responsibility for the school but does not dare to fully settle the matter with the logic of the market school.

This is the right's school policy in a nutshell: They acknowledge the problem in the headline but protect the market school in the paragraphs.

Firstly, this bill is far too generous regarding the relief rules. The Government proposes that the relief rules for the handling and preservation of documents shall apply to heads of schools with a maximum of 450 children within primary school. When it concerns heads of schools that exclusively conduct preschool activities, it may be a maximum of 100 children.

Mr. Speaker! If one has 450 children and students, one does not have a small operation or village school activity, as we have spoken about earlier in the debate. It can involve several schools and many employees. Large public resources are used, and every day many decisions are made that affect the future of children and students.

We Social Democrats have therefore been clear that we believe the principle of public access must cover all principals in the school system without generous exceptions and concessions being introduced. This applies primarily to medium-sized schools, which have between 100 and 450 students.

In the government's proposition, we can see that up to 86 percent of the independent schools and preschools will be subject to relief rules. It is not reasonable that municipal schools should offer full transparency while independent actors with hundreds of students are to receive relief. If a headmaster is large enough to conduct tax-funded school activities for hundreds of children, it must also be large enough to withstand democratic scrutiny.

Here there is a clear dividing line. The right speaks gladly of order and tidiness in school and control over tax money, but when it comes to control over tax funds that go to independent schools, it suddenly becomes very cautious. Then exceptions shall be made and it shall be softened.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, business secrets will also continue to carry great weight in this activity. As the principle of public access stands now, it will not be sufficient. When it comes to central information regarding the finances of the friskolor, reference will in the future be made to the Companies Act and to the fact that it concerns operational and business secrets.

In our motion, we point out that business and operating conditions will largely be able to be kept secret. This means that central issues regarding how common resources are used, which should go to children and students, will not be able to be fully scrutinized by the public, parents, or journalists. In practice, this means that we cannot be sure that the children receive as good an education as they have a right to – the companies' interests may weigh more heavily.

This is not just a technicality, but it concerns the very core of the school debate. How is the school money used? How are resources moved between schools? How do profits arise? How much of the money goes to teaching, student health, and support, and how much disappears into other corporate structures? Such things we must be able to audit.

Without real oversight in the economy, it becomes difficult to follow the tax funds. Without insight into the distribution of resources, it becomes difficult to see if the money goes where the needs are greatest. Without openness regarding central economic conditions, the principle of public access becomes a facade.

The Social Democrats argue that we must apply the principle of public access fully, without exceptions for trade secrets. It is a self-evident matter that the school's money should go towards more teachers, better support, safer classrooms, and more equal education. The school's money must not be hidden behind trade secrets, corporate structures, and confidential calculations.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little about komvux. Komvux is left completely out of the bill that we are now debating. We know that adult education is also financed by public funds and that it is an important part of the education system. We know that adult education is about people's futures – about the opportunity to study for qualifications, to change careers in the middle of life, to switch paths and get a new chance. Independent providers in komvux must also be covered by the principle of public access. It is difficult to see why the principle of openness should cease to apply after upper secondary school instead of continuing in komvux.

If public funds are used for educational activities that affect people's futures, and if the quality of education is crucial for the individual and society, the transparency must be good. It is not sufficient to say that the municipality still has the ownership and that that is enough. For adults who study and encounter the education in everyday life, for teachers who work, for journalists who want to scrutinize, or for taxpayers who want to know what the money is used for, it does not matter how the chain of contracts is constructed – we must be able to follow the money in any case.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this committee report shows a clear political divide. We Social Democrats welcome the introduction of the principle of public access, but we do not intend to pretend that the proposal is sufficient. The exemption rules are far too generous. Trade secrets will also continue to be allowed to carry significant weight, and komvux will continue to be left completely outside.

It is not about fully taking back control of the school, but it is about taking a step and then stopping when the market interests begin to protest all too loudly. The Swedish school therefore needs a different direction. It needs more openness, not more loopholes. It needs more responsibility and more democratic control. It does not need more exceptions for actors who use our common tax funds.

The simple question is whose side one stands on in the school debate. Do you stand on the side of the students, the teachers, and the taxpayers, or do you stand on the side that still wants to allow parts of the school to hide behind business secrets and exemptions?

Mr. Speaker! The school shall not be governed by market logic. It shall be governed by democracy, responsibility, and the right to equal education.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Niklas Sigvardsson for the speech.

I would like to have clarified what the member meant by that the principle of public access should be applied fully and that the current proposal protects trade secrets. Would the member like to explain his reasoning? I do not quite understand how this fits together.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Patrick Reslow, for the question!

This is quite substantial. If one reads the bill and the legislative proposals regarding exceptions concerning the confidentiality of trade secrets, one sees that there is still quite a lot in the operation of a school that is not covered by the exceptions made in the secrecy legislation. That is how the logic looks when we open it up. What is it that should not be covered by secrecy? That is how the law is structured.

We Social Democrats believe that one must be able to follow the friskolor's trade-offs in a better way when it comes to the recruitment of students. Parts are included in the proposal, but the proposal does not fully address how the recruitment work functions and that students are recruited to schools. How is the school activity constructed? How are the funds used? Where in the system does the profit arise? That is a fairly clear part.

We Social Democrats do not think that the profit interest should carry heavy weight in the school system. We do not think that the logic of the market is good for Swedish schools. The focus should be on students and teachers and on the fact that people have a right to education. Therefore, we do not think that things should be able to be classified as trade secrets in school activities.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats do not even know the law. They do not even know what the principle of public access covers. It is not the case that the exceptions are in this proposal. The exceptions already exist in the principle of public access that the Social Democrats want to implement fully. If one were to implement the principle of public access fully, without the exceptions that we want to make, there would be no room at all for exceptions for trade secrets according to current legislation, because Chapter 19 of the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act would apply fully. The Social Democrats have not understood the legislation.

