Response to interpellations 2022/23:423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429 and 430 on the reporting obligation for school staff

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld, Åsa Westlund, Rose-Marie Carlsson and Caroline Helmersson Olsson have asked me how I intend to act so that school staff can fulfill their mission to work for the children's development if they are at the same time to be obliged to report their students. Mats Wiking has also asked me how I intend to act so that the country's school counselors can fulfill their mission to work for the children's learning, development and psychosocial health if they are at the same time to be obliged to report their students.

Aylin Nouri has also asked me whether I agree with the chairman of the Education Committee in the Riksdag, Fredrik Malm, that the reporting obligation violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child and will not apply to teachers and school staff, and what initiatives I, in that case, am prepared to take in light of what has been put forward. Furthermore, Niklas Sigvardsson has asked me how I intend to conduct a dialogue with the relevant trade unions to alleviate the concern that exists regarding the government's announced proposal on reporting.

The Government has recently decided on supplementary directives to the Inquiry on strengthened return activities (dir. 2023:126) as part of the work to combat the so-called shadow society. The objective is to prevent persons from staying and living in Sweden without having the right to do so and to resolve the problems that this entails. It is a matter of confidence in Swedish migration legislation, justice, and equality before the law.

From the supplementary directives, it appears that upcoming regulations shall be legally secure and not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals, and that certain situations may need to be exempted from a duty of disclosure. This may concern situations where the duty of disclosure would conflict with sensitive values.

The directives further clearly state that all proposals submitted shall be in accordance with the international rules and conventions that Sweden has committed to follow. This includes, among others, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where, among other things, children's right to education is established.

The main duties of school staff according to the school regulations will remain unchanged, such as conducting teaching towards the goals of the education as well as creating a safe environment for all children. In this matter, like other matters, I intend to conduct a dialogue with trade union representatives. My and the government's position is that the school shall be a safe place for children, students, teachers and other staff within the school system.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! It is my firm opinion that school leaders should do everything they can to give children the best possible conditions to learn and develop. School leaders, on the other hand, should not engage in informing.

School leaders are like pedagogical leaders, those who are responsible for ensuring the quality and development of teaching at the respective school. In all instances, they shall ensure that the school, to the best of its ability, meets the far-reaching requirements we have set in the Education Act regarding the individual adaptation of education.

School leaders are like local managers directly responsible for their staff regarding salary setting, continuing education, work environment, scheduling, and other important conditions. School leaders have responsibilities towards students, parents, staff, administration, corporate management, and the state. The tasks are never-ending. Everything from decisions on special support, plans, and documents to salary setting and eraser orders can lie on the principal's desk.

When the government does not compensate municipalities for their cost increases, it is the principal who ends up caught in the middle - caught between the expectations that all teachers, all support staff, all special educators and school counselors shall remain even next school year and the expectations of keeping the budget.

When the government invents whimsical things, it is the school leaders who must implement them as well. When Lotta Edholm shouts that all screens should be destroyed or that teachers should identify their students, it is the school leaders who must ensure that so happens.

School leaders, as is known, change jobs quite often already, that is to say every second or third year on average. It is a clear sign that they operate in an incredibly tough work environment. And now, the mandate comes that yet another really tough work task shall be placed on the country's school leaders, namely that of reporting their students to the police.

A few weeks ago, the government parties held a press conference to describe the investigation directives that this is about. At that time, the school minister's party colleague Fredrik Malm participated. He said then that he feels secure that school staff will not be covered by the reporting law because the investigation directive pointed out that the reporting law should function in harmony with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ludvig Aspling from Sverigedemokraterna, who participated at the same press conference, snorts at this view and states that the proposal does not affect the right to education since the children can go to school in their home country.

When the Minister for Education is asked the question in the interpellations here today, she answers exactly like her party colleague with reference to the European Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where children's right to education is established.

The question is: How are the country's school leaders to know what applies? I thought that the Minister might be able to take the opportunity to explain it in the chamber here today. Is it the Minister's position that applies – that school staff shall be exempted from the reporting obligation? Or is it the Sweden Democrats' position – that it shall be punishable for school staff to fail to report their students to the police?

(Applause)

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a country where children in school can trust that society is for them and that a trust from an adult in the school is precisely a trust and something that can be relied upon.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is now on its way to becoming a different country, where the SD government stands ready to introduce a law requiring school and healthcare staff to report children who are undocumented. As a former counselor, I ask myself how a reporting law is compatible with the mission of the school and student health services.

Madam Speaker! The Education Act clearly states that all students shall have access to student health services and that student health services shall work preventatively and health-promoting and support the students' development towards the goals of the education. For me, as a school counselor, it means being a steady hand for those living a life with social unrest and mental ill-health. Perhaps you, as a school counselor, are the only person the undocumented little girl has dared to tell about her situation. Perhaps school is the only reason she gets up in the morning.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's collective school staff are clear that the role of trust and the professional ethics of school staff clearly clash with a role as an informant of undocumented children. The professional ethical council expresses it clearly: We are committed to protecting students from harm and harassment and to having a role of trust towards them and their guardians. We shall not spread information further unless it is for the students' best interests. This will be difficult to combine with the duty to provide information.

I want to ask the Minister for Education: How can trust be established between a student and student health personnel when student health services have a duty to report?

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has since democracy was introduced had governments from both the right and the left, which in turn have pursued different policies depending on their ideological home. It is no surprise.

It is the opposition's role to criticize the government and agitate for its own policies. It is not strange either.

Since Sweden received the most right-conservative government in modern times, a Sweden Democrat government, a change has however occurred that is greater than traditional party-political differences. It is a change that should worry every one of us who are supporters of liberal democracy.

We have seen examples of this in our immediate vicinity, with a gradual erosion of democracy in the form of the tyranny of small steps. It is often not large strides but smaller movements in an authoritarian direction, often with a designated group in society as an excuse for everyone's freedom and the principles of the rule of law to be restricted.

Let me give some examples of the tyranny of small steps in Sweden. We are now seeing a systematic slaughter of the support for civil society and educational associations. Or take the fact that the government wants to introduce a new concept, that people shall be deported on the basis of lack of integrity - i.e., that one has a lifestyle that does not fit into the morality and the ethics that the Sverigedemokraterna have. Or take what we are debating today: that all public employees, also within healthcare, school, and care, shall be forced to report people who lack permission to be in Sweden.

The tasks of the law enforcement authorities – the police and the Migration Agency – are being eroded. Now, every single one of us is to become a police officer and an agent and, in our professions, report our students and our patients. Preferably, every single one of us should also carry a weapon, as one of the Sverigedemokraterna members of parliament has demanded.

Madam Speaker! Let us remind ourselves that Sweden now has an SD-led government because the Liberals chose to enable it. It was said from the Liberals' side that their presence would temper SD's influence. The Liberals were to be the guarantor of the government's liberal conscience.

The Minister for Education has said from the rostrum today that all children, even those who lack permission to be in Sweden, shall have the right to education in Sweden. But that is not quite true. In the supplementary directives to the investigation on the reporting law, it is established that no professions, not even teachers, shall in advance be exempted from the reporting obligation. And if there is anything known at this stage, it is that SD dictates the government's policy and that SD has so far not had to yield on a single point.

