Response to interpellations 2022/23:412, 413, 417 and 418 on the obligation to report in schools and healthcare

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Mr. Speaker! Niels Paarup-Petersen has asked Minister Lotta Edholm if she intends to work to stop the introduction of an obligation for school staff to report children living in Sweden without residence permits.

Karin Rågsjö has asked the Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson if she intends to take measures to exclude employees within healthcare in the investigation on the reporting obligation regarding undocumented persons. Karin Rågsjö has also asked the Minister if she intends to take measures to ensure that employees within healthcare shall not be required to report patients without residence permits. Finally, Karin Rågsjö has asked the Minister if she and the government, when introducing the reporting obligation for employees within healthcare, intend to make changes to the Health and Medical Services Act (2017:30), the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009:400), and the Patient Safety Act (2010:659).

Annika Hirvonen has asked Minister Acko Ankarberg Johansson what measures she intends to take so that persons without residence permits will dare to seek the care they need without fear of being reported. Annika Hirvonen has also asked Minister Lotta Edholm what measures she intends to take to prevent children from not going to preschool and school for fear of being reported.

The interpellations have been handed over to me, and I have chosen to answer all of them in one and the same response.

Combating the shadow society and having control over who stays in Sweden is very important for the government. A prerequisite for maintaining regulated immigration is that we address the fact that people are staying here illegally.

The Government considers it important that an expanded exchange of information is established. On 30 August 2023, the Government therefore decided on additional directives for the ongoing investigation on strengthened return activities. The investigator shall, among other things, submit proposals for a regulation involving an expanded exchange of information between authorities for the purpose of strengthening the work with enforcement and making it more difficult to live in the country without a permit.

In order for the regulation to be legally secure and not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals, certain situations may need to be exempted from the duty of information. This may involve situations where the duty of information would conflict with sensitive values, for example within healthcare. It is part of the investigator's mandate to assess which situations should potentially be exempted, without excluding any activities from the duty of information in advance.

It is also part of the investigator's mandate to submit necessary legislative proposals. The proposals shall be in accordance with the international rules and conventions that Sweden has committed to follow, including the European Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where the child's right to education is established. The investigator shall also analyze the consequences of introducing an expanded exchange of information and describe the advantages and disadvantages for the affected operations.

I do not want to anticipate the result of the investigation. I look forward very much to taking part in the investigation's proposals.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for an answer where substance, content, and everything that could constitute actual answers to questions about the reporting obligation is as present as Education Minister Lotta Edholm is in this debate – that is to say, not at all.

This is a bit strange - let me read from my interpellation: "No children shall be forced to stay home at the start of school this autumn for fear of being deported from Sweden." That is what Lotta Edholm herself wrote when she was the school board councillor. So, these are Lotta Edholm's words. My question to Lotta Edholm was therefore whether she actually intended to follow what she herself had said and work to stop the introduction of a duty for school staff to report children living in Sweden without permission. This is what my interpellation is, short and concise. It is specifically linked to whether School Minister Lotta Edholm intends to work for the teachers and students, in line with what she has previously stated she stands for, or not - a simple question, I would think.

But where is Lotta Edholm? Lotta Edholm is not here. In the public debate, it is Fredrik Malm who has to endure the mockery for the Liberals' betrayal in this issue. Here in the chamber, it is instead a Moderate minister who comes. How is this possible? The Minister for Education does not even appear in the chamber but leaves the question of her own work and her own words to the Minister for Migration.

The Sweden Democrats are clear. They want school staff to be included. They have no difficulty saying it; they have said it. The Christian Democrats have said it in debate articles in newspapers in Skåne, for example. But the Liberals cannot say it. The Moderate minister says that she cannot say it – she does not want to anticipate the investigation. This is the problem: that some of the parties involved in this cooperation can say what they want, very clearly and distinctly. Why is it then not possible for, for example, the minister to say it?

My question is, therefore, again: Will Lotta Edholm fight for Sweden's teachers and students or not? Will she accept the reporting obligation in schools or not? It is this I want an answer to. But the Minister for Education does not have the courage to come here to the chamber and answer. It is actually quite disrespectful.

But the big question is actually how the Moderate Migration Minister could answer in which direction Lotta Edholm intends to work - I understand that it is difficult - or how the Liberals intend to act. One might wonder if the Liberals have no direction of their own and nothing they stand for anymore. Is it only the Moderates who speak for them? It is a question worth asking today. But it is not a question we will get an answer to here today.

The answer I have received regarding the interpellation is that Migration Minister Malmer Stenergard does not want to anticipate the investigation. That is excellent in theory. The challenge, however, as said, is that she is dependent on parties that have anticipated it and are clear. But I can reassure the Migration Minister – I do not demand an answer on what the investigator will conclude, for that, of course, no one can know.

I have instead another question, or two, for the minister who is nevertheless here. The Liberals claim that the Convention on the Rights of the Child prevents teachers from being able to be given a duty to report children, and what will be written ultimately lies on the present minister's desk. I therefore want to ask two questions that can certainly be answered with yes or no, and I hope that the minister takes the time to actually answer in the next entry.

