Response to interpellations 2024/25:187 and 190 on the duty of disclosure
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers that increased information exchange between authorities is necessary to combat the shadow society and maintain a regulated immigration 1 2 3 4. M argues that the investigation should ensure legal certainty and follow international conventions 1. C argues that an information obligation would have devastating consequences for trust in society and make open spaces such as libraries unsafe 5 6. C emphasizes the importance of trust in authorities. SD considers that authorities must cooperate so that foreigners without residence permits can be deported 7 8. SD argues that a lack of cooperation creates insecurity 8.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I have been asked the following:
Will school and healthcare personnel be exempted from the obligation to provide information?
Do I intend to take measures within my area of responsibility to reduce the anxiety that is now spreading across the country among, among others, school and healthcare staff?
Is it my and the government's intention that the duty of disclosure shall also apply to employees of independent actors?
Do I intend to take measures within my area of responsibility so that parents dare to seek emergency care for their children without fear of reporting?
Catarina Deremar has asked Parisa Liljestrand whether librarians will be exempted from the obligation to provide information.
The latter interpellation has been submitted to me for answering, and I have chosen to answer both interpellations 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 stay here illegally. The government therefore considers it urgent that an expanded exchange of information is put in place.
The ongoing investigation on strengthened return activities (Ju 2022:12) has, among other things, the task of submitting proposals for a regulation that entails an increased exchange of information between authorities in order to, among other things, strengthen the work with the enforcement of removal decisions. The supplementary directives state, among other things, that certain situations, for example within healthcare, may need to be exempted from the obligation to provide information so that the regulation shall be legally secure and not lead to unreasonable effects for individuals. The investigator's task therefore includes, without excluding any activities in advance, assessing how the regulation should be designed and which situations should be exempted. 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 final report will be presented shortly, that is, by November 29, 2024, at the latest. I do not want to anticipate the result but look forward to receiving the proposals and conclusions next week.
When Jonny Cato (C), who submitted interpellation 2024/25:187, reported that he was prevented from attending the meeting, the second deputy speaker granted that Catarina Deremar (C) could receive both interpellation answers.
Catarina Deremar (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! My colleague Jonny has fallen ill, so I will try to move between the questions in both interpellations, but I will primarily stick to what I have submitted my own interpellation about.
The government has, as stated, appointed an inquiry to examine whether a reporting law should be introduced and which professions should then be covered. No professions are excluded in advance. The inquiry shall also examine whether criminal liability should be introduced for those who do not report an undocumented person.
The investigation into the reporting law shows that the government has no red lines whatsoever. The enormous consequences that the law would have for trust in our society do not seem to play any role. Professional group after professional group has pointed out that a reporting law would have devastating consequences for their ability to build trust between themselves and the patients or the students. They also argue that the consequences that the law would have for our entire society at all do not stand in proportion to what one has to gain from it.
There are also a number of other measures that would cause less damage and be more effective. Librarians must be allowed to be librarians, not border guards.
Madam Speaker! The shadow society in Sweden is a major problem, and the Center Party stands behind many different proposals to ensure that persons who do not have the right to stay in Sweden return to their home country. But an informant law will not solve the problem. Furthermore, it will become practically impossible for many to find out if a person is undocumented, provided that the person does not disclose it themselves. The proposal also risks eroding trust and changing our entire society.
Librarians shall help children and adults find new worlds in books through language, develop their knowledge of source criticism, and offer a space to gather for educational conversations between fellow human beings. Librarians shall not act as border guards. According to trade union organizations, the reporting law jeopardizes the library as an open and democratic place.
In view of this, I would like to ask Minister Johan Forssell:
What information can the Minister provide to doctors, nurses, nursing assistants, and librarians? Can they be exempted from the duty of confidentiality?
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! Not everyone who applies for a residence permit in Sweden will receive one. It is precisely this that the Center Party's interpellations disregard.
There are quite a few who come to Sweden and, for various reasons, want to stay here. But they are denied residence permits, and then they have to return home. That is how a regulated immigration works.
To ensure that these foreigners return to their home countries, our authorities must cooperate and share information. It is not snitching, but it is an exchange of information between different authorities. That is what all of this is about. Authorities shall cooperate to ensure that persons who lack residence permits to stay in Sweden return to their home countries.
