How Sweden’s ‘snitch law’ is putting the Tidö Agreement to the test

Sweden’s government will soon receive the conclusions of its inquiry into forcing school and health workers to report paperless migrants. Might it be about to clash with the Sweden Democrats over how to interpret the deal that gave it power, asks The Local’s Nordic Editor Richard Orange.

Advertisement

It’s one of the most contentious proposals in the government’s programme. The government calls it the inquiry on informationsplikt, or “duty to provide information”.
Its opponents call it “the snitch law”, or angiverilagen, as it is designed to force front-line workers like teachers, doctors, and social workers to alert the police or Migration Agency if they come into contact with paperless migrants. On November 29th, a government inquiry is due to report on how this should be done.  

On the face of it, it’s a measure the three government parties – the Moderates, Liberals, and Christian Democrats – have all signed up for in the Tidö Agreement, their deal to win the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats. 
But neither the Liberal Party nor the Christian Democrats were ever completely in favour, which is why they insisted on a get-out clause. 
“There can be situations where a report would conflict with humanitarian values, for example within healthcare,” the text of the deal runs. “Exceptions from the duty to report therefore need to be investigated further.” 

Advertisement
The question is what this “investigation” commits the government to.  
According to the Sweden Democrats, the answer is nothing at all. They are insisting that there be no exceptions, that while the Tidö deal commits the inquiry to looking into whether there should be any, it does not commit the government to including them in the law. 
It remains to be seen what Anita Linder, the former high court judge leading the inquiry, will suggest. 
But on Saturday, Acko Ankarberg, Sweden’s health minister, said in the Saturday interview on Sweden’s radio broadcaster SR that her party, the Christian Democrats, intended to insist on exceptions for healthcare workers.  
“I think it’s reasonable that we have an inquiry that states from the outset that there are vulnerable groups and that healthcare is singled out,” she said. The exception clause, she added, had been crucial to her supporting the Tidö Agreement in the first place, and so to the fact that she is now healthcare minister at all.
“This is…why I am working with what I am doing today,” she said.  
Then on Sunday, Jan Jönsson, the Stockholm leader of the Liberal Party, debated the proposals with the Sweden Democrats’ immigration spokesperson, Ludvig Aspling, on SVT’s Agenda programme. 
The Liberals, in theory at least, want even more exceptions than the Christian Democrats. At their national meeting in November 2023, the party committed to insisting on exceptions for schools, healthcare, parts of social services, and library workers. 
“We are very much in favour of children being allowed to go to school, even if they are undocumented, and that they should also have access to healthcare,” Jönsson said. “We believe that these are fundamental human rights that apply to all individuals, regardless of their legal status in the country. And we also share concerns about professional ethics, which are very important for professions in social services, schools, and healthcare.” 
Bringing in a duty to report would risk children no longer going to school, he warned, with health consequences for illegal migrants. 
“We’re going to have them running around instead, and then you don’t know what they might get involved with,” he said. “We’re going to see pregnant women or women who have been subjected to violence who don’t dare to contact social services or healthcare.” 

Advertisement
Aspling argued that the law in fact brought in little that was new. Schools, he said, were required to inform the authorities about paperless children from the 1970s right up until 2014.
In all those years, teachers had never complained about their professional ethics, and no one had ever suggested that the requirement conflicted with the UN Convention on Rights of a Child, which Sweden signed up to in 1990. 
That’s all very well, but the Sweden Democrats are taking a risk if they insist that, in this case, an agreement to look into an proposal is not an agreement to put it to parliament. 
Several of their most cherished points in the Tidö Agreement commit the government only to launching an inquiry, and not to putting any resulting proposal into law.  
It looks likely that in this case, the Sweden Democrats will be the ones having to cede ground.
Politics in Sweden is The Local’s weekly analysis, guide or look ahead to what’s coming up in Swedish politics. Update your newsletter settings to receive it directly to your inbox. 