Firstly: Is it correct that children attending Swedish school are deported from the country today, despite the fact that we have the Convention on the Rights of the Child as law? My perception is that this is the case. Next question: Does the Minister for Migration have any basis indicating that the Convention on the Rights of the Child would prevent the reporting of children when it does not prevent the deportation of children? That is also a question that can be answered with yes or no.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Mr. Speaker! Informing - taste that word, for that is exactly what we are going to talk about today. It is not a duty to inform, but this is becoming informing.

Sometimes we Left Party members here in the speaker's chair have been accused of being communists, which we of course are not. But the strange thing is that this government is pulling out an investigation with a potential bill that strongly resembles what we saw in the old communist countries, in East Germany, in the Soviet Union, and so on. I think it is tragic.

Thus Erik Helmerson writes in DN: "Doctors, teachers, social workers, from all sides, they say no to identifying people who have sought their help. An informant law, as proposed in the Tidö Agreement, would be an attempt by the state to purge human morality from the social contract. To pluck the ethics out of a human equation. It then also becomes a state attempt to abolish something of what it is to be human."

In media segments, the responsible minister has claimed that there are 100,000 undocumented people in Sweden, which cannot be verified. To us, it appears that one is initiating an investigation into potential legislation that is extreme for this country and based on assumptions that are not quite okay. It becomes very strange. The figure 100,000 sounds very grand, but is it actually correct? It is like fabricating something that does not exist. It sounds good, but is it true?

The government and the Sweden Democrats continue to take a step towards a reporting law which means that public employees shall be obliged to report undocumented people. The idea is that staff within school, healthcare, and social services shall be obliged to report to the police and the Swedish Migration Agency when they come into contact with people without permission to be in Sweden.

Vänsterpartiet has previously demanded that the government immediately withdraw the proposal for an investigation of a whistleblower law. My interpellation focused particularly on employees within health and medical care and was directed to the Minister for Health and Medical Care, Acko Ankarberg Johansson. And she is, as mentioned, also not here today.

The questions are very specific for healthcare in different ways. The fact is that everyone who works in healthcare, both publicly and privately, does so under confidentiality and a duty of confidentiality. This means that all information concerning the patient's personal circumstances is protected by confidentiality. Confidentiality is regulated by the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act for those who work within the state, the regions, and the municipalities, while those who work at private healthcare providers must follow the rules on the duty of confidentiality in the Patient Safety Act.

The Health and Medical Services Act is very clear that care must always be provided based on need. Those in the greatest distress shall be prioritized first. If one introduces a reporting obligation, which you choose to call the disclosure law, for employees within healthcare, it would mean that the laws need to be changed entirely. And that was what my questions to the Minister for Health and Social Affairs were about. An introduction of a reporting obligation for employees within healthcare means that the Health and Medical Services Act, the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, and the Patient Safety Act must be changed. That is the consequence of this type of legislative proposal.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Recently I visited the Rosengrenska Foundation in Gothenburg. There, dentists, nurses, and other volunteers work to help people seek and receive the care they need. The Rosengrenska Foundation meets people who live as undocumented. On-site, I saw everyone from babies to people with walkers. They are people in different life situations with one thing in common: Swedish society did not believe in their need for protection, but they are more afraid of returning to their former home countries than the incredibly difficult life situation they live in as undocumented.

People who are undocumented in Sweden have very few rights, but they have a right to healthcare, and children have a right to go to school. These are basic human rights that apply to everyone. But what I experienced when I met the volunteers who try to help people obtain these rights was that one can already notice that people who need care do not dare to go to the health center. Already now, due to the debate about the reporting law, the fear has spread. This can have serious consequences. If women who are about to give birth become too afraid to go to maternity care and instead give birth at home, it can mean a life-threatening situation for both the child and the woman giving birth. If people wait to seek care, their health can deteriorate, with serious consequences as a result.

It is this we mean when we say that a reporting law makes the shadow society darker for those who live there. It does not make people leave the shadow society. On the contrary, the contact points with society will decrease.

At the Rosengrenska Foundation, I also met those who focus on supporting children. For children living in an incredibly vulnerable situation, actually regardless of what it is, preschool and school are a particularly important protective factor. It is important for all children, but for these children, it is absolutely central. They are afraid, because among the children who have not returned to the school desk after the summer break, there are also those who have stayed home due to fear of reporting.

My question is not about the investigation or the new law, but my question is what Lotta Edholm and the Minister for Health and Social Affairs are going to do here and now so that people will dare to seek care and go to school.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! If Sweden as a country is to be able to direct its resources correctly and help those who truly need help, those who are judged to lack the right to be in Sweden must also leave the country. As we usually say: a yes must be a yes, and a no must be a no. Despite the fact that this is the very basis of the regulated immigration that all parties say they stand behind, the shadow society has been allowed to grow, and people suffer as a result.

The tone is quite high in this debate, and I would like to urge the opposition to perhaps restrain themselves, in light of the fact that much anxiety is being created throughout society. This may have to do with the opposition choosing to call something a "reporting law" (angiverilag) when it fundamentally is about authorities and the public sector communicating with each other in a way that is not done today.