My question to School Minister Lotta Edholm is: Which one applies? Is it your word, or is it the Sweden Democrats'? Can the School Minister guarantee me that teachers will not have to grade children in the future?

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish society is largely built on trust. It is something that researchers often highlight as a success factor for Sweden as a country. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is something we associate with completely different societies throughout history – totalitarian societies that few see as models.

A few years ago, the Sweden Democrats' demands for informant laws were something that leading bourgeois representatives highlighted as evidence of the abyss that existed between themselves and the Sweden Democrats. They could never accept such totalitarian proposals, they said. The will to power has, however, changed the position of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals. That the government is now investigating the introduction of informant laws is clear evidence that this government is ruled by the Sweden Democrats.

The Liberals are simultaneously engaging in a rather embarrassing hypocrisy. Despite the fact that they have now taken the first step to introduce reporting laws, without any exemptions for teachers or other school staff, they try to present it as something completely different. For us outsiders, however, it is very clear: the Liberals have joined a government completely dependent on the Sweden Democrats, and every time the Liberals are forced to implement Sweden Democrat policy, they try to convince themselves that they haven't actually made any concessions and that these are reasonable things they have agreed to.

The Liberals never became a watchdog against fascist proposals. Instead, the Liberals became a doormat that justifies every step towards a more authoritarian society by claiming that this particular step is not that dangerous.

The reporting laws that the SD government has now ordered mean that public sector employees will be forced to report persons staying in Sweden without permission to the Migration Agency and the police. Personnel within school and healthcare are no longer exempt.

The right of undocumented children to schooling was introduced into Swedish law following a proposition by the Liberal [MP] Jan Björklund in 2013. The School Board in Stockholm, Lotta Edholm, said with pride that same year that no children should be forced to stay home at the start of school in the autumn for fear of being deported from Sweden. But now, children who exercise their right to attend Swedish school are to be identified by teachers.

Sveriges lärare have rightly expressed strong criticism and strong concern regarding this. If teachers are forced to act as informants to authorities, children's education risks falling into the shadows. Instead of putting the children's best interests in focus, as the teachers' professional ethical guidelines prescribe, the teachers would be forced to act for a purpose that has nothing to do with their main mission. A reporting law would complicate teaching and hinder the students' learning, something the teachers' professional ethical council has clearly pointed out in its criticism of the proposal.

We Social Democrats say no to this. Teachers should be able to focus on the work of educating our children and youth instead of being forced to engage in reporting activities. Sweden's teachers should be allowed to be teachers, not be forced to become border guards.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Minister for Education is: How does Minister for Education Lotta Edholm intend to act so that school board member Lotta Edholm's words, that no children should be forced to stay home at the start of school this autumn for fear of being rejected from Sweden, shall also apply in the future?

(Applause)

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

Rose-Marie Carlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Every child's right to education - how long will it last?

We know that everything begins in preschool. It is an important part of our education system. For these children, it is incredibly important to be in preschool. There, they have the opportunity to feel security and receive safe care from fantastic educators, who are now very worried about having to report the children to the authorities.

The lump in the stomach that the educators have is the same lump that I have from my work in healthcare, which I left after many years. When I heard about this, I felt that lump and the anxiety over having to specify patients. I encounter exactly the same anxiety in the educators in the preschool.

We are talking about the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law and very important. The educators work with it and tell the children how important the Convention on the Rights of the Child is. It strengthens the children's own rights.

Words have meaning. We often talk about that. But who says them also matters. The Liberal Party's party leader said: "For the Liberals, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is central, it is also a Swedish law. It is an international convention that we are required to respect, I assume that will also be done in this work." And the chairman of the Education Committee has said that the school should be exempted.

Words have meaning. But who says them also matters. The Minister for Education has not said anything about the school being exempted. It is said that an investigation has been appointed which shall work in peace and quiet. I can promise the Minister that it does not calm educators and teachers out in our school activities; I am speaking for the preschool now. It creates even more anxiety. They would have been immensely happy and grateful if we had a minister who could stand up for the Convention on the Rights of the Child and children's rights, so that it is not just words.

I have two questions. One of them concerns public activities. But what applies in private activities? Should they not have to specify the children?

I also wonder who is in control of this. Is it the Liberals or the Sweden Democrats?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Education for the answer, even though the content regarding what dialogue the Minister intends to have and pursue in this matter with the relevant trade unions is lacking.

The criticism against the proposal regarding reporting is massive among school staff and their trade unions. Just as my parliamentary colleagues and party comrades have raised, teachers, cleaning staff, kitchen staff, school leaders, counselors, and school nurses wonder how they are supposed to feel. They wonder how they can avoid feeling that they are acting as border police and that their trust-building work in the entire school system is being overturned. How are their union representatives to have a constructive dialogue on all possible issues within the school's important operations when everything is overshadowed by whether the staff will have to report children?

The criticism from trade unions has been harsh ever since the day the Tidö Agreement was concluded between the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna. SD has also clearly shown during the year that it is their policy that prevails. It is not the Liberals', the Moderates', or the Christian Democrats'. Sveriges Lärare, Sveriges Skolledare, Vision, and Kommunal have been critical. Despite this, the government is carrying out its plans to introduce reporting laws in Sweden for public employees.

I would therefore like to repeat some of the words that the chairperson of the Swedish Union of Teachers, Johanna Jaara Åstrand, said at the demonstration here in Stockholm on September 10, which many participated in. The organizers were Saco, TCO, Kommunal, Elevernas riksförbund and many more.

She said: "My appeal to Ulf Kristersson and his government is to back down from this proposal. The mere thought of a reporting system is a low watermark. It contradicts fundamental principles that we in Sweden have until now regarded as self-evident basic values for our democracy. - - - Teachers' responsibility is to unequivocally take a stand for the individual student's right to education regardless of whether the student has been denied an application for a residence permit or not."

It is not politics, it is the teaching profession's responsibility and the teachers' professional ethics.

None of what I have said is about party politics.

Nothing of what I have said is even about migration policy.

What I am saying is that children have a right to education according to international conventions. And that is why it is excluded that teachers should be tasked with identifying children who lack residence permits.

I had hoped that Johanna Jaara Åstrands words would have prevailed, that it was not a question of party politics or migration policy but was about children's right to education.

Therefore, I must continue to ask the minister how she intends to maintain the dialogue with the trade unions in such an extremely important issue. It risks overshadowing all other important issues that the Minister for Education and the trade unions need to have a dialogue about during the year.

But I also want the minister to answer many of my party colleagues' questions regarding whether it is the Liberals' view or the Sweden Democrats' view that applies.

(Applause)

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Education, for the answer!

According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Education Act, undocumented children have the right to schooling. Some municipalities also provide preschool. Asylum-seeking children have the right to attend preschool, school, and after-school activities. This means that they can start there and, as asylum seekers, create a social context, gain security, knowledge and friends, and build relationships with the staff.

The staff that children meet in preschool or at school can be that skilled teacher we talk about all the time. But it can also be the student assistant, the caretaker, the cleaner, the childcare worker, the leisure leader, the cook, the meal assistant – all the fantastic municipal occupational groups that are there. They need to be lifted up in the debate.

