Expanded register checks in the school system
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns expanded register checks in the school system to guarantee safety 1. S welcomes the tightenings but argues that they are insufficient as the system has loopholes and lacks a reporting obligation for school principals 2. S wants a better connection between teacher certification and suitability assessment 2 3 and argues that a total assessment must be made during recruitment 4. M is pleased with the consensus regarding the government's work 5 and wants to expand the screening to more crimes, include the suspicion register, shorten the time for register extracts, and introduce powerful sanctions for school principals 6. SD wants ongoing, recurring register checks of all staff 7. KD considers the proposed changes to be important first steps to strengthen the protection 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.
Speakers (13)
Joar Forssell (L)
Madam Speaker! This report concerns expanded possibilities for register extracts. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report, which is very important.
Children, and for that matter adult students, who attend school do not only have a right to knowledge, good teaching, and quality in school in various ways. They also have a right to safety. The school shall be a temple for knowledge, a temple for education, and a temple for safety where children want to go to learn, where teachers and adults want to go to participate in the activities in various ways, and where parents want to send their children in safe assurance that they take knowledge with them and do not encounter adults who are unsuitable to work in the school.
Just because someone is a good teacher, for example, it is not necessarily certain that they are suitable to work in school or to work with children. That is why the government, with this bill and what the report concerns, wants to expand which registers it checks. It should not only be about the criminal record register, but when it concerns certain positions, it can also be about the suspicion register.
This also means that the extracts must not be as old as they have been allowed to be previously. It will be a halving from one year to half a year. If one has committed a crime or been suspected of a crime half a year ago, it must naturally be captured. It is very important. It is reasonable to shorten the time for how old an extract may be.
We also ensure that this covers adult education. We know today that there may be individuals who are also unsuitable to work in the activities that apply to the activities to reach people they should not reach. It could be about recruitment, and it could be about something else.
We in the Liberals therefore move for approval of the proposal in the committee's report.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! School should be a safe place. That means, of course, that it should be safe between students, but it also places special requirements on the fact that students, guardians, and society can trust that those who work in the school are suitable for it.
One piece of the puzzle in this is the requirement that the person being employed must present an extract from their criminal record. We Social Democrats therefore welcome the tightenings that the government is now making: that the extract shall not be older than six months, that an extract must be presented if one is rehired by the same employer more than six months later, that the record extract shall also include information in the suspicion register, and that record extracts shall also be presented in connection with employment within komvux. The government has also announced that the catalog of crimes covered by this provision shall be expanded, and which crimes shall be included shall be reviewed continuously to keep pace with the times.
Madam Speaker! All of that is good, but it is obviously insufficient. We know, in fact, that the problems in practice are not just about what is checked at the time of employment, but about what happens afterwards – when the system fails to capture unsuitable behaviors, serious incidents, or individuals who repeatedly move between operations.
In a debate we had a couple of months ago on the occasion of a National Audit Office report on the teacher certification system, we debated these issues. I then raised several examples of what one must say no longer appear to be isolated exceptions. We have seen how individuals have been able to move between schools after being bought out or dismissed. We have seen cases where teachers were later convicted of very serious crimes, and we have seen how obviously unsuitable persons have been able to continue working in schools for a long time.
Madam Speaker! It is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the loopholes in the system are still too large. The system exists to ensure a safe environment in the school and, in addition to the load register control, has an additional component in the form of the certification system. One of the points of the certification is that it should be a certificate showing that a teacher is qualified. It should also be a guarantee of skilled and suitable teachers by the fact that the teacher can be subject to disciplinary measures in case of incompetence or unsuitability.
When the National Audit Office reviewed this, they pointed out several gaps in this system. One of the most fundamental is that the principals do not have an obligation to report when a teacher's or preschool teacher's employment is terminated due to serious misconduct or serious unsuitability.
It means that important information remains with an employer instead of being passed on to the supervisory authority and those who can actually take disciplinary action. This is not a marginal technicality. It is a critical weakness in a system that is built to protect children.
