Improved order and security at storage

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates want a migration policy that enables us to manage the integration of those who come to and are in Sweden. This requires a strict migration policy where fewer asylum seekers come to our country, but it also requires that the principles of the regulated immigration policy are upheld.

Asylum seekers who have grounds for protection shall quickly receive a decision on residence permit and be given good opportunities to integrate into Swedish society. But asylum seekers who do not have grounds for protection and have their asylum application rejected shall leave Sweden just as quickly in line with their deportation decision.

A credible migration system and Sweden's opportunities to help those with the greatest need for protection depend on those who are deported actually leaving the country.

Unfortunately, far from everyone does that today. Approximately three out of four who seek asylum in Sweden today lack grounds for protection and have their application rejected. They are therefore required to leave Sweden in accordance with their deportation decision. But many choose to defy the decision and stay illegally in Sweden.

It has led to Sweden having an ever-growing problem with a growing shadow society, where people risk being harmed and, for example, exploited by criminals. There is also a risk that people who are security threats hide in the shadow society.

The Moderate-led government is now implementing powerful reforms in several political areas to solve the problems that grew in Sweden during the Social Democrats' eight years in power – problems that the Social Democrats obviously did not have the ability to solve.

To push back the shadow society, we Moderates have taken several important measures.

Firstly, we have reduced the incentives to hide in the shadow society after a deportation decision. Since April 1, it is no longer possible to hide in the shadow society and then seek asylum again after four years. Now, a foreigner who has had their application rejected and received a deportation decision must first leave Sweden before the prescription period for the deportation decision even begins to run.

Secondly, the government has tasked the Swedish Tax Agency with carrying out a national census to determine who is present and active in Sweden and to find out where people live. In the situation assessment presented as recently as yesterday, the Swedish Tax Agency estimates that between 110,000 and 185,000 people live and operate in Sweden without either a personal identity number or a coordination number. There is obviously much to be done to get Sweden in order. The well-informed need not be reminded in this context that the Social Democrats in 2022, astonishingly enough, voted no to a national census. But if one wants to solve problems, one must of course know the extent of them. It is a reasonable starting point.

For the third, we are expanding the Swedish Migration Agency's detention center with more places. In the detention center, among other things, stay people who refuse to leave the country despite not having the right to stay here in Sweden – awaiting the Migration Agency or the border police to ensure that they leave the country in accordance with their deportation decision. The detention center thus contributes to more people who have been denied their application returning home and is therefore an important tool in the work against the shadow society.

Persons are also placed in detention when their identity or the right to stay in Sweden needs to be investigated and if there are probable grounds for a rejection of the asylum application and a risk that the person will abscond.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Migration Agency's detention center must be a safe place for both those in detention and the staff, but that is not always the case today. It is problematic that, for example, drugs and weapons are present in the detention center. It creates an unsafe situation for both those in detention and the staff.

There have long been problems with foreigners held in detention escaping in more or less spectacular ways. This has, among other things, occurred by visitors smuggling in weapons and tools that people in detention have used to get out. Staff have also been subjected to violence and threats in connection with escapes and breakouts. So we cannot have that.

That is why the Moderate-led government has now presented proposals to increase safety and security on the defense, and it is these that we are handling in the chamber today.

The proposals mean that the Swedish Migration Agency's staff will have expanded opportunities to use coercive and control measures during detention, in order to improve the possibilities to maintain order and security.

The staff may now, among other things, search a detainee's room and closed storage areas, carry out body searches in more cases and at a lower level of suspicion than today, and examine shipments, packages, and letters sent to the detainee at a lower level of suspicion than today.

The staff shall be able to carry out security checks of those in detention with the help of metal detectors or other aids. The Swedish Migration Agency shall, if necessary, be allowed to introduce general entry control at the detention center, i.e., control also of visitors. And the possibility for a new form of visit, so-called glass partition visits, shall be introduced.

Through these measures, we reduce the risk of unauthorized items such as drugs and weapons being brought into the detention center, and thereby increase safety for both the detainees and the staff.

Furthermore, it is proposed that an explicit provision shall be introduced stating that the principle of proportionality shall be included in the Aliens Act, i.e., that an intrusive measure may only be used if it is in reasonable proportion to the purpose of the measure, but that if a less intrusive measure is sufficient, it shall be used.

Furthermore, it is proposed that guards shall be assisted in performing certain surveillance missions when a detained foreigner is outside the detention premises, for example during transport.

These are important proposals that are judged to make a big difference and lead to an improvement in order and security at the border.

The Swedish Migration Agency already requested such changes from the then S-government in 2017 in order to be able to maintain order and security. But the Social Democrats were not able to solve the problems then either; but the Moderate-led government has.

Mr. Speaker! Now we stand here again. We four coalition parties have jointly presented sharp proposals to take further steps to bring order and clarity to Swedish migration policy. But, the so-called alternative in Swedish politics, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Green Party, and the Centre Party, are not in agreement today either.

The Social Democrats accept most of the government's bill – the Centre Party does as well. The Green Party says no to almost everything, and the Left Party demands its usual faithful rejection of the entire bill.

It is just one big red-green mess. The left-wing parties do not agree on anything. And this applies throughout in the migration policy. In that way, one cannot govern Sweden.