The exceptions being made now concern that one shall be required to report data for the reception and selection of children and pupils, employment, salaries, number of children and pupils, composition of children and pupil groups, grades and other results, teacher density and staff turnover, as well as individual children, pupils and guardians, in addition to this. If the Social Democrats implement the principle of public access fully, these exceptions will not exist, but instead, it is the secrecy in Chapter 19 that applies.

The message from the Social Democrats is that we should protect every single piece of information that exists – everything should be covered by Chapter 19. I cannot make this hang together. The only conclusion one can draw is that the Social Democrats have not thought correctly, but instead have thought wrongly.

We make no exceptions for trade secrets. They are already in the public access legislation. The proposal we are submitting involves relaxations in the secrecy that cover exactly the things I mentioned. If one does not have those exceptions, it is full secrecy, which the Social Democrats obviously want it to be.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the vast majority of those following this debate understand. We Social Democrats want to settle the score with the market school. It means that the tasks one has for conducting school activities shall be open to scrutiny. I believe that it is precisely this we are talking about here.

Now Patrick Reslow is trying to mark words and dribble with different words.

This is about us Social Democrats believing that more parts of the friskolor's activities should be open to democratic scrutiny, not that they should be further restricted. We want more to be open so that taxpayers can inspect the school and see that the money allocated collectively for school and education goes to the children, to the teachers so that they can provide a good education, to student health, and to all other important staff in the school. I believe it is quite clear for those watching the debate that this is what we Social Democrats want.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

Transparency in operations is important, especially when it concerns tax money. There is no one here who does not want any transparency at all. We have been quite in agreement on this, even if the paths there have been somewhat different. There is also no actor who wants to be free from transparency; even independent actors have said that they want and are open to transparency.

The problem arose in 2020 when Statistics Sweden and the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm restricted the possibility of access. At that time, quite a lot of information was classified as confidential, including information about schools' grades, student composition, and other things that made it possible to compare schools with one another.

This was not good. Being able to compare schools is, in fact, an important prerequisite for students and parents to be able to make rational and good choices before choosing a school, and when there is no transparency, this is hindered. Therefore, we wanted a solution, and this was discussed quite a bit during the previous parliamentary term.

In 2022, I believe it was, a committee initiative was submitted that the principle of public access should be introduced straight up and down. We were, however, a majority who said no because we saw certain problems, including in relation to the Companies Act and EU law, and when it came to how smaller actors would be affected by such a solution. Therefore, the proposal was voted down. We all had slightly different starting points as to why, but all in all, we voted no.

This also demonstrated the lack of ability that social democratic governments always have to build majorities by compromising on something that is good. Instead, the principle of public access should simply be introduced straight up and down.

After the election, there was a shift in power, with the three government parties and the Sweden Democrats as a cooperation party. We started quite directly by saying that the investigation would continue but that the mandate of the School Information Investigation would be deepened and broadened. This meant, among other things, that the investigation would look at a principle of transparency that could be guiding for the independent actors.

It is no secret that we Sverigedemokrater advocated for a transparency clause, because we thought it would be best to catalog exactly which pieces of information should be disclosed. Then one would avoid all legal problems and the like that could arise.

The problem was only that when the investigation came, the proposal for transparency was quite extensive. One would need to build up a new unit at Skolverket that would take over the statistical data, and given Skolverket's many other tasks, we were not so fond of that idea and immediately saw problems. The differences between this bill and the principle of public access were also small. As is customary in the Tidö cooperation, we therefore reached a consensus on what was best, and that became the principle of public access, albeit with some concessions for smaller actors.

Why do we then make concessions for smaller actors? Well, because unlike the municipalities, they do not have a large apparatus behind them that can help them with the legal aspects, with releasing documents, with keeping the archives in order and the like. A school with 100 students can be said to be relatively large, but compared to a small municipality, it is still small, as my colleague very rightly said. Therefore, it is important to protect the smaller actors so that they are not knocked out. The left's great ambition, however, is to knock out the independent schools, and then, of course, one is not interested in protecting them.

Just as my colleague from the Liberals said, we are now introducing the principle of public access, but with certain relaxations. So, there is nothing here that is included that otherwise would not be included, or anything that is not included that otherwise would be included, but it is the principle of public access. However, there are relaxations for school units and joint preschool and school units with fewer than 450 children and fewer than 100 children if it is only a preschool. If it is an entire group operating school activities, the total number of children must be under 450 and 100 children respectively.

It is about reliefs regarding the actual disclosure. When a document is requested, it must be done promptly according to current public access and secrecy legislation. It can happen instantly or take a few days, but the handling must be prompt. The reliefs consist of that the handling does not need to be as prompt; instead, it may take up to a week from request to disclosure. However, it depends on what type of document it is and how easy it is to obtain. Exceptions are also made for, among other things, summer holidays because most independent actors do not have operations during the summer, unlike a municipality, where one actually has their organization even during the summer. There are also reliefs in the archive rules.

Exceptions are also made for all independent units for two years. After that, everything applies to everyone. The purpose of the exception is so that one can prepare for what lies ahead and not rush through it. We also see that one advantage of having time to prepare is that one can avoid many legal conflicts regarding this. Furthermore, everyone who requests documents will also have time to adapt to the new.

