Schools against crime

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! There is a Sweden before and a Sweden after the horrific events at Risbergska skolan in Örebro earlier this year. The worst school shooting in Swedish history is a national tragedy. Those who lost their lives did so while they were striving for knowledge, education, and a better life. They carried a faith in the future.

School should be a sanctuary. It should be a place where one can, in peace and quiet, learn to read for the first time, struggle through national tests, or take the step into adulthood through vocational training. We must guarantee this safety for students, for teachers, and for society as a whole. The bill we are debating today aims for this.

The Liberals are the school party in Swedish politics. In government, we have pushed for the school to return to its fundamental tasks: real textbooks in every classroom, staffed school libraries and strengthened student health, but also clearer rules, better order and an end to the madness of students sitting during lesson time and using Snapchat and scrolling on TikTok.

We have initiated work to regulate teachers' time, reduce the administrative burden, and free up more space for teaching. We are also pushing to introduce a national maximum for the number of students per class. It is about both peace of mind for the students and reasonable working conditions for the teachers.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the development in Sweden has gone in the wrong direction when it comes to safety, security, and crime in schools. The number of reported crimes in the school environment has increased by 150 percent over ten years. Threats, violence, and harassment are becoming increasingly common in Swedish schools. Teachers report a deteriorated work environment. Students report growing insecurity. According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, every second student in grade 9 has either been subjected to or personally committed a crime in the school environment.

We cannot turn a blind eye to this. We cannot be satisfied with symbolic politics. Therefore, the government is now ramping up the work to strengthen security in schools. The proposal we are discussing today, Schools against crime, contains sharp and concrete measures. This means that a new security chapter is being introduced in the Education Act.

It is about all schools having a preparedness plan to handle serious violence situations and threats of violence. It is about the preparedness work being conducted continuously and that unauthorized persons shall not be given access to the school premises during ongoing activities. It is also about principals being given the opportunity to decide on inspections of students' bags when it is justified to protect safety. It is about crimes in the school environment, as a general rule, being reported to the police even if the suspect is under 15 years of age.

These are far-reaching reforms, Mr. Speaker, but they are also absolutely necessary. We are going further than the School Safety Inquiry, and that is what we in the Liberals are proud of. We broaden the possibility to inspect bags to cover the entire primary school and komvux – not just upper primary school and upper secondary school. We clarify that even threats of violence shall be covered by the schools' preparedness plans, and we establish that every suspected crime shall be taken seriously – even when children are involved.

It is about the society being able to identify, prevent, and offer support in time.

In no other workplace would one accept the threats and violations that occur in some Swedish schools. That all crimes should be reported to the police may sound obvious, but it is far from the reality today. By reporting crimes, one gives society the opportunity to act earlier, to implement interventions, and to help young people away from a destructive path.

It is the principal, whether municipal or independent, who has the ultimate responsibility, and the government is clear: All schools must work much more systematically with security. But we also provide the conditions. 68 million kronor are allocated this year so that the schools can live up to the requirements for preparedness and police reporting.

We must not place any additional burden on the teachers. It is the principals who are responsible for decisions regarding bag searches. They shall only be carried out if they are justified and proportionate. Searches can be performed by specially designated staff or by security guards, not by the teacher who is simultaneously to conduct a lesson.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Safety and knowledge are interconnected. One who is afraid does not learn. One who sees crime being normalized in the school environment risks losing trust in the rule of law. Therefore, we are now working very hard with a number of long-term investments – more special education teachers, smaller teaching groups, school social teams, emergency schools, strengthened student health services, higher requirements for teacher training, and much more. We see the whole picture. We are combating both the symptoms and the causes.

February 4th this year was a black day for Sweden. But with these changes, we can now at least lay the foundation for a brighter future chapter – a chapter where school can once again become a place for faith in the future, for learning, and for safety.

There is, Mr. Speaker, no quick fix for the school's challenges, but they require perseverance, long-term thinking and a clear direction. They require the courage to re-establish the Swedish school as an institution of knowledge where the teacher leads, the student learns and society acts preventatively against crime. It is a school that goes back to the basics.

I therefore move for the approval of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Malm outlines a number of proposals in the bill that the Green Party also stands behind when it comes to strengthening security work and preventing crime. Fredrik Malm also says that we cannot be satisfied with symbolic politics, and he talks a bit about how things should not be snapchatted and tiktoked in lessons – that is not exactly something advocated by anyone.

Fredrik Malm also states with pride that the government is going further than the investigation's proposals when it comes to the searching of bags. It is an intrusive measure regarding privacy, and teachers, who did not choose the police profession or the security profession but rather the teaching profession, shall undertake that task.

I have mainly two questions for Fredrik Malm. The first question is why one is proud to go further than the investigation's proposal. We usually lean very often on investigations and the preparation that the investigations have made.

The second question is: How is it that the Liberal Party is not listening to teachers and students when it comes to precisely this matter of searching through children's and adults' bags?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! We can imagine a student in secondary school or upper secondary school who has a firearm, a knife, or drugs in their bag. Then the student comes to school and locks the bag in the locker. Then it comes to the school management's attention that the student is dealing drugs or has weapons in the school. Today, the Swedish school has the possibility to open the student's locker, but one is not allowed to open the student's bag with regard to the student's personal integrity. This we are now going to change.

The amendment means that the school will be able to open the bag. One will be able to call the police. One will be able to handle, for example, illegal weapons possession or illegal narcotics possession.

This describes the Green Party as rummaging through students' bags. I think it is a very lax view that the Green Party displays in light of the fact that we today have crime in schools, gang criminality, and individuals who risk exposing other students to threats against their safety, health, and well-being, and even, by extension, against their lives.

I think it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that these tools should exist so that we can curb crime in schools in Sweden.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that it is appalling if there are firearms, explosives, drugs or knives at a school. All of this is a crime. We also have a law enforcement agency with people who are trained to handle such things. It is my opinion – it is also the opinion of teachers and students – that it is precisely police who should handle such things involving suspicion of a crime. But now it is the Liberals' policy that it is teachers who should handle this.

I find it difficult to understand why one makes the choice to go further than the investigation's basis suggests and calls oneself a school party but does not listen to those who are most affected by the legislation that is now being pushed through in the Riksdag. You are pushing it through with a small majority, and you have gone further than the investigation itself provides a basis for.

Fredrik Malm may think that Miljöpartiet has a lax view when it comes to school safety. But I can assure him, based on what my city has been through, that it is not about laxity. It is about building a society on certain fundamental values.

Teachers should be an important building block when it comes to building strong students. When there is suspicion of a crime, it is the police who should work with such matters. The police shall work to prevent, manage, and follow up on crimes. And we have courts that shall judge those who commit crimes.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is right in one thing, and that is my opinion that Miljöpartiet has a lax view on these issues. That is very true. I could almost go as far as to say that Miljöpartiet has a very lax view on these issues.

It is quite obvious that if a student brings a firearm to school and has it in a bag in their locker, the school must be able to open that bag. But it is not true, as the Miljöpartiet says, that it must be the math teacher or the geography teacher who has to open the bag. It is clear that it does not have to be a teacher. The school can call a security guard or a police officer to do it. It can be other staff in the school – someone who does not have a class at that moment – who opens the bag. The important thing is that the possibility to open it must exist.

Sometimes I wonder if the Green Party, so to speak, circulates in its own orbit around the planet when it comes to these issues. Does the Green Party not see the reality Sweden finds itself in? It was even in Camilla Hansen's own constituency that the school bullying took place.

(CAMILLA HANSÉN (MP): Yes, exactly.)

I am completely convinced that we must acquire more tools to combat serious crime. The fact is that we have compulsory schooling in Sweden, which means that we have our youth in the same place five days a week, for seven or eight hours at a time, ten months of the year. This means that the school is a key location to be able to reverse this development. The school is a recruitment site for destructive forces, but the school is also an opportunity to reverse the development. Then the school must be a safe place.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! After the horrific school attack in Örebro, school leaders across the country have been contacted by various private actors offering training on how to act during ongoing deadly violence. Many of the trainings are expensive and, moreover, substandard. An investigation from Dagens Nyheter shows that some companies are run by people completely without training – people who perhaps mostly enjoy having weapons themselves and getting to demonstrate them.

