Response to interpellation 2024/25:188 on the duty of disclosure in healthcare
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the duty of disclosure and whistleblowing within healthcare. KD argues that patient safety is very important 1 and that the government, together with four coalition parties, agreed with the investigator's assessment not to introduce a duty of disclosure or whistleblowing for professional groups such as healthcare personnel 2 3. KD emphasizes that the announcement was made early to reduce the risk of further discussions 3. C argues that the proposal has created enormous anxiety among healthcare personnel and professional organizations 4. C demanded a clear answer that it will never become a reality 4. C finally concludes that one can breathe a sigh of relief as no proposal will be reintroduced 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 Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Madam Speaker! Christofer Bergenblock has asked me if I intend to ensure that doctors, nurses, and nursing assistants are exempted from the duty of disclosure and if it is my and the government's intention that the duty of disclosure shall also apply to employees of private actors within healthcare. He has also asked me if I and the government intend to take measures so that parents will dare to seek emergency care for their children without fear of reporting.
I would like to initially emphasize, as I did in the previous interpellation debate, that patient safety is a very important issue for the government. In this specific issue, the government gave its response on Tuesday. I do not believe the member has any further questions.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! It is true, just as the Minister for Health and Social Affairs says, that the interpellation was submitted long before the press conference regarding the disclosure act was held on Tuesday.
Now the government has held the press conference, and all those who have protested against the proposal have been able to breathe a sigh of relief. There have been many who have done so ever since the Tidö parties raised this as a point in the Tidö Agreement and commissioned the investigation. It has been doctors, teachers, nurses, nursing assistants, leisure educators, librarians and social workers who have protested against a potential upcoming reporting law. All three central organizations, LO, TC and Saco, have protested loudly. A number of the political parties have also done so.
Hundreds of thousands of people have engaged in protesting against this. It has created enormous concern among all these people, not least within healthcare.
Against this massive movement of protests, the investigator did not, in any case, put forward a proposal to introduce a broad reporting obligation but stuck to a few government agencies that shall exchange information.
It is a relief, because many had also noted that this conflicts with their professional ethics within healthcare or, for all intents and purposes, within the school sector. They had also said that they will not comply with this even if it becomes legislation. For that reason, the Tidö parties also pushed in an additional directive for the investigation to examine the consequences for those who might potentially violate such an informer law. Now, the investigator's proposal to introduce a duty of information or reporting for these professional groups was not included, and as was said, many breathed a sigh of relief.
But the question is whether one could finally breathe a sigh of relief on Tuesday, because it is not necessarily the case that the government follows what an investigator proposes. We can note that not very long ago an investigation was submitted regarding return grants where this grant was completely cut by the investigator, who stated that it was both ineffective and risked leading to further polarization in society. But nevertheless, the government returned shortly thereafter and introduced a return grant of 350,000 kronor per person.
Can we then breathe a sigh of relief regarding the reporting law? In the Minister's answer to my interpellation, it does not clearly state that we can. It says: The Government will return regarding the concrete implementation of the agreement in the Tidö Agreement.
I actually do not know, Madam Speaker, how I should interpret that wording. But I would like to hear the Minister clearly say to all the staff in health and social care who have been worried and have now breathed a sigh of relief that this will never become a reality. If such an answer comes, we can conclude the debate now.
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is a bit embarrassing that the member pretends that the answer was written today! It was submitted well in advance, before the investigation was complete. The member understands that; I am quite sure of it.
That is why I also did not read out that part of the answer today. The answer that the member reads out has, therefore, not been submitted. I have not read it out in the chamber today. It became obsolete because on Tuesday we could not only tell at the press conference what the investigator had concluded, but also what the coalition parties had given for a decision. We did that at the press conference. That is the reason why I did not read out the rest of the answer. The question is passé.
What is normal is what I wrote: The government must first receive an investigation, which is then sent out for consultation. After that, we will provide an update. But what we concluded after the investigator had submitted their proposal and we had read it was that all four of us parties agreed with the investigator's assessment. Therefore, we gave the update already at the press conference. It happens extremely rarely, but it happened last Tuesday.
That is why I did not read those parts in my answer, and that is why that answer does not exist either. I am completely certain that the member understands and is aware of it.
Christofer Bergenblock (C)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the clarification and note that one can seriously breathe a sigh of relief. Many of us are doing so. So, no proposal will be returned even though we, as we have said, have seen in previous investigations that such may occur.
It sounds good for healthcare staff and for other staff in public activities in Sweden. But one must be aware that this has created enormous anxiety for a long time, completely unnecessarily.
Statsrådet Acko Ankarberg Johansson (KD)
Madam Speaker! As said, the announcement was made on Tuesday not only by the government but by four coalition parties. It is unusual to give such an announcement already at the press conference when an investigator presents their investigation. But we did so on Tuesday in order not to create further discussions when we knew what we thought and what we considered. We did it precisely to reduce the risk for this.
The investigator has also presented a very interesting investigation. It will be interesting to see if the Center Party stands for the other parts of it when this eventually comes to the Riksdag. But that is a bit further ahead in time, as a government bill must also be written. In the other parts, there is a basis to write a government bill on, and I hope to return to them for discussion in the chamber. However, it does not concern healthcare.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
I interpret it as both the member and the minister are withdrawing their final decisions.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.