So, regarding the question where I think the Social Democrats are on thin ice. In the reservation, they say that the principle of public access shall be introduced fully, and the times the question has been raised in the committee, it has always been the entire principle of public access that is to be introduced. The problem is that here, secrecy for trade secrets is included. For a private actor conducting school activities, there may be other actors interested in its strategies and marketing, and it is to the disadvantage of the former actor if they must disclose this information. This is not strange, and that is how the entire public access and secrecy legislation is structured. I have never heard any Social Democrat complain about this when it concerns municipal companies. There, it is completely okay to have this protection, and in those cases, there is no requirement for total openness. But when it concerns just school activities, the Social Democrats demand it. Why? Well, because the Social Democrats do not want independent schools. They will deny this, but that is how it is.

The basis and selection in concluded cases, information on employment and salary, information on the number of children and pupils, information on the composition of child and pupil groups, information on grades and other results are what the exemptions we carry out entail. This is what the Social Democrats say no to because of the question of trade secrets. But we think it is important that these pieces of information come to light, and there are no independent entities that say it would be good to hide them. I am therefore very surprised by the Social Democrats' position in this case.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have a rather short question for the member. He said that it is reasonable that there are concessions for less independent school units because they do not have the same administrative muscles as the municipal schools.

I want to ask the member why the Sweden Democrats are against introducing a differentiated school fee so that the municipal schools receive payment for the mandate they have, but which the independent schools do not have today. The member did acknowledge that the municipalities obviously have higher costs. Why then should they not be compensated for that?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Reading was one of the things I learned when I went to school. If one reads, one sees that it says Education Committee's report 2025/26: UbU20 The principle of public access with simplified rules for individual small principals in the school system. I do not know how the Left Party member can make it sound like something else.

The question that was asked is absolutely not about the principle of public access, so I wonder if the member has a question concerning today's matter. Otherwise, the member may wait until we handle the matter that the question concerned.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I reject the accusations that I should be illiterate. I have very good reading skills.

What I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, is what Reslow said in his speech from the rostrum here: that it is reasonable for there to be relaxations in the principle of public access for less independent principals since they do not have the same administrative staff at their disposal as the municipalities do. It means, of course, that the municipalities have a higher cost for overhead for the school system.

I therefore want to ask Member Reslow: Why is it then not reasonable that the municipalities receive a larger compensation for their assignment compared to the independent schools? I actually cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, how the Member can consider that it does not belong in this discussion.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If the question had been about overhead and the like or about administration, it would have been a matter linked to the principle of public access, but now it is a different type of question being put forward. It concerns school fees, and we are not discussing school fees here today. Today we are discussing the principle of public access.

What I said was that the municipalities have a much larger apparatus for handling, for example, public records than an independent unit does. They have much greater muscles to do so, and therefore, concessions are required.

I understand that Isabell Mixter is eager to find out what the Tidö parties think, since we have such good politics, and that she cannot wait for the debates on other matters. But Isabell Mixter must be kept in check and wait and see what happens. I am sure she will be very satisfied with the proposals that come.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! The government has made a big deal out of the fact that the friskole system is to be completely renovated. What I see, however, is no complete renovation but rather a case for the "Fuskbyggarna" (The Fraudulent Builders). They have propped up the ready-made house with a bit of silver tape and say contentedly to the Swedish people: "There we go, look how nice it turned out!" At the same time, it is collapsing into a heap before our very eyes.

The private schools will also be able to laugh all the way to the bank even after this parliamentary term. They will be able to continue to extract large profits even though an overwhelming majority of the Swedish people and likewise the teaching staff think it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker! The bill we are debating is about introducing a principle of public access for the friskolor. That there previously has been no transparency whatsoever regarding what the Swedish friskole sector conducts for activities is absurd.

It is a public task to ensure that all students receive a good education. The schools in Sweden are financed by public funds, and yet the municipalities have no possibility to audit the activities of the independent schools (friskolor). On the contrary, they are ordered to pay out school funds without anyone having to answer as to what activities are being conducted. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate, for example, had to search for the owners of Engelska Skolan for eight months before they finally received an answer as to who the owners of one of Sweden's largest independent school groups were.

How large the profits of the companies are is shrouded in mystery. What the children actually learn we do not know, but many who work in higher education, for example at universities, testify that the quality of knowledge among those who have attended independent schools is very low.

Vänsterpartiet has long requested a principle of public access for the friskolor. As recently as 2024, the Tidö parties voted here in the chamber against introducing it, even the Liberals. It is not the only proposal where the Tidö parties are dragging their feet or are not in agreement. The will to keep the school oligarchs' backs is certainly strong.

Until now, we have also not been told which students are in the queue for the independent schools or how the independent schools "select" which students get a place there. I have, for example, received a number of testimonies from parents who say that independent schools do not accept their children but say: "At our school, we do not have children with diagnoses." They have thus denied students the opportunity to study at their schools, even though independent schools have the same obligation as municipal schools to make adaptations so that it works for all students. We also know that there are independent schools that refer students back to the municipal school because it is too complicated for the independent schools to have students with special needs.

Now we finally have a proposal on the principle of public access on the table. It is good and welcome, but there are far too many exceptions in the government's proposal on the principle of public access. School principals with fewer than 450 students do not need to disclose documents in the same way as the larger ones. Around 80 percent of the principals in primary school will be covered by the exceptions.

Preschools with fewer than 100 children are exempt. Possibly some of them will be included in groups and thus be covered by the rules, but it will not make any major difference. According to the government's own calculations, around 70 percent of the operators who run a school or preschool will receive relief in the requirements to apply the principle of public access.

