Response to interpellation 2024/25:249 on the settlement regarding the duty of disclosure
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M argues that the government is addressing migration policy and the shadow society by allowing authorities to share information in order to be able to enforce deportation decisions 1. 2 3 M emphasizes that they will respect the investigation's exceptions for school, health care, and social services and guarantees that they follow the Tidö Agreement 2 3. 3 4 M does not want to return to the previous migration policy which lacked legal certainty and argues that the problems were created by the previous S-led government's inability 4. 5 S argues that the government is controlled by SD and demands guarantees that staff in welfare services will never be required to report students or patients 5. 5 S claims that a reporting law would scare people away from school and care 5. 6 S argues that it was the alliance government with M's support that implemented the liberal migration policy 6. 6 S believes that M cannot guarantee that teachers or nurses will not be forced to report their students or patients 6.
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 Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! [The member] has asked me if I can guarantee that the government does not intend to take any initiatives to legislate that teachers, nurses, social workers and other staff in the welfare sector shall be obliged to report undocumented persons to the police and the Migration Agency. Linus Sköld has also asked what measures I and the government intend to take in connection with the settlement that got the Sweden Democrats to agree to such large exceptions.
The investigation on strengthened return activities presented its final report (SOU 2024:80) on November 26, 2024. The investigation has been tasked with reviewing parts of the regulatory framework linked to return. Among other things, the investigation proposes an expanded exchange of information for a number of authorities, for the purpose of strengthening the work to execute removal decisions and counter illegal stay in the country. The proposal implies, among other things, that Arbetsförmedlingen, Försäkringskassan, Kriminalvården, Kronofogdemyndigheten, Pensionsmyndigheten, and Skatteverket shall provide information about a foreign national to Polismyndigheten, if there is reason to assume that the foreign national does not have the right to stay in Sweden. The investigation assesses that the expanded exchange of information should not apply to healthcare, schools, and social services.
The Government agrees to achieve a responsible migration policy. A well-functioning return is an important priority for the Government, and the return investigation contains important proposals to achieve this. The Government intends to proceed with the investigation's proposals. This includes exempting the above-mentioned activities, as well as libraries, from the duty of information.
The government is restructuring Swedish migration policy in accordance with the Tidö Agreement. It is a comprehensive task that, among other things, tightens the regulatory framework, creates order and clarity, and reduces the number of asylum seekers to Sweden. The government will continue to implement what has been agreed upon in the Tidö Agreement.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! This is about the long-debated reporting law, which has been discussed throughout the entire mandate period. The background to this is that the following point was included in the Tidö Agreement: "Submit a proposal for an arrangement with information exchange and a reporting obligation between the Police and authorities that can be assumed to come into contact with persons who are illegally in the country. Municipalities and authorities shall be obliged to inform the Swedish Migration Agency and the Police Authority when they come into contact with persons who stay in Sweden without permission. This means that authorities that a person may come into contact with receive a responsibility to ensure the person's legal right to stay in Sweden. Through the information obligation, the possibilities of living in the country without permission shall be made more difficult. There may be situations where a report would conflict with compassionate values, for example in healthcare. Exceptions from the information obligation therefore need to be investigated further."
It is a direct quote from the Tidö Agreement that the SD-government signed and which is the basis for the government's existence at all. This was met with extensive protests. The unions have never been as united as when they took up the fight to avoid having to identify their patients, their clients, their students, and the children in preschool.
The opposition, which Tidögänget usually criticizes for being divided, was totally united on this issue. Even the Liberals said that they were completely certain that the school would also be exempted, in addition to healthcare, which was exemplified as that there could be sympathetic values here.
The debate raged. The government appointed an inquiry. The debate continued to rage. Demonstrations were held in cities around the country. Finally, it came this autumn.
It began with Patrick Reslow, who is the Sverigedemokraternas education policy spokesperson, stating firmly in the Altinget on October 22 that they intended to stand firm when it came to the disclosure law. No exceptions would be granted.
Cut to November 26 and the press conference where the government's special investigator delivered their proposals on how this would be. There were major exceptions in these proposals, which Johan Forssell very rightly accounted for in his response.
What surprised everyone in the opposition and everyone who has been afraid of this, everyone who has resisted along the way, was that the government simultaneously said that they intended to deliver a legislative proposal in accordance with what the investigation has proposed and exempt teachers, doctors, nurses and social secretaries from the obligation to disclose their students and patients.
Then everything could have been good. Then all of us who have opposed this could have felt secure. Or we could have listened to Ludvig Aspling in Ekot on the same day when he said that this admittedly was not what the Sverigedemokraterna had wanted to see – you will surely remember what Patrick Reslow said earlier – but that they still felt satisfied.
Then there are two conceivable alternatives: Either the question will return in a new guise, and teachers, doctors, and nurses will be forced to specify, or Johan Forssell has given the Sverigedemokraterna some other signal of malice.
I think he is obliged to provide transparency. What is it that has happened?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Linus Sköld, for the interpellation!
