Response to interpellation 2022/23:419 on information regarding the right to schooling

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Annika Hirvonen has asked me what measures I intend to take regarding the communication of preschools and schools with parents of undocumented children in order to prevent children from not attending preschool and school.

From the Education Act (2010:800) it appears that the municipalities have the responsibility to inform guardians and students about education in the school system offered in or by the municipality. A prerequisite for someone to have the right to education according to the Education Act is that he or she is resident in Sweden. Someone who stays in Sweden without support of an official decision or regulation shall in this regard be considered resident in the country and thus has the same right to education as school-aged children. Thus, these children have the right to education in Sweden according to current regulations. All children's right to education is also established in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which since 1 January 2020 is also Swedish law.

The Education Act's requirement that every municipality shall inform guardians and students about the education in the school system offered in or by the municipality is not something that the municipalities can disregard. I therefore assume that the municipalities take their responsibility to inform those parents with children staying here without support of an official decision or decree about the education in the school system offered in or by the municipality.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children have a right to education, and this also applies to children living as undocumented in Sweden. The Convention on the Rights of the Child applies to all children. Furthermore, we have Swedish legislation where this right is established.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has criticized that Sweden does not fully comply with the right because the compulsory school attendance does not also include these children – they only have a right to education.

What we hear now, when we are out and meeting people who meet those who live in undocumented status, is that the fear of participating in preschool and school has spread. It is about a fear of being reported.

Living as an undocumented person is a very difficult situation, and many have also previously lived with a fear of what might happen on the way to and from school, for example.

Just being reported by the school itself has not been an issue, and I have therefore asked the Minister for Education, Lotta Edholm, what she intends to do to ensure that these children also have their right to education fulfilled.

It is important for all children to attend preschool and school. But it is especially important for children living in a vulnerable situation. For these children, preschool and school are a completely central protective factor because the living situation they live in is incredibly difficult. Not least, they face every day a fear from their parents, no matter how well one tries to mask it, of being deported to a fate perceived as so frightening that one would rather remain in Sweden, despite the few rights people have when they live as undocumented.

I think it would be very valuable if the Minister for Education could put their foot down clearly and distinctly so that this target group can feel secure that no, there is no obligation to report, even though it is being debated that the government wants to introduce a new reporting law which could also come to include the school. It would be extra valuable against the background that we have recently seen how the police have requested some form of ethnic registers or information about students with a certain origin from a certain specific principal. In that case, the principal refused, which is of course completely correct to do both from a moral perspective and from the ethics that apply to employees in the school, but actually also from how the legislation and the case law that applies today look.

Therefore, I would still like to ask if Lotta Edholm can clearly and explicitly state that the government intends to ensure that all children have their right to schooling fulfilled and thereby counteract the fear of reporting that has now spread.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, as in all other states that rest on the principles of the rule of law, we have a system that regulates what applies to those who are not citizens but who wish to live and reside in the country. The system includes an assessment of the right to both asylum as well as residence and work permits, and after this assessment, a decision is made by the relevant authority. Once a decision has been made, it has legal consequences, either positive or negative, for the individual. A decision that asylum or a residence permit is not granted means that the person in question does not have the right to remain in the country. A person who does not have the right to stay in the country shall leave the country.

The MP for Miljöpartiet in the Education Committee, Annika Hirvonen, now wonders what measures the government intends to take so that schools shall inform persons staying illegally in the country about their children's right to education. It is in itself a rather absurd question. It is, in itself, correct that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is also law in Sweden, stipulates children's right to education and that in legal practice it is considered to also include children staying illegally in the country. But the Convention on the Rights of the Child absolutely does not defend the right to stay illegally in a country, nor does it say anything about where the teaching should take place. Should schools engage in these types of activities, there is a great risk that the entire migration process will be undermined.

Annika Hirvonen is therefore envisioning a system where schools in a specific order shall inform a target group who do not have the right to be in the country about what rights their children have. Tax money shall therefore fund this, and staff shall provide the information to persons who should have left the country. It is completely unreasonable.