That there is a principle of public access and the possibility of obtaining information about what the friskolor are doing is a fundamental prerequisite for transparency. It is a minimum standard of democracy and should be a self-evident matter for publicly funded activities.

Mr. Speaker! We have seen countless deviations that should have been visible to the public but have only become so when the media have managed to conduct investigations, for example, a riding school operated without horses and independent schools conducting teaching without chemistry and craft rooms. One school was two and a half miles from the sports hall and thus did not give the students the teaching time they were entitled to, and yet all students received an A in sports.

A principle of public access is crucial for making it easier to scrutinize the operations of friskolor. It is about something important, namely safety for the students. The Uppdrag granskning program Tyst i klassen, which showed that Engelska Skolan tried to hush up abuses against students to protect the school's reputation, is one of the worst examples of what it can take when one is not granted insight into operations.

Regarding this, the police have also commented and stated that the lack of legislation regarding a principle of public access means that they do not have the same opportunity to alert the school when a person is suspected of a crime as they would have had in a municipal school. There, I truly welcome that there will be a change.

Mr. Speaker! There is now a very great risk that many pieces of information within the friskolor will be regarded as business and trade secrets and that they will be classified as confidential and thus not be disclosed for public scrutiny. This leads, therefore, to the fact that it will still not be possible to obtain information on what the friskole companies do with Swedish tax money, for example, such as when Tellusgruppens preschool starts a nanny business so that mothers in Stockholm's city center can eat brunch in peace and quiet. That is not directly what Swedish tax money is intended to be used for.

According to the Swedish Local Government Act, municipal tax money shall go to municipal affairs that benefit the citizens and not to private luxury cars or acquisitions abroad, which is what the free school owners are doing.

This is the most serious deficiency in the government's bill: that trade secrets will take precedence over the right to transparency. We cannot accept that. The Swedish people deserve to know what their tax money is being spent on, and one must stop shielding the private school companies.

Komvux will not be covered by the new public access legislation, which is a major mistake by the government. Komvux is one of the operations that has very many profit-driven companies, which also many times deliver very low quality. Here, public scrutiny would truly be needed.

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the government has not succeeded with its complete renovation of the friskola system. We need a change of government to get this in order.

Vänsterpartiet sees that what is required is to abolish the market school. Limited companies and schools do not go together, because the primary purpose of limited companies is and will always be to make a profit. As long as limited companies exist in the school world, school results will continue to fall. Money will continue to disappear from students and teachers and go into the shareholders' pockets, and taxpayers will be cheated out of their tax money.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is taking a historic step today. The principle of public access will be introduced at all school providers, both municipal and independent, from January 1, 2027.

Students and their parents have the right to insight into the school's activities, and they have the same right to insight regardless of which school their children attend. We are now rectifying the injustice that has prevailed until now. Information that is public today in municipal schools – it may concern the number of children and students, expressions of interest, group composition, grades and other results, teacher density and staff turnover – will now also be public with private principals.

This is a reform that left-wing governments have talked about for decades, but which they have, in fact, not managed to deliver. Now it is a bourgeois government that is delivering. I thought I would take the opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstandings and inaccuracies that have occurred here in the debate, because there are actually quite a few.

First, I wanted to say something about this issue of komvux on a contract basis. The opposition wants the principle of public access to also cover komvux on a contract basis. But the municipality is already today the principal for all teaching, even that which is outsourced. This means that this oversight already exists today, with the municipality. It is therefore already fully possible for a municipality to set requirements on the actors one chooses to hire or procure within the framework of contract procurement of komvux. The possibility already exists!

My question back to the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party is therefore simple. Today, there is a lot of activity financed with public funds that is not covered by the principle of public access. When the multi-billion company Skanska builds a school with tax money – should the activity that Skanska carries out then be covered by the principle of public access? Should the company that writes textbooks and its activity be covered by the principle of public access? I am thinking of the cleaning in the municipal building and the road constructions – where do you draw the line? I would be very interested in hearing that.

For us in the Moderates, there is a principled difference when it comes to accountability and ensuring that one simply gets access to the information one needs.

Another objection that has arisen in the debate is that there has been a bourgeois majority here in the Riksdag even previously. This very thing proves our point, namely that a bourgeois majority is required to do something about this. The Left has held government power for – if you ask me – far too many years during the 2000s. They have had very many opportunities to do something about this. They have promised and promised, but have not delivered. It is considerably harder, my friends, to implement reforms than to stand here in the chamber and promise things without having the means for them. This government implements reforms and is now getting things done.

We also hear here in the debate that there are loopholes in the legislation. I would also like to take the opportunity to address that.

I think it is pleasing that Vänsterpartiet and Socialdemokraterna stand behind the government's line on transparency. The government presented, just last week, a proposal on economic unified reporting for independent actors.

This is a reform that truly increases the transparency of how tax crowns are used. The difference is that from the Moderaterna's side, we want to introduce this type of unified accounting also for municipal activities, because we want schools to be treated equally. We know that far too much money disappears from the school in the municipal operations, and we want to find out where that money ends up.

If the Left means business with open books, I hope that they also support our proposal fully. Then we can achieve transparency within the entire school system and not just in the independent schools.

Mr. Speaker! The last area I intended to mention concerns the discussion that it is schools that are too large that are now receiving eased regulations. The opposition claims that the limit of 450 students lets through actors that are too large. Even this is a completely incorrect picture. We are talking here about small-scale operations with one to two school units. It concerns parent cooperatives, Montessori schools, village schools, and small profile schools.