Reports have been made about frightening exercises where actors act as shooting perpetrators in a school environment. These are exercises that have left both staff and students traumatized. Some teachers have even been signed off sick after the exercises. It is completely unacceptable.

The Liberals have admitted that they have been naive regarding the marketization of schools. Here we have another example of how school activities risk falling into the hands of well-capitalized interests that do not want the best for schools, students, teachers, or society, but rather want to make money. Therefore, my question is: What is the government doing to avoid this becoming another market in the school sector that contributes to school funds going to something other than teaching?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have no other opinion than the Social Democrats on this. There are actors who market different arrangements to schools. They are, so to speak, packages of educations – or exercises, I perceive it as in this case – which are about creating a security mindset in schools. They are not quality-assured. If the actors are not serious, it is clear that they should not be hired. I cannot see that there would be any political conflict whatsoever in this.

What should the government do about this? Yes, fundamentally, it is schools and municipalities that are the principals – and if they are independent schools, it is they who are the principals – who hire these actors. The actors market themselves, and it is clear that from the municipality's or the principal's side, one must be able to quality-assure that the actors a school collaborates with, if it does so, are serious. So I think. That is probably what is most important.

I also followed this, Mr. Speaker – I read some media reporting about an exercise at a school where everyone working in the school had not been informed that the exercise would be taking place. There were thus people – whether they were cleaners or what it was – who were in the school when people suddenly entered with heavy weapons and simulated an attack. It is obviously an incredibly unprofessional action if it occurred in that way. I have no other opinion than Åsa Westlund's on this.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the Liberals have not even reflected on how to put a stop to this and ensure that this becomes a serious activity in the schools. We have already seen examples in several media outlets of totally unprofessional activity, and yet the government demands that all schools have contingency plans in place from July 1 without simultaneously having given, for example, county administrative boards the mandate to provide schools with the support they need to fulfill the assignment.

The government itself sat for a year on the investigation which demonstrates that there are county administrative boards that already educate and provide such support to schools all over the country. A reasonable measure from the government's side would have been to already now – it is only a few weeks until this is to be in place in all the country's schools – give the county administrative boards the mandate to support the schools in this work. Instead, the government stands and rejects the responsibility. It is said that it is up to the school principals. It is they who are to quality-assure this activity.

I think it is naive. The Liberals are repeating their mistake: They do not see the market forces that again want the school's money, and they do not protect the resources for teaching that exist in the school. They risk making a big mistake again that will affect the country's students and teachers.

I really want to urge the government to speed up now. There is still a chance to give the necessary assignments to the authorities that can support and ensure that this activity becomes serious, that it is conducted without profit motive, and that it actually safeguards the security and safety in all the country's schools – not the cash flow of unserious companies.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Åsa Westlund says that I, on behalf of the government or the majority, would shed responsibility in this matter and refer to the fact that municipalities, schools, and heads of schools must manage to hire serious actors. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was because Åsa Westlund in her entire first reply used the classic, and rather banal, rhetorical device that the Social Democrats use, namely to only speak about the so-called market school.

I note that we have private security companies in Sweden. It is a legal industry, and there are actors in that industry. There are actors who conduct exercises, and there are schools that hire such companies. I would say it is a very long reach to say that it is the Minister for Education or the Swedish government that is responsible for a single school somewhere in Sweden hiring a certain company for a certain exercise on a certain Wednesday in a certain month during the school year. It is, so to speak, quite a long reach to blame the government for that hiring having taken place.

I am convinced that Sweden has the capacity to reverse this development, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that our schools, our authorities – for example, the county administrative boards – and our municipalities have the capacity to manage this task. We need to work together for a common goal, and that is to strengthen safety in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! On August 19, 2021, a 15-year-old student stabbed a teacher at Källebergsskolan in Eslöv.

On January 11, 2022, at NTI-gymnasiet in Kristianstad, a 16-year-old student stabbed another student, who sustained serious injuries. A teacher was slightly injured.

On March 21, 2022, an 18-year-old student killed two teachers at Malmö latinskola.

And exactly four months ago, the worst school attack in Sweden's history occurred. Ten students and teachers at Risbergska skolan in Örebro lost their lives.

Unfortunately, we live in a reality where schools need to prepare for the fact that deadly school attacks can happen. School staff, police, and social services also need to become better at preventing it from happening.

The Social Democratic government appointed the School Safety Inquiry in June 2022 with a clear purpose: to improve safety in Swedish schools. In addition to the horrific school attacks with fatal outcomes that we have witnessed in recent years, we also see a development where criminal gangs use the school as a recruitment site and where weapons appear in our school environments. We need to face a reality where deadly violence in school is no longer unthinkable. It is something we must prepare for and, with all available means, attempt to prevent.

Therefore, we now welcome that the government proceeds with the proposals in the investigation report Schools against crime. We need to give schools clearer mandates to work with school safety. We need to be able to limit unauthorized persons' access to school buildings and schoolyards, and we need to give school staff more clear powers to search school bags when there are suspicions of crime.

But it cannot stop there. We must also ensure that this does not become another task that is dumped on school staff without resources, because no matter how much we strengthen physical security, the school's absolute primary protection against violence is that all students feel a sense of belonging, safety, and the opportunity to succeed in their education. That is what fundamentally builds a safe school.

Mr. Speaker! School must be a safe place for all children. When children and young people commit serious crimes in a school environment, the police and social services must also be involved. We think it is good that principals should have, and take, a clear responsibility to report serious crimes even when the perpetrator is under 15 years old. But we must also be able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. The government now proposes that all crimes, even less serious ones such as theft and vandalism, should be reported from preschool class onwards. This goes further than what the investigation proposed. Heavy referral bodies such as Sveriges Lärare, Sveriges Skolledare, and the Crime Prevention Council have warned the government that their proposal risks leading to stigmatization, lack of trust and, most absolutely seriously, an increased risk that the same person is drawn into criminality and commits more crimes with more crime victims as a result. We do not want to contribute to that.

We also have a concern that police reports of very young children can undermine trust in the police. Children risk learning early on that police reports do not lead to any police action but are simply added to the files. The government does not even seem to reflect on the consequences of this in its bill. We therefore believe that it would have been wiser to stick to the commission's proposal and not, as in the government's bill text, redefine what is meant by overriding reasons, that is, what consideration should be taken regarding the severity of the crime, the student's age, and the possibility of investigating the crime.

Mr. Speaker! We also want to highlight the need to strengthen the safety for school staff. According to the Swedish Work Environment Authority's report, the number of serious work-related incidents resulting from threats and violence in schools increased by over 150 percent between 2013 and 2023. The proposals in the bill mean that school staff will have a greater responsibility in preventive work. This is fundamentally good, but it also requires support. School staff must know that they have full backing from the police and social services when situations become threatening or violent. Teachers and principals should not take over tasks that in other parts of society lie with the police. We therefore propose that Skolverket be tasked with following up on how the new proposals affect teachers' and principals' perceived and actual safety at work.

Mr. Speaker! Many schools and school principals will now have to hurry to arrange emergency plans and organize training for their staff, and it is extremely important that we do not let this become the next major market failure in welfare.

After the horrific school attack in Örebro, school leaders across the country have been contacted by private actors offering training in ongoing deadly violence. Many of these trainings have been costly and, moreover, substandard. An investigation by Dagens Nyheter shows that some companies are run by individuals completely without relevant training. There have been reports of frightening exercises where actors act as shooting perpetrators in a school environment, exercises that have left both staff and students traumatized. In some cases, teachers have been signed off sick after participating in the exercises. In some cases, the police have thought that these were real situations and had to mobilize. This is completely unacceptable!

Mr. Speaker! We must not let the school's obligation to have crisis preparedness be transformed into a lucrative market where unscrupulous companies profit from fear and uncertainty. Several county administrative boards around the country already offer courses and support for schools to develop their preparedness work, and the government should, of course, ensure that this opportunity is now given throughout the country and ensure that education in the school's crisis preparedness takes place in a responsible manner with proven methods.

Finally, I want to emphasize once again that safety in schools is not only created with surveillance cameras and contingency plans. It is important, but the school's security and safety is also built in the relationships between students at the school and the school's staff. The work that is now imposed on the schools will take both time and resources, while we have a school that is already underfunded and where staff is being reduced.