The alternative is what we have today, where authorities work against each other by not sharing information. Some authorities enable illegal migrants to stay in Sweden, while other authorities try to deport them. Tax money is wasted while authorities counteract each other.
Centerpartiet must agree that the goal is to deport as many illegal migrants as possible. The idea is not that those who do not have permission to stay in Sweden should continue to stay here.
How do we ensure that as many illegal migrants as possible are deported? Well, by having our authorities share the information they have, so that the Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Migration Agency can carry out their mission and deport those who do not have the right to stay in the country. I don't quite understand which part of this is controversial.
The Sweden Democrats want to counteract, in every possible way, the support that illegal migrants have in this country.
It is quite simple: As long as illegal migrants have opportunities and incentives to stay in Sweden, they will stay despite lacking permission. The least we can do is let the authorities share information with each other, so that these illegal migrants can be deported as soon as possible.
To this, the Center Party says no. The Center Party wants our authorities to work against each other so that illegal migrants can stay longer.
What do we get then? We get labor for the illegal economy. We get lower confidence in Sweden's migration policy. We get a group of people who can very easily be recruited by criminals and extremists. Why does the Center Party want this? Why does one not want to deport them so effectively and as quickly as possible?
Since then, these illegal migrants are in no way victims, but they are people who have applied for residence permits, but there has been no basis for them to stay in Sweden. After that, they have had the opportunity to appeal the Swedish Migration Agency's decision and have their case reviewed in another instance.
This is about a process where foreigners have had their case examined in a very thorough manner, and in that, authorities have concluded that there is no basis for them to stay in Sweden. If they do not respect such a decision, it is not "snitching" if authorities share information with each other so that the decision can be enforced so that these illegal migrants can be sent home.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the interpellations, which touch upon a very important issue! The background to this is that we unfortunately have extensive problems in Sweden with a very large shadow society.
No one knows how many there are. According to some estimates, it is 50,000 people, according to others 100,000. There are also reports suggesting that there could be even more than 100,000 people who have come to Sweden and who do not have grounds for asylum, who have deportation decisions and who are to leave the country. Or they may not have even applied for asylum and not even identified themselves, but are staying illegally here in the country.
This is, of course, a very big problem in several ways. It undermines trust in the entire regulated migration policy. Those who have grounds for asylum shall be granted residence permits and stay, but those who do not must return home. If one does not follow this important principle, we will never be able to protect the right of asylum we have today. Everything is based on the fact that this works.
It is also so, Madam Speaker, that very many in this group find themselves in a very large state of exclusion and in great vulnerability. Many suffer. Not least many children and women suffer. Furthermore, we know - we have received several examples of it - that this unfortunately also affects Sweden's security. We must be able to know who is in our country. In recent years, we have received several examples of how persons in this group have committed very serious crimes. We also know that many people in the shadow society are subjected to crimes.
The previous government chose not to address these problems. They chose to see the problems grow year after year. This government has a completely different attitude. We intend to fight the shadow society. We intend to uphold this crucial principle in our migration policy, and increased information exchange between different agencies is then an important piece of the puzzle. It is naturally not the only piece of the puzzle, but an important piece of the puzzle.
Then I think, Madam Speaker, that many organizations and individuals bear a responsibility for how this debate has been conducted. We have had a debate of fear with false expressions, for example, "reporting laws" and the like, despite the fact that we have no finished proposal and despite the fact that the investigator has a mandate to consider precisely "tender values." The discussion here has, for example, been about teachers and doctors, despite the fact that in the investigation directives it is exemplified with just "tender values" and despite the fact that it appears very clearly that an obligation to provide information shall follow international conventions, for example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Unfortunately, the Centre Party contributes to this, as we just heard, by using exactly terms like "indicative law". One then asks what the government will do to reduce the anxiety that exists. One answer could be that the Centre Party itself considers what can be done to not fuel the anxiety that exists. One could, for example, stop using completely incorrect terms and stick to what actually stands in the investigation's directive.
It would also be very helpful if the Center Party read the directives that form the basis for the investigation. I have pointed out here that there is a situation with sensitive values. One must also take a position on which exceptions could be made so that this becomes effective. That is what, Madam Speaker, we want. We want to see an effective exchange of information.