I think it can be good to make some clarifications, for example that the duty of information between authorities is not something new. From the mid-1980s until 2013, there was a duty of information for school boards and later also social welfare committees to notify the Police Authority if they came into contact with a person who lacked the right to be in the country. Today, employees in schools and healthcare are also obliged to report if a child is harmed. We know that in, for example, Germany since the 1990s, there has been a duty in the public sector to inform about contacts with persons without permission to be in the country. Only recently was an exception made for schools, but healthcare and social services are still covered, for example.

Much of the debate is about healthcare and school, but I want to emphasize that I see the great potential in contacts between many of our authorities. We know that the Customs, the Enforcement Authority, and the Swedish Tax Agency, which in different ways come into contact with people who do not have the right to be in the country, today as a rule lack the possibilities to contact the authorities that need that information. That is where the great potential lies.

Finally: Let us never romanticize the shadow society. I still hear between the lines that certain parties do. In the shadow society, many children and adults suffer. Vulnerable people are exploited by unscrupulous employers or criminal networks. Criminal persons can also hide here. We know that among those whom the police assess must leave the country but who have not done so, one in ten shall be deported due to crime.

Children constitute a very small proportion of the number of people who do not leave Sweden in accordance with the authority's decision. The vast majority are men. The most common countries of deportation are Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Somalia and Ethiopia. But for the children who nevertheless find themselves in the shadow society, one can rightly question whether it is truly in a child's best interest to remain in a hidden shadow society.

It is genuinely difficult trade-offs to make. That is why the government believes it is reasonable for the investigation to look into this thoroughly before we politicians in this chamber point out exactly which sectors should be included and which should not. But I mean that authorities and the public sector should pull in the same direction and not have it be as it is today: that some authorities work on finding people who do not have the right to be here while other authorities in practice help the same people to stay hidden. It becomes an absurd situation.

Above all, I feel for those people who live in the shadow society today and who suffer when we look away. I believe that more parties should take responsibility for changing this.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Perhaps we should reflect a little, we in the opposition, so that we do not romanticize the shadow society. This is, quite bluntly put, rather crude. We are discussing an investigation whose purpose is to make it terribly difficult to be on the run in Sweden and to stay hidden to protect one's own life and one's children's lives.

Already now, when it is so to speak only an investigation, those who work with children and young people are concerned. This is my area. It is also school minister Lotta Edholms area - she has received exactly those questions. They are concerned already now. The young people are asking their teachers if it is safe for them to go to the dentist.

I come from Örebro, and there we have followed a girl for quite a long time. She graduated this spring. She did so completely openly, but for over a year during her high school years, she lived in hiding. She received help from her principal, her teachers, and her classmates. When the principal commented on this, he said: It was not a difficult decision. She has entered the education, and it is our mission to educate students.

What I am worried about, and what the professionals who are already affected by an investigation are worried about, is that these decisions will not be easy.

Last week we read about the police asking a principal for a list of students who looked as if they came from a certain part of the world. Racial profiling, one could call it. The principal said that one does not make such lists of ethnicity at a school. Of course, one does not. Lotta Edholm commented and said: As it appears, the principal has done what is in the student's best interest.

I want this to be self-evident answers from a principal from now on. Above all, I want people to feel that it is self-evident during the investigation period. Then we do not know what will happen. It is very unclear what will happen, as the investigation has been expanded.

I understand if the Minister for Migration does not have teachers' professional ethics as a special area of expertise, but both teachers and other professional groups are speaking out clearly. Trade unions say: Yes, if such legislation is passed, we will not do this, because it is a violation of our professional ethics.

Teachers are not the only professional group.

Angiveri is something that pushes people into the shadow society. It is not something that fights a shadow society.

We are facing a long and deep debate about this here in Sweden. I believe it will be very beneficial for our society that many of us talk about what kind of society we want. This debate has been driven forward by the people who work in schools, in healthcare, in libraries, and all around in public Sweden. They demand of us parties that we show where we stand.

From the government parties, it is highly unclear. There, one receives different messages depending on whom you ask and at which political level the person operates.

The investigation must follow the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Was it in the child's best interest that the girl in Örebro was allowed to end her education? I am convinced of it.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the interpellants, for the interpellations! Thank you, the Minister, for the answer! For me as a listener, it is obvious that the debate is completely skewed. For what is it that the government has done? Yes, it has appointed an inquiry. There is no bill. There is an inquiry. About what? Yes, about whether we could possibly return to the system that applied before 2013. At that time, there was an obligation for social services and schools to notify the police if there were foreigners in the country who were staying here without permission.

My own party contributed to these rules being removed, and we admit today that it was a mistake. During the years 2012-2015, approximately, there was indeed a very large immigration to Sweden. Consequently, a very large shadow society also emerged. The government's ambition now is that we should get this in order and that we should simply return to what was the normal state in Sweden before 2013.

How can this be terrible, and how can it be described as a reporting society? Was it really the case that Sweden before 2013 was a reporting society? Was it the case that foreigners were forced to sit hidden day and night in fear of the police? At least that is how Miljöpartiet has wanted to describe the situation. Miljöpartiet's spokesperson mentioned here in the chamber that it was like when Anne Frank was forced to stay hidden from the Nazis. Was that how Sweden looked before 2013? I think Miljöpartiet is obligated to answer that question. Was Sweden before 2013 a society like the occupied Netherlands, where the Nazis could storm in at any second? Is that Miljöpartiet's perception of Sweden before 2013?