Madam Speaker! An obligation must be introduced for heads of schools to report serious cases of unsuitability to the School Inspectorate. It must not be optional, and it must not depend on local routines. It must be part of the common safety net for the students.
We also need to be honest that today's system for teacher certification has an all-too-weak connection to the suitability assessment, i.e., the criminal record check. Today, no such check occurs when Skolverket issues certification. The certification system is, as I said, simultaneously intended to be a quality guarantee.
It creates a kind of contradiction in this that we cannot ignore. It means that a person can receive a license without the suitability having been checked against the criminal record. This is not reasonable if we are serious about the license being intended as a quality stamp and a proof of a teacher's suitability and professional competence.
We must also see the whole picture. It is not enough to tighten the checks during recruitment if the information chain between employers, courts, and supervisory authorities still has gaps. This was also pointed out by the Swedish National Audit Office.
Madam Speaker! This is about the simple principle that we in the adult world must do what we can to ensure that those who work in schools are suitable to do so. When there are reasons to question people's suitability, it must not be able to pass unnoticed by principals or disappear into gaps in the system. Children and students have a right to a school where the adult world takes responsibility all the way, not just when someone first steps across the threshold into the school system.
What is it then that I am saying, Madam Speaker? Yes, that we want to see three further adjustments. A clear reporting obligation for principals was needed. A better connection between the teacher's license and the suitability assessment was needed, and a stronger overall flow of information between the school's actors and the state was needed.
The government has now submitted propositions in our term. Today we decided on one of them, which concerns the teacher certification system. Now we are debating the other, which concerns the criminal record extracts. Nevertheless, the government has failed to close the gaps in this system that the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed out.
They do, admittedly, certain well-intentioned but small adjustments. I think that is too weak.
With this, I would like to thank you for the floor and move for approval of the reservation.
Anders Alftberg (SD)
Madam Speaker! When the Social Democrats now stand here and accuse the government and us in the Sweden Democrats of not doing enough or going far enough, one almost has to pinch oneself. During eight years in government, the Social Democrats did not put forward a single one of the proposals that they now demand of us. Nothing about suspicion registers, no short periods of validity, no expanded list of crimes, and absolutely no ongoing checks.
It is easy to be radical when one sits in opposition. But it is considerably harder when one oneself has the power to deliver. In that regard, the Social Democrats have failed the children over the past eight years, Madam Speaker.
The difference is that we are now doing the work that the Social Democrats never took on. We are tightening the controls here and now. We have also appointed a government inquiry to specifically look at ongoing controls, but it must be done in a legally secure and functional manner.
That is how we create legislation that is robust. It is all too easy to shout loudly when one leaves responsibility and government power. It does not work that way.
Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats had eight years. They did nothing. We have had this for two years, and we are doing what they have not dared to do.
The question is obvious: Why did nothing happen in this matter during the eight years when the Social Democrats were in power?
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Anders Alftberg should accept that an election is approaching soon. That means that he and his party have decided in Sweden over the last four years. It is starting to be time to stop shifting the blame.
It is Anders Alftberg who is responsible for which legislative changes we produce and which end up on the chamber's table. It is Anders Alftberg's party that is responsible for that.
They are trying to point at the Social Democrats and claim that we have done nothing when it is, in fact, Anders Alftberg who is letting this continue. The Swedish National Audit Office's audit that I referred to in my speech was initiated due to a number of flagrant irregularities that were revealed in the media.
It was Islamist extremism, and it was rapists who continued to work in the Swedish school system. They were hired on a job-by-job basis. Anders Alftberg stands here and attacks me because he defends an order where this can continue. I think it is cheeky.
It is time for Anders Alftberg to step up on the government side. It is Anders Alftberg and his party who have decided for four years. It is time to take responsibility.
Anders Alftberg (SD)
Madam Speaker! The displayed agitation was just as convincing as when Magdalena Andersson had it in the chamber. I do not dwell on that much.
The Social Democrats' newly found decisiveness is nonetheless fascinating. After eight years of total passivity in a government position, they have now, by some chance, discovered the need to sharpen both the control and the ongoing follow-up. It is almost touching to see this sudden determination. It perhaps also seems a bit staged now ahead of the election.