If the family is denied, the children lose the right to be in preschool in many municipalities, but they are allowed to attend school. If this becomes a reality, the staff will find themselves in a difficult situation when all of this has occurred, if they are now to report these children. In such a situation, the parents of these children usually choose, at least according to my experience, to go underground and become so-called undocumented. Some often speak of the shadow society, which is used as a term to describe a variety of different phenomena and activities outside the formal economy. It concerns everything from organized crime to desperate parents who believe that their children will fare better in Sweden and the Swedish school.

Naturally, a report of concern must always be made to the social services if one believes that a child is being harmed.

Children's right to education is a human right. These children are not covered by compulsory education. But in Sweden, we have compulsory education precisely so that children are not affected by the parents' different actions and circumstances.

Madam Speaker! A reporting obligation could lead to undocumented parents not daring to let their children attend preschool and school. If there is one thing we know is good for children's development and well-being, it is precisely attending school.

School staff could also end up in a situation where they are forced to judge how the different rules should be interpreted and which rules take precedence. Is it the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Education Act, or the duty to report?

The obligation and the potential consequence or potential punishment if one does not report would also have a major negative impact on the work environment for all the professional groups mentioned here today. Being forced to report undocumented people would entail ethical stress and make it more difficult for these professional groups to do their jobs.

We all know that welfare in general, and also the school system, is already characterized today by a major staff shortage. It is difficult to recruit people for the services that are needed. Sometimes it is poor working conditions and stress-related ill health that is the cause.

Does the Minister have any understanding of whether the law would cover all professional groups, including those I have mentioned, or not? Does the Minister share my view that the supply of competence would be further hindered if the law is introduced?

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall be a safe and secure country. It shall also be a country governed by the rule of law. Knowing who is staying in the country is essential for a safe society. That authorities' decisions are followed and respected by public servants is fundamental for a state that rests on the principles of democracy.

The debate surrounding the duty of information has become, if I may put it in the mildest terms, somewhat unbalanced and one-dimensional. Suddenly, there is talk of schools becoming courts. It is even said in some articles that they should be executioners. The small passage in the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the right to education is used as an argument to obstruct other authorities' potential decisions.

What is particularly remarkable about this issue is that it is being fueled by the Education Committee, by Social Democrats in general, and by Social Democratic members of the Education Committee in particular. In the seven interpellations—which, with a single exception, are similar, if not identical—representatives of Sweden's highest legislative body speak of "denunciation." It is a term that we associate almost exclusively with old dictatorship states such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba—or why not the Social Democrats' former dream society, the GDR?

It is distressing that the debate is being lowered to such a low level just because someone wants to reap easy points and whip up the atmosphere completely unnecessarily. Whoever thinks that strategy would lead to a bill not being submitted is mistaken. It will be exactly the opposite.

Reporting or information obligations are in themselves nothing new in Swedish legislation. For example, the Swedish National Agency for Education writes in its collective support regarding, for instance, reports of concern: "All who work within school, police, health, and healthcare are obligated by law to report if there is suspicion that a child up to 18 years of age is being harmed or risks being harmed. For the child affected, it can be life-saving that these persons take their reporting obligation most seriously and fulfill it."

I have never heard any Social Democratic politician go into a frenzy over this, nor have I heard Sveriges Lärare or other trade union associations do so. I have also not heard them say that this is considered to be in conflict with any convention on the rights of the child. The word "informant" has also not been mentioned in this context. Nor has "professional ethics" come up as a concept, even though in these cases it can involve quite extensive interventions from the side of society.

Is it the case that the Social Democrats now want to abolish even the report of concern? If not, what is it then that makes the Social Democrats not care about the living conditions for the children who stay illegally in the country? Do the members not believe that there is an obvious risk that even these children will suffer? Are they not worried that they can get caught up in gang crime or be victims of human trafficking?

When the Social Democrats' party leader stands in the media and clearly and explicitly says that those who do not have the right to stay in the country should leave it, is that a performance for the galleries? Do the Social Democrats not stand up for a safe and secure and also legally secure Sweden? Do the Social Democrats not stand up for a regulated migration policy? I believe that many voters want answers to these questions.

An obligation to provide information concerning students who are staying illegally in the country does not conflict with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the right to education. As long as the student stays in the country, Swedish law and also international conventions apply, but it is not the school's task to take over the role of the Swedish Migration Agency, the police, or the migration court. Authorities shall coordinate and cooperate. Decisions on whether someone is allowed to stay or not have already been made by the correct authority once, and it is up to that authority to decide the question of enforcement.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I want to very firmly emphasize that there is still no legislation regarding the duty of disclosure. There is not even a legislative proposal. The issue must now be carefully investigated and every single detail considered. Once a law is in place – and it will be – we assume that it will be complied with by all parties.

(Applause)

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The panic is total among the red-green parties. Finally, things are starting to happen in the country that will lead to more illegal migrants being deported. It is that which is causing the red-green parties to suddenly make such a fuss.

For years, municipalities have paid out financial assistance to illegal migrants. Municipalities have spent tax money to facilitate in every possible way for illegal migrants to remain in Sweden. During this period, when illegal migrants have in various ways taken a share of the taxpayers' money, it has been deathly silent among the red-green parties. Not a word has been said about this scandal where persons who do not even have permission to be in Sweden are allowed to take a share of public funds. Now, an investigation has been commissioned to see how the entire public sector can pull in the same direction. It shall look at how authorities can support each other to ensure that illegal migrants leave the country.

Just this fact that illegal migrants leave the country is the basis for regulated immigration, because if it is the case that the person who is denied their application for a residence permit is allowed to stay with the authorities' blessing and financial support, we have in practice no regulated immigration. But that is still how the red-green parties want it. They want in practice an unregulated immigration where the person who is denied should work illegally here in Sweden and thereby promote organized crime and at the same time receive grants from the municipality. We cannot have it that way anymore.

People do not pay taxes for the money to go to illegal migrants. Sweden is a welfare state, not a charity state. It is obvious that illegal migrants should leave the country and that the public should promote this return.

While the red-green parties scare people by talking about a reporting society, it states in the committee's directives to the investigation that certain situations may need to be exempted so that the regulation is legally secure and does not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals.

While the red-green parties make comparisons with Stasi and the persecutions of Jews during World War II, it states in the committee directives that the proposals shall be in accordance with the international rules and conventions that Sweden has committed to follow where the child's right to education is established.

The reporting obligation is nothing more than that the entire Agency-Sweden is moving in the same direction when it comes to illegal migrants' stay in the country. They must leave! The illegal migrants must leave! They shall not be allowed to stay in Sweden any longer. It is exactly what the Sweden Democrats have promised the voters and exactly what we shall deliver. More illegal migrants must leave!

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! This was a cannonade of interpellations. One could suspect a coordinated attack.

First, I want to point out that what we are talking about today is an investigation that has just been started, but because of the debate here, I want to ask a question to Minister Lotta Edholm. The Social Democrats' former chairman, and then-Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, said in 2016 that those who have been denied their asylum application should leave the country. He said it clearly and distinctly without a tremor in his voice. If Löfven and the Social Democrats had meant seriously what they said in that statement, would this issue with reporting people who are staying illegally in the country have been a problem at all? And all these Social Democrats who are now turning against the aforementioned investigation, have they changed their minds about what Löfven said so clearly? He said: Those who have been denied should leave the country.