Furthermore, it is a fact that rules on reporting obligations already exist today in many other EU countries. I can give some examples: Belgium, Estonia, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia and Germany. Does the opposition then mean that all these countries are reporting societies? Even here, I think the opposition owes the public an explanation. Are Belgium and Germany reporting societies?

In Sweden, it is also not uncommon with laws with a reporting obligation. To give some examples, there is a reporting obligation in cases of concern for children, a reporting obligation in cases of incorrect payments from the welfare systems, a reporting obligation in cases of incorrect information in the population register, and a reporting obligation according to the Weapons Act.

Every time an authority person uses this obligation, a foreign person's residence in Sweden is cleared if it is the case that he or she is in the country without permission. Does the opposition mean that all these laws should also be removed? I also mean that the opposition must provide an explanation for this.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! We received a very empty answer from the Minister for Migration. I did, however, note the closing remark, where the Minister says in an innovative way that she looks forward to the investigator's proposals, which shall weigh in for and against.

But above all, it is what the minister does not say that shines most brightly in the post, namely that the proposal is about Sweden becoming a society of informants. The right-wing nationalist government is pursuing a ruthless policy against the most vulnerable in society, and this does not belong in a free and open democratic society.

I do not know how many times I have debated the situation of the undocumented here in the chamber, Madam Speaker, but I know that for too many who are denied their asylum application, deportation is not practically possible. This may be because we do not deport to certain countries, that countries for political reasons do not accept their citizens, that the persons are stateless, or that the asylum seeker runs a serious risk of being subjected to the death penalty upon return.

With the government's tightened migration policy, more will be pressured out in a situation like those who are undocumented, where they cannot be deported but also are not allowed to stay. One can ask whether it is legitimate and legally secure to continue issuing deportation decisions that one already knows from the beginning cannot be executed.

Proposals on reporting do not make deportation decisions more enforceable. A reporting society will only worsen and deepen this situation. Already today, undocumented people live under intolerable living conditions without rights or support to sustain themselves. More would be forced to go underground, and children will be kept away from the right to schooling. For those who need life-saving care but do not dare to seek help for fear of being reported, the situation would deteriorate significantly to the extent that one risks their life.

We cannot have a system, Madam Speaker, where the primary school teacher is to specify their student who has just started school or where the doctor is to specify the old woman seeking emergency care to survive. We cannot have such a system. Healthcare personnel shall provide care regardless of the patient's legal status. Teachers shall take special consideration of the child's best interests. Social services shall not break confidentiality. Library activities are mandated by law to be accessible to everyone.

Let me therefore be crystal clear: This proposal must be withdrawn immediately. Those who work in the welfare sector and uphold Sweden have themselves said that they do not intend to participate in the government's hunt for undocumented people. The teachers say no, the healthcare staff say no, the unions say no, civil society says no, a clear majority of Sweden's regions say no, and municipality after municipality says no. All affected operations say no.

We demand here today that the government listens to the overwhelming majority in Sweden who say no to a reporting society. If even the slightest part of the proposal were to be realized, I call upon Sweden's public employees to civil disobedience - to not report. There are examples of reporting societies throughout history where humans have shown their worst sides. We shall not go there!

All of you who uphold Sweden should know that you have politicians on your side. You should know that you have the right on your side to follow professional ethics and respect for our civil rights and freedoms. It is both right and just. You deserve a government that facilitates your jobs, which improves your working conditions and which puts you and welfare first.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for all the contributions in the debate. This is a genuinely difficult question, and I think it is important that all perspectives are highlighted. But I also think it is important that we maintain common sense and reason in the debate, because I believe it will become a better debate then.

It is also important to remember that the persons whom the information exchange primarily targets are persons who have had their case reviewed by the Swedish Migration Agency and, in most cases, also by the court. They have an obligation to leave the country voluntarily. One should also remember, in connection with what Tony Haddou said in his latest post, that it is possible to execute deportation decisions to virtually all countries in the world if the individual cooperates themselves. If it is the case that it is not possible to execute a deportation decision, for example because the receiving country does not accept, it is also possible to issue a temporary residence permit. If one does not do so, it is because it is assessed that the person will be able to leave the country.

At its core, it is about where our resources should go. One must look up and remember that the need for protection in the world is enormous. Even though it is sometimes difficult, I believe it is a duty for those of us who want to help people on the run to be able to prioritize. It is about ensuring that the people whom we choose to give our resources to and provide protection to also have grounds for protection; then that is where the resources should go. But if we choose to constantly give resources to people who actually do not have grounds for protection, but on the contrary have an obligation to leave the country, it naturally hinders our opportunities to help people who are actually in need of protection.

The regulation of information exchange, which we are investigating now, is therefore nothing new within immigration law, something that both Stefan Olsson and Jessica Rosencrantz have emphasized. The regulation has previously included an obligation for the school board and later also the social welfare committee to notify the police of a foreigner's stay in the country when the foreigner is enrolled or admitted into primary school or upper secondary school. It is exactly as Stefan Olsson says: This is a regulation that has existed in Germany since the 90s, under governments of varying colors. Quite recently, an exception was made for the education sector, but the question arises: Should this be considered a reporting society? I think one should be careful with which words one uses.