Madam Speaker! Let us be realistic. Even if the Social Democrats would like to introduce ongoing controls, we all know what this will end with when governments are to be formed with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. They are not with them. It will be roughly like trying to introduce rules of order in a classroom where half the class refuses to acknowledge that rules are even needed. It is not sufficient.
Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have consistently opposed this type of tightening with expanded lists of crimes and so on. The Social Democrats are now pretending to be tougher than they have ever been in a government position. They and we know that their proposals will be stopped faster than one can say cooperation basis.
How are the Social Democrats going to make it work, if the misfortune arrives and they form a government with the Green Party and the Left Party, and get through the policy they are presenting here today with such great weight?
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I note that the member must have been sleeping both during the opening of this debate and during the previous debate which I referred to several times here in the chamber. I have not pursued the line of ongoing controls as the only way to sharpen the control.
If Anders Alftberg had instead listened to what I say, he would have understood that what I think is most important is that employers become obliged to report to the inspection if they dismiss a teacher due to obviously unsuitable behavior or professional incompetence, so that the question of the license can be examined.
It is the second component in protecting children from being taught by unsuitable adults. It is the teacher certification system and the criminal record extracts that are the two components we have to work with.
The government has now presented changes in both of these systems without closing the gaps that the National Audit Office has pointed out during the government's mandate period and not during the Social Democratic mandate period.
I note that Anders Alftberg and his party want to protect an order where we can continue to have Islamists and rapists who move from school to school and receive new employments. They refrain from taking measures against this.
Josefin Malmqvist (M)
Madam Speaker! It is very pleasing that we now seem to have support here in the chamber for the government's and the bourgeois parties' eager work to sharpen the work with register checks in the Swedish school.
I am pleased that we now have a consensus with all the parties that stand behind this important proposition. It absolutely should have arrived many years ago. Now a bourgeois government is finally getting it in place.
I am still a bit fascinated. The Social Democrats' opposition to this work has been quite noticeable since before. During their eight years in government, they did nothing to sharpen the work.
One was opposed to adding more crime categories to mandatory register extracts. It is those crimes that we are to add with the bill that we are debating today.
The current Social Democratic Minister for Education, Anna Ekström, said in DN regarding the question of whether more crime classifications should be added to the mandatory register checks: It is good that there are checks. But it does not replace the fact that one should call references.
One was not willing to tighten this then. I am therefore curious to hear from Linus Sköld when the Social Democrats changed their view and actually took a stand for stricter register checks in schools.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Josefin Malmqvist, for the question!
Like Josefin Malmqvist, I am glad that we can have a consensus that the changes the government is now making are good. I regret that the government is not taking measures in accordance with what the National Audit Office has proposed to close the gaps that exist in the system. That is what I am trying to point out here time and again. One tries to claim that nothing happened during our eight years in power.
When it primarily concerns Anna Ekström's response in DN, which Josefin Malmqvist referred to, there is a more or less same description in the bill we are debating today. The criminal record extract is only a small piece of a recruitment process.
One is expected to conduct interviews, take references, and meet the person to be hired and make a total assessment of suitability. It is actually the case that not everything that is legal is suitable, and in particular not if one is to work with children.
It was a very adequate answer by Anna Ekström. I believe Josefin Malmqvist also thinks so, as she stands behind the bill that refers to the same principle. It is important that one conducts the entire recruitment process. One cannot simply rely on what is stated in the extract from the criminal record. That is obvious.
The claims that nothing happened with this during our years in power are not true.
Josefin Malmqvist (M)
Madam Speaker! As Linus Sköld very well knows, we stand here debating a bill that contains new crimes, which we are thus now adding to the mandatory crime register – that which Anna Ekström, in her response to a question in DN, said she did not want to do.
It is not true, however, that the Social Democrats did nothing in this area during their eight years in power. They actually did something, namely that they simply chose to make it easier for gang leaders to work in the Swedish school system.