The government's modest supplement to the schools' expanded security mandate therefore risks becoming a saving on other things – on teaching, on staff, and on the course materials. If the government continues to prioritize tax cuts for high-income earners over money for the school, if one continues to let billions of the school's money disappear in the school corporations' annual reports, we will not get safer schools – on the contrary.

The school's main mission, that all children in Sweden shall receive a good education and upbringing and that every child shall be met with high expectations and a belief that they can succeed, is crucial for safety and security in school. Furthermore, we know that it is crucial for our collective security. There is, after all, no better vaccine that society can provide against future crime.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the proposition and reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first and foremost express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

In connection with the tragic murders of two teachers at Latinskolan in Malmö, my constituency, in the spring of 2022, the then government chose, with strong and broad political support, to appoint an inquiry that would produce regulations for how school attacks can be prevented and school safety work strengthened.

The incident in Malmö was then, as we have also heard here earlier, the fourth major incident of violence in schools within the span of just over a year, with Eslöv, Kristianstad, and Varberg as the other crime scenes. That appointing an investigation was in itself a laudable action, but the investigation was at the same time narrowly focused on primarily preventing, deterring, and complicating school attacks and not on stopping violence in schools in general.

In connection with the change of government, a new tone was struck regarding the gross violence in Sweden. The Sweden Democrats and the government have, since taking office, worked to establish a sharper regulatory framework to stop the violence in society and thus also in schools. The school safety investigation has therefore, through three supplementary directives, received a broader approach in order to counter all forms of crime within the school system, that is to say, not only school attacks or more serious acts of violence. This work was accelerated in connection with the tragic incident in Örebro.

This was an important sharpening of the investigation's work. In several reports and investigations, it was emphasized that crime in the school world is increasing dramatically. The school investigation on crime 2023 shows that the school is a common crime scene when it comes to students in grade 9 of primary school. It is the most common crime scene for both less serious and more serious assault as well as for physical sexual violations among boys.

The school environment is also a common crime scene in cases of threats. Threats and violence in school can be directed at both students and teachers. It naturally affects both learning and the work environment negatively, and it must be stopped. The Swedish Work Environment Authority's report Threats and violence against teachers, other professional groups and students within the school system shows that the number of reported serious incidents at work caused by threats and violence in school increased by more than 150 percent between the years 2013 and 2023.

The Sweden Democrats and the government are working intensively to increase the safety and security for students, teachers, and other staff in schools. It concerns measures in both the short and long term, which increase safety and security and which strengthen the important preventive work. After the school shooting in Örebro, it became apparent that immediate and long-term measures needed to be taken to ensure safety and security in Sweden's schools. That is exactly why the bill is in place.

The Sweden Democrats have been insistent that the proposals should be as far-reaching as possible, and we are pleased that the government's bill goes further than the investigation when it comes to which situations the schools should have preparedness for and that preschool class, lower and middle primary school in basic education, as well as adult education (komvux) are also covered by the possibility to inspect bags. It is also good that all crimes in school shall, as a rule, be reported to the police, even in those cases where the student suspected of, for example, property damage is under 15 years old.

Mr. Speaker! The bill aims at four points.

The first point is that all schools shall have a contingency plan. Situations involving gross violence in a school environment can look different. The perpetrators can also have different motives. It is therefore important to both work preventatively and to act against and prevent violence that occurs in the preschool, the school, and at the after-school center.

The answers to the surveys that the School Safety Investigation had conducted show that approximately 30 percent of the principals lacked a current crisis plan for their school unit, which includes situations involving armed violence. Barely over half – 59 percent – stated that they have trained the staff on how to act in a crisis situation involving armed violence. There is therefore reason to more clearly regulate the schools' obligation to have strategies for how such potential situations should be handled in the best way.

The Sweden Democrats and the government propose in the bill that all schools shall have a preparedness plan and ongoing preparedness work. It is about planning, educating, and practicing to have preparedness when a crisis arises, for example through planning of sheltering and evacuation as well as a clear role distribution for everyone and all staff at the school. We have here chosen to go one step further than the investigation and expand the proposal to cover not only serious violence situations but also threats of serious situations. In this way, we ensure that the school is ready to act in a situation where serious violence has not yet occurred.

Mr. Speaker! The second point concerns stopping dangerous objects. An important part of the security work is to prevent dangerous objects from being brought into the school environment. Unfortunately, it is quite common today. We are aware of this. It can involve knives, firearms, and other things intended to disturb the order at the school. At certain times, for example during "nollning" (orientation), it can involve objects intended to be used to commit violations – what I want to call psychological abuse, according to the correct criminal law terminology – against other students.

A broad opportunity to examine and check bags is an important part of this work. The investigation proposed that bags should be allowed to be examined in upper primary school and upper secondary school. In the bill, this is now developed to include the entire compulsory school, the after-school center, upper secondary school, the adapted upper secondary school, as well as the municipal adult education. It is good that this is being done.

Inspection of bags does not need to be announced in advance either. This is an important part of the preventive work, and it complicates the planning of the introduction of dangerous objects. If one knows that there is going to be an inspection of the bags the day before, one is quite foolish if one takes dangerous objects to the school. We Sverigedemokrater think it is good that one does not need to announce it in advance.

A large part of today's violence is associated with gang crime, and therefore all potential loopholes must be closed. If the proposal were only to apply, for example, to upper secondary school and upper secondary school, there would be reasons for the criminal gangs to smuggle in weapons and narcotics with the help of even younger persons. We have already seen such a trend. That trend would continue and furthermore be expanded. Such a development would also render the entire legislative proposal moot. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we have been clear that there must not be such obvious holes in the legislation.

In the debate, criticism has emerged regarding school staff being required to check students' bags. However, there is nothing in the bill that says it must be school staff who perform the checks. It is possible that it will be so in some places. It is possible that there are school staff who are willing to do this and who want to do it.

There is nothing in the law that says it must be school staff who inspect bags. What is said is that only the principal can make decisions on this when it concerns an indefinite number of students, i.e., a general check, as well as that the principal or someone the principal has appointed may decide on an inspection when it concerns an individual student's bag. Unlike what the investigation proposed, it does not have to be school staff who perform the inspections; it can, for example, be security guards or someone else.

In the bill, it is emphasized that appointed persons should refrain from investigation when they judge that such an investigation could lead to a confrontation that may be dangerous. If one realizes that the situation could mean that weapons may be used, or if one suspects that a very large number of weapons have been brought in, the police should be contacted. It is important to get across in the debate that this is clear in the bill.

The third point concerns that more crimes should be reported to the police. The investigation's assessment regarding the police reporting of students under 15 years of age means, in principle, that only very serious crimes, such as for example murder, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery, should be reported to the police. Such a regulation would miss the crimes that most often occur in schools, for example assault, property damage, theft, offensive photography, and unlawful privacy violations. The investigation did not consider that those types of crimes should lead to a police report if the suspected student was under 15 years old. In practice, this means that society does not clearly signal its will to curb crime in schools.

Our line has been to maintain zero tolerance. Sverigedemokraterna and the government have therefore landed on that more crimes, as a general rule, shall be reported to the police, apart from purely trivial crimes. The reason for this is that the police and social services should be able to provide support and measures as early as possible. I note that several opposition parties have objections to this and can only state that the left-wing parties continue to handle crimes by minors with kid gloves. We believe, on the contrary, that there is a point in society reacting early to minimize the risk of continued crime.

The proposition proposes that the principal shall be obliged to report crimes. It is an important regulation. Today we know that many schools conceal incidents in order to avoid attracting attention and thereby lose reputation and attractiveness. By making the principal obliged to report crimes, we clearly signal that a school must address incidents in a timely manner and must not risk that disorder escalates.

The fourth point concerns preventing unauthorized persons from having access to the school's premises while activities are ongoing. Students, teachers, other school staff, and parents shall feel safe during the activities.

The very best thing, of course, would be if one could lock all schools and introduce a pass system, but it is probably not practically possible to implement in all schools in the short term. Many schools are built with many entrances and exits, which makes it difficult to maintain such a system. A lot of preparatory work is required for this to happen. It is therefore all the more important, while awaiting any further regulations, to clearly demarcate the area and inform that unauthorized persons do not have access. This can be combined with the new regulatory framework for, for example, camera surveillance. That is not to say that we will not return if further regulation is needed to stop unauthorized access to schools.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I fundamentally believe that it is good that this is taken a step further. Patrick Reslow and others have pointed out that the investigation was initiated under the previous government. Now it has been taken further and also strengthened based on the situation we see. Therefore, we also support in all essential respects the proposals that are presented.