Among these principals there are also actors and principals who run small resource schools distributed across different locations. These are schools that receive students with special needs and which are often the only functioning solution for families in a vulnerable situation.

My question to the opposition is straightforward: Do you not want these resource schools to exist? That is the consequence of your line. If you force a small principal with 50 employees to build up a registry with an archiving function under the same conditions as an entire municipality, it will mean that they will have to shut down their operations.

Let me be clear, because there seems to be a misunderstanding in the debate here. The relief rules do not, therefore, mean that there are fewer documents that one needs to disclose, fewer things that become public and fewer points that become public records. That is not the case. It is the same information that becomes accessible. The relief rules are about administrative adjustments, i.e., about such things as how much time one has to disclose a document, to what extent one needs to build up archives and the like. The relief rules are about administrative issues and not about issues of what information becomes accessible. This applies to everyone in the same way.

To further support the smaller primary providers, the government has allocated resources in the budget for an introductory grant. Skolverket is also establishing a consultancy service for these smaller actors. This is how we implement a reform in a thoughtful and well-elaborated manner to support the individual actors that we protect.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: We hear here that the opposition is looking for problems. One fights hard to find problems in this, but one looks where there are no problems and turns a blind eye to the problems that actually exist.

The government is now delivering a reform that increases transparency and that can actually be implemented. It also protects the small actors, whom we safeguard. The government stands on the side of the more than 400,000 students and their parents – those who have chosen a friskola in Sweden.

I think it would be honorable for the left side in this chamber to honestly say that they actually do not want any independent schools in Sweden, for that is the meaning of the politics they pursue.

Now we are introducing the principle of public access in the entire school system from and including January 1, 2027. It is a historic reform, and it is being implemented by a bourgeois government.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is not about whether the friskolor should exist or not, but about whether they should have the same conditions as publicly run schools. The Moderates are trying to scare people by saying that we want to shut down friskolor, that we do not want them here. The reasonable answer to that is that we want everyone who runs schools to do so in an equal way so that we can truly ensure that the money allocated to the school goes to children and students, teachers, teaching materials, and things that actually belong to the school. That is the most important part.

All our criticism of the market hysteria that has prevailed in Swedish schools is that we cannot know that the system we currently have represents the best for our children and students. It is not about wanting to stop the independent schools, as is being threatened with, but we believe they should work on equal terms. If a municipality is obliged to produce documents and be able to withstand scrutiny, this must also apply to an actor that operates independent schools.

As I pointed out in my exchange with the Liberals, it is also important to note, when we talk about schools and overhead, that a school with 450 pupils is a relatively large school. A preschool with 100 children is a relatively large preschool. One can actually maintain that type of oversight of their actions, and one should also be able to hand them over within a reasonable time. I think it is quite clear.

We are not saying that the schools are huge. We are saying: If one has a school with 450 pupils or a preschool with 100 preschool children, it should be reasonable that one can submit these tasks without these clear relief rules.

The question when it comes to the Moderate logic becomes: Do you really want us to be able to see in the school's documents how things are done, how the school is run, and what trade-offs are made? Do the Moderates wholeheartedly stand up for the principle that everything should be able to be scrutinized so that we can truly compare schools?

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely this that we are implementing with the bill we are debating here today. It is precisely because we Moderates want free schools and municipal schools to be treated in an equal manner, have equal requirements, and have equally high expectations of them that we now, in area after area, choose to reform the Swedish school system. This is part of the large-scale reform we are now implementing, the largest in 30 years, precisely because we see that there are many deficiencies here that previous Social Democratic governments have turned a blind eye to.

Therefore, I can reassure Niklas Sigvardsson that the Moderate-led government is now introducing the principle of public access. We have submitted this bill to the Riksdag precisely because we want all schools, both municipal and independent, to be treated equally.

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Then I, as a Social Democrat, can expect that the Moderates will continue to push for it to truly be equal conditions. Based on what we are discussing right now, there will still be room for trade secrets, which means that municipal schools and independent actors will not be treated in exactly the same way. It is quite clear both in today's debate and in the bill that there are parts of what the friskolor do that will still be subject to secrecy and not be public.

The Chairperson said that she is in favor of equal conditions between independent schools and municipal schools, so my question must be: Will the Moderates proceed with expanding the principle of public access so that it actually applies equally to both municipal schools and independent schools?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I and the Moderates stand on the students' side, on the parents' side and on the teachers' side to lift the Swedish school in area after area. Therefore, we are now pushing through the largest reform of the Swedish school in 30 years. We are implementing new curricula, new teacher training, a new grading system and a new support system. In area after area, we are now pushing through change, and it will make a real difference.

Today we are debating the principle of public access. This is because we Moderates, together with our liberal colleagues, have seen that we need to increase transparency in the independent school system so that parents, students, and teachers can be able to assess the quality of that activity in an equal manner.

Therefore, from and starting on January 1, 2027, information on the number of children and students, expressions of interest, composition of child and student groups, grades and other results, teacher density, staff turnover, and the like will become public information. This is something Social Democratic governments have failed to deliver for decades.

I understand that you are frustrated and dissatisfied here in the chamber, but I can please Sweden's students, parents, and teachers by stating that a Moderate-led government is now delivering this. This will become a reality on January 1, and it is good news for everyone who cares about the Swedish school system.

(Applause)

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to start where the member concluded their previous exchange. She said that the Social Democrats had previously failed to introduce a principle of public access. I would then like to remind of what I said in a previous exchange, namely that the Tidö parties have previously voted no to this every time it has come up.