The Social Democrats chose the gang leaders' privacy over the children's safety when, in 2021, they chose to remove the requirement to archive the register extracts in the school. By removing this requirement, a side was chosen. They chose to take the side of the gang leaders. The gang leaders' privacy was more important than the children.
It is shameful, and I am happy and proud that we can now settle that policy.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Josefin Malmqvist is mixing things up and giving [information] here. The fact is that the order she is now criticizing us for having introduced – that is, that one must show the extract from the load register instead of submitting it – allows the government to remain in this bill.
It states explicitly that it is a balance between personal privacy and the interest in finding out what is in the criminal record. Josefin Malmqvist's friends in the government are now making exactly the same balance, so the legislative changes we are now going to adopt will not change the order that she criticizes us for having introduced. It was actually an unexpected attack! I must compose myself a bit now.
We thus have an arrangement that has led to people who have been convicted of serious crime being able to obtain their teaching licenses in direct connection to that. They have been able to go from employer to employer and receive continued employment. The National Audit Office has pointed out a number of measures that would have been needed to close the gaps that exist in the system so that this type of case does not arise.
The government is taking measures to change all components in the system, that is to say the load register extracts and the identification system, without closing the gaps that the National Audit Office has pointed out. That is what I find remarkable, and I think it is telling that both the Moderates and the Sweden Democrats say: It is the Social Democrats' fault! Instead, you should tell those listening to the debate why you are not doing anything about this situation.
Anders Alftberg (SD)
Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Education Committee's report Extended register checks in the school system.
It is a report concerning one of the most fundamental duties we as legislators have: to protect children and young people from violence, abuse, and criminal influence.
The Sweden Democrats have for a long time pushed for stricter controls, stricter requirements, and stricter measures to ensure that no unsuitable person is allowed to work in Swedish schools. We therefore welcome that the government is now moving forward with most of our proposals, which we have raised for many years.
Madam Speaker! We are, however, clear: This is not enough. It is a step, but it is not the final step. The report explicitly states that information in the suspicion register is particularly sensitive regarding privacy. That is correct. But it also says as follows: ”The protection of children and pupils has, according to the government, such weight that the restriction of personal privacy that a check in the suspicion register entails can be accepted.”
This is an important formulation. It shows that even the government now acknowledges something that the Sweden Democrats have said for a long time: the children's safety must weigh more heavily than the adults' integrity. It is a question of values and a question of prioritization. It is also a question where others in this chamber have been unclear for far too long.
Madam Speaker! The Government proposes that the register control shall include the suspicion register. That is very good. It is necessary, and it is long-awaited from our side. But let us be honest: What does it help if the control is only carried out the day a person is employed? A teacher, a student assistant, an intern or a substitute can commit a crime the day after they have been employed. They can be prosecuted for serious crimes such as violent crimes, sexual crimes and drug crimes without the employer ever finding out. It is unreasonable, it is unsafe and it is not responsible.
That is why the Sweden Democrats believe that Sweden must proceed with ongoing, recurring register checks of all personnel in the school system.
Madam Speaker! We sometimes hear the argument that ongoing controls are legally complicated. That is true. There are privacy aspects, GDPR issues, confidentiality rules, and labor law consequences that must be managed. But let us be clear again: It is not the law fundamentally that hinders us, but it is the will.
When Sweden wants something, we resolve the legalities. We have done it in the terror legislation, we have done it in the gang crime legislation, we have done it in the security protection legislation, and we can do it here as well.
That is why the Sweden Democrats welcome that the issue is now being investigated further. The assignment shall be reported by March 11, 2027, at the latest. We do, however, want to emphasize one thing. The investigation must have a clear goal: to enable ongoing controls – not to find reasons to avoid them.
Madam Speaker! The school is one of the most vulnerable environments in society. We live in a Sweden where gang crime is penetrating more and more parts of our society. We see the recruitment of young people, we see the normalization of violence, we see radicalization, and we see honor-based oppression.
We know that school is one of the environments where children are most vulnerable. That is why the government in the bill writes that children and students need to be protected, not only from violence and abuse, but also from inappropriate influence of various kinds.
