Adaptation of Swedish law to the revised VIS Regulation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
Magnus Resare (M) considers that the government's proposition is good as it updates and complements the existing regulatory framework in a good way 1. He argues that better biometric controls create safer societies and that it is good that younger children are covered by fingerprints to more easily be able to detect children who are victims of human trafficking 1. He also considers it important that Sweden has track of who is here in order to make it more difficult for human smugglers 1. Tony Haddou (V) argues that the government is over-implementing EU law by proposing that the age limit for fingerprints be lowered from twelve to six years 2. He considers that the analysis behind this is non-existent and lacks basic requirements for legal certainty and protection for the child's privacy 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Magnus Resare (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, the Social Democrats are missing from a migration debate. I think this is starting to become embarrassing. The last time a migration policy spokesperson for the Social Democrats stood in this speaker's chair was in November two years ago. At that time, Anders Ygeman gave a speech of 22 seconds. The speech was three sentences long. Three sentences for two years ago – that is what the Social Democrats deliver to the people.
To be honest, I think this is a massive democratic failure. It is not only here at the rostrum that I miss the Social Democrats. All of us other parties in the Riksdag were at Asylrättsforum a couple of weeks ago and stated what we want in these issues. The only party that was missing was once again the Social Democrats.
It is, as said, embarrassing. The Social Democrats have over 100 members in this chamber, and all of these are well-paid to engage in politics. Therefore, I think one should tell the people what one wants. I may not be a Social Democrat, but I still think it is important that the voters know what the opposition wants.
What does the opposition want then? Even in this issue, we have a divided opposition. The left has submitted reservations that the Green Party has joined, while the Social Democrats do not seem to have any opinion at all – not this time either.
Today's question may not be the world's biggest or most conflict-ridden, but I believe that we as members of Parliament have a democratic responsibility. The least a citizen can demand to have back is that we clearly clarify our positions, at least some of the time.
I have no direct views on the fact that other parties are missing from this debate, as their migration policy spokespersons are regulars in this speaker's chair. We in Tidögänget agreed that I can bring this matter forward. We are also in agreement on this migration policy issue, as we always are, and therefore I can speak for us.
What common line does the opposition have on migration issues? None at all! I thought the participation in the debate would improve when the Social Democrats changed their migration policy spokesperson a few weeks ago, but it seems to be the same story continuing. In that case, it is even more important that the citizens actually find out.
Sweden has had a massive immigration. My government is working very hard to reduce immigration. I respect that not everyone shares our view, even though I obviously think we Moderates are right. Regardless of this, all parties should state what they want to do in migration policy – that is the least one can ask.
I move on to the question. This concerns an update of the visa rules within Schengen that all member states have agreed upon. The new systems will be good. Through better biometric controls of those who come to Europe, we can create safer and better-functioning societies.
I think it is good that even younger children should be included in the fingerprinting, not least because we can thereby more easily detect cases where children are victims of crime. We know that children are also exposed to trafficking. In recent years, we have been alerted to the fact that thousands of children have been detained and taken from Ukraine to Russia in outright kidnappings. It can be children who eventually arrive in Europe through human trafficking. The world is not always kind, and there are terrifyingly evil people who have human trafficking as their business. That we have track of which children enter Schengen can hopefully help victims of crime in the future. It can also help the police investigate crimes if children are found who, in the worst case, have deceased.
I fundamentally think that it is good that we in Sweden have an overview of who is here and that human smugglers find it more difficult to bring in children who might be used as anchors for asylum migration. A smuggler might bring in a child through a legal route via a visa to then leave the child at a migration office, where the child acts as an anchor so that the parents can come here. In the worst case, the child can be subjected to an even worse crime. With more data on who these children are, we can more easily detect who are the perpetrators, and I think that is good.
Madam Speaker! The government's bill looks good. It updates the existing regulatory framework and complements today's system in a good way. Let us vote yes to this!
Tony Haddou (V)
Madam Speaker! Member Resare needed three minutes to get to the point. I will go straight to it.
In the proposition, the Government proposes the legislative changes needed to adapt Swedish law to the EU's common information system for the exchange of data between Member States. The proposals concern clarifying in which situations one is obliged to be photographed and provide fingerprints, whether photographs and fingerprints shall be introduced in cases of national identification, and how personal data shall be processed and how the regulatory framework shall relate to other regulations.
Some criticism has been received regarding the proposals. Central to the collective criticism is that which is put forward by Uppsala University, stating that when adapting Swedish law to an EU regulation, it is important not to over-implement but instead follow EU law. The Government proposes that the age limit for taking biometric data in several cases should be lowered from the current twelve years to six years. The proposals do not follow the EU amendment; instead, they are examples of the type of over-implementation described in referral responses and which has received criticism from, among others, the Children's Ombudsman for a lack of underlying analysis and justification for such an extensive legal change. To be honest, the analysis in connection with this amendment is more or less non-existent in the bill.
We in Vänsterpartiet share that assessment and reserve ourselves against lowering the age limit for fingerprints to six years. I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.
There is no reason to over-implement the EU law and lower the age limit for fingerprints from twelve to six years. We are critical of the government, which does not set any basic requirements at all regarding legal certainty, proportionality, or protection of the child's privacy in the matter. None of this is analyzed or justified. There are not at all any strong reasons for the change, and no justification or analysis has been provided either. Therefore, we reserve our position.
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.