As late as 2024, we had a vote here in the chamber where the voting figures were 154 against 152. If a couple of Moderates or Liberals had then voted for a principle of public access, we could have had such a thing significantly earlier. Therefore, it is a bit far-fetched to stand here and say that it is now the government that is succeeding with this.

The Chairman also spoke in his address about resource schools and that these could not exist if there were no exceptions to the principle of public access for the smaller units. I am actually a bit questioning as to why these exceptions are needed at all. What exists in the legislation today regarding the disclosure of public documents is that it shall occur promptly. There is no exact time specified in the legislation, only that the disclosure shall occur as promptly as possible. Somewhere there must be a point to the government wanting to introduce an exception for just these schools.

I also become concerned when the member brings up the specific example of resource schools. This is about a student group that we know has a very great need for support and who are to receive the very best education. If one refers to the fact that precisely these schools should not be able to be audited, I feel very concerned.

Why should there be exceptions when today's legislation on the disclosure of public documents only states that it shall be done promptly?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am very happy and pleased to answer these questions from Isabell Mixter.

There were two questions. The first concerned a vote here in the chamber in 2024. It may be difficult for listeners who are not so well-versed in how the Riksdag works to understand what this is about. The year 2024 was during the current parliamentary term, and the Riksdag could then issue a notice to the government. This, however, was a task that the government was already carrying out and which had been ongoing during the parliamentary term. A comprehensive investigation was commissioned, which was then referred. The Council on Legislation also commented on the legislation before it landed here in the chamber.

So, sending a reminder from this chamber to the government would not have changed anything in substance. Just as Isabell Mixter and the opposition know, this work was already underway from the government's side.

My point regarding the left side concerned all those years when the Social Democrats, with the support of the Left Party, themselves held government power and themselves could have implemented this. They could have investigated, referred, referred to the Council on Legislation, and submitted bills to this chamber to implement these types of changes. They could have gathered support for their reforms and ensured that they had a majority with them in the chamber. They failed to do so. This is what the Moderate-led government is now delivering, and I understand that it can be a bit frustrating.

The second question concerned the fear of being scrutinized. I would then like to repeat that this is not about anyone being exempted from scrutiny. We introduce the same requirements on equal terms. The information that will be made available with the introduction of the principle of public access will be the same for all schools, but for certain operations, we are introducing administrative reliefs. We think this is important, because we also safeguard the smaller actors' opportunity to continue to exist in Skolsverige.

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

Isabell Mixter (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by speaking about the smaller actors.

In the schools in Dorotea municipality, there are a total of 261 pupils, and in Bjurholm municipality, there are a total of 265 pupils. These municipalities are expected to perform exactly the same tasks as all other municipalities. They are school principals, just like all others. If one says that the same rights shall apply to everyone, I actually do not quite understand what the government is talking about. The only ones who should have exceptions are independent principals with smaller schools, not the municipal principals.

For me, this does not rhyme well when one speaks of choice and rights applying equally for everyone. The less independent principals receive exactly the same school fee as the municipal schools. Why should they not be able to manage the same tasks? It is a major question for me.

It is not unknown to anyone that the Moderates are the biggest defenders of independent schools in the chamber, perhaps surpassed only by the Sweden Democrats. I am not surprised that one also intends to protect shareholders and those who own the corporations in the future.

Malmqvist spoke in his contribution about how it is important that parents, students, and teachers get insight into the schools. But I also feel that the taxpayers deserve insight into what is happening with their tax money. We will still not be able to find out through the principle of public access how large profits the independent school companies take out or what type of activities the profits go towards. It will still be a mystery, and it protects the government with all its might.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are some pure inaccuracies that I feel I need to address.

The first inaccuracy concerns the difference between a small municipality and an independent school provider. It is clear that there is a completely obvious difference. One does not need to have been a municipal politician to also know that the school constitutes approximately 40 percent of a municipality's activities. Then the municipality has very other activities, which are already covered by the principle of public access today. This means that a small municipality already today has archives and diary functions because the entire municipality's activities are covered by the principle of public access. That is the difference when one compares a municipal provider with an independent provider. That is also why we in the proposal introduce a financial compensation during a transition period to the smaller providers. We see that they will need to transition their activities, and we from the Moderaternas side are keen that they should be able to continue conducting their activities.

The second thing I would like to address concerns unified accounting and transparency in the economic information. As I mentioned in my speech, we presented a new reform regarding independent schools last week. We will submit a bill to the Chamber which means we want to introduce a unified accounting for independent schools. From the Moderates' side, we want to do the same when it concerns municipal principals because we are keen to ensure where the taxpayers' money ends up. The transparency will be obtained through the reforms that this government is implementing. I am pleased that we are getting the reforms in place, and I look forward to discussing more parts of the reforms ahead.

Let me conclude by using the words of Isabell Mixter. It is not unknown to anyone here in this chamber that Vänsterpartiet actually does not want to see any independent schools – it would be honest to highlight that in this discussion.

We want to see independent schools, and we also want to protect them in the future.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have a long tradition of openness and transparency regarding the exercise of public authority, and Miljöpartiet has long demanded that the principle of public access should cover independent schools on the same terms as municipal schools.

The Liberals were opponents of the principle for a long time but changed their minds, as you may remember, a couple of years ago. On the other hand, one is not running out the rope now. Of course, it is good to take steps along the way, but we want the legislation to be on the same terms already now.

Something that has also taken a long time is the process itself regarding the legislation on the principle of public access for all schools. Two years ago, the issue was not completely ready yet, and since then, two years have passed. The principle was to be one of the pieces in the government's complete renovation of the school. Once again, we see that it takes a long time and that it does not reach all the way through.