It is easy for the Social Democrats to vote yes to the bills that the Moderate-led government submits to put a stricter migration policy in place, but it is a fact that the Social Democrats could never submit these proposals if they were in government together with the Green Party and the Left Party, a government where Nooshi Dadgostar could be Finance Minister and Daniel Helldén Migration Minister.

Mr. Speaker! The risk is very great that many of the proposals that we Moderates, together with our coalition partners, are pushing through to get Sweden in order will be torn up if the Social Democrats get power after the next election. My appeal to the Swedish people is therefore: Do not let such a strong turn to the left become a reality. Let us instead continue the work of getting Sweden in order for a safer, wealthier, and more secure tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker! I would, of course, like to conclude by expressing my support for the moderate-led government's proposition, that is to say, support for the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Safety and security in detention is, of course, very important. Not least for those people who have been deprived of their liberty by society and placed in detention, it is of the utmost importance that different types of incidents and violence do not occur in the detention center. It is, however, quite remarkable that the government proposes measures involving privacy infringements for those in detention rather than addressing the core problem by introducing entry controls. Then one can find out if someone is trying to bring, for example, a knife or drugs into the detention center, regardless of whether it is a visitor, a detainee, or even an employee.

We from Miljöpartiet advocate for a solution with proper entry controls that cover everyone entering the detention center rather than setting up barriers between children and parents or friends; when one is isolated and deprived of liberty, one perhaps needs, more than anything else, something as simple as a hug.

It is, after all, the case that the majority of the people who are detained have not committed any crime at all. They are locked up for an indefinite period. To then not even have the basic integrity of their living space respected or the possibility of hugging a visitor, we consider to be a completely disproportionate measure when one should instead address the core of the problem by introducing entry controls.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! What Annika Hirvonen is now presenting clearly shows, in my opinion, the differences in Swedish migration policy. We have seen major problems with the detention center. We have seen problems with drugs and weapons inside the detention center. We have also seen that detained persons increasingly have substance abuse-related problems. We are therefore seeing an increased problem on the detention center. This has been alerted since 2017, but neither the S-MP government nor the pure S government did anything about the matter. We are changing that now.

There is a principle of proportionality built into this. Annika Hirvonen knows that. We even introduce it explicitly in the legislation, which means that the least intrusive measure should be taken first. But if there are weapons and drugs in the detention center, the staff must have the opportunity to search for and remove them. Anything else would not be reasonable. Of course, it must be done in a privacy-compliant manner. A proportionality assessment must be made, and a principle of proportionality must be followed, which is also confirmed in the legal text.

With this, one therefore gets more tools to get the perpetrator in order. The problems have been obvious for a long time. The answer cannot be: "No, we are making no changes at all – you get a hug instead."

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I must say that I am quite tired of these rhetorical tricks where one deliberately misunderstands, pretends not to have listened, and then collects an applause. Can we have a serious debate about the proposals that are actually on the table, Viktor Wärnick?

Viktor Wärnick knows what we are proposing because he has read the Green Party's concrete proposals, which I also detailed just before Viktor Wärnick took the floor. These are two proposals that stand in opposition to each other. We in the Green Party propose entry controls that affect everyone. So do not pretend that it is about a hug! But what the hug is about is that the Moderates want to put up glass barriers between detainees and visitors – perhaps even between mother and child. This cannot be considered proportionate in any case.

If one wants to address the problem that there are weapons or drugs in the storage areas, one must ensure that weapons and drugs do not enter from the very beginning. It is not enough to only target those who have been caught with items in the storage areas, because we know that it occurs that other people also bring in items that are prohibited in the storage areas. Therefore, there must be entry controls that target everyone moving in and out here.

We cannot be naive and believe that, for example, the drug trade does not also have the opportunity to worm its way among employees. In that regard, I think the government is completely missing the mark and is not doing what is proportionate and effective. Instead, they choose repression against already vulnerable detainees as the only solution.

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

Viktor Wärnick (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have explained what our proposals entail. They entail, among other things, a general entry control, if a need should exist. That is to say that guests shall also be able to pass an entry control. The detainees shall also be able to be checked upon arrival at the detention center to a greater extent than today. Furthermore, one shall be allowed to search the detainees' rooms and storage areas, if necessary.

There are a number of different measures in this to find objects or drugs that should not be inside the Swedish Migration Agency's detention center at all. This is something that the Swedish Migration Agency has requested since 2017. This is, therefore, for real. Dangerous situations can sometimes arise for the detainees but also for the staff. In this, the detention staff have been relatively toothless when it comes to addressing the problem.

I have mentioned that we explicitly build in the principle of proportionality. It is written there in black and white. One should not resort to the most powerful measures at once if that is not required. There should be a broader toolbox to address the problems if one considers it necessary. Furthermore, judicial review is built into the proposal and thus rule-of-law mechanisms. Miljöpartiet knows this.

The Green Party has highlighted in its reservation and in its motion what I believe is called dynamic safety. It is about some type of expanded educational effort for the employees so that the security personnel will be safer and better.

I think the Green Party needs to visit a few more detention centers, talk to the staff and ask if that is what they think is needed, that is to say, to secure their own competence rather than getting more tools. One has to look elsewhere for the most out-of-touch proposals! This is, therefore, the party that