Response to interpellation 2022/23:258 on the duty to report for public employees
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that an obligation to provide information is necessary to combat the shadow society and ensure that authorities cooperate to follow up on removal decisions 1 2 3. M argues that it is important that persons without the right to stay do not receive support from authorities and that children without grounds for asylum should return to their home country 2. M believes that the measures are needed so that people do not come to harm and that authorities must pull in the same direction 3. V argues that a reporting law contradicts the ethics of professional groups, creates work environment problems, and risks making employees lawbreakers 4 5. V argues that the proposal creates insecurity, damages trust in society, and that children have a right to education regardless of status 6 5. V believes that the government should focus on inflation and the outside world instead of a law that large parts of the population do not want 5. V argues that an obligation to provide information is not an isolated measure but a decision with consequences for the entire society 5. V believes that a reporting law does not promote the trust and confidence that a rule of law is built on, and that repressive politics has negative effects 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Frida Tånghag has asked me whether the government intends to proceed with legislation despite the criticism from relevant professional groups that has been described in the interpellation, and whether I intend to proceed with legislation that, according to what is described in the interpellation, would risk making public employees lawbreakers.
To create a sustainable asylum and migration policy, the government prioritizes combating the so-called shadow society. The objective is to prevent people from staying and living in Sweden without having the right to do so and to address the problems it entails.
It is a question of trust in Swedish migration legislation, justice, and equality before the law. If a decision has been made stating that one does not have the right to stay in Sweden, it must be followed. It is also important that the authorities have knowledge of who is located in Sweden.
A series of measures have been taken and shall be taken to increase returns and counteract the further growth of the shadow society.
An ongoing investigation into measures to strengthen return activities has, among other things, a mandate to investigate and take a position on whether information exchange between authorities can occur to a greater extent than today in order to strengthen the work with enforcement. It is important that an expanded information exchange is put in place.
Work is underway within the Government Offices to prepare supplementary directives for the investigation, including among other things regarding the issue of information exchange between authorities.
The starting point must be that our authorities shall cooperate with one another, not work against one another. The person who has received a removal decision has had the opportunity to have their case examined in not just one but several instances.
As appears from the Tidö Agreement, exceptions from the duty of disclosure, for example for situations within healthcare, need to be investigated further, and I do not want to anticipate the result of that work.
The Government will continue to do everything it can to address the problems with the growing shadow society, and I will act to ensure that our joint commitments in the Tidö Agreement are upheld.
Frida Tånghag (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
To combat the shadow society, the right-wing government wants to introduce an obligation to provide information, or in other words a reporting law, intended for Sweden's welfare personnel.
I have chosen to ask the Minister whether she intends to proceed with an investigation into a whistleblower law for employees within the entire welfare sector, despite it being a law that no one wants.
Immediately after the proposal was presented, many within the affected professional fields chose to openly criticize the proposal, and not by a small margin. Lärarförbundet made a statement in October 2022, the trade union Dik in November 2022, healthcare employees in December 2022, and Västra Götalandsregionen in December 2022 – something they also followed up on and stood by in March. The national campaign Vi anger inte also arrived in March, as did the debate article where all 21 of Seko's member unions strongly signaled against the proposal.
This clearly shows what it is about. I quote from the debate article: "It could involve professions within health and care that need to report patients, librarians who are asked to act as informants, and social workers who are forced to report people in need of support and help. Professions that to a large extent build their work on trust and trusting relationships."
Mr. Speaker! The opinions do not differ in any way. It is a unanimous and clear picture that comes from those for whom the laws are proposed to apply: a compact and clear opposition. A disclosure law contradicts all ethics and morals concerning the affected professional groups and collides with already existing legislation that is mandatory.
Which laws is the disclosure act intended to trump? What will the consequences be? What does the government envision for the penalty - fines, imprisonment, or dismissal? The government's coalition partner, Sverigedemokraterna, has clearly stated that the consequence should be dismissal. Should legislation really dictate the conditions on the labor market?
Previously, the Minister has consistently answered that she does not want to preempt the investigation, and now she adds that the authorities need to cooperate and not work against each other. Is it the Minister's view that this is happening today? Is that why she holds firm on an investigation that no one wants and which risks making employees within the welfare sector lawbreakers?