More

#Politics in Sweden
#Politics
#Opinion and Analysis

Comments

Join the conversation in our comments section below. Share your own views and experience and if you have a question or suggestion for our journalists then email us at [email protected].
Please keep comments civil, constructive and on topic – and make sure to read our terms of use before getting involved.

Please log in here to leave a comment.

See Also

It’s one of the most contentious proposals in the government’s programme. The government calls it the inquiry on informationsplikt, or “duty to provide information”.
Its opponents call it “the snitch law”, or angiverilagen, as it is designed to force front-line workers like teachers, doctors, and social workers to alert the police or Migration Agency if they come into contact with paperless migrants. On November 29th, a government inquiry is due to report on how this should be done.  
On the face of it, it’s a measure the three government parties – the Moderates, Liberals, and Christian Democrats – have all signed up for in the Tidö Agreement, their deal to win the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats. 
But neither the Liberal Party nor the Christian Democrats were ever completely in favour, which is why they insisted on a get-out clause. 
“There can be situations where a report would conflict with humanitarian values, for example within healthcare,” the text of the deal runs. “Exceptions from the duty to report therefore need to be investigated further.” 
The question is what this “investigation” commits the government to.  
According to the Sweden Democrats, the answer is nothing at all. They are insisting that there be no exceptions, that while the Tidö deal commits the inquiry to looking into whether there should be any, it does not commit the government to including them in the law. 
It remains to be seen what Anita Linder, the former high court judge leading the inquiry, will suggest. 
But on Saturday, Acko Ankarberg, Sweden’s health minister, said in the Saturday interview on Sweden’s radio broadcaster SR that her party, the Christian Democrats, intended to insist on exceptions for healthcare workers.  
“I think it’s reasonable that we have an inquiry that states from the outset that there are vulnerable groups and that healthcare is singled out,” she said. The exception clause, she added, had been crucial to her supporting the Tidö Agreement in the first place, and so to the fact that she is now healthcare minister at all.
“This is…why I am working with what I am doing today,” she said.  
Then on Sunday, Jan Jönsson, the Stockholm leader of the Liberal Party, debated the proposals with the Sweden Democrats’ immigration spokesperson, Ludvig Aspling, on SVT’s Agenda programme. 
The Liberals, in theory at least, want even more exceptions than the Christian Democrats. At their national meeting in November 2023, the party committed to insisting on exceptions for schools, healthcare, parts of social services, and library workers. 
“We are very much in favour of children being allowed to go to school, even if they are undocumented, and that they should also have access to healthcare,” Jönsson said. “We believe that these are fundamental human rights that apply to all individuals, regardless of their legal status in the country. And we also share concerns about professional ethics, which are very important for professions in social services, schools, and healthcare.” 
Bringing in a duty to report would risk children no longer going to school, he warned, with health consequences for illegal migrants. 
“We’re going to have them running around instead, and then you don’t know what they might get involved with,” he said. “We’re going to see pregnant women or women who have been subjected to violence who don’t dare to contact social services or healthcare.” 
Aspling argued that the law in fact brought in little that was new. Schools, he said, were required to inform the authorities about paperless children from the 1970s right up until 2014.
In all those years, teachers had never complained about their professional ethics, and no one had ever suggested that the requirement conflicted with the UN Convention on Rights of a Child, which Sweden signed up to in 1990. 
That’s all very well, but the Sweden Democrats are taking a risk if they insist that, in this case, an agreement to look into an proposal is not an agreement to put it to parliament. 
Several of their most cherished points in the Tidö Agreement commit the government only to launching an inquiry, and not to putting any resulting proposal into law.  
It looks likely that in this case, the Sweden Democrats will be the ones having to cede ground.
Politics in Sweden is The Local’s weekly analysis, guide or look ahead to what’s coming up in Swedish politics. Update your newsletter settings to receive it directly to your inbox.