I shall try to answer all the questions that have been asked. To begin with, Niels Paarup-Petersen questions whether I am here at all. He naturally has every right in the world to do so, but the fact is that we have a distribution of responsibilities within the government. I am responsible for this issue and these directives, and therefore it is I who am here.

Is it correct that children are deported today? It is the case that one always takes into account, and has done so for a long time in the Aliens Act, the best interests of the child. Nevertheless, one can conclude that it is compatible with the best interests of the child that the child is deported, and that happens today.

Would the Convention on the Rights of the Child prevent reporting when it does not prevent deportation? I cannot answer that, and that is exactly what the investigator is to do. I do not want to preempt that.

Karin Rågsjö questions my statement regarding how many people reside in the shadow society. It is an extremely difficult assessment to make, but there are assessors who argue that it could amount to 100,000 or even more. That is what I have said, and it is a statement that KU has not struck down following the report.

I realize that my time is up, so I will return with further answers.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not in any way question Maria Malmer Stenergård's existence or presence. However, it is a pity that the minister to whom I have addressed my question does not answer it because it is specifically directed towards her own statements and her own work, not the migration minister's work. Therefore, it is difficult for the migration minister to answer.

The answer to my interpellation has about as much substance as a spettekaka, that is to say, not much. That is the problem when a question is handed over to a minister who does not have the prerequisites – not because of competence – to say anything about Lotta Edholm's efforts in the area.

Let me move on to the core issue itself. A yes should of course be a yes, and a no should be a no - and an answer to a question should be an answer to a question. That is something we should agree on.

We are in complete agreement that a yes means that you can stay in Sweden, but if you have received a no, you must leave the country. We are in complete agreement on the issue. We want to combat the shadow society. The shadow society must be combated, but that does not mean that one must have a reporting society. Those are two different things. A lot can be done, and we are on board with many things. And we are happy to continue to talk with the government about many other issues to combat the shadow society. I believe the minister knows that.

Then we are back to the fact that the Minister does not want to anticipate the results of the investigation. But that is what you did, and that is why we are standing here. The previous government commissioned an investigation, and there were exceptions in that. But you say that you do not want them, and that is to anticipate the investigation. An answer had come from an investigation that proposed exceptions. Then you removed the exception. That is the reality right now, that is to say you anticipated the investigation.

In the old investigation, it specifically stated that persons working within healthcare or education should not have a duty of information, a duty of reporting, or whatever it shall be called. When one removes such an exception, it is done for a reason, probably not just out of curiosity. That is the whole point, and that is why we stand here. That is why the people are buzzing out on the streets, and that is why the teachers and healthcare staff are worried.

You have deliberately stated that teachers and healthcare staff should not have exemptions. That is the reason we are standing here. You removed the exemption. Then it is not just a matter of you not wanting to preempt the investigation, but you have actively, deliberately and - hopefully - thoughtfully removed the exemption.

Then we ask ourselves why. But the Minister says that we shall see, and that is not a particularly sensible answer. It is clear that you did it for a reason.

I do not romanticize the shadow society, and I have not heard anyone else do so either. There are certainly movies to watch if one wants that, but we do not do that. The only reason to remove an exception is if one fundamentally believes that the duty should be introduced. That is the starting point for the debate.

Stefan Olsson says that the Moderaternas line is that it was a mistake to remove the duty of information for teachers. When it was removed, it was because a right to education and care for undocumented persons was introduced. As I understand the Moderaternas line now – because the Moderaterna want to return to the time before 2013 – the right to care and school shall be removed for undocumented persons. It is a clarity that we appreciate from the Moderaterna; we have not seen it before. Now we understand how it all hangs together.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! Not many have stood up and cheered for the investigation that is now rolling forward. It is not only we in this chamber who have questioned what is happening. All the major unions within healthcare have issued harsh criticism: Läkarförbundet, Vårdförbundet, and Kommunal. For example, Vårdförbundet considers a whistleblower law - an information law - to be in breach of the duty of confidentiality, ethics, and morals, which are the foundation of the work in healthcare and elderly care. Now, the Minister for Health and Social Affairs is not here to answer the specific questions, but we will debate the issues several more times.

Large regions have already stated that they will never demand that their public employees in any way report and inform. A group of employees within healthcare has started the national healthcare campaign We do not report. They refuse to agree to any future legal requirements to report undocumented persons to the police and Migrationsverket. It is moving. Private healthcare providers are clear: We do not report.

The government's response is to proceed. It shall be investigated whether there are specific situations where a report would conflict with tender values, but that does not mean that the entire healthcare sector will be given an exemption.

There is talk about medical ethics. And it is quite clear that this duty undermines this. There is a risk that it will not only be practically difficult for healthcare but that it also undermines the ethical foundation they work from.

Ekot vid Sveriges Radio recently reported that the government and the Sweden Democrats agree that the investigator shall not exclude any activities in advance, for example healthcare. We find this to be gravely concerning. One can foresee how the entire area, after the investigation is presented, will be covered by that type of legislation.