It is a correct analysis, but if we are serious about that analysis, we must also dare to take the next step. We must ensure that no one who is suspected of serious crimes, and where charges have been filed, shall be able to continue working in the school without the employer finding out.
Madam Speaker! In the bill, the Government identifies more crimes that should be added to the criminal code: human trafficking, arson, crimes against children's peace, honor crimes, weapons crimes, drug crimes, sabotage against emergency services, and so on. That is completely correct. It is also something that the Sweden Democrats have demanded for a long time.
We also believe that the catalogue of crimes must be dynamic. It must be able to be expanded as society changes. It must be able to be adapted when new types of crimes arise. And it must always be based on the best interests of children – not on the privacy interests of adults.
Madam Speaker! The Government proposes that register control shall also be introduced within komvux. It is reasonable and quite logical, and it is absolutely necessary. But even here we must be clear: komvux is not just an educational environment, but it is also an environment where many students find themselves in vulnerable situations and where language barriers, disabilities or social circumstances make them particularly vulnerable. Therefore, this proposal is very important.
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the government's proposal. We welcome the tightening. We welcome the expansion of the register control. We welcome that the suspicion register is now included.
But we are also clear that this is not enough. We want to see more ongoing register checks of all school staff, a broader list of crimes, clearer consequences for those who appear in registers, and a regulatory framework that puts children's safety first – always.
It is our line and priority. It is our responsibility as adults.
Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats will always stand on the children's side. We will always prioritize safety over privacy arguments used to protect adults at the expense of children. We will always push for the Swedish school to be a place where children can grow, learn, and develop without fear, without threats, and without the risk of encountering adults who should never be in the school environment.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal, but I also want to emphasize that the work is not finished. We shall move forward, we shall go further, and we shall do it for the children's sake.
Josefin Malmqvist (M)
Madam Speaker! A violence-seeking extremist who was fired from a school in Gothenburg directed direct threats against the school following the dismissal, which prompted a massive police operation and police presence on site. Then, a municipal school in Social Democrat-governed Malmö chose to employ this woman despite the fact that she has been convicted of grant fraud, population registration crimes, and disobedience to law enforcement. This is far from an isolated incident.
A well-known football hooligan, convicted of among other things assault, minor doping offenses, minor narcotics offenses, causing danger to others and offenses against the public order act, was bought off in just one year not just once but twice by Social Democrat-led Malmö – quite impressive, I must say. This single example alone has cost Malmö's taxpayers half a million kronor, not to mention the suffering of the children and teachers in the school.
A third example concerns a gang criminal who, despite his criminality, was allowed to remain employed at the municipal school in Malmö. A fourth example concerns a man who had kicked and struck a police officer in his police car so that he was forced to draw his service weapon. That man was then hired as a student assistant in a municipal school in Malmö, despite having been convicted of assault.
The list can be long. The betrayal of our students is gigantic. This must now come to an end, and with the bill that we are debating here today, we are now taking some steps in the right direction.
We are introducing an opportunity to also examine the suspicion register. This is now included in the register check.
We are expanding the review to more crimes. As we have heard in today's debate, this is very much anticipated. With today's legislation, school staff can be convicted of, for example, honor crimes or forced marriage and simultaneously work in the Swedish school system. It is, in my opinion, reprehensible, and that is what we are changing now.
It is obvious that previous left-wing governments have not taken these problems seriously enough. But this government does. A person who throws stones at the police, beats their wife or engages in human trafficking should not work in the Swedish school, according to the Moderate-led government.
A third change concerns the fact that the register extract may not be older than six months. We are shortening that period from one year to six months, which means that one has more current information about the person to be employed.
A fourth change concerns the exception period for how long it may take before one needs to present a new extract if one is employed again by the same employer, which is also shortened from one year to six months.
The fifth amendment is about the fact that we now also include komvux.
In area after area, we are now tightening the legislation. It is much needed, my friends.