Hirvonen's question shows with all clarity how important it is that authorities communicate with each other and coordinate their efforts so that an end can be brought to the large number of people who reside illegally in our country, if not for anything else, for the sake of the country's security. The state shall not encourage parallel systems. The state shall also not encourage defiance of the law.

Society's institutions, including the school, have been negatively affected by the mass immigration and its effects, for which the Green Party, among others, bears great responsibility. The widespread gang crime that is now raging wildly on streets and squares is a result of this irresponsible migration policy. To, in that situation, urge schools to inform about the so-called rights of illegal persons is nothing other than to puncture the idea of a regulated immigration.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! In connection with Hirvonen's question regarding the obligation to inform parents who are staying illegally in the country, I would like to ask the Minister some questions.

The person who stays illegally in the country has received an official notice. The person who has been denied their asylum application shall leave the country - a clear official notice. Would such a duty of information as Hirvonen speaks of not give double and confusing messages, I wonder, and I pose the question to the Minister. Would it not, in the long run, even undermine our entire asylum legislation?

That an authority should provide information that directly contradicts what another authority has already decided on is nearly horrific. We have an Aliens Act that everyone is intended to follow. All parties are free to propose changes to this law; that is called democracy. But to indirectly urge even authorities not to follow Swedish law can have effects on all other legislation. Which other laws can we ignore? Are the laws something we can interpret as guidelines rather than direct laws?

I also wonder a bit about the children's future. What will it look like for those children who attend Swedish school even though the family has received a notification of rejection of their asylum application or rejection of the application for residence permit, which is a bit different? Will this not contribute further to the shadow society that is growing ever stronger and which we all politically criticize?

Children naturally have a right to schooling, but not in just any country. We cannot undermine the Aliens Act for any general principle. Parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. If the parents have been denied their application for a residence permit, they must leave the country. The authorities must speak with one voice, otherwise we will never get to grips with the shadow society that is growing ever stronger in our country.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is important to establish that the left-wing parties never say what they actually mean regarding migration policy. They did not do it when they were in government, they do not do it in opposition, and they do not do it in this debate.

Let us begin by looking at who is affected by the information obligation that the debate is actually about. They are people who are not refugees, who do not have a need for protection, and who do not have their own livelihood or residence permit due to family ties. They are definitely not undocumented as Annika Hirvonen claims. All these people have received papers, and on those papers, it states that they must leave the country. They are people who completely lack grounds to stay here, who can easily return home in a safe and orderly manner, and whose children in the vast majority of cases can continue their schooling in their home country.

It is also important to emphasize that the duty of disclosure is nothing new within Swedish law. There are a long series of situations where staff within, for example, schools and healthcare have an obligation to report irregularities to other authorities. For example, a doctor must report patients whose health status makes them unfit to hold a driver's license, and school staff must report if it is suspected that children are being harmed.

The proposals are neither unusual nor controversial in comparable countries in our vicinity, and it is not only us who understand that. The protests that are often raised in these contexts and which have been organized in the vicinity of the Swedish Riksdag are quite obviously orchestrated by the left-wing parties themselves. There are approximately 335,000 people working in school, health, and care in Stockholm County alone, and of those, it was a couple of hundred people who chose to protest against the proposal here outside - if they actually work in this field. We have no idea who these people actually are. All in all, it is quite obvious that the vast majority of those who practice these professions do not let themselves be deceived by Annika Hirvonen and company.

What is it that the left actually wants? A facade is being painted in this debate, because concern for the children is, of course, just a facade – the best thing for both these children and their parents would, of course, be not to continue living illegally in Sweden. It is completely obvious. It is, of course, so, Madam Speaker, that the more benefits and rights that accrue to persons staying here illegally, the more will settle here illegally. It is completely obvious. More people will be exploited for low-paid black market work, and more will need to commit crimes to support themselves. More children will fall behind in schooling in their home countries.

What this debate is really about is that the left-wing parties have never accepted the idea of regulated immigration, that is to say that Sweden is not some kind of foreign law-free zone where anyone can settle for any reason whatsoever. The left-wing parties have never accepted this, and they do not now. That is what this is about. They are trying to undermine the regulated immigration in any way they can.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers so far.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law, and it is one of the conventions that Sweden - by ratifying it - has committed itself to follow. And of course, we shall do so; if one does not intend to follow a convention, one should take a different position.