For me, there are no exceptions. It is quite obvious that we have agreed that everything that is to apply to public employees shall apply to everyone. So says Jimmie Åkesson, chairman of Sverigedemokraterna, in an interview in Dagens Nyheter.

My experience of the government, so far, is that it does as SD says. Otherwise, it becomes a government crisis. Without SD - no government. When SD sets down its foot, the government will yield. The government is completely dependent on them.

Sweden as a nation now stands out in some issues. Humanism, dignity and solidarity have been replaced by a daily dehumanization of people and the entire collective of immigrants. There are many who feel singled out since the government took office with the Tidö Agreement as its basis.

My questions remain; they will go unanswered. Does the Minister intend to take measures to exclude healthcare employees from the investigation regarding the reporting obligation concerning undocumented persons? Does the Minister intend to take measures to ensure that healthcare employees shall not be required to report undocumented patients?

I believe that there will be enormous opposition to the potential legislation when the investigation is presented. I am completely convinced of that, and I will return to it in my final speech on the matter.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Nor have I received answers to my questions in the interpellation regarding what the Minister for Education shall do so that children do not stay home from school because they are afraid of being reported. What shall the Minister for Health and Social Affairs do about the fact that people already now do not dare to seek care because they are afraid of being reported? It is not even about the future reporting law that is currently being investigated, but this is affecting people here and now.

Among the people one speaks of when saying that a no should be a no are homosexuals who have fled and do not dare to return to Uganda. There, the death penalty has been introduced for homosexuality. But they have received a no from Migrationsverket because Migrationsverket does not think they are ashamed enough of their orientation.

RFSL has examined around 2,000 cases which show that the agency systematically says no to LGBTQI refugees on grounds that are not supported by law or international conventions, namely because they do not have sufficiently deep reflections on why their bodies are both male and female. But if the person is assaulted because others do not accept intersex people in the person's home country, this person has a right to protection – but does not get it. Among those living as undocumented, there are people who cannot return to Afghanistan. The Migration Agency says that they should adapt to the Taliban, that they should live their lives as oppressors of women.

People who do not want to pray five times a day every day, who no longer belong to Islam, risk their lives in Afghanistan because the Taliban do not accept tattooed people.

This society does not have legal certainty in the asylum process for all people. But the government refuses to see it. They scrapped the investigation into the legally secure age assessments, which received powerful criticism from doctors—so serious criticism that many even resigned from their jobs at the agency responsible for them.

Madam Speaker! I am very proud that Sweden in 2013 put the right to healthcare and the right to school first for everyone. It is, like, not a real choice for many of the people who live in the terrible situation it is to be undocumented in Sweden. But the shadow society can become darker, and it has already become so. Already now, people who meet undocumented people testify that people do not dare to seek healthcare when they need healthcare.

The day when women who are about to give birth do not dare to go to the maternity clinic and the result is a person's death, that is something I do not want to see. Therefore, I ask again: What does the government intend to do so that people dare to seek care without fear of being reported? What does the government intend to do so that children dare to go to school?

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! The opposition says that they are not getting any answers from the Minister. I think it would be somewhat interesting to hear how the opposition themselves reason. Is it, for example, not supposed to be any obligation of information at all between certain authorities in public Sweden? Is it, for example, the case that despite the fact that Skatteverket has explicitly requested an obligation of information, it is not allowed? I think it would be interesting to hear that.

As Stefan Olsson asked several times: Is Germany a reporting society because it has corresponding legislation? Was Sweden a reporting society until 2013, when we had corresponding legislation? Please answer that! There have been huge objections from several representatives of the opposition in this chamber.

Finally: A speaker described this as people who just keep themselves hidden. We must then return to the fundamental question of whether we should have regulated immigration in this country or not. If the Green Party's view on regulated immigration is that "if you get a yes you shall stay, and if you get a no you shall also stay - you shall just hide", then one does not stand up for regulated immigration.

I agree exactly with the Minister - these are very difficult trade-offs, which concern many individuals' lives and freedom and protection. The person who has grounds for protection shall be allowed to stay in this country. But precisely because of that, the person who does not have it must leave the country. That is the basis of the regulated immigration, and I cannot see how it helps anyone in the long term that we build up a shadow society where people suffer and where we direct our resources to help those whom the authorities have said can return to their home country.

No, I maintain that the opposition continues to romanticize the shadow society that has been built up over a long period and where people are suffering. We need to deal with it.

We say that we have an investigation that is looking at this without preconditions. If there is a need for exceptions, we will return to that. But the opposition apparently already sits on all the answers, before an investigation has even been conducted.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! How do this investigation and these directives relate to teachers' professional ethics? Should it be easy for a principal to provide education to all their students, regardless of whether they are hidden or not? Should it be right for a principal to say no when another authority requests a race-profiled list?

One can also reflect a bit on what an investigation is. It is easy to say "well, we are a bit curious about how things work, and we need a factual basis." But it is not just that. It is also an expression of political will. This investigation is about implementing the Tidö Agreement. The directives have also been adjusted at fairly short intervals to make exactly those professional groups that we are talking about now worried about whether they, in the specific situation we are talking about now, will be able to practice their profession in accordance with their professional ethics.