When the left side now says they support the government's proposal, I think it is worth reminding them of what they did during their eight years in power. Not only did they not add any new crimes to the register checks during these eight years – on the contrary, the only thing the Social Democrats were interested in doing was making it easier for gang leaders to work in the Swedish school system, at the children's expense. The argument they used when they chose in 2021 to remove the requirement that previously existed to archive the register extracts was that the gang leaders' privacy was more important than the children's safety and security.
I wish that we could have made even more decisions in this area today, for example, that no perpetrator should be able to jump between schools. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government has now appointed an inquiry to review the possibility of, among other things, checking the background check register even during ongoing employment and also reviewing the work with register checks as a whole.
I wish that more governments had prioritized this work earlier. Then we could have already made more decisions today to tighten this legislation. Now we need to decide on further investigations, which we have already done, so that in the next mandate period we can make more decisions in this area.
We are not finished, however. From the Moderaternas side, we have a long list of rules that we want to tighten, as well as legislative changes in the area.
It is about us wanting to see that the mandatory criminal record checks are comprehensive and followed up for every new employment.
We want school employees to be required to notify their employer if they are convicted of a crime and for the court to be required to notify the employer if they have an employee who is convicted of serious crimes.
We want the register extracts to be able to be archived again, i.e., the possibility that the Social Democrats removed.
We want that register extracts should be continuously checked at least every third year and upon application for a teaching license.
We also want an investigation to look at background checks for persons without a Swedish personal identity number, something that is not covered by these proposals.
If municipal or independent principals deliberately violate the eligibility requirements or employ persons who are obviously unsuitable, which we have also seen in several of the cases we are discussing here today, we believe that there should be powerful sanctions. It could involve a fine or that one's permit is revoked.
No one with serious crimes in their baggage shall be allowed to work in the Swedish school. We must stand on the children's side. It is of the utmost importance that our children feel safe in school. Today we take several important steps in the right direction, which is long-awaited.
I vote in favor of the government's proposition and the committee's proposal in the report.
Mathias Bengtsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! School is a place where children should be allowed to be just children and where they should feel safe, seen, and free to grow; a place where parents should be able to leave their children in the morning with peace of mind. Unfortunately, that is not always the case today.
Society has changed. We see how crime is creeping closer, how children risk being influenced by adults with wrong intentions, and how young people can be drawn into something that they should never have to encounter. In that case, it is not possible to lean back and say: We do as we have always done.
We must take responsibility. We must do more. It is one of the reasons why the changes being debated today are important first steps. We strengthen the protection inside the school. We take a bigger grip on which adults are allowed to be close to our children and young people every day.
What is the government doing then? Well, we are tightening the controls. Schools will have a better opportunity to detect risks in time – not when something has already happened, but actually before it happens. The register check against the criminal record register, which is always performed upon employment in schools, shall now include more crimes. It shall also include information from the suspicion register. Extracts shall be current and not older than six months.
Offences that previously have not always been captured will now be clearly stated in the extract from the register. This applies, for example, to offences linked to organized crime, such as drug offences and weapons offences, but also to acts aimed at influencing or exploiting others, such as human trafficking, honor-related offences and hate speech against a group. Also, offences that can be linked to influencing or intimidating people, such as sabotage against emergency services or offensive photography, are now highlighted. All of this, therefore, refers to offences that today are not visible when one submits their register extract to an employer to start working in, for example, a school.
It is quite astonishing that today one can be connected to organized crime, be a gang criminal, or be convicted of drug offenses or weapons offenses or for recruiting children into criminal gangs and still be allowed to work in Swedish schools. That is changing now.
This reflects a reality where the threats against children and young people look different compared to when the regulatory framework was created. By broadening which crimes are included and additionally including the suspicion register, the school gets better opportunities to catch risks that previously could have passed under the radar. Thus, the students receive stronger protection in their everyday lives.
Mr. Speaker! We can never accept that anyone with wrong intentions is given space in children's everyday lives. We shall do everything we can to stop people who want to exploit, influence, or draw young people into crime. School shall be a free zone from that, not a path into it. This is a step in the right direction.
Now there will be a difference in school. Will this solve everything? No, there is much left to do, but it is an important first step. More steps will need to be taken in the future, but I move for approval of the proposal in the report.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.