It has, however, been said that we treat criminals with silk gloves. We do not do that. What is, on the other hand, a challenge and has been discussed is, among other things, whether teachers should inspect bags etcetera. But in practice, if there is a suspicion of weapons in a bag, I personally would rather that a trained police officer handles the weapons than an untrained driving instructor does.

At its core, this is more about issues of competence than about the Centerpartiet not thinking that one should seize the bag with weapons. That must still be clarified. It is clear that one must ensure that the person who had the bag with them never comes near it again. We are in complete agreement on that. It can be resolved. No one has anything against the police handling it.

Safety in schools is created very much through the teachers who are there. Centerpartiet has long been in the government regarding sharper controls of those who teach in schools. It is clear that we should act against any criminals among the students, but we must also avoid the teachers being those.

We have proposed committee initiatives in the Education Committee and in the Justice Committee to remove teachers who, for example, are convicted terrorists. It can also apply to many other types of crimes. DN has conducted a mapping which shows that teacher certification does not stop criminals. The Swedish Schools Inspectorate has shown that three out of four schools have deficiencies in the register check.

There is a memorandum on the government's desk, but nothing is happening. You have said no to the Centerpartiet's proposal. How are we going to act to ensure that the students in school have a secure foundation?

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am not quite sure I understood the question. I interpreted it as that the Center Party considers that there are teachers who are problematic and, for example, commit violence, and that the question was about how this should be stopped. I do not know if this was the question, but it is nothing that the Sweden Democrats say no to. If one appears in some register and this makes one unsuitable as a teacher, then one should not be a teacher; we want to be very clear about that. If one thinks it is great fun to engage in violence-oriented extremism or to go about indoctrinating children with terrorist-like methods, one should not be a teacher. We are the first to say that. We must be very clear there.

We are, of course, prepared to make tightenings even on this point if it should be necessary. When it is discovered that someone is unsuitable as a teacher, for example because the person engages in crime, such as child abuse, sexual violations, or whatever it may be, the person shall be dismissed from the school, and they shall not be allowed to return. That is the Sweden Democrats' position.

I move on to that which concerns suspicion of weapons. If one at a school discovers or suspects that there are weapons – perhaps live ones – it is well-established practice that one calls the police. One shall call the police; this is what the bill points out. The principal has an obligation to report. One shall report all crimes, and one shall also ensure that an inspection of bags is carried out. The bill, however, leaves it to the school to decide who shall do it.

I would like to reserve myself again as I did not quite understand the question.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I realize that I must be clearer. I perceive no ill will here at all.

The Center Party has twice proposed committee initiatives, in the Education Committee and the Justice Committee, to strengthen the background checks of teachers when they are hired. In the current situation, terrorist crimes are not included in the background checks. Not all sexual offenses are included in the background checks either. We have submitted proposals that they should be. Member Reslow said that the Sweden Democrats do not say no to this, but they have said no to it – actually twice. Patrick Reslow himself has said no in the Education Committee.

This is the challenge; we see it time and again. The School Inspectorate has conducted a review which shows that a huge number of schools actually do not do this job properly, that the regulatory framework is not good enough, and that not all crimes are included. There is now finally a memorandum on the government's desk. It came after we had been in government, who said no to our proposals.

Then the question is: When will actual changes occur in this area? If we are to have a school that is safe and secure – and I am completely convinced that Patrick Reslow and I agree that we should have such a school – we must ensure that people who are convicted of crimes are not working in the school without us knowing it. That is the question; I hope that was clearer.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It was clear and distinct!

We have no other opinion. We have exactly the same opinion. We want a broad register, and I believe several of my Tidö colleagues can agree with that.

We have not said no. What we are saying no to, however, is to open the doors. When work is already underway, and when it is already planned that these types of regulations are to be developed, we do not vote for a committee initiative. It is not customary to do so. Ultimately, one could use committee initiatives to develop everything – for committees to decide on matters that are already on the table and which will lead to propositions and the like in the future. That is not quite how the work functions.

A committee initiative should be about something that the government has not observed previously. This issue has been up and discussed. Already during the last parliamentary term, we discussed it, and it did not lead to anything. Now this is on the table, and an amendment will come regarding the register control and which crimes shall be covered by it. In that case, it is completely unreasonable to vote for a committee initiative that says the government shall initiate a work that one is already carrying out. It is not a line that the Sverigedemokraterna find appealing.

In those cases, one votes no to the committee initiative. However, that does not mean that one holds a different opinion on the matter.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1, which is the Left Party's reservation in this committee report.

I also want to say, now that four months have passed since the horrific attack at Campus Risbergska in Örebro, that I am somewhat surprised – but still not – that until now not a word has been said about aspects concerning racism and such parts in connection with this type of attack. Over the last ten years, almost all school attacks with a fatal outcome have been carried out by individuals who have been inspired by, among other things, right-wing extremist websites and groups.

Mr. Speaker! All children and students have the right to feel safe in their school and in society. After what I call the terror attack at Campus Risbergska in Örebro, we face a crossroads. We can choose to let this tragedy lead to reflection on where our society has ended up and why, as well as on what direction we shall take moving forward. What kind of country shall Sweden be? Shall Sweden be a country where division, hatred, fear, and racism spread and govern people's actions, or a country based on trust and a striving to build a society where everyone has equal opportunities to grow and develop?

We know that the vast majority of Swedes, regardless of country of birth, religious belief, or skin color, want to live in a society where every human being is seen and respected. People want to feel safe and hopeful about the future. We all have both dreams and goals. We all also have problems and concerns. We are strong and capable but also vulnerable. We can recognize ourselves in one another and see what needs we have in common beyond our differences. On those insights, Sweden was built into one of the world's most equal and safe countries to live in.

But today, far too many feel that both equality and security have been stripped away. The fear that many who have immigrated to Sweden, or who are children of people who have immigrated to Sweden, feel after horrific acts like the one at Campus Risbergska in Örebro is about more than this horrific act. It is about an increasingly harsh rhetoric that points out immigrants as scapegoats for all societal problems. It is a rhetoric that is spreading in society and which has poisoned existence and the climate of conversation in order to create fear, mistrust, and hatred. It is a policy that lets schools and residential areas decay and unemployment spread at record-high levels while those who already have the most get more and more in their wallets. It is a policy that aims more at reinforcing prejudices and contradictions than at solving the complicated but still simple societal problems we face. It is a policy that does not take the question of racism in schools seriously and ignores the alarming reports that year after year come from, among others, the Friends Foundation and Save the Children.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a new direction that does not focus only on tougher measures and methods that lack evidence, but instead invests in actual safety. Equal societies are the safest. Therefore, we need to rebuild an equal and safe school system where all children are seen and receive the support they need to succeed in school. For the school to manage this, the profession needs to gain trust, and the funding of the school needs to be changed.

At the same time, the Left Party agrees that there is a need to strengthen school safety. Therefore, we welcome a majority of the proposals contained in the bill. But we do not agree with the government on exactly everything it proposes, which I will go into more detail on in just a moment. It is important that measures for school safety are not only carried out through legislation. The school also needs to truly be able to work preventatively against violence. Sveriges Lärare writes in its referral response: "The school's problem today is not the lack of laws and rules but of sufficient resources."

Let me now go into two of the points where the Left Party opposes the government's proposal.

Vänsterpartiet does agree that there may occur situations where it is justified to inspect bags. This may come as a novelty for people here, but this is already done at quite a few schools where there are acute problems. It is done, for example, after information that a student is carrying something dangerous or illegal to school. But since teachers and everyone else who works in the school are not experts in handling either weapons or drugs, it should not be teachers or other school staff who carry out the inspection; instead, in these instances, the police should be called, which is also done today.

The investigation proposal was initially about random spot checks of bags. Already then, the Equality Ombudsman warned in its referral response that stereotypical perceptions of different groups can pose a risk of discrimination in spot checks linked primarily to gender, ethnic origin, religion or other belief, as well as disability.