We are Sweden. We are no other country. We are here and now. It is now that thousands of people are going out into the streets. There were large demonstrations in Stockholm last weekend. There will be large demonstrations in Gothenburg and Malmö. It is people on streets and squares who are speaking about what Sweden we want to be here and now. Here, children shall go to school. Here, principals shall say no to racial profiling.

A lot has also happened in Sweden, in our view of what kind of country we should be. Previously, we had a moderate Prime Minister who spoke about opening our hearts. The message from the current government is clear: Close!

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The problem is that in 2013, Sweden introduced lawlessness and general disorder in migration policy. That is what is extreme.

A shadow society of tens of thousands of people is extreme. The latest figure I have is 27,000 open return cases. It is extreme.

It is extreme that authorities do not inform one another.

It is extreme to attack the question itself. The opposition does not even want the question to be asked. To be afraid of knowledge is extreme.

To liken Swedish authority personnel to German Nazis, as the Miljöpartiet has done, is extreme.

What is not extreme is to return to Sweden as it was before 2013. In the current situation, there is no bill, only an investigation, and the investigation is to assess which exceptions should be made.

I feel secure with this. I am convinced that the majority of the Swedish people do not want total lawlessness, and I am convinced that we will reach a compromise. We will get a regulatory framework, and we will get exceptions in the framework that are well-considered. It is not extreme. It is just right, and it is Swedish.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we need to clear up a question here. One hears the Moderaterna repeatedly say that "a yes is a yes, and a no is a no." It seems that you do not know what you are talking about, because that is not how it is today.

All the girls and women from Afghanistan who received a no and whom you wanted to deport to the Taliban in Afghanistan, of course, did not want to be deported. They were pushed into the shadow society, year after year, because they did not want to go to the Taliban and you wanted to send them to the Taliban. It was completely obvious that they hid. Then came the assessment that women and girls from Afghanistan cannot be sent to the Taliban. The no they received became a yes. They are allowed to stay in Sweden.

To be honest, it is completely unworthy that you in the Moderaterna, who have a migration minister, do not even know what you are talking about. That is what the migration legislation looks like – one makes recurring assessments. We are not going to send women to Afghanistan. We are not going to send anyone to Afghanistan. One has grounds for protection from that country. That change is what you should look at instead.

I must also address this by stating that the reporting law is not reporting, and that deportation is for the child's best interests. If it were for the child's best interests, there is, for example, a report of concern in case of suspicion that a child is being harmed. Reporting children is something completely different. A report of concern is intended to give children the help they are entitled to. Reporting can, in the worst case, mean that one sends a child to their death. It is that difference we are talking about today. Either we help children in vulnerable situations or we take the risk of sending them to their death. You have clearly taken a stand on what you want. But it is not that society we want, so that is why we have this debate today, because we want to give them protection.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! This debate has largely come to focus on children in school and healthcare. I understand that because those are the most difficult areas. It is also why we in both the Tidö Agreement and the directives have pointed out that there may be situations where it would conflict with cherished values to apply such an obligation of information. Therefore, it is incredibly important that the investigator is allowed to calmly look at which situations it could be about and come up with a balanced proposal that will then be sent out for consultation and give everyone the opportunity to comment.

It is not, however, as Tony Haddou said in his first post, that all affected agencies are saying no. We have quite a few agencies in our country, and since there is not yet any proposal that has been sent for consultation to the affected agencies, the agencies have also not commented. But obviously, I am following the debate, and it has, as mentioned, largely come to be about the very most difficult parts.

Let us however remember that children constitute a very small part of the number of people who do not leave Sweden in accordance with authority decisions. Detailed information on those who are subject to deportation by force is not compiled. One can however state that the vast majority are men, that the most common countries of deportation are Afghanistan, Iraq, Uzbekistan, Somalia and Ethiopia, and that approximately one tenth of the open cases at the police concern persons who are deported due to crime. This is missing from the debate. Recently, it was reported in the media about a person who should have been deported but who, during the period that the deportation decision was not executed, managed to commit 23 crimes, some of which were very serious and caused great suffering. Do not forget this in the debate!

Ultimately, it is about maintaining regulated immigration. I note that Niels Paarup-Petersen says that he stands up for regulated immigration, but if he repeatedly says no to the tools that are needed for us to be able to maintain regulated immigration, there is reason to question the truthfulness of his statement.

Niels Paarup-Petersen also quickly concluded that the Moderaterna want to remove the right to healthcare and school for persons without permission. That is not a correct conclusion. I believe that it is possible to reconcile the right to emergency care with a duty of information, and I think it is important that one looks at that. In connection with when this was removed in 2013, a fairly large discussion was held on whether one should retain the duty of information for school despite introducing a right to schooling for those who do not have the right to stay in the country. At that time, different voices were heard, and among others, the police warned of the consequences if it were removed. Ultimately, one landed on removing it, but I mean that the discussion shows that there is a possibility to reconcile these two.