Today, the return for those who have received a rejection is functioning under all criticism. Masses of people live in a shadow society and refuse to return to their home country after they have received a rejection of their application for a residence permit. Why then? Well, partly because the signals from the political side and from the authorities have been unclear or, in the worst case, have contradicted each other. The signal value cannot be overestimated in this context. We cannot and shall not have authorities that undermine other authorities' decisions.

Yesterday, there was a long segment in SVT Nyheter about the social services' difficult financial situation. Shortly after, the segment touched upon the possibilities of social workers being given a reporting obligation for those staying illegally in the country. The interview suggested that this would be terrible. But now, these two phenomena can be linked, which neither the reporter nor the respondent had thought of. This is somewhat typical. Of course, those in acute need of support must receive it, but in the long run, our welfare must be for those who at least stay legally in our country.

I also want to point out that what we are talking about here today is an investigation whose result we do not know. But the investigation is based on exactly what the former Social Democratic Prime Minister said: Those who have been rejected must leave the country.

Then I want to briefly mention something that Sigvardsson said: that the trade unions have protested fiercely against this law. Yes, the trade unions certainly follow the Social Democrats' lead. Sweden Democrats and others are kicked out of the union. These trade unions probably do as you say. If you say "jump," the trade unions probably jump.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Lotta Edholm for the answer to the interpellations. I will begin with a question that I would like to leave here with an answer to tonight. It is quite simple, as it is a yes-or-no question: Is the easiest way to live up to the answer that the school should be a safe place for students and staff not to withdraw these investigation directives?

I will reason a bit about the background to this. We are here to debate the consequences of an ongoing investigation. It seems as if this is not something one should discuss until there is a legislative proposal, but that is not how it works in a democracy with a strong civil society.

This is an issue that has sparked debate in several rounds since the Tidö Agreement was concluded as the basis for the government. It sparked debate both when the first directives arrived and when the other directives arrived a few weeks ago. There are reasons for that. While no legislative proposal exists, and perhaps nothing even concerning the school will come – or we know for certain that it will; slightly different messages are coming from the government base. But even though there isn't even a legislative proposal, this investigation already has consequences for people who live and work in Sweden. Just because of these investigation directives, the school is already perceived as a less safe place for children, students, teachers, and other employees.

The Minister for Education has stated in his written response that the school's main tasks will remain unchanged. But if the Minister for Education's, the Liberals', and the government's position is that the school should be a safe place, why then not do something as simple as stating that in the directives instead of making a change in the directives that makes it perceived as a broader investigation where the school and, for all its parts, other areas within welfare are not to have any special role at all?

Then the counterargument would be, Madam Speaker, that it has now been clarified that this is to be investigated in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But that applies to all investigations. All investigations carried out in Sweden shall be conducted in relation to the international conventions that we have acceded to. It is nothing new.

This is a situation and a social debate that puts our ethical compass to the test. In Örebro, where I come from, we have followed a young girl in high school over the last few years – quite a bit through her high school friends, who, during the time she was hidden, helped her complete her studies. Before she graduated, she turned 18 and was able to apply for a residence permit again. She graduated together with her classmates. Her principal's comment was that it was not a difficult decision to help her with her studies. She has arrived – our mission is to educate, said the principal. Here, the ethical compass held. But it is now being challenged by a government where it is liberals who rule the Ministry of Education.

My question – yes or no – is therefore: Is not the simplest way to live up to the written answer the Minister for Education gives to withdraw this investigation directive?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! This interpellation debate is fundamentally about a potential future proposal regarding information exchange and reporting obligations between the municipalities, the Swedish Migration Agency, and the Police Authority. The purpose is to prevent people from being in the country illegally. The question is what consequences this may eventually have for the school in the future.

We know that the proposal has been criticized by parts of the unions and by political opponents. It is argued that the teacher's mission is solely to teach and nothing else, and that a potential proposal creates an insecure environment in the school. My answer is quite simple. Yes, teachers actually have a greater responsibility than just teaching. Already today, as has been pointed out, we have, according to the Social Services Act, a reporting obligation if there is a suspicion that things are not right at home and that children and students are being harmed.

Madam Speaker! When Swedish authorities have determined that an individual does not have the right to be in the country, it becomes extremely strange if we—for example, I as a teacher—are to take it upon ourselves to interpret laws and even oppose decisions. But that is how the jargon seems to go now, and it is whipped up by certain parties. In a rule of law, one cannot cherry-pick between laws and rules and decide for oneself which ones to follow.

Madam Speaker! We have a growing shadow society. It is perhaps 70,000 or even 100,000 people who are in the country illegally, which could mean nearly 1 percent of the population. They are most often in the hands of criminal networks and even participate in these in some cases.

Our authorities must cooperate and work towards the same goal. We cannot have a policy that means: Don't say no - say maybe, maybe, maybe. But that is roughly how it has been with the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet. Consequently, we have ended up with this society where masses of people live in a limbo. One creates a situation where one says that those who are here illegally should no longer be in society.

At the same time, one promotes that people stay in the country. This gives at least double signals and awakens a hope in very many people. It is a hope that they perhaps should not actually have, but it is time to start a new life, perhaps in another country.

We cannot have an order where some parts of public society do their utmost to combat the shadow society while other parts do their utmost to oppose it. We must pull in the same direction. We must have a coherent migration policy and integration policy. This government intends to do that with the Sverigedemokraterna.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! This is an important and complex issue. I think that one must nevertheless be able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time. I truly welcome the discussion because it is important. We will surely have it many more times in the coming years.

Firstly, the government has a clear electoral mandate to address the problems that exist with an emerging shadow society in Sweden. That migration occurs in a legally secure manner is very important. It is a prerequisite for us to be able to receive many people. It is also a fundamental pillar in a regulated immigration. If one does not have grounds for protection to be here, one must also leave the country.

The shadow society that has emerged in recent years is unfortunately a proof that it has not always functioned particularly well. Many people live outside of society and run a very great risk of being exploited and also ending up in serious crime. I would perhaps have wished that the interpellants also had raised those aspects. That is what lies at the basis of the investigation directives.

Secondly, the investigator has received very clear directives that all proposals shall be in accordance with international rules and conventions. One of the interpellants points out that is the case with all investigations. Yes, that is the case. It is good that it is that way. It is obvious that it should be that way and that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention, and so on apply.

We have even made the Convention on the Rights of the Child into a law in Sweden, in a rather unconventional way, one might say. I think that is good. Of course, the Convention on the Rights of the Child will continue to apply in the future. This means that all the proposals that the investigator puts forward must be compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. With those premises, I find it very difficult to see that no exceptions will be made for, for example, care and school.

It is correct, as several have pointed out in the broader debate, that the exceptions are not predetermined. It is something that the investigator must look at very closely. But what is truly laid down is that the investigation's proposals must be legally secure, that they must not lead to unreasonable effects, and that exceptions must therefore be investigated.

For me, it is obvious that teachers should first and foremost focus on teaching future generations and nothing else. I also do not rule out that there may also be other exceptions in this.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for a lively debate, and thank you for an answer, Minister for Education!

I am not entirely reassured. I would like to have the answer to the question of which line applies. I believe Aylin Nouri formulated it as: Can the Minister for Education guarantee that school staff will not be imposed with a reporting obligation or an obligation to identify their students? I think that question still needs to be answered.