The Liberals have changed their position to wanting to introduce the principle of public access, and that is good. But they have still had to yield to the Tidö parties in going all the way. In an interpellation debate in the chamber, Lotta Edholm said it is no secret that her party wants to see a principle of public access. They argue that it is a proven piece of legislation that would be simplest to introduce. The principle of public access is also a cornerstone of Sweden's democratic system of government.

That schools which engage in the exercise of public authority and manage tax money are not covered by the principle of public access on equal terms is unreasonable. Municipal and independent schools shall operate under the same conditions. No school principal shall be able to withhold information on how tax money is spent or prevent oversight in any part of the operations. That is also the case if one delays the disclosure of information.

Unfortunately, the government's definition of which smaller, individual principals shall receive relief rules regarding the handling of public documents risks eroding part of the purpose of the principle of public access. Promptness is also a fundamental principle. The delimitation leads to too many school principals receiving reliefs that are not justified. Both small and large schools – a school with 450 students is a large school – obviously already have their documents in order today. Otherwise, it is difficult to conduct a qualified operation.

Up to 70 percent of all friskola providers could be covered by the exception rules. The public's right to access information on equal terms should cover all friskolors activities. It is important that the same conditions apply to everyone, and a request for a public document shall be handled promptly. Therefore, Miljöpartiet stands firm that the principle of public access shall apply to all school providers fully on equal terms.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 3 on the principle of public access.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have a knowledge question for Camilla Hansén – so that I may understand. If I understood Camilla Hansén correctly in the rostrum, the member means that the easing rules that are now being introduced regarding the change from prompt, approximately one day, to perhaps one week to submit information risk to jeopardize the entire implementation of the reform.

I would like to understand what Camilla Hansén means. The information that becomes available is the same. It is about how much time one has to release the information. What is it that makes the difference in days would imply such a large change in the benefit of the reform?

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is a matter of principle. How it would play a role in each individual disclosure case whether it is a matter of an hour, a day, or a week, I cannot determine without knowing what the case is. I cannot see why different principles should apply for public authorities and for independent authorities.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the explanation, Member Hansén.

Then I understand what is meant, but I remain questioning nonetheless. Here, the government has made a trade-off. We want to introduce access to information in an equal way. It is something that previous red-green governments have not delivered. Now we are doing it.

But we also say that we protect the smaller school principals: the small parent cooperatives and the small Montessori schools. They do not have the same administrative muscles and bureaucratic structure that our municipalities have quite naturally. The municipalities have for many years worked with the principle of public access, not only in the school but in all of the municipality's activities. We make a balancing act that means we want to protect these schools and at the same time gain access to information.

I have a question for Member Hansén. Previously, Miljöpartiet has protected these smaller schools. Previously, Miljöpartiet has been a friend of the smaller, independent schools. Is that no longer the case? Does one now actually, like the Socialdemokraterna, want these schools to no longer exist? Is that what we see in this debate? Otherwise, I do not understand this opposition to relief rules for smaller providers which mean that they get a few extra days to be able to submit a document.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, Miljöpartiet does not share the view of the trade-off you have made, Josefin Malmqvist, if a trade-off is to be made at all. It will be far too many who receive exemptions from promptly disclosing documents. If one wants to enter this sector, which concerns conducting education with public funds, the same principles shall apply: One shall promptly share the information one has.

A small school also has fewer documents to keep track of. And I am convinced that all serious small school heads have good order regarding their documents and can hand them over as quickly as possible, according to the principles we have today. I also believe that there is an interest, even among smaller school heads, in having that openness and in following those principles.

I think it is a bit unnecessary to play up the free school lobby's argument that as soon as we in the opposition criticize phenomena that harm Swedish schools, it is about us not wanting any free schools. That is simply not true.

Miljöpartiet safeguards pedagogical diversity. We want there to be schools run by parent cooperatives with different pedagogical orientations. We know that they have both the will and the ability to be part of an open and transparent Swedish school system.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal.

I also want to do something that I do not do so often: praise the government for having succeeded with this. This applies particularly to the Liberals in this case.

I would also like to thank you for the fine insight into some of my colleagues' literacy. It was nice to find out who can read and who cannot.

There is, however, one thing that has not quite come up here in the debate, Mr. Speaker, even though there have been many discussions about who has done what, who has not done things, why different governments have not acted, and so on. I am of the opinion that we in the Education Committee want knowledge to be built on knowledge and that truth, science, and knowledge belong together. I therefore think that we should give a truthful description of how it has gone.

It was, if I remember correctly, the Social Democratic government 2014–2018 that submitted a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding the principle of public access. They were not so good at talking to other parties as they could have been. But they submitted a referral to the Council on Legislation.

In 2018, after some time, there was a new government. The Center Party and the Liberals were a prerequisite for that government, and because of the Liberals and the Center Party, this did not happen. It was therefore not because the Social Democrats suddenly were against the principle of public access. I still think it may be worth including, so that we can have a fact-based debate.

That is why I am happy. Previously, we were for the principle of public access. Then we changed our minds. And now we are for it again. So that is how it can be in politics sometimes, dear listeners.

I believe, again, that it is important that we build this kind of debate on what has actually happened, on facts. We are, after all, members of the Education Committee. I think we can convey to the young people out there what reality looks like, so that when they look at how it actually looks and works in politics, they can get an accurate description. I believe that Sweden wins from that, Mr. Speaker.

We should have solved this in the January agreement. We did not. I am glad that the government has solved it now, and we support this proposal.