I want everyone to know that the Sweden Democrats are sitting and laughing while I say this about discrimination.

Vänsterpartiet shares DO's concern and sees an even greater risk of discrimination now that the government is proceeding with a bill that goes further than the investigation.

Vänsterpartiet also shares the objections from Sveriges Elevkårer and Sveriges Elevråd. They write that students in school already experience a clear power imbalance, and it cannot be considered proportionate with the body searches that may occur. They also warn that an expansion of teachers' rights to conduct searches risks giving rise to conflicts between school staff and students without achieving the desired effect from a safety perspective.

That school staff, in the way the government now proposes, should perform tasks that are far removed from the school's main mission is both unreasonable and counterproductive and will furthermore lead to even more administration. Instead of placing these tasks on the school, the government should invest more resources in both school and social services so that the operations get a better opportunity to work on crime prevention by using the tools that already exist. But for the government, tax cuts for billionaires obviously come before investments in the school to be able to create crime-preventing measures.

Mr. Speaker! It is obviously important that the school reports concrete crimes that have been committed to the police. This may also come as a novelty for you in the chamber, but it is already being done.

Vänsterpartiet considers it disproportionate to require that all actions that could arbitrarily be considered a crime be reported to the police and documented. How much more administration for the school's staff will this not lead to? We have confidence that the school's staff can themselves decide when a report is needed and when it is not, and that concern for an individual child should lead to a report of concern to social services is already mandated by law.

As Sveriges Elevråd and Sveriges Elevkårer write in their referral response, a large proportion of the students whom the proposal affects are not even of legal age. The proposal therefore serves a limited purpose and risks only leading to a culture of suspicion towards students and an unnecessary extra workload for principals.

Vänsterpartiet considers instead that it would be good and desirable that the local police are allowed to have a good cooperation with the schools in the area, which already occurs in many cases, to for example obtain information and data and to build up trust among children and young people through, for example, school visits.

Finally, I want to point out once again that we must consider what kind of society we want to live in and what kind of school system we want to have. It may sound nice to hold a press conference a few days after a terrorist attack at a school, but if the proposals that are put forward would not have prevented any of what happened at that school, they are just empty words and nothing else. The school needs real safety, and the school system needs to become truly equal. School staff and principals need to be given the opportunity to create a safe school, and here some of the proposals fall short.

On most points we stand behind the bill as stated, but I move for approval of reservation 1.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! School should be a safe place for learning. Sweden has compulsory school attendance, and we expect the children to be in school. We also have an obligation to ensure that school is the safe place it needs to be so that the students can achieve their dreams to learn what they want and what we expect.

The school's staff must also feel safe. Every fifth report to the Work Environment Authority comes from school staff. No wonder we have 30,000 trained teachers who choose not to work in schools.

We know that safety issues are a major and important problem in the Swedish school system, and we need to take that very seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Development has gone in the wrong direction for quite a long time, but now we are settling it.

We see in report after report and hear from school staff and students that safety in schools is decreasing. A larger and larger proportion of students report that they feel unsafe in school, and school is today the most common crime scene among young people. We have an obligation to take this most seriously.

The Crime Prevention Council's school investigation shows that the school is, as stated, the most common crime scene, and the Swedish Work Environment Authority's statistics are alarming. Over ten years, the number of reports of threats and violence in schools has increased by over 150 percent.

We expect children to be in school to learn. Then we must take this seriously.

These are not isolated incidents. This is a development that we now have quite good knowledge of. We must reverse the development, and we can reverse it. We in this chamber have a responsibility to act, and we are doing so now.

Mr. Speaker! This is the background to the bill Schools against crime, which we are debating here in the chamber and which we will decide on today. It is a powerful and unified package of measures that, for the first time, ensures that the school's security work is taken seriously in our legislation. It is not about symbolic politics, but it is about concrete measures that are in demand in schools.

In the proposition, the government has proposals in a number of different areas. It concerns an entirely new chapter in the Education Act regarding school safety work. It concerns that all schools shall have a preparedness plan to prevent unauthorized persons' access to the school. The school shall primarily be for students and teachers – those who have the school as a workplace – and shall not be a place for the general public.

The principal needs to have the mandate to inspect bags and objects, and crimes committed in the school shall be reported to the police. These are points that should be a self-evident matter and which should already be a reality, but which are not today. Now we ensure that they are put in place.

Mr. Speaker! These are not extreme proposals, but they are natural and also powerful tools for the school that the schools themselves have requested. It is not about making students suspicious, as some have expressed in the debate here today, but it is about protecting students and teachers – those who work in the school. It is our most important mission.

This is our message to all the principals, teachers and students who every day find themselves in the reality of the Swedish school and who must contend with threats, violence, harassment and insecurity: We see you. Now we are giving you a few more tools that you have requested so that you can better perform that which is your important mission, namely the educational mission in the Swedish school.

Some parties in this chamber argue that this is the wrong path to take and that instead, one should focus on relational work. In that case, I want to be clear and say that one does not exclude the other. We mean that it is important with expanded student health services. It is important and absolutely crucial with the preventive work in schools. But it is not enough, because when the threat is concrete, the schools must be given tools to be able to act. When someone has brought dangerous objects and when the school management receives signals that something could happen, there must be sufficient legal support for the school to act. It is about responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Some parties in this chamber argue that the proposals go too far, that it is an infringement of privacy to inspect bags, and that it is wrong for schools to report crimes committed by someone under 15 years of age. I argue that it is a significantly greater problem to have to go to school with fear and a lump in one's stomach. I argue that it is a significantly greater problem that today we see young people who early on exhibit norm-breaking behavior, but where instance after instance refrains from acting early in consideration of the children being too young. When they then finally commit a crime, it is too late. We have an obligation towards these children to act early and clearly when it is possible to prevent and stop this type of crime.

Furthermore, I want to state that if there is anything that is an infringement of privacy, it is to be harassed, to be robbed, to be subjected to violence and to be beaten in school. I lack that perspective from the left wing here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! Some parties argue that this is going too fast and that we must wait before acting. In that case, my question is: What is the alternative? Is it to do nothing at all? Is it to let the threat grow, to let school leaders continue to stand without the right to act and without sufficient tools, and to leave principals and teachers alone, without sufficient legal support?

It has now been four months since the worst school attack ever in Swedish history. We have a duty to act promptly and ensure that we get sufficient mandates and powers on the ground so that action can be taken in the Swedish school. Anything else would be a betrayal of the students and teachers there.

Mr. Speaker! We know that these crimes are often committed by a few individuals. We also know that many of these individuals are young when they are first in the risk zone of being drawn into crime. That is why it is crucial that we act early. It is not about labeling the children, but it is about caring for the children.

Providing relevant support measures but also establishing clear norms is about strengthening the important cooperation between social services, schools, and the police so that we can catch more children earlier. We need to restore respect for the school, both as an institution of knowledge and as a bearer of norms. The school must not be neutral towards crime; instead, it must be a place where we clearly signal that threats, violence, and violations do not belong in the Swedish school. It must be crystal clear.

Mr. Speaker! This government is not standing and waiting, but it is acting. What we have seen happening in Sweden – school attacks, acts of violence, and children recruited into criminal gangs already in middle school – creates an obligation for us in this chamber to act.

We see how school staff are sounding the alarm about increased insecurity, that students are bringing in dangerous objects and that crimes are committed without consequences. As someone was saying here in the debate, you are allowed to open a locker, but you are not allowed to look in the bag in the locker to see if there are any drugs or similar items that have been brought into the school. This is unreasonable. We must give the school staff sufficient mandates. The bill gives the schools the mandate to put their foot down, and it gives society the opportunity to show that we see what is happening in the Swedish school. Now we are providing additional mandates so that action can be taken. We will not turn a blind eye to this.

School should be a place where children can grow, learn and develop. It is our duty to ensure that it is a safe place where we create conditions for teachers to carry out their important teaching mission and where students are given the conditions to learn. Therefore, it is a prerequisite that the school is safe, because safe schools produce safe and strong students who can focus on learning.

With this, I vote in favor of the government bill and the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 5.

I and the Center Party share the government's view that safety must be tightened in schools all over Sweden. I believe that is quite clear. We have said it before when we have raised the issue. I am glad that we now broadly here in the chamber are tackling this. There is a broad consensus here that we must strengthen safety in Swedish schools. This applies to the teachers, and it applies to the students.