The Sweden Democrats are making a completely different interpretation than the Minister for Education of what is compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is very clear after four Sweden Democrat posts that the Convention on the Rights of the Child can apply at the same time as children should be specified if they come to school if they do not have the right to stay in the country. That is the Sweden Democrats' opinion. I would like to hear if the Minister shares that opinion.

What is clear is that the chairman of Skolledarförbundet, now the chairman of Sveriges Skolledare, does not share that view. He said as follows: We are extremely critical of this proposal. It is a threat to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and everyone's right to healthcare and education. A reporting system inspires no confidence. This part should not be investigated at all.

It is obvious that what I stated regarding school leaders' work environment and professional ethics, and which has been stated by my colleagues, applies. It would be extremely problematic if, in defiance of the unions' and the professions' views, one were to impose this task upon them.

Since we are talking about it anyway, I am thinking of what Anders Alftberg said in his speech about that this idea has been criticized by parts of the unions. I would like Anders Alftberg to bring up a union that has welcomed the idea of a reporting law.

When we are talking about denunciation, I turn to Patrick Reslow, who thinks we are pushing too hard when we use the word denunciation. The question to Reslow becomes: Should school staff, in Patrick Reslow's opinion, report children staying illegally in the country to the police? If he thinks so, then denunciation is an adequate designation for what Patrick Reslow wants to achieve.

Both the Minister for Education and the Sweden Democrats are speaking in the debate about the shadow society. It is the shadow society that should be fought. I completely agree that those who have been rejected should leave the country. But that is not how the shadow society is fought.

The shadow society is reinforced by the fact that the child who has a right to education does not dare to come to school. It pushes the shadow society even further into the shadows if one is threatened with being reported if they come to school.

It is not like that the shadow society should be fought. I also do not like the idea that there are parallel societies here. We are to live here together. But that is not how you fight it.

(Applause)

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! In 2013, a conservative government with School Minister Björklund introduced a right for undocumented persons to attend school. At that time, the arguments were that it was important for everyone to have a right to primary education, that all children have a school obligation, and that there is a non-discrimination act which means that undocumented persons may not be discriminated against. Those arguments existed in 2013.

I agree with Linus Sköld that we should not have a shadow society. At the same time, we have children who need to go to school and who are undocumented. We in the Social Democrats believe that in the meantime, before we have resolved a deportation from the country, the children shall have the right to education. They will be best equipped by receiving that help.

We constantly experience that the government signals different messages regarding the introduction of the reporting law. SD and parts of the government are considering consequences for authorities and municipalities that do not follow the rules.

Johan Pehrson tells TT that he expects an exception for teachers, and he refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It becomes somewhat confusing for us politicians and, above all, for school staff and citizens to understand what the Liberals actually want. Clear, however, is what SD wants. They want school staff to break the Education Act and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

My question to the Minister for Education is simple and clear: Will the Liberals and the Minister for Education ensure that exceptions are made for school staff when it comes to the reporting law?

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! It is a serious debate we have today. Informant laws do not belong in a democratic country. Nevertheless, the Minister for Education argues for informant laws with reference to the shadow society.

Let me once and for all establish what large parts of society consider to be obvious but which for some reason is not understandable for the government: The shadow society does not disappear because people are pushed deeper into the shadows. The shadow society does not disappear because the acutely ill are denied care. The shadow society does not disappear because children are deprived of their internationally regulated right to education.

It is dishonest to use the shadow society as a cover to deprive people of basic human freedoms and rights. And it is deeply inhumane to do so when it concerns children.

An important part of what is Sweden risks being lost, and on top of that, we are breaking our own legislation. We are breaking international law and also the EU's specific advice not to introduce this type of legislation.

Let me also ask the Minister for Education: Is it the government's assessment that we have too many employees within the welfare sector? Does the government think we have too many teachers in Swedish schools? Do we have a problem that too many want to educate themselves to become the teachers of the future? It seems almost as if this is the government's assessment, because the reporting laws will lead to fewer, not more, wanting to work in schools and in the public welfare sector. This is happening at the same time as we have a massive need for more hands within healthcare, school, and elderly care.

If we stick to the Minister for Education's area, I can mention that Skolverket assesses that we currently lack 22,500 certified teachers within primary school alone - a teacher shortage so serious that hundreds of schools risk being closed. Still, the government proceeds with a legislative process that has had teachers across the country say: I would rather resign from my job than report my students in my classroom. I would rather resign than break my professional ethics.

Profession by profession is protesting. Trade unions are protesting. SKR is protesting. Heavy regions and heavy municipalities are protesting - cross-bloc, to be added. When will the Liberals wake up and also protest?

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The most important measure to combat the shadow society would be to labor market test all labor migration. There may also be a need for authorities to have an increased exchange of information so that more people who have been denied can be made to leave the country.

But introducing reporting laws in schools will not lead to more people leaving the country. It will lead to children of undocumented people staying at home and being without schooling. If this is the Sweden Democrats' purpose – to prevent children's right to education – why don't they just push through an abolition of children's right to school in Sweden? It is a specific piece of legislation. One can remove it.

I think you should reflect on that a bit. I believe we find the answer in the Sweden Democrats' view on democracy and in the realization that the Sweden Democrats know exactly what they are doing. In this way, they are taking a clear step towards an authoritarian society.

In the liberal democracy, independent authorities and the rights of minorities are self-evident parts. Majorities shall not override all dissenters, but there must be a popular anchoring for the decisions that are made. Everyone shall have a certain freedom in their professional role and as a fellow human being.

In this issue, it is clear that there is no popular support. For example, all trade unions and thousands of teachers have already protested. But the government proceeds.

In a more authoritarian democracy, the majority's right to override dissent is central. People shall be forced to submit to decisions. Employees shall obey the power and not think for themselves. And not listening to those who are to execute the policy one forces through is thus in accordance with an authoritarian view of democracy.

The Sweden Democrats have a more authoritarian view of democracy. They want to pull Sweden in that direction, and for it to be possible to move from a liberal democracy, which Sweden has been and is today, to a more authoritarian one, the trust between people must be worn down. The boundaries of what one does to one's fellow human being must be shifted. The reporting law is a step towards such a more authoritarian society.

Fredrik Malm, who has spoken for the Liberals on this issue, has said that he feels confident that the government will not introduce reporting laws for teachers because the Convention on the Rights of the Child is mentioned in the directives to the investigation. I have two questions for the Minister for Education: On what basis do the Liberals base this analysis? Has the Convention on the Rights of the Child prevented other countries from introducing similar reporting systems—can the Minister for Education provide some such concrete examples today? And I repeat the most important point: Can Sweden's teachers feel secure that the current Minister for Education, Lotta Edholm, will never contribute to the introduction of reporting laws for Swedish school staff?

(Applause)

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

Rose-Marie Carlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by quoting a member who stood here in the speaker's chair a short while ago, who said: "all these Social Democrats." I am proud and happy to be one of all these Social Democrats. Then he continued by speaking about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That was very good. And it should apply. It is the first time I hear a Sweden Democrat say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child should apply. But if the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to apply, why is the school not exempted in the investigation mandate?