This is something that is being highlighted in the ongoing discussion regarding the investigation currently underway on the duty of disclosure, or as it has come to be called in common parlance: the disclosure law. I am somewhat curious about how heavily it has weighed, specifically that the Convention on the Rights of the Child has become law in Sweden – and that we have the Education Act, which the Minister refers to in his answer – when the government formulated the directives for the investigation. The question is particularly relevant given that the directives have been changed to not speak quite as clearly about where, i.e., in which activities, there may be compelling reasons.

The Sweden Democrats are not interested in following the Convention on the Rights of the Child or in ensuring that the legislation we have in Sweden works and that the schools follow it. I do, however, understand from the Minister's answer that the Government wants the legislation to be followed. What I wonder is how the Minister for Education ensures that precisely these conventions and the Education Act are followed so that parents receive information in a way that makes families and children feel secure in ensuring that children receive the education they are entitled to. How does one ensure that? It is, after all, a rather complex task. To have a right but, out of fear, not be able to exercise it is somewhat like no longer having the right.

One way to ensure that these laws can be followed is to change the investigation directives – to withdraw them and start over from the beginning with what is now intended to be achieved. This is an investigation that has met massive opposition that has grown from civil society and trade unions. Civil society wants to hear where the parties stand. It is clear where Miljöpartiet stands: We want children to have actual access to education, and for that, they need to be able to go to school safely.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start by establishing that children who are in Sweden have a right to schooling. This is partly from the perspective of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is Swedish law, and partly because of the fact that that right is enshrined in other legislation.

Even though I believe that most parties in this chamber actually consider that people who have been denied their asylum application or application for residence permit should leave the country, it is still the case that children are rights-holders in their own right. Children have the right to different things regardless of what their parents subject them to, and that is the background to the legislation we have. We can of course all have different opinions regarding this, but I think it is important that one sees children as individuals. During the time they are in Sweden, regardless of whether it is a short or long time, it cannot hurt with a little education, I think. These children will benefit from it even if they then leave Sweden.

Then we come to the question of how on earth one is to inform about this. The municipalities have that assignment, but it is clear that it is not an easy assignment for them. Often, the municipalities do not even know who these children are; they can simply show up in a classroom—for example, because there are different types of organizations that say that the child actually has the right to go to school. Even though the duty to inform parents exists, it is therefore not entirely easy to do so.

I think that the legislation we have in Sweden is good. I think it is important that we see children as individuals separate from the parents' rights, and I think that is the case in a variety of different issues. Parents do not have the right to subject their children to whatever they want, and children have rights in themselves. Then it is clear that I also think it is important that Swedish asylum law applies. If one has received a denial notice regarding staying in Sweden, one must leave the country. But nevertheless, the children have their own rights that we must also take into account.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! So-called rights – that is how one of the members of the Education Committee expressed themselves regarding children's right to schooling. It can't hurt with a little education, says the Minister for Education.

I must say that I am appalled by the nonchalance with which one speaks about these children's right to education. It is a right that is not only enshrined in Swedish law, but it follows from the Convention on the Rights of the Child – which we in Miljöpartiet have pushed through as Swedish law. This should also be seen in light of the fact that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has actually criticized Sweden because we have not ensured that undocumented children are also covered by the compulsory school attendance. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child therefore considers that Sweden has been too poor at living up to the Convention's provisions on the right to schooling for all children, even children living here as undocumented.

I also note that Lotta Edholm has not mentioned a single measure for the parents and children who, now because of the debate on a reporting law, do not dare to go to school for fear that it will mean being deported to a country where there is an enormous fear of persecution, oppression, and in the worst case even death. So we shall not have that in a country where the Convention on the Rights of the Child is law and where all children shall have the right to education, not just on paper but in reality. This is because school is so important, not just something that cannot cause harm. School is completely central for every child's development, for every child's life.

Particularly important is the school for children who come from disadvantaged families. There, the importance of preschool as a protective factor cannot be overstated.