"What is it that has happened?" asks Linus Sköld. What has happened is that Sweden has received a government that is tackling the problems in migration policy and which is not sweeping them under the rug.
We had eight years with Social Democratic governments that let the Green Party, together with the Left Party and the Center Party, govern very much of the policy. The result was as follows. It became a migration policy that was not legally secure, with levels that made it impossible to succeed in integration. We see a long series of integration problems in Sweden, which are obvious at least to the Swedish people. We also see a large number of other problems.
One such problem is what I note that the interpellor does not seem to attach any particular weight to in their interpellation, namely the extensive shadow society we have today. Very many people remain in Sweden despite having received a decision of deportation. They do not have a legal right to be in Sweden.
The basis for a regulated migration policy is that one upholds the principle that people should not be here if they do not have a legal right. The previous S-government did not do that, and I can only regret it. The problems were swept under the rug. We got legally insecure upper secondary school laws and many other problems. But we are tackling this.
Something such as the government is now doing, together with the fact that we, for example, are expanding detention centers and developing a new regulatory framework for internal immigration controls, is that we also ensure that our authorities begin to share information with one another. I note that this arouses much criticism from the interpellor and the Social Democrats, but I believe that this is very important. I believe that the Swedish people think this is quite remarkable, and perhaps even offensive. It is, therefore, about persons who do not have the right to be in Sweden and who have a deportation order, but the decision cannot be executed because information is missing—despite the fact that another authority has precisely that information.
We must make this work. If we do not, we will get a shadow society that takes hold and becomes cemented. The situation we inherited was that up to 50,000 or 100,000 people live in Sweden without legal rights. That was the situation we had to take over. That was what the Social Democrats had previously swept under the rug.
I want to point out that very many in this group live in great vulnerability. Many women are suffering very badly, and many children are growing up in very difficult overcrowding and vulnerability. One can do as has been done previously – sweep the problems under the rug and say that one will not tackle them. Or we do it! We ensure that the authorities are given the tools they need so that they can begin to share information with one another.
The government has done a very thorough job here. The investigation has been ongoing for almost two years and has looked at these matters, listened to the Swedish Migration Agency, listened to the police, and listened to the authorities. What is the information that is needed? What information can be shared?
I think the result has turned out very well. It is a very thoroughly worked-out investigation of over 800 pages. It will now be sent out for consultation, and the government will prepare a proposition.
The government already said at the press conference that we will respect the exceptions that the investigator proposes. It is well-balanced, precisely because we said early on that the information to be shared must be effective. It must mean something and aim for something. One must achieve a result. I think the investigator has in a good way described what information is needed and what is not.
I look forward to taking this further. The Government intends to continue to implement good policy for Sweden. We intend to continue to reform the migration policy to a level where Sweden gets an opportunity to manage the integration so that we do not get the type of segregation and exclusion that emerged so strongly when completely different decisions were made previously.
It is, in fact, so, Linus Sköld, that I believe the Swedish people want someone to take responsibility for Sweden.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johan Forssell, for an answer! However, it is not the answer to the question I am asking.
Johan Forssell is worried that Miljöpartiet got to govern the Social Democratic government's migration policy. I am worried that Sverigedemokraterna get to govern Johan Forssell. That is my core issue here.
Can Johan Forssell guarantee that teachers will never be required to report their students? Can he guarantee that nurses will not be required to report their patients? Can Johan Forssell guarantee that he will not present any such proposals during this parliamentary term? That is my first question. It is very clear. It is a matter of yes or no.
The second question is: What did the Sweden Democrats get? The Sweden Democrats did not get an absolute reporting law where all public employees shall be obliged to report at every given opportunity; they had to give in on that point. But what did they get then? Why are they satisfied with the agreement?
I believe that Johan Forssell, for the sake of transparency and for everyone who has engaged in the issue, is obligated to provide an answer. In what way will it return – this evil-signaling policy that accommodates the Sweden Democrats' line on the issue?
They are simple questions, and Johan Forssell should bother to inform the public about what has happened instead of worrying about whether our government was ruled by Miljöpartiet or Socialdemokraterna.
Johan Forssell says that the shadow society is a major problem and argues that the Social Democrats want to sweep it under the carpet. That is not even close to the truth. The shadow society is a major problem; I also think so. But I am completely convinced that it is not by making students afraid to go to school that we will counteract the shadow society. Nor is it by making people afraid to seek care if they are sick or have injured themselves. That will not counteract the shadow society, but rather, it will reinforce it.
That is why it is so incredibly important that Johan Forssell can guarantee that welfare personnel will not be subjected to an obligation to report patients, students, users, and clients. Can Johan Forssell guarantee that the proposal will not return in a new guise? And what did the Sverigedemokraterna get?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld does not think that one should dwell on what previous governments have done. I can understand that against the background of the result and the final score we saw after eight years with a red-green government. I can understand that Linus Sköld thinks that it is difficult and that we should not talk about it.