I believe that when one gives an investigation assignment, one has still had a thought about what it should result in. Then one could have included an exception when it concerns the school, as the minister's party leader has previously spoken about.

As I said in a previous speech: Children do not choose their parents. Here we are discussing whether we should punish children for parents who have made a certain decision. Children do not choose their parents, and when there is a fear of being reported, the parents will not leave the children in preschool or primary school.

Persons who are to be deported should not remain in the country, but it is not the school that should identify them, and not the healthcare system either – there will be another debate on this later.

The children will therefore not go to preschool, but they will remain in the country anyway, and they will live in the shadow society. We combat the shadow society in another way, as my colleagues in the committee have spoken about before. We have the police and the Swedish Migration Agency. Let them do their work.

Since then, we have talked about how one reports children who are behaving badly to the social services. It is well-understood that one should do so.

And then one takes an action.

But here it is deportation. People talk about that they should not be allowed to stay. In the response, it is said that it should not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals and that certain situations may need to be exempted. Is it that I risk not being allowed to stay because my parents, guardians, have made a bad decision and that the other authorities have not done their work?

And so it should not conflict with tender values. Is it the same as saying that I should not be able to stay and be able to go safely to school and preschool because my guardians, parents, have done a bad job?

I did not receive an answer to the questions I had earlier. I asked about the public ones. This concerns the public ones. But what about the independent ones? Should they be exempt? Then I have a reflection regarding those who work and about sanction possibilities. Should they need to be punished with fines or in some other way? One must have had the thought when one does not have exemptions for groups or sectors from reporting.

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I asked the Minister for Education a question regarding dialogue and continued dialogue with trade unions within the school sector. The Minister for Education did not answer the question, but I actually believe that the Sverigedemokratierna members answered that question for the Minister for Education, given the hostility towards trade unions. It was said: Yes, but it is not strange. The trade unions are all Social Democrats.

I do not think that Saco and TCO and all the unions that belong to them see themselves as connected to the Social Democratic Party. But it would have been fantastic if so many Swedish trade union members would become members and act in the social democratic spirit, I think as a social democrat.

I can stand here all evening, Madam Speaker, and talk about what union chairs or union members have spoken about in the massive criticism that has been voiced ever since the Tidö Agreement was concluded, but above all since the investigation's proposals were presented. The unions within the entire public sector, but specifically in the school, are genuinely worried. All the unions that operate within the school's sphere are genuinely worried about what this will lead to for those who work there. How many will want to continue working in the culture that is being created, in the lack of trust that this is an initiative toward?

I can speak about how Kommunal is just talking about the lack of trust. Trust will disappear when guardians or students cannot feel safe when they meet childcare workers, caretakers, cleaning staff, or kitchen staff who belong to their union. Or I can speak about exactly what my colleague Linus Sköld spoke about earlier. It is about what the school leaders talk about in both interviews and debate articles. It is primarily a debate article that both of their union chairpersons, Matz Nilsson and Ann-Charlotte Gavelin Rydman, signed on August 31 that I find particularly interesting. I must quote from just that one at least. There they clearly state:

"The proposal itself is simple populist symbol politics of the worst kind. Today, it is extremely few children who are in Sweden illegally. Those who do are allowed to go to school. It should not be harder than that. But nevertheless, the proposal remains at the very top of the political agenda. To the Tidö parties, we therefore want to say the following – let children go to school and instead devote yourselves to reviewing the inequality in the Swedish education system."

So, as I have said, I can continue. For union after union are critical of this proposal. They are right to be, for it is a lack of trust, just as my colleagues here have said.

The Sweden Democrats' members' view of the trade unions in themselves and the reaction to the loud opposition that we in the opposition have says something about the fact that a dialogue with the trade unions from the school minister's side in precisely this issue will probably be somewhat fruitless.

That is why I asked instead: Is it the Liberals' view on this – that because the Convention on the Rights of the Child is included, it will not become a question of reporting for school staff – that applies? Or is it the Sweden Democrats' view on this, where it might even be possible to become punishable to not report children?

(Applause)

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Those who have been rejected must leave the country. We shall have regulated immigration in this country. But I want to remind that today we are discussing with the Minister for Education within her area of responsibility. There are children there, and there are the professionals who work there.

In my previous post, I spoke about the work environment. I must admit that at times I actually worry about the Minister for Education's work environment.

Saco, the central organization for Swedish academics, has sent out a survey to the parties. In it, the school minister's party answers:

Children of undocumented persons have a right to education according to national legislation. Those who need care that cannot wait also have a right to receive it. The professionals who uphold these rights shall prioritize this and should not be included in the exchange of information. The Liberals believe that employees within school, healthcare, and social services should be exempt from the duty to report persons who are in Sweden without permission.

We do not need to repeat what the Sweden Democrats answered in the survey. It has come out very clearly.

The Christian Democrats answer a bit more bluntly. They say as follows:

Based on the agreements that form the basis for the formation of the government, we are prepared to investigate the issue of the reporting obligation.

I understand that the Minister for Education cannot air in the chamber of the Riksdag how these trade-offs and negotiations between the government parties and the Sweden Democrats are taking place. But I would nevertheless like to ask the Minister for Education how she perceives the dilemma between the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Education Act, the reporting obligation, the formation of the government, and the government's power.

My second question concerns the minister's interpellation answer, which we received. She said: The main duties of school staff according to the school regulations will remain unchanged, such as providing instruction towards the goals of education as well as creating a safe environment for all children. In this matter, like other matters, I intend to conduct a dialogue with trade union representatives.

It is good.

Does the Minister mean that it applies to all staff? I have mentioned some staff groups in my speech who are not covered by the school regulations, and I assume that the Minister for Education intends to have a very good dialogue with Kommunalarbetareförbundet.

(Applause)

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

Patrick Reslow (SD)

Madam Speaker! There were very many questions asked to the Minister regarding how this investigation will land and the like. Social Democrats understand just as well as anyone that the Minister cannot answer such questions, because it is part of the investigation and one should not anticipate the investigation. It would be remarkable otherwise. The investigation must be allowed to take its course.

I can also state that this debate shows that the Social Democrats are closing their eyes to reality. One cannot see the forest for the trees. One cannot see that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that authorities should communicate with each other are two separate things. One cannot see that one exists alongside the other. Instead, one tries to say that, for example, we Sverigedemokrater would be against school for children and that we would be against the Convention on the Rights of the Child and thus Swedish law.

Now we have a Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have a Swedish law. Swedish law shall be followed. This investigation shall also look at how it stands. That we would be against children's right to education is not correct. On the other hand, we can discuss where it should be organized and how it should be organized for those students who do not have the right to remain in the country. That is, in fact, where the shoe pinches. Regardless of whether this is another committee's area of responsibility or not, it is connected. We have a shadow society that is growing. We must deal with it. Authorities must communicate, and then school activities must also be involved in that.

Should schools inform other authorities? Yes, schools shall inform other authorities. Who at the school should do that, the investigator shall look into. That can probably wait.

I state once again that denunciation is persecution for political and religious reasons - the type of political examples we have seen in dictatorships. It is remarkable that the Social Democrats continue to use the term "denunciation" regarding this legislation. It is truly remarkable, and I think it is a shame for the Social Democrats that they do so.