I am also glad that there are exemptions for small schools. There have been discussions about even the small municipalities. But a small municipality still has slightly more employees than a small school has. If you do not have knowledge of that, you can visit a small municipality. They have slightly more employees, and they have other activities where the principle of public access already applies. It is therefore much simpler for them, because the school is included there, than it is for the individual, smaller school.

Where the line should be drawn, we can certainly discuss for all eternity. I do not think that is what is decisive. What is decisive is that we now get insight into the school. It is fantastically important. There have been cases of sexual abuse, for example at the International English School. But there we could not get insight into what happened. It has also happened in a municipal school in Malmö. Then we could get insight into what happened, how the school acted, etcetera. We could not get that at the private school.

Terrible things happened at both schools. But in one of them, we could get insight. In the other, we could not. Now we are solving it. And it is crucial for the students' safety and security. It cannot be that students in an independent school are not to have the same security as those who attend a municipal school. This is very good.

That it takes a couple of extra days for a small school to deliver the information, I can live with. I believe it is quite important, in case a smaller school receives a complaint and wants to request everything the principal does every single day. That is, in fact, the reality out there sometimes.

It is a good and realistic balance. We will probably have to come back in a couple of years and see if there are any things that have not turned out completely as they should. But now that the chamber in large is for the principle of public access in school, I believe that it can also be resolved.

I wish that this had been done from the beginning. The government got it in under a bit of pressure. First, one had only included the principle of transparency in the Tidö Agreement. Then, it was not included in the investigation. We pushed it in, through quite a lot of criticism from many different parties. I am glad it turned out that way. And now we are here.

In the discussion about the complete renovation, it is my opinion that for the first time we have actually had a real, proper part of the renovation in place. Not much else of what has come from the government is part of a complete renovation. But this is still a bit more than putty and paint. It is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to achieve a good and proper friskole sector.

But that is not enough. We are still not anywhere near a complete renovation. This is like a wall has been demolished, but the new wall is still missing and needs to be built up. And the foundation needs to be renovated.

Mr. Speaker! That this government does not deliver a common school choice, for example, is deeply problematic if we are to have a real, proper free school sector and a proper choice system for the school. We still have the queues. We have no differentiated school funding. In practice, no new money will come to the school sector under this government either. It is therefore a long way off until we have a well-functioning school system where all students have the opportunity to choose on equal and free terms, which is important. Freedom of choice is crucial.

We must also ensure that all schools actually have good conditions to deliver a good education. That is what this is for. It is a small part of ensuring that we no longer have a lot of schools that underdeliver, that cheat, and that withdraw money that should go to the students.

In this case: Thanks to the government for an excellent job! I hope that you continue the good work on other points. There is a little, little time left. A joint school election and a bit of other things would have been nice. You will not succeed in that. But after a change of government, we will ensure that it happens.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish schools bear a collective responsibility for Sweden's students, regardless of the form of operation. Schools are financed with tax revenue, are covered by the same legislation, make different decisions, and run activities that affect children's futures. Despite this, the transparency in the different schools has looked different depending on who operates the activity.

There have been good reasons for this. Fundamentally, I think it is a reasonable position that one should not complicate administration and bureaucracy for school activities unnecessarily. But it must always be weighed against the advantages that exist with the legislation that is currently on the table. I believe that the government's proposal to introduce the principle of public access for private principals will strengthen confidence in the school system as a whole, now that we ensure that the same principles apply to everyone.

Providing education is a public task. Schools make decisions regarding admission, grades, and various disciplinary measures. Such a system needs transparency. Citizens should be able to review how rules are applied. Guardians should be able to make informed choices, and journalists should be able to uncover irregularities. The principle of public access is one of our strongest tools in Sweden to enable this.

The basic principle in the bill on the table today is that the same mandate requires the same level of transparency. Public activity should be able to withstand public scrutiny, regardless of whether the activity is municipal or independent. If the same mandate is performed by different principals, the activity must be able to be scrutinized in the same way – it is fundamentally reasonable.

The Swedish school system as a whole is based on the principle that principals should have as equal conditions as possible – equal conditions for independent and municipal principals. This must also apply to the obligation to open up to scrutiny. When the scrutiny is hindered, it becomes more difficult to compare schools in an equal way. If one cannot compare schools in an equal way, it becomes more difficult for both parents and students to make well-founded school choices. The ambition with all this legislation is that the school system should become better for the students. It will help the children by making it easier for them to choose the right school, and in the long run, it will provide them with a better school.

At the same time, the proposal also has an important balance. The principle of public access is introduced fully for all individual principals, but smaller actors are given certain reliefs in how the rules are to be applied. It is not about exceptions to the transparency itself – the public shall have the right to access documents even at small schools and preschools. The reliefs instead apply to processing time, documentation, and archiving.

The reasons for this are practical. Many smaller primary providers have limited administrative resources. Often, they lack central administration and have few employees outside of the pedagogical activities. If the same requirements for registration, archiving, and immediate processing were introduced for them without any adaptation, there would be an obvious risk that staff would be forced to prioritize administration over teaching.

To reason generally, this conflict of objectives exists in many of the school reforms that the Riksdag takes a stand on. A necessary state regulation always reduces the schools' flexibility. Naturally, we always want to avoid situations where reforms impair the core mission of the operations.

This is, therefore, a balancing act that one must always perform, Mr. Speaker, and I mean that these relief rules are very well balanced. The smaller actors are given some room, and there is an important balance. The reform must be feasible in practice, but its content must not be eroded. The entirety of the proposal shows a clear direction: The school shall be characterized by openness, and equal conditions need to mean equal openness.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

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