But it was still the situation that we inherited. It was due to Social Democratic decisions, or perhaps rather to the absence of Social Democratic decisions. It was about the government that Linus Sköld supported and which let Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet rule and set the agenda. It was precisely these decisions that led to the situation we have today.
What did the previous S-government do about this? Nothing. They sat completely passive with their arms crossed and just let the shadow society grow year after year. Do the Social Democrats even see the problems with the shadow society? Do the Social Democrats even see the vulnerability that exists in this group? Do the Social Democrats even see that if one does not uphold the principle that there must be a difference between yes and no, Mr. Speaker, one has no regulated immigration? And perhaps that is not what the Social Democrats want either.
I note that the Social Democrats want to form a government with three parties that constantly want to steer Swedish migration policy in a completely different direction than the one we are currently pursuing. We are therefore to return to the type of policy that applied previously, which placed Sweden in a very difficult situation. The Swedish people see the problems with exclusion, segregation, crime, and insecurity every day. That was the situation we inherited, and it is what we are trying to handle by not sweeping the problems under the rug but instead tackling them.
I shall repeat for the third time what we are to do with the investigation on the duty of information. We shall respect the exceptions that exist. It was stated in my response, I have said this and I am happy to say it once more: With the exceptions that exist, we intend to proceed. Furthermore, we said that on the very same day we received the investigation.
I can also guarantee Linus Sköld that we will proceed with the Tidö Agreement with the paradigm shift that we are implementing in migration policy. It is written there in black and white what we intend to do and what we do not intend to do.
What we do not intend to do is to return to the policy that applied previously. It left Sweden in a very difficult situation. Since I have now answered Linus Sköld's questions, the question is now whether Linus Sköld can guarantee me that if there were a change of government, an S-led government would not handle the issues as they did last time, namely through laws for upper secondary schools that lacked legal certainty. The Council on Legislation ruled them down and said that the limit of what is acceptable had been reached. These laws left Sweden in a difficult situation, where the basic principle that there should be a difference between a yes and a no in migration policy was not respected. That is how it looked, and those are the problems we have inherited and are now addressing.
I answered Linus Sköld's questions. Now I look forward to a clear answer here. Can an S-led government, together with Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet, guarantee that it will not implement precisely the type of legally uncertain policy with new upper secondary school laws that the previous Social Democratic government implemented? A yes or no would fit well there too.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to dealing with previous governments' transgressions, Johan Forssell knows just as well as I do that it was the Alliance government, with Johan Forssell's own support in the chamber, that implemented the most liberal migration policy and labor immigration. It is Johan Forssell who was responsible for the "open your hearts" policy that was conducted during the years 2006 to 2014. It is that policy he now has to deal with.
Let us leave that there! Then we can see if I can get an answer. I did not get it. Johan Forssell claims that he has answered my questions, but I still have not heard him say that he can guarantee that teachers will not be forced to identify their students and that he can guarantee that nurses will not be forced to identify their patients. I have also not heard him answer that he cannot guarantee it and that we have to see what happens. If he does not answer yes or no to the question, how can we then trust what Johan Forssell will do now? We do not know what he has given the Sverigedemokraterna. He does not account for it, but instead says that they shall continue with the Tidö Agreement.
Well! It says in the Tidö Agreement that a reporting obligation shall be introduced for public employees. Can he guarantee that welfare staff will not be forced to report their users, patients, or students? Please! Can he give an answer on how he got himself out of the predicament and what he gave the Sverigedemokraterna so that they would release the absolute requirement for the introduction of a reporting law - which brings to mind Nazi Germany?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Mr. Speaker! I am speechless; to hear a representative from the Social Democrats speak with references to Nazi Germany in the debate! It is completely bizarre. Is this how the Social Democrats want to conduct the debate? Does this mean that authorities that speak with each other are to be compared to Nazi Germany? I have never heard anything so stupid.
I want to point out to Linus Sköld that the investigation was started under a Social Democratic government. Was it also related to Nazi Germany? It is so stupid that the clocks stop. I have never heard anything so strange.
I was clear already at the press conference when we received the investigation that the exceptions shall apply. It is a four-party agreement, and that was evident from the response. Do I need to say it once more? It is evident from the response.
The problems we are now addressing were created by eight years of inability by Linus Sköld and the previous S-led government to tackle the problems. There, I want to be generous and give another clear message forward. It is not just that we intend to implement the Tidö Agreement with the paradigm shift that we now see in migration policy. It is also that we never intend to return to the poor, legally insecure migration policy that prevailed under the leadership of the Social Democrats. It placed Sweden in a difficult situation that created great insecurity and vulnerability. The Swedish people see every day that poor integration creates great insecurity all over Sweden. It sounds like it is this that we are to return to.
This is concerning. To hear references to Nazi Germany truly saddens me. Is this how the Social Democrats intend to conduct the debate on the shadow society? It would be very bad for Sweden.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.