The Minister has also said that the investigation shall investigate more closely whether there may be situations where a report conflicts with sensitive values.
Mr. Speaker! Let me quote the debate article again: "It is not enough that the Tidö Agreement states that there may be situations where a report would conflict with sensitive values, for example in healthcare, and that such an exception shall be investigated further. The exceptions cannot be limited to individual situations but must cover many of our professional fields."
With a number of legislations behind it, ethical codes and confidentiality, exceptions should not apply to individual situations but include all staff within health and social care. Who is the law for?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Frida Tånghag speaks about the obligation to report for public employees but unfortunately seems to have neither read the Tidö Agreement nor listened to my answer. Exceptions to the reporting obligation need to be investigated further, and that will be done. I cannot anticipate the result of this investigation.
It is not a disclosure law. It concerns public employees who, in their official capacity, are expected to work to ensure that decisions made by a court or authority are also complied with.
Frida Tånghag mentions, for example, social workers, and without anticipating the investigation, I understand that it is a difficult situation in their professional practice. But at the same time, it is problematic when, for example, the social services in Malmö choose to pay out maintenance support to persons who do not have the right to stay here. In that case, society de facto sends two different signals: a court or authority says that a person should leave the country while another authority pays for the same person's maintenance here in the country. Therefore, we think it is important to investigate how one can better ensure that authorities work in the same direction.
In all legislative work, it is of course included to ensure that it is carried out in accordance with the international conventions and the EU law we are bound by. We will of course do this also in this work.
I am convinced that this is not a law that no one wants, as Frida Tånghag says. Many of us believe that it is necessary to combat the shadow society, which the Left Party has unfortunately been involved in letting grow in recent years while the Social Democrats have been in power.
We must remember that it is in no one's interest to have a shadow society. Above all, we must not forget that many, not least women and children, suffer very badly in the shadow society. Therefore, it should, for all who are democratically active, as I see it be a self-evident matter to try to create a regulatory framework that does not encourage and nourish the shadow society, where so many suffer so badly.
One often forgets, which also appears in Frida Tånghag's speech, that it concerns persons who in many cases have had their right to a residence permit here reviewed in not just one but several instances. In cases where authorities encounter persons who have not had their case reviewed, one may wonder why those persons have not attempted to legalize their stay here. Is it perhaps because they have something to hide? Quite regardless, it is good when we encounter persons staying here illegally, partly because it can pose risks for Sweden and for individuals, and partly because those people often risk suffering very badly.
Sweden now has a government that dares to face the problems and that dares to present solutions, which are not always comfortable but are necessary. What is needed is order and clarity in the migration policy. Sweden needs to gain control over who is in the country. Ultimately, it is a matter of the country's security.
Frida Tånghag (V)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister addresses the shadow society. To be in the so-called shadow society and live as an undocumented person means living in insecurity. Undocumented people belong to the most vulnerable in society. But being undocumented is not the same as lacking a valid passport or ID document.
No human is illegal. According to law, one has a right to healthcare, and children have a right to go to school. These are rights that in many cases even today are difficult to realize, due to the fear of being discovered. Consequently, every contact with authorities to seek help, participate in public life, or report a crime is associated with risk. It is a fear that will increase. More people will stay away to a greater extent. People will refrain from seeking necessary care, and children will be kept home from school.
The shadow society that the Minister is to combat will grow. More people will run a greater risk of being exploited across the entire spectrum. It concerns everything from prostitution to becoming easy prey in work-related crime or organized crime.
Mr. Speaker! Many of those who will have to pay for the government's proposal are children. They are children who have been born and grown up as undocumented. It is becoming tedious to say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is now law in Sweden. But it apparently needs to be repeated. The Convention on the Rights of the Child does not take into account whether one is an asylum seeker, undocumented, or a resident and Swedish citizen. If you live in Sweden and are a child, you have a right to education. But the longer time passes, the more it seems that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to be subordinated to all other legislation in Sweden.
The line of policy that aims to scare away asylum seekers from Sweden by providing insecure and inadequate living conditions, low compensation, and substandard housing does not encourage return. This has been established by the Red Cross through long-term work on the issue. It only forfeits trust in society and the authorities. The shadow society will not be curbed by this. It will grow and become even deeper.