Madam Speaker! The debate on a reporting law that is to cover schools has already led to great concern. We in this chamber - especially the Liberals - often and much speak about the importance of following up on the children who do not return to school after the summer holidays, those children who in the worst case may have been taken abroad for various types of abuse in the name of honor. Now I meet adults who are worried that among the children who did not return after this summer holiday, there are also children who are too afraid of being reported.

I think it would be appropriate if the Minister for Education could at least state clearly and distinctly here that no, there is no reporting law in Sweden today, that the principal who refused to answer the police's request regarding which Mongolian children attend the school acted correctly, and that is what shall continue to apply in Sweden. Lotta Edholm has been very clear regarding the reporting law previously. It would be the least to state that for the time being there is no reporting law and that children's right to education according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child is paramount in this country.

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a logical blunder that Annika Hirvonen just committed. She says that it is important to follow up on children who do not return after the summer and that the government talks a lot about this. Then she compares it with the fact that there are now many who are afraid of being, as she says, identified.

They are two completely different groups. One group has the right to be in the country. They have gone through all the processes that one is supposed to go through and received notice that they are allowed to be in the country. But there is a problem because honor culture leads to people being removed from the country. The other group does not have the right to be here. I think it is remarkable that one does not see that difference and that one does not see that there must be a difference between the one who goes through the process and receives notice that they have all the reasons required, whatever those may be, to remain in the country and the one who does not.

How long are we going to continue and finance people who do not have the right to be here, who have been rejected by the relevant authorities? It is not reasonable.

But we understand the Green Party's message. I believe it was Camilla Hansén who said that MP clearly shows where one stands. Yes, we know. We know very well where you stand on these issues. Asylum processes are not important. Migration policy is something that the state has forced upon us, because the borders must be open. There should be no "no" to anyone, and that is what characterizes the entire Green Party's policy.

We have seen the consequences of that. Now we say thanks and goodbye. Now it is new things that apply here. We must get the migration in order in this country.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We actually have other laws than the Convention on the Rights of the Child in our country. It is the only law that MP ever mentions or refers to, and they do so constantly.

We have other laws in Sweden - the Aliens Act, for example. Have you mentioned any other law at any time other than just the Convention on the Rights of the Child? One begins to regret that we actually motioned for it once upon a time. The Aliens Act must also be followed. We cannot have an overarching law that strikes out precisely all other laws, even if it is MP's dream.

One wonders in one's quiet mind why MP doesn't propose free immigration at once. If you create a lot of loopholes all the time, you can, in fact, go out to the voters and say that "no, we are not for free immigration." But in practice, one can still conduct something that ultimately resembles free immigration, and that is somewhat the Swedish history.

I am not a lawyer, Madam Speaker, but I have always been told that lex specialis takes precedence over lex generalis. This means that the Convention on the Rights of the Child cannot override special laws. I am not a lawyer, but it should at least be investigated.

Briefly about this matter with the police searching for Mongolian children, which Hirvonen has mentioned several times: What I have heard is that the police were searching for a specific criminal with a certain appearance and absolutely not generally for persons with a certain appearance.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the latest party leader debate, Märta Stenevi, one of the Environment Party's so-called spokespeople, claimed that the duty of disclosure is essentially the same thing as the Holocaust.

We are, therefore, talking about people who are not refugees, do not have any need for protection, do not support themselves, and have no reason whatsoever to be in Sweden. That it is not the same thing as the Holocaust does not need to be explained to an adult human being. But the environmentalists are not adult humans. Mentally, they are like small children.

This comparison is not only grotesque in a purely moral sense because it nonchalantly desecrates the memory of the Holocaust. It is also totally illogical in view of the political reality. One of the countries that has a corresponding rule today is, in fact, Germany. And one of the parties in Germany that stands behind this rule is Die Grünen, the sister party of the Green Party, which I know the Swedish Green Party has a close cooperation with.