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

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have never seen the stay of illegal migrants in Sweden as a problem, otherwise they would have done something about this when they were in power. If the Social Democrats had seen the stay of illegal migrants in Sweden as a problem, they would have submitted proposals to prohibit the municipalities from granting financial assistance to illegal migrants. That has not been done.

Naturally, the Social Democrats criticize an investigation that will ensure more illegal migrants leave Sweden. Here there is a dividing line in politics. Here we disagree.

The Sweden Democrats and the government want a society where those who do not have permission to stay in Sweden shall not have opportunities to stay in Sweden. It shall be difficult for illegal migrants to remain in Sweden.

The Social Democrats, on the other hand, want a society where it should be just as easy for illegal migrants to stay in Sweden as it is today. And today, it is easy for them to stay in Sweden.

When the government tries to make an adjustment and let different authorities share information with each other so that more illegal migrants can be deported, the Social Democrats make grotesque comparisons with dictatorships. It is truly difficult to understand. Why do the Social Democrats want children of illegal migrants to live an underground life in Sweden instead of being in a country where they have permission to stay? Why do the Social Democrats want illegal migrants to live in permanent exclusion in Sweden instead of being in a country where they actually have permission to stay? Why do the Social Democrats want misery and insecurity in Sweden?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have gathered some notes that I intended to present.

Aylin Nouri mentioned the tyranny of small steps. I am very familiar with the tyranny of small steps. It is when our migration policy is so full of loopholes that it becomes completely worthless. The tyranny of small steps is when one authority works against another. It is when we have a piece of legislation that is made so hollow that it becomes completely worthless. The tyranny of small steps is when a Social Democratic Prime Minister says that those who have been rejected should leave the country, but the same party subsequently works in the exact opposite direction in practical action.

I am very familiar with this tyranny of small steps. I have lived here for 65 years, and there is a reason why I became a Sverigedemokrat.

Speaking of the trade unions' political home, we have a teachers' union that has written debate articles together not with the Social Democrats, but with the Left Party members in the Education Committee. I rest my case.

Helmersson Olsson mentions that we are taking a slight turn and that it will become a holistic discussion. Yes, we have presented all the arguments, so we are broadening the discussion. It is a whole, and all parts of the whole are important.

In conclusion, it is mentioned here that there is an enormous popular anchoring. We have experienced protests. The teachers' union has protested, and the media have been quick to report on these protests. The truth, however, is that we have no idea what the popular anchoring actually looks like.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Edholm, for the answers! I agree with Lotta Edholm that this is a complex and important issue, and I believe that the public debate we have now is important for us to engage in. It is important that differences between different political parties are seen, and the strong voice from civil society is important.

The Minister for Education described the clear voter mandate for a law-abiding migration. However, it is somewhat unclear what mandate the governing parties have. All the governing parties retreated in the election. But one has a government basis that is clear about what it wants.

I am not here to debate migration policy, but what I want to know is how the Minister for Education is going to handle the directives in relation to his area of responsibility. If the Minister has difficulty seeing that exceptions should not be made for healthcare and school, I cannot for my life understand why these directives are not being withdrawn. It is not this that will reduce any shadow society. Those of us who raise the problem with the investigation do so not because we want things to go badly for people, but because we want to give children a safe place in school.

I wonder where the Liberals' limit is. When is it crossed?

You are sitting in a government with a clearly anti-liberal mandate from the Tidö Agreement. You are presenting directives for a reporting legislation that is also being worsened. I ask again: Would it not be simplest to withdraw these directives?

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

Anders Alftberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are beginning to approach the end. All arguments have been churned through, and there is perhaps not much left to say. But we can still reflect a little.

Member of the Board Linus Sköld wondered about this regarding the trade unions. I am of the old school and believe that it is the members who constitute the union. I have been active myself, I have been a safety representative and I have met many who are members of the teachers' unions who say that one does not dare to say anything other than what is said publicly, because then one would be kicked out.

That fear exists. I meet very many trade union activists who know that there is a certain culture of everyone having to pull in the same direction. It is a separate debate.

We can also reflect on how a term like "snitching system" has been used. It is vulgar and somewhat degrading and lowers the level, especially when the word "snitching" comes from the Social Democrats. You are the only party in our political history that has created its own surveillance apparatus directly under Olof Palme!

(Applause)

There you ruled directly from the office in Rosenbad and monitored trade union representatives to see if they held views that were too leftist.

It is good to know history sometimes, but you forget all too easily.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for all the contributions in the debate. When one sees the long list of speakers, one understands that this is an issue that engages many.

It is an important and complex issue, just as I have tried to say. I think it is good that the Social Democrats see the problems with the shadow society and that they think it is important that authorities cooperate better so that people who have actually been denied their application to stay in Sweden also leave Sweden.

I have also noted that a number of trade unions have been concerned and distanced themselves from the idea of being forced to report undocumented students, just as has been highlighted in the debate. I clearly see the same problems as, among others, the teachers do, and of course, I often contact the trade unions—as often as they want, in fact!

I have been in the chamber to discuss this issue earlier, as someone might remember. I stand by what I said then: All proposals submitted to the Riksdag must be compatible with international rules and conventions that Sweden has committed to follow. This means, among other things, that a proposal on the obligation to provide information, which this is about, needs to be compatible with, among others, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Convention also has the status of Swedish law, which makes it a bit special. It means that the interpretation is Swedish law in a different way than in many other countries, where one might perhaps be able to slide on what the content actually means. Here, the child's right to education is stated very clearly. The Convention on the Rights of the Child applies, and in the upcoming proposals, one needs to ensure the best interests of the child - just as one must do in all legislative proposals that pass this assembly. I can actually think that it has not been so every time.

That is why we in the Tidö Agreement and in the supplementary directives have pointed out that exceptions shall be made and that there are situations where it would conflict with cherished values to apply such an obligation of disclosure. I think my ministerial colleague Acko Ankarberg Johansson expressed this well in the media the other day, when she spoke about the importance of letting the investigation look at the conflicts of interest that can actually arise: These are difficult legal questions where it is important to constantly include an ethical perspective. She also mentioned the need for a safety valve for specific cases, and that is precisely what the investigation must look at.

Again: For me, it is obvious that teachers should focus on teaching students. I also do not exclude the possibility that it could also be a question of other exceptions. At the same time, it is important not to forget that the investigation concerns a large and very important issue, namely how we, by using the best possible means, shall combat the shadow society that actually is a threat to individuals in Sweden. It is a shadow society where, not least women and children, are exploited in a completely insane way, and I actually think that we all have a responsibility to do something about it.

The objective is to prevent persons from staying and living in Sweden without the right to do so and to resolve all the problems that it actually entails.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I hear the Minister for Education answer that proposals submitted shall be compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that there can be a valve for special cases, but that was not the question. The question the last time I stood in this rostrum was whether the Minister can guarantee that school staff will not be required to identify their students. It is simple - can the Minister guarantee that, yes or no?

School principals, which my interpellation was about, already have a tough work situation. I tried to illustrate it with everything that lies on a school principal's desk. This proposal would make an already tough work situation worse.