Camilla Hansén said in her first post that the obligation to provide information pushes people into the shadow society. That is not true. This is about people who either have not identified themselves at all when they arrived here and, for example, work illegally at workplaces, and people who have been denied their asylum application and should have left the country. It is therefore not a regulatory framework aimed at upholding the judgments and decisions that have been issued that pushes people into the shadow society, but rather it is those who do not follow the decisions made who choose to become part of the shadow society—where many suffer very badly.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for providing an answer to my follow-up question, even though I did not receive an answer to my original questions. Now I have even more questions for the Liberals ahead.

It was claimed that we are saying no to the tools. We are not saying no to the obligation to provide information in the old investigations; we have never done that. We have not said that we cannot live with the Tax Agency and other authorities providing information. That is not a problem for us. What we have said is that we want a clear and specific exemption for those who work with children and the sick. You remove that, and your only reason is that you want to see how it turns out. But that is not how you do it. You do not include things in an investigation just because it is fun. It doesn't work like that. You do it because you want to achieve something, and you want this to happen. At least some of the parties want it. It is a bit unclear if the Moderaterna want it. That KD wants it is very clear. They want teachers to report children. SD wants the same; they have said so. This is the problem.

If the minister wants a different debate than the one being held and with a focus on other things, then change the directives! Create supplementary directives and reintroduce the exception, so that we only have one debate about the rest! It is very easy for the government to fix.

We are, as said, open to the Tax Agency and others providing information. We in Centerpartiet are proud that we introduced that undocumented people have the right to emergency medical care and so on, and we will continue to fight for that. I am glad that the minister pointed out that Stefan Olsson is not correct.

I have one final question that I would like to have an answer to. Should the duty of disclosure also apply to employees of independent actors? They are not included in the investigation as it currently stands. If we create this difference between public and independent, it will become even more crazy in the school system than it already is.

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

Karin Rågsjö (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not receive a single reasonable answer from the Minister, but that was to be expected. I wonder very much about what club the government wants to be a part of. The SD-dependent government is, in fact, violating an important democratic principle when it plans to introduce this type of reporting legislation. Sweden ends up in a very special situation then. Is that reasonable? But that is the price Moderates, Liberals, and Christian Democrats pay to be able to form a government, with SD sitting in the back and pushing forward.

"In times of economic crisis, we need a government that ensures we have a welfare system we can rely on and that facilitates the work of welfare workers. The welfare system needs to retain experienced staff and attract thousands of new ones, not identify students, children, clients, and patients. We demand that the government backs down from the introduction of identification laws and instead seriously prioritizes the welfare system's mission." This is written by Heike Erkers, chairperson of Akademikerförbundet SSR, Åsa Fahlén, chairperson of Sveriges Lärare, Veronica Magnusson, chairperson of Vision, Malin Ragnegård, chairperson of Kommunal, and Sineva Ribeiro, chairperson of Vårdförbundet. Furthermore, Läkarförbundet holds the same opinion. We are therefore not alone. Thank you, all organizations, trade unions, and individuals who stand guard over Sweden!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have still not received answers to my questions. What measures does Minister for Education Lotta Edholm intend to take to prevent children from not daring to go to preschool and school for fear of reporting? What measures does Minister for Health and Social Affairs Acko Ankarberg Johansson intend to take so that people who are undocumented will dare to seek care without being afraid of reporting?

People have a right to care. Children have a right to preschool and school. This is mandated by law, and it is also fundamental human rights. But even today, the debate on the reporting law leads to people who need care not daring to ask for help.

The government needs to take responsibility for the situation that has been created when it initiated the work on a reporting law, which could result in doctors being responsible for both providing care and subsequently reporting persons to the police who are terrified of being sent back to the Taliban's Afghanistan or to Uganda, where homosexuals risk the death penalty and where Sweden expels homosexuals.

I think it is a hypocrisy that there is talk of fear of knowledge when the government chooses to turn a blind eye to the fact that there are legal uncertainties in the asylum system. They are shelving the investigation on legally secure medical age assessments and instead putting effort into drafting an informant law.

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

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to be clear that there is no proposal yet. Nevertheless, it is surprisingly many who have views on the proposal, which, therefore, does not yet exist.

It is very clear in the directives that the investigator shall look at whether any exceptions should be made for situations where a duty of disclosure would conflict with sensitive values. One can imagine that there are different situations within the same sector. This is complicated, and I think it is important not to point out from a political standpoint in advance which regulatory framework shall apply to which situations.

Fundamentally, each person who, after a review, often in several instances, has been ordered to leave the country has an obligation to also do so. In that case, such situations never actually arise. And one must absolutely not forget that there is an important security aspect and that those who are not deported can also, in certain cases, pose a security threat and commit serious crimes here. Unfortunately, we have seen examples of this in history.

Finally, I believe that in these times of polarization we should be very careful not to exaggerate, and let us have a factual debate. When it is called a "reporting law," even though it only applies to public employees in their professional role and not to individuals, who are not expected to tell about their fellow human beings, there lies a very serious accusation in that. This is proven by the fact that Miljöpartiet drew parallels to the appalling fate that befell Anne Frank. I understand that the Jewish Youth Association is outraged by such exaggerations, because it actually diminishes what happened to Anne Frank.

I therefore call for reflection and look forward to a continued substantive debate.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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