But it is indisputable in the sense that we cannot have a situation where the police and the Swedish Migration Agency cannot carry out deportations of persons who do not have the right to be in Sweden because they lack information - when other authorities, for example the Swedish Tax Agency, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency or the Public Employment Service, hold just that information. Does the Center Party not even see that this is a problem? Does the Center Party not see that we must get an operation to function that perhaps affects 100,000 people in Sweden who do not have a legal right to be here? Does the Center Party not see these problems?
Catarina Deremar (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister! Trust and confidence are important parts of our society. The confidence must be strong. How then does a duty of information counteract the confidence? It is clear that this will have an impact.
There is no doubt that this proposal has sparked debate and protests even before it has been implemented. What is it then that has caused so many to react so strongly that there have even been demonstrations where dissatisfaction has been shown before the law is in place?
The ranks are long of worried employees within our public sector. They are doctors, teachers, student unions, and many organizations from civil society. From a political standpoint in municipalities and regions, it has been stated that their employees should not be covered by this or risk any consequences. That is how it has been, regardless of the color of the leadership in municipalities and regions.
From the Minister's answer, we could hear that it is very important for the government to combat the shadow society and have control over who stays in Sweden. Combating the shadow society – this I already mentioned in my first contribution – is also important for the Center Party. We have stood behind many of the proposals that have been submitted. But one also wishes that the government sometimes listens to what the citizens consider important. If one does not want to listen to the opposition in this chamber, one can listen to those who work in hospitals, in schools, and in our libraries.
Madam Speaker! Libraries are an important place and a part of our open public space. Libraries are a very democratic place. Everyone is welcome there. In the Library Act 2 §, it states:
Libraries in the public library system shall work for the development of the democratic society by contributing to knowledge dissemination and free formation of opinion.
Libraries in the public library system shall promote the status of literature and the interest in education, enlightenment, training and research, as well as cultural activities in general. Library services shall be available to everyone.
How does the government imagine that a librarian will be able to fulfill the library act and meet what the government desires regarding the duty of information? I want to ask the Minister: Will one now receive knowledge in the librarian education about the new task regarding the duty of information that one has when entering professional life?
Madam Speaker! The Minister himself mentioned that people are suffering. They are suffering, among other things, because they might not dare to seek care. A library can be a place where one can find a respite in their difficult situation.
Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)
Madam Speaker! The people who work within schools and healthcare already have a duty today to share information to facilitate the missions of other authorities. Both within healthcare and within schools, one is legally obligated to make a report of concern to the social services if one suspects that a child is being harmed. This is done so that the social services can fulfill their mission.
In the same way, the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Police Authority have a mandate to deport foreigners who do not have permission to stay in the country. Naturally, these agencies must receive information in order to be able to fulfill their mandate.
Information exchange between authorities so that authorities can carry out their mandates is not something controversial. What is, however, controversial is that authorities work against each other and thereby enable illegal migrants to continue staying in Sweden.
This is exactly what has been happening for several years. It has resulted in society becoming less safe and that many of these illegal migrants have suffered harm. There are no legal incomes for illegal migrants in Sweden, which means that whether they want to or not, they promote the criminal sphere.
It is the Centre Party and the opposition who are responsible for the answer. Why does one want these illegal migrants' stay in Sweden to continue? Why does one not want authorities to cooperate and share information so that as many illegal migrants as possible can be deported?
Who does the Center Party actually represent – the Swedish people or the illegal migrants?
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! How does our proposal affect trust, the interpellor wonders.
Let us talk about trust. The question is perhaps rather how 100,000 people in a shadow society affect the trust in our society. How do 100,000 people in the shadow society affect the trust in regulated immigration? We do not know who these 100,000 people are. How does it affect it? Some of them do not even identify themselves. Many of them have received deportation orders but refuse to go home, even though they can do so. They have sought asylum but been denied asylum in one of the world's most legally secure systems for migration policy. How does it affect the trust in our society?
Let us talk about the concern, which the interpellator also mentions. I know that there is a concern. It is also why we on the government's side are very keen to investigate this very thoroughly and look at how an expanded information cooperation between authorities occurs with full consideration of both international conventions and, for example, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Perhaps the Center Party should reflect on its own responsibility in this debate. First, the Center Party uses terms that do not belong here - snitching - and then you ask me what I can do to reduce the anxiety. A first step would possibly be for the Center Party itself to draw conclusions regarding what can be done to reduce the anxiety, for example by using correct terms and reading the directives that do exist and which are completely transparent, where we point out precisely that the investigator should look at what is effective and that it should occur with consideration of international conventions.