We have seen that teachers are being assaulted, and we saw the horrific case of a teacher who was kicked in the stomach and suffered a miscarriage. Every other student in ninth grade has been a victim of a crime during the past year, and every other student has also committed a crime.

School is the most common crime scene. Boys are most often subjected to theft – that is the most common among them. Girls, on the other hand, are most often subjected to sexual assault. That is the reality out there. As many as one in four girls has been subjected to sexual assault in the last year; these are girls of school age. School is most often the crime scene. It is a crazy work environment to send our children into. I am glad that we are now together taking these broad steps to increase the efforts against crime in school.

Then we want there to be effective and good measures that actually lead to resources being used correctly and that when we act – as we shall do as a society much more often, much earlier and much better – it also becomes effective and actually has an effect.

That is why we are somewhat skeptical about even the youngest children being included in the legislation. Just like Sveriges Lärare, Brå etcetera, we see that it can instead increase the risk that the children end up in crime, also because the police will not be able to act. The police's referral response to the investigation itself does not request the expansion that the government is now proposing. We are, therefore, somewhat skeptical of that. One should be able to take into account age, the severity of the crime, and the possibility of investigating it when it concerns the young children.

It really does not mean that we should not act, Mr. Speaker. We must act against this, and it is about acting wisely with clearer and more effective measures that do not take resources but provide results.

If one is informed that a police report will be filed and the only thing that happens is that the police drop it immediately without one even receiving a call, it might not be the best intervention either – the one that gives the impression that what one has done is a problem and that action must be taken against it. That is why we are skeptical about that part.

Bags must, of course, be inspected if there is suspicion of weapons or drugs in them. I believe everyone in this chamber thinks that it should be done. There is nodding here. Everyone agrees on that. Then the government thinks it is wiser for a teacher to inspect the bag with weapons and drugs than for a police officer to do it. I think it is better with a police officer. To think that in many cases it is the teacher who should do it shows a strange view of both teachers and police officers. But, again, fundamentally we agree on the importance of this being done and tightened. We agree on almost everything in the proposal. I think that is very good, because we need to strengthen the work here.

Mr. Speaker! Another concern regarding this is that the legislation risks excluding civil society from being a part of the school. Several people point this out. That the head of the school shall ensure that unauthorized persons are not given access to the school unit is written in a way that is somewhat difficult to interpret. Fundamentally, it is sensible – just anyone should not be able to enter the classroom and feel that now I am allowed to be here. I believe everyone agrees on that. I do not think anyone is against that part. But I and the Center Party really want to emphasize the importance of that the actors who contribute to the school's activities can still be present in the school.

It is, for example, the organizations that build our democracy, that build the democratic citizens of the future. It is, for example, all our parties' youth wings. They must be able to enter the school. They must be able to participate. A very large number of schools already exclude them, which is terrible. That means we are not building the parties of the future, those who are to build our society and who create the foundation for the execution of our democracy in everyday life. And we know that all parties struggle to get enough voluntary forces and enough people who join. We risk having even more difficulty with that in the future, and that is not good. Therefore, we think it is important that there are conditions for variations in how the law is applied. But as said, Mr. Speaker, these are things that could be better and that I hope we can review in the future. Fundamentally, it is important that we strengthen safety in the school.

Mr. Speaker! What then creates safety in school? The most important thing, as survey after survey shows, is actually trusting relationships between students and teachers. That is the absolute most important thing, and there is very much to be done here.

It is a question that I particularly must pose to the government: How much longer will our children run the risk of being taught by convicted persons? How much longer? I have not been able to get an answer to that. I hope it will not be for that long, because time and again we see how unsuitable persons work in schools, among our children.

In a review conducted by Dagens Nyheter, it appears that the teacher license does not stop criminals from working in schools. Something else is needed. Recently, the Skolinspektionen released a report showing that three out of four schools have deficiencies in the register check upon employment. Several schools have not even performed a register check upon employment. This means that every year, several thousand teachers are employed without undergoing a completed register check. The register check that it is the schools' duty to perform upon employment today is therefore substandard. It is unacceptable.

The government's handling of these issues has been too slow. It has been deficient. The government must immediately tighten the rules, which the Center Party has demanded for a long time and been incredibly clear about. The schools and municipalities must perform better registry checks, and we must ensure that the registry checks include more. It is absolutely crucial if we are to create a safe school and a school without criminals. Today, convicted criminals work in our schools. That is how it is.

We want the register check to be expanded. We want it to be possible to carry out more checks, not only at the time of employment but also during the period of employment. One can commit crimes while being employed. When one is hired, one must present their criminal record extract. If one commits a crime two years later, it will never be investigated. That is not reasonable. It is not the case that people by definition stop committing crimes after they have been hired as teachers. There are plenty of examples.

This must be changed, and it must cover more crimes. Examples are things that would be completely logical if you asked an ordinary person out on the street. Terrorist crimes, does that prevent a person from being employed in a school today? No, it doesn't. Sexual assault? No, one can still be employed in a school after that. It is completely absurd, but that is how it is today.

We have been in the government. We have submitted proposals to the committee, both in the Education Committee and in the Justice Committee, to ensure that these issues are handled better and that better control is gained over who works in the school. But the Tidö parties said no. The Sweden Democrats said no. The Moderates said no. The Liberals said no. The Christian Democrats said no. That was the case.

That, for example, convicted sex offenders, honor oppressors, and terrorists can continue to work in Swedish schools today is a scandal. But the government eventually acted – that is what matters at least. Following the Centerpartiets initiative, an inquiry was appointed regarding, among other things, register checks in schools, and now there is finally a memorandum on the government's desk on how the register checks can be expanded. But now, then? We don't really know. It is time for the government to ensure that it gets down to business and cleans up this.

What do the government parties say? You are here in the chamber and are very welcome to answer. How much longer will Sweden's students run the risk of being taught by terrorists, sex offenders, and perpetrators of honor-based oppression?

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we are very pleased that the Centre Party has begun to engage in these issues. It is good if we can achieve a broad consensus on these issues.

School should be a safe place for education. It should not be a breeding ground for serious crime, to say it quite plainly. Persons who have committed serious crimes should not be able to work in schools. They have no business being in schools. Here, I wish that previous governments had acted, even those governments that Niels Paarup-Petersen's party has previously supported.

This government takes these issues very seriously. We are acting. In April 2024, we appointed an inquiry to tighten the requirements linked to extracts from criminal record registers for school staff. We Moderates believe that this is an incredibly important issue. It is about expanding which crimes are included. It is about performing checks regularly, not just at the time of employment. When one, for example, changes workplace with the same employer, this must follow. We want to ensure that these registers can be archived again, not that they cannot be saved as they are today. There are areas within areas where we need to ensure that changes will come.

This government has acted. As I suspect Niels Paarup-Petersen is aware, about a month ago a completed proposal in this area was submitted, which will now be sent out for consultation to become legislation, because this government takes these issues very seriously and will ensure that this becomes legislation before the mandate period is over.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also appreciate that people have started listening to the Centre Party, as Josefin Malmqvist says. We submitted, as mentioned, several proposals to different committees to achieve a reinforcement of these parts.

I am very happy that the government has acted, as I also said from the rostrum. There is now an investigation on the government's desk. We have seen that the government in other areas has managed to get things done in a month or two, from practically nothing to legislation. But since they received this investigation on their desk, they have not managed to send it out for consultation. That is why I ask when it will happen, if they are now really taking this most seriously. We have not seen when it will go out for consultation. We know nothing. That is why I ask when this will move forward. That is the question.

As I have said, I am pleased that we are now approaching an agreement that we must get better control over who is working in Swedish schools. But it must also turn into something. Therefore, I ask again: When will it be sent out for consultation? When will it become legislation? When will it make a difference in the schools? That is, fundamentally, the decisive question.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am proud to represent a party and a government that takes safety issues in schools seriously – it is needed. This has been neglected for very many years. The previous government turned a blind eye completely to these issues. Now we are cleaning up area by area and ensuring that the school receives both a mandate, powers and, in their own right, an obligation to act.