A question that I think Annika Hirvonen should answer is whether she really thinks that a genocide is taking place today in Germany, which was then committed by her own party friends. I believe, Madam Speaker, that she cannot answer that because she is a small child, and she does not think before she speaks.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I just want to remind us of how we address each other in the chamber and that we do not say things that can be perceived as insulting.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! That was still a rather astonishing contribution in the debate just now. It truly deserves a clear marking.

I suggest that we devote ourselves to the issue at hand, and it concerns these children. They have rights regardless of what the parents do, just as Lotta Edholm said. I believe we stand quite close to each other when it comes to the importance of education for every child, wherever they may be, and especially when they are here in Sweden. It is our responsibility.

But I still wonder, the Minister for Education - is it not, however, the easiest way to ensure that these children get access to education, which they have a right to, to withdraw this directive immediately? It is a question that I would like you to answer clearly. I wonder on what basis, in the self-evident right to education and information about that right, one has appointed this investigation and given these directives.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats claim that they know something about the Green Party and about our policies and our grounds for movement. Believe me – we see that it is new things that apply now. But we have no concerns about where we stand in those contexts. We stand firmly where we have always stood: in solidarity with people. The Sweden Democrats have no knowledge and nothing to contribute when it comes to the Green Party's ideological foundation.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! I think this debate may have gone a bit off track, at least in relation to the original question, which was what I would do about the fact that it is difficult for many to get information that their children have the right to schooling in Sweden even if they themselves do not have the right to be here. I have now repeatedly tried to say that I support that right and think it is important to see that children have rights in themselves, regardless of how their parents behave or what decisions their parents make.

Then one can, of course, as Annika Hirvonen, discuss whether we should have compulsory schooling, as we do for children who have residence permits in Sweden, or a right to schooling, as it is formulated today. Actually, I do not think it plays such a crazily big role, because these children live underground, so to speak. They do not exist in the systems in such a way that they can be covered by compulsory schooling, but it is rather about a right to schooling.

It is also important to know that Sweden is quite extreme when it comes to compulsory schooling. Most countries do not have this formulated as strictly as we do. One could therefore think that this type of criticism is a bit strange from that perspective.

For me, the most important thing is still to say that children have a right to schooling when they live here. It is the municipalities' responsibility to do as well as they can. As Minister for Education, I understand that it is not always easy to provide information to people who actually live on the margins of ordinary society.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I can agree with Lotta Edholm on one point: the debate went off track. But when Sverigedemokrater join debates, they often veer off in one and the same direction, namely towards talking about Sweden's entire migration policy.

I think it is important that we also talk about the consequences of the debate that is currently being held, both here in the Riksdag and in other public contexts - in the media and so on. What we politicians say has an effect. One effect right now is that parents are afraid to leave their children in preschool and school as a result of the debate and the investigation on the reporting law that the government has initiated.

Parents' knowledge of their rights is central for them to be able to have their rights met. This is a fundamental knowledge regarding how rights work in general.

I think it is important that the Minister for Education, who is the minister responsible for ensuring all children's right to schooling, takes the fear that is now spreading very seriously. Otherwise, the consequence will be that children lose their right to education. And childhood cannot be repeated; this cannot be made up later in life. Every child needs to have their right to schooling fulfilled. And we need to address the fear that is now spreading – the fear of reporting.

I believe that the municipalities have an important role. I also believe that the Minister for Education has a central responsibility in this matter.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! I think it is important to establish that children have a right to schooling, regardless of whether one is here legally or not.

We have now given additional directives to an investigation concerning how we should combat the shadow society. I believe that this is an important investigation. We have problems that I believe everyone in this chamber sees, namely that very many people live outside of society. This has enormous effects, both for their lives and for other people's lives. We must do something about this. How authorities should cooperate in this is, of course, important.

Naturally, there are sensitive values to take into account in such an investigation. It is important that the investigator is allowed to do this in peace and quiet. This is an investigation that is to proceed for a period of time before it submits its proposals for decision. Then a referral to the Council of Legislation shall be written, which hopefully will eventually become a government bill. The discussion on how one views which of these are sensitive cases will continue for a long time, I believe.

For my part, it is crystal clear that the school's primary mission is to provide children with schooling, regardless of where they come from and under what conditions they are in Sweden.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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