Another parameter that must be highlighted is that not everyone can be deported. This concerns stateless persons and other persons who lack a country to be deported to or be received by. This is shown by reports from both Delmi and the Swedish National Audit Office.
Being undocumented is a condition that we as a country have created and that we can remedy. But that is not done with laws that turn people against each other and that create structures where trust and confidence are torn apart. Such a society is merely lawless and insecure.
In view of that, I would like to know what facts the Minister has as support for the claim that the law will have the effect that the Minister says.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! Now many different concepts are being mixed up. I believe we must clarify that a bit.
Repatriation concerns persons who have permission to stay here but who feel that they are not getting what they deserve and therefore wish to return to their home country. There is support available for that. But it applies to persons who have the right to stay here.
If we instead talk about persons who do not have the right to stay here, it includes, among other things, persons who have not legalized their stay, that is to say, arrived here without declaring themselves. This is in itself problematic, not least from a security perspective, which I raised initially. But it also concerns persons who have declared themselves, had their asylum application examined, but received a decision that they do not have grounds for protection.
One must not confuse it with persons who have received decisions regarding obstacles to enforcement, which Frida Tånghag also touched upon. If, for various reasons, one cannot be deported to, for example, a home country, there is a possibility of being granted a residence permit due to obstacles to enforcement. In that case, one also has the right to stay here in the country.
What the obligation to provide information aims at are people who do not have the right to stay here and who are part of a growing shadow society. This government and the coalition partner cannot just stand by and watch while it grows and people suffer.
I and Frida Tånghag actually agree on a large part of the problem description. Then we land in diametrically different perceptions. That is perhaps how it is when one is a Moderate respectively a Left Party member. I completely agree with Frida Tånghag's description that people suffer very badly in the shadow society. But I do not understand the conclusion when it concerns a child who has had their asylum grounds examined and where it has been concluded that the child does not have asylum grounds. Why should the authorities then support an illegal upbringing here in the country, in the shadow society? Is it really for the child's best interest? I really doubt it.
I believe that what is absolutely best for the child is that one follows the decision that has been made in a legally secure process by authorities, often also by a court, and returns to the country to which one is to be deported to build a new life there. The parents have a very far-reaching obligation to follow that decision, in order to protect their own child's best interests.
Frida Tånghag (V)
Mr. Speaker! I agree that we agree on the issues. But if we had thought alike, we would have been in the same party. Now we are not.
I still want to address what I started with. By continuing to push the proposal, it will become insecure all the way through. A concern has already been created among Sweden's medical profession, social secretaries, and healthcare and care personnel. It will be amplified, because these are professional groups that suffer from great moral stress. It is a comprehensive work environment problem. Voices from the trade union movement testify to how large the problem is today, but also how incredibly much larger it will become if the law becomes a reality. It is about trust between colleagues, betrayed confidence from the public, as well as fear of reprisals.
Does the government not have other things to worry about in times of skyrocketing inflation and an uneasy world? Furthermore, it has already made enemies of large parts of Sweden's population. When I say that it is a law that no one wants, it includes large parts of Saco's over 1 million members in all unions.
Introducing a so-called duty to provide information is not an individual, isolated measure. It is a decision that will have consequences for the entire society. The foundation upon which a rule of law is built is, nevertheless, trust and confidence between people. That is not something a reporting law will encourage. Repressive politics has a negative effect on the entire society, across the entire scale.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I really want to emphasize that these are not easy questions, but the government has concluded that these are necessary measures to tackle the shadow society that has unfortunately been allowed to grow and, not least, so that people do not come to harm. There are conflicting goals, and that must be acknowledged. Therefore, it is important that an inquiry is allowed to work in peace and make the difficult trade-offs that must be made.
I am, as I have said, convinced that a public Sweden is needed where all authorities pull in the same direction and where everything can be done to ensure that court decisions are followed. I have great respect for the professional groups who feel concerned about this and experience that it would be very difficult in their professional roles. That is why the government takes the issue and the need for an investigation very seriously.
Against the background of such a difficult conflict of objectives, I also want to thank Frida Tånghag for raising this issue in this interpellation, because I think it is important that it is debated.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.