One of the areas this applies to is the one that Niels Paarup-Petersen is touching upon, namely the requirement for schools to request extracts from the criminal record when hiring staff. Everyone who is in the school should be able to feel safe that the school is a place that is free from crime and criminals. There, one should be able to feel safe.

Niels Paarup-Petersen can also be assured that the government's and the Moderaternas policy development work does not stem from the Centerpartiet's initiative in the committee. These are issues that we have prepared for a long time. These are issues that have been in the Moderaternas policy for a long time, and we have a plan to act and get this in place during this mandate period. It was also, as Niels Paarup-Petersen is very well aware of, the background to why we voted no to the Centerpartiet's committee initiative because it aimed to announce to the government that one wants to do something. But the government already has ongoing work in this area, and I want Niels Paarup-Petersen to both be aware of this and be able to feel assured about it.

These are issues that we prioritize and rank highly. We wish that previous governments had done more in this area. Now we are acting and ensuring that we promptly get new legislation in place that enables, and which means that we demand and expect, that schools act when hiring staff. The school shall be a place that is free from criminals.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will do my best to be secure and be that. I still think that the Moderaterna could quite often take what we think a bit more as a starting point. But it is not so strange considering that we are different parties.

My perception is that the government takes safety issues seriously – that must absolutely be said. Sometimes one almost goes a little too far, we might think, in certain proposals. But the basis, that we shall make the school an incredibly much safer place than it is today, we are completely in agreement on. We must do more.

Have previous governments turned a blind eye? Yes, perhaps not turned a blind eye completely, but in any case not done enough – there we also agree. That is also why we have submitted proposals.

Then Josefin Malmqvist says, Mr. Speaker, that one says no because it concerns an ongoing work. But the investigation was only started after our initiative. That is very good; the purpose of submitting committee initiatives is that they become activities. Now, hopefully, it will become an activity.

I can however state that the question I asked still has not been answered. I asked the question: When can we see that something is happening? You appointed the investigation after we had submitted an initiative, so it apparently helps to ask questions. So I ask the question again: When will this go out for consultation? When will it come out and become a reality in the school?

It is, indeed, once again, what counts for me – when I can tell my children, other children I meet, parents and teachers I meet: From this date onwards, those who have been convicted of honor-based oppression, sexual assault, terrorism and all other possible crimes that are not included today will no longer be able to work in Swedish schools. It is this date I want, and it is where I want to get to. I still have not received any answer there. But I hope that we get it soon.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen and I had a pleasant exchange in the reply last time. I thought we would continue from there.

When it comes to register control, we, as I said earlier, are in complete agreement that it is important. This was actually raised in the committee during the previous parliamentary term. At that time, we were also fairly in agreement that there was a need. Unfortunately, nothing happened with that issue then either, but it was left for a more action-oriented government to take hold of.

I wish I could answer your question about which date this will come into effect. But precisely the register control is not a Tidö issue. We Sverigedemokrater are not involved in the drafting of the bill itself, but that is happening in the committee. Had we Sverigedemokrater been involved in this, we would probably have a bill on the table already, because we really want it. But this is happening in the committee.

It is very true as Josefin Malmqvist previously said: An investigation was appointed about a year ago which has now returned with proposals, and they are now out for consultation. We assume that a bill will be submitted within the mandate period.

I hear what Niels Paarup-Petersen is saying. I will monitor the issue and ensure that a bill is actually submitted so that we get a proper register check of teachers. It is absolutely clear that teachers who have connections to any form of crime – it could be terrorism, preparation for terrorism, and other things – should not be in our schools. They should not be teachers. On that, Niels Paarup-Petersen and I are in complete agreement.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is always pleasant to have pleasant exchanges. It is not always that we and the Sweden Democrats are in agreement, but in this case, we are apparently in agreement that the government could have been faster – that is good. I really hope that the Sweden Democrats will, in that case, succeed in putting a bit of pace on the government so that this can go faster. Once again: That is what we want. The only thing I wish is that we can tell teachers, children, parents, etc., that from now on, from that moment on, this type of criminal will no longer be in Swedish schools.

I do not expect Patrick Reslow to be able to answer for everything that the government does. Even if one governs the government in many ways, one is not quite a part of it, not yet at least.

I do not really know what else to ask or demand. I am glad that we agree that this must be done, and I hope that together we can ensure that the government acts a little faster.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We agree – at the same time, I would have wished that the previous Social Democratic government had acted in these matters. This is not a new issue. It is not something that has arisen since 2022, but it was highly relevant even before then. But the Social Democratic government chose then not to act at all – a Social Democratic government that was also supported by the Center Party. I might have hoped that Niels Paarup-Petersen and his party comrades had been just as eager to put pressure on that government as one is to put pressure on the government one does not belong to now.

I assume that a regulation of this will come. I am pleased that we support a government that actually presents a proposal for increased register control. Niels Paarup-Petersen is welcome at any time to join the government alternative where, as he says, things happen, instead of supporting alternatives where nothing ever happens and there is only talk.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is the first time the Sweden Democrats have said that we are welcome – it is still new. I also believe that Patrick Reslow is very much aware of why we do not ourselves feel welcome, wish to be welcome, or want to be a part of his government alternative, as it looks at the current moment. I can understand, given how certain figures look, that one wishes for a few more parties in the government alternative. But right here and now, I probably decline. I believe I would have very big problems if I said anything else.

There is a huge amount that previous governments have not done well enough. There are also a lot of things that this government is not doing well enough, and so it will probably always be that way. It is about things that have not been looked at early enough, which should be done more and which should be improved, developed and sharpened. So it will always be that way. No one will ever succeed in everything.

But again: I am very happy that the government finally, after having said no to our proposals, at least listened and ensured that an investigation was commissioned, whose proposals now lie on the government's table. If this becomes a reality, if we get this done, I am close to being secure, as Josefin Malmqvist wished for me earlier.

I hope that we can get there so that we, all here in the chamber, can ensure that people who are convicted of honor-based oppression, terrorism, or sexual assault do not teach our children in the future, while at the same time we see that half of our children are exposed to crimes in the same instance. This is something we must all be able to agree on nonetheless. I am glad that no one in this case has made this into something a bit crass and a bit bad, as politics sometimes can be, but that we are actually trying to help each other reach there.

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is the month of June. The trees are greening. The gravel has been swept away from the roads, and there are only weeks left until all of Sweden's students get their long-awaited summer break. Many children long for swimming trips, ice cream in the sun, and the freedom to sleep as long as they want. But at the same time as many children long for something, there are many children who actually long away from something, namely school.

They are not just longing to get away from the math test. They are also longing to get away from having a lump in their stomach over what awaits them in the corridor after the math test. Will someone mock them, push them, film them secretly and post it on the internet, or subject them to some even more serious crime?

A recent survey from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention shows that school is the most common crime scene for 15-year-olds. Girls are particularly vulnerable. A quarter of the girls report that they have been subjected to sexual crimes. At the same time, one in five eighth-graders says that they feel unsafe on the school grounds. The consequences of this are, naturally, devastating. Students avoid different places in the school. They isolate themselves. In the worst cases, they stop coming to classes altogether.

It is not worthy of a country like Sweden that so many children experience their school environment as unsafe. School should be a place where children get to grow and where they receive support, knowledge, and faith in the future. It should be a place where safety, respect, and structure should be as self-evident as pens and school desks.

The organization Friends has shown in its latest report that almost every other student in primary school has been subjected to some form of harassment in the past year. 14 percent report that they have been subjected to bullying. More than one in ten students feel unsafe in school. And over half of all students say that noise and disruptive behavior in the classroom makes it difficult to work in peace and quiet.

We Christian Democrats take this very seriously. For what does it say about our society if not even the school, the children's workplace, can guarantee safety, peace of work, and respect?

Teachers testify that they themselves are subjected to threats and violence and that it sometimes feels as if they are left alone in the struggle to maintain a lesson where students, instead of treating the teacher with respect, choose to cause disruption and test boundaries.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say that we have a crisis of values in the Swedish school – a crisis where the authority of adults has been eroded, where boundaries have been blurred and where students respect each other to a too small extent.

For every student who disrupts, there is another who is not given peace to work. For every rule violation that is not followed up on, a sense of hopelessness is built among both students and staff. The students who want to learn, who try to do the right thing, also become silent losers in that situation.