Both the Minister for Education and the Sweden Democrats have pointed out a societal problem that we Social Democrats have pointed out for a long time, namely that which in this debate is referred to as the shadow society – people who stay in the country without permission and live hidden. We agree that we need to find measures for it; the investigation that this supplementary directive concerns was actually commissioned by the Social Democratic government. But this proposal reinforces and deepens the shadow society rather than combating it.

The whole idea is Sweden Democrat evil-signaling. It will not solve a single one of the problems that it is claimed it will solve. The reporting law is Sweden Democrat evil-signaling, and the only reasonable thing for the minister would be to refuse.

(Applause)

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! We agree that the shadow society is not good for those who find themselves in it. No human feels good about not being welcome - neither in Sweden nor in the country they have fled from.

Sweden's laws must still apply, and decisions on deportation must of course be executed. But until the deportation is executed, the family's children shall have as secure a life as possible. That was also what the bourgeois government thought in 2013. Children shall be able to remain in preschool and school until the deportation is executed, because that security can be decisive for the children's well-being in the future.

That an undocumented child who is suffering should be able to come to me as a school counselor and talk about their worry that the family will be deported without me having to report the child's family is about safety and trust. I want Sweden to be a country where all children should feel that the school is for them and that they can turn to the staff in the school with confidence.

Will the Minister for Education ensure that undocumented people will be able to continue attending school even with the new law?

(Applause)

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

Aylin Nouri (S)

Madam Speaker! In today's debate, I have asked several questions to the Minister for Education. I have asked if the Minister for Education can guarantee me what her party colleague, the Chairman of the Education Committee, has said, namely that schools shall be exempted from the disclosure act. We have asked many questions, but we have hardly received any answers from the Minister for Education.

Instead, we have received many answers from the Sweden Democrats, and the Sweden Democrats have previously communicated exactly how they view the reporting legislation. Jimmie Åkesson stated early in the process that this will be implemented and that it will cover all public employees. In the debate we had earlier this year, the Sweden Democrats' education policy spokesperson even went so far as to state that a teacher who refuses to report children when and if this is implemented should not be allowed to keep their job.

Exactly in line with the Sweden Democrats' communication, we now see that there are investigation directives in place where no profession is exempt from the reporting obligation. Furthermore, the consequences for those who violate the reporting obligation are to be investigated.

The government base and ministers from the government have asked us Social Democrats to restrain ourselves a bit in the debate. They have asked us not to exaggerate so much and not to make such a big deal out of this issue. I can assure them that we will not restrain ourselves. Just like the Swedish people, just like the trade unions and just like professional group after professional group, we will say: We will not yield. This type of legislation is not worthy of Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Minister! I missed an answer to my question as to whether the Convention on the Rights of the Child has prevented other countries from implementing similar reporting systems in the school world.

I think many are trying to mix up the cards in the debate. For example, they try to mix up reporting a concern for the children's best interests with reporting children of undocumented persons to the police, which are two completely separate things. I actually believe that everyone understands that they are completely separate things, so the purpose can only be to try to mix up the cards.

Another thing people talk about is getting rid of the shadow society. But is it really an effective measure to get rid of the shadow society, this specific thing of introducing reporting laws in schools? The only effect it will have is that children of school age will stay home if they have undocumented parents. No one will leave the country because of it, but education will be lost. Still, it was so important for Sverigedemokraterna to get this in, and the Liberals could not withstand it.

The Minister for Education could have promised today all the worried teachers and all other worried school staff that she does not intend to participate in a government that forces them to identify students. The Minister for Education has not taken that opportunity. Instead, we are to believe that the Liberals in the next step would somehow manage to withstand the pressure from the Sweden Democrats.

It may not get any clearer than this. The Liberals did not become a watchdog against authoritarian ideas. Instead, the Liberals became a doormat and a facilitator for producing proposals that move Sweden in a more authoritarian direction.

Or can Lotta Edholm here and now guarantee that she and the government will not present proposals that would mean Sweden's teachers could be forced to report their students to the police or Migrationsverket?

(Applause)

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

Rose-Marie Carlsson (S)

Madam Speaker! My first speech began with me having a lump in my stomach. It was not as a teacher or educator in school activities, but in my profession as a nursing assistant, which I have worked as for many years.

The lump in my stomach is something I encounter among the educators in preschool and in school. I thought that now we could get clarity from the responsible minister on what will apply. But I can say that the lump in my stomach is even larger after having heard the debate here.

At the same time, I am very surprised that one is so naive as to believe that this will reduce or remove the shadow society, because it will not do that. It will increase it.

I have asked a couple of questions earlier that I have not received answers to. I will just take one of those questions. It concerns the public sector. But what about the independent ones?

Then I give a chance to answer the question that the interpellation is actually about and which is why we are standing here. How does the minister intend to act – that is, do something – within their area so that the country's educators can fulfill their mission to work for children's learning and development if they are at the same time to be obliged to report the children? We have only heard about this investigation, but that is not enough action. How does the minister intend to act within their area so that this does not come to pass?

(Applause)

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

Niklas Sigvardsson (S)

Madam Speaker! This debate has clarified how important the future dialogue will be, which the Minister for Education also spoke about in his latest speech.

I hope so, because I know that the trade unions want to talk about this issue. They want to ensure that their future mandate is the current mandate and that they can focus on education and upbringing in the mandate that is set out in the Education Act and in the curricula.

Just this debate makes me extra engaged. Only a year ago, I was granted leave from my job as a teacher, and colleague after colleague has reached out during this debate about how difficult they see their future and current profession can become. Former principals and principals I have known in other ways have reached out and said that "I cannot demand this of my staff." That is why this issue touches me extra deeply. I am glad that trade unions, all trade unions that organize school staff, have so unanimously stepped up.

I will let the Minister for Education answer my colleagues' questions instead of asking another question. Instead, and this is said with all respect for the border police who do a fantastic job in Sweden day in and day out, I stand under the slogan that Sweden's teachers have: I am a teacher. I am not a border police officer. I do not inform!

(Applause)

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

Caroline Helmersson Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I have spoken about children's right to education. It is a human right. Is it something we know, is it, that it is good for children to go to school?

What I have tried to raise in this debate is the role of Kommunals' professional groups in the overall well-being and development of the children. I have not received an answer to that, so I do not intend to ask that question once again. I believe that we can continue in some other way moving forward.

I do not intend to ask any more questions. I just want to say this: Let the professionals within the school engage in the important work they are trained for, not in reporting undocumented people!

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)

Madam Speaker! This question obviously has very many dimensions that are worth considering.

I hear and see all the teachers, municipalities, and trade unions that reject a proposal on a duty of information for teachers. I also want to be clear that such a proposal actually does not exist. I am very pleased that we have a very skilled investigator, who is allowed to take the time to design the specific exceptions that are required.

When one reads the supplementary directives, it is clear that the upcoming regulations shall be legally secure and not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals. It is, of course, an immensely important side effect that the investigator really needs to take care of carefully.

As I have pointed out quite a few times now in this debate, the proposals being put forward shall be in accordance with international rules and conventions that Sweden has committed to follow. This includes, among other things, the European Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where children's right to education is established.

How these exceptions will look in purely legal terms is actually up to the investigator, and only once the proposal has been submitted to the government can we discuss the exact design. But I can, as I said, state that all proposals that the investigator puts forward must be compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the fact that Sweden has made the Convention on the Rights of the Child into law.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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