Madam Speaker! I do not intend to stand here in the chamber of the Riksdag today and speculate on different outcomes of what will be presented. Soon we will receive the investigation, and then we will be able to discuss it. It would not be responsible of me today to speculate on one thing or the other. It is precisely so that we can know how this relates to international conventions, but also where the possibilities for expanded information work exist, that we have chosen to appoint this investigation.
One must also consider what the alternative would be to doing this. If we can agree that we do not want there to be 100,000 people or even more in this shadow society, what then is the alternative to authorities starting to talk to one another?
We know that these issues have historically been mishandled, not least by the red-green government that the Centerpartiet chose to support. We remember, for example, the upper secondary school law, which, according to the Council on Legislation, reached the limit of what is acceptable in terms of how legislation can be designed. We remember all the protests and see the result of it even today: how very many people who did not have grounds for asylum have ended up in very difficult situations because the previous government, which the Centerpartiet supported, chose to engage in experiments in migration legislation.
Unfortunately, we still see the same type of desire in the red-green government option. There is still talk of various amnesties for this group who have, in fact, been denied their applications, who do not have grounds for protection, who are not refugees but who do not want to go home.
The question I believe many are asking is therefore: What is the red-green alternative to authorities starting to speak with each other? Can the Center Party guarantee that there will not be new amnesties or upper secondary school laws like those we have seen several of in recent years, which have caused such great problems for Sweden but also for many individual people?
Catarina Deremar (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the question – or for him speaking about another subject, namely the Upper Secondary School Act.
It is obvious, Madam Speaker, that I and the Center Party do not share the government's view of what it would mean for our society if a law on the duty of information for these professional groups were introduced. For the Center Party, it is important that we have a society where we as individuals have trust in our authorities and our public society. There is a reason why we have a library in every municipality where one should be able to go freely and voluntarily to access books, magazines, and films, to give some examples. The libraries shall promote the status of literature and the interest in education, enlightenment, training, and research, as well as cultural activities in general. Library activities shall be available to everyone.
Madam Speaker! Introducing an obligation to provide information would turn our open, democratic library into an insecure place where some would be treated with suspicion simply because they look a certain way. It is deeply regrettable, and I hope that the government has the courage to do over and do right when one has stepped so wrong. It is about what kind of society we shall have and what kind of society we want. Shall we specify, or shall we have trust?
I prefer the latter, and I hope that the government does as well.
Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)
Madam Speaker! The Government is determined to break the development towards a growing shadow society, where so many people suffer and live in vulnerability and where we also know that there are security problems, where several persons have committed very serious crimes and where we also know that many who live in the shadow society have been subjected to crimes.
We are determined to uphold the principle of regulated immigration. Those who have grounds for asylum shall receive asylum, but those who do not must return home. If one does not uphold that principle, Madam Speaker, one has no regulated immigration. Then we will quickly see a return to the situation in 2015 when 163,000 people applied for asylum in a single year. The entire reception system essentially crashed. We are still struggling with very large integration problems that we have not managed, and now we must pivot and make very large efforts to try to manage them, which is not easy.
Centerpartiet has a responsibility for the situation that has arisen. The red-green response was the upper secondary school law, and I still hear the same talk about various amnesties. The red-green response to this, therefore, does not seem to be to tackle the problems, but rather new amnesties and new experiments in the migration legislation. This actually belongs to this question, but I received no answer to my question about whether that is what we can expect.
We have been very clear: We want to combat the shadow society by, for example, sharing information between authorities. We naturally see that there are sensitive values, for example within healthcare, which we have exemplified with. We see that there is international legislation that we must comply with. It is precisely for that reason we have asked an investigator to look very closely at this. I do not intend to anticipate that result. I do not intend to stand here and speculate about it. Soon we will receive the investigation, and then we will analyze it carefully.
Madam Speaker! For us, it is very clear that this shadow society with perhaps 100,000 people brings nothing good. Therefore, we must combat it.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.