We must never accept a school where children are held back because adults do not have the tools, the time, or the courage to act. For the school to be able to fulfill its mission – to educate and nurture – structure, clarity, and common norms are required. We must create a school where knowledge is once again placed at the center and where every child is treated with respect. Then it is not enough with individual enthusiasts in the classroom, even if they make a very big difference. The school's entire structure must support the work for safety. There must be clear rules – and when they are broken, they must be followed by consequences – and a leadership that takes responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Crimes committed in school must, of course, always be reported to the police. When crimes are not reported, it sends completely wrong signals to students, to the person who has committed the crime, and to the person who has been subjected to the crime. It sends wrong signals to parents and wrong signals to society at large.

With the new bill, the new law, it becomes clear. If a crime has been committed in the school, it is the principal who is responsible for reporting it. It is an absolutely necessary change. It strengthens the students' right to justice. It clarifies the school's responsibility. It also gives the police the opportunity to catch students early and deploy resources where they are truly needed.

Mr. Speaker! Schools must always be given the opportunity to combat insecurity. We must not have legislation that prevents it. The school survey on crime 2023 clearly shows that many schools have become crime scenes. It is the presence of drugs, weapons, pyrotechnics and other dangerous or disturbing objects. Staff testify to tips about drugs in student lockers and about students planning to bring dangerous items to school graduations. But still, the school management stands powerless because the law until now has not allowed them to open a bag. It is, of course, unreasonable.

The law already allows school staff to seize dangerous objects if they are lying visibly on a bench or if they are taken directly from a student's hand. They can even open student lockers. But if the same object happens to be in a bag in the locker, it is suddenly unauthorized to act. It creates a dangerous gap in the legislation, and it sends completely wrong signals when students who break both school rules and laws can, so to speak, get away with it and become winners because the legislation prevents the school from acting.

It is about protecting students and about preventing crimes from occurring at all. It is about having the student's best interests as the starting point. It applies to all students, not just the children who have their bags inspected but also the children who could become victims if the school does not act.

We Christian Democrats see all these reforms as a whole. It is about taking responsibility, about building a school where every child knows that adults are present, that rules apply, and that safety is the norm and not the exception.

We are passionate that every student – regardless of where they live, what background they have, or what difficulties they carry – should be able to feel: Here in the school, there is a place for me. Here I am safe. Here I am allowed to grow.

Safety and knowledge go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. Therefore, we need to take back the school – for the children's sake, for the sake of the future, and for Sweden's sake.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today marks four months since the shooting at Campus Risbergska, in my hometown of Örebro. Over the past week, we have heard several stories about what life looks like today for those who survived. P1 has a documentary about the SFI teacher Emma. The local radio has interviewed the students Marwa and Maawerda. These are moving stories. I want all of you who were there to know that there are many of us thinking of you – of you who are mourning and of you who are seeking a new way forward.

It is my full conviction that we all here in the chamber fully share the position that this could never have happened – but it happened. I assume, with the same conviction, that we all here are prepared to do what is required so that it does not happen again. But as usual here in the chamber, we have different ways to reach our goals, and that is what we are debating here today.

Mr. Speaker! One of the government's first announcements after this incident was that schools would be locked and that the School Safety Investigation's proposal would be presented earlier than planned. I must admit that it felt like that, already on Thursday morning at 6 o'clock, hearing on Ekot how national politics turned what happened in our city into politics. We in Örebro were fully occupied with holding each other together, calming each other, mourning, and taking care of each other and everyone who actually came. The Minister for Education chose that day to make announcements about locked schools, and the political debate was underway.

Now, four months have passed. Of course, we are to have the political debate that is needed to forge the proposals that ensure this cannot happen again. Therefore, the government presents Schools against crime. It is completely right and correct.

Miljöpartiet primarily supports the content of the bill. It is fundamental that children, students, teachers, principals and other employees should have a safe and secure working environment. There is no talk about that. I do not hear any talk about that from any party, not in Miljöpartiet either. It is not sloppy and not even very sloppy, as my policy was reviewed.

Our focus is on doing the right things early, in order to promote good development for every child right from the start. They must be real measures, real interventions that are part of everyday life. They should not only prevent crime but make life a little better for each individual than it would have been otherwise.

Miljöpartiet considers that the school's security work for crime prevention purposes can be introduced into a new chapter in the Education Act and that the head of the school shall ensure that there is an emergency plan at every preschool and school unit. They shall continuously work on preparing to handle a serious violence situation or a threatening situation. We know that the structures exist. Schools are used to having fire drills and other types of security drills. More layers need to be added to that.

However, this is about making a real difference. That is why we are critical that the preparedness plan in the proposed legislative text is not about preventing threats and violence, but only about how to handle it when the situation arises. That is, of course, important.

In Örebro there are many schools – I cannot guarantee that it is all of them, but there are very many – that have not practiced handling situations with ongoing deadly violence. It could have saved lives. But we who have followed the media coverage have seen how difficult that work was in an ongoing situation, which actually has no parallel in Sweden's history. It is difficult to prepare for. But one must practice.

We do not want the situation to arise at all. In that case, we must take measures that ensure the situation does not arise. It is not enough to call something preventive for it to be so. The Government would have needed to present proposals that truly prevent situations involving threats and violence from arising.

Mr. Speaker! On Monday, the language spokesperson Amanda Lind and I, together with our municipal councilor in Örebro, Lea Strandberg, visited various locations in Örebro to follow up on how things have been during the last few months. We met, among other things, several trade unions from school, healthcare, care, and police. The message was simple and clear: Invest in children! Invest in preschool! Invest in family centers! The example of teachers being allowed to inspect bags appeared as something that will not make any difference, as the wrong way to go.

In the latest issue of Skolledaren, a principal from Risbergska says that instead of simple solutions such as locks and cameras, he wants to see a broad discussion on how the entire society can prevent school shootings and other similar acts. He says: ”How can we together ensure that these individuals do not end up in a state of exclusion and become willing to commit horrific acts.” Wise, we in Miljöpartiet who listen to teachers and school leaders thought. Weak, very weak, is the response from the school party Liberalerna.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is, as you hear, strongly critical of the proposal that staff at schools should be allowed to inspect students' bags. I have now heard the government parties' representatives explain that it is probably not a problem at all and that it does not have to be the math or geography teacher who does it. That is possible. The principal is the head and leads and distributes the work. But what the government says in the proposal for new legislation is that it can become a work task for teachers, for example the craft teacher or the geography teacher.

Teachers are not trained to make the assessments that police officers make. It is also an infringement of privacy, for everyone, to have one's bag searched. In the legislation, it is equated with a search. Teachers are therefore given legal support to search both adults' and children's bags. It is not part of the teachers' mandate. We believe that it is a task for the police. Teachers should be teachers.

For me, the Liberals' micro-management of the school system sometimes becomes downright personal. The government now wants to add a clarification in all curricula that the education shall convey and anchor respect for laws in society and that they shall be followed. This is not about me not thinking so, but it is about the fact that everyone who works in the school already knows that. This raises a number of questions about the government's trust in the teaching profession. What the government now wants to clarify is what many are already doing and which is the foundation of the school's work. Personally, I think as a teacher – even though it was a long time ago that I stood in a classroom – that it resembles a mockery.

Together with the entire opposition, we stand behind the Center Party's reservation. We want to clarify who cannot be considered ineligible and thus be excluded from schools. For us, it is important that there is room for local application and for civil society actors, for example, the political youth organizations.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for students to meet both elected officials and leisure politicians and youth union members. But sometimes one gets to experience completely fantastic experiences, such as on Monday when the student council at Engelbrektsskolan in Örebro invited people to the full-day event Lilla Almedalen. Google it for inspiration! That type of activity should be easy for students to organize. There must be no risk that it is made more difficult.

Madam Speaker! I apologize for exceeding my allotted speaking time. I would like to add something. I want to thank Daniel Riazat, who raises the issue of racism and the fear that many with a foreign background already feel and have felt, especially in connection with what has happened in our city. I really want to emphasize that it does not matter what we learn about the motive for this crime. The fear is real. It is experienced by our fellow citizens and our neighbors. We can take it 100 percent seriously without ever knowing the motive for this crime.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 4 that the inspection of bags is a police matter and that children under 15 years of age shall also not be treated as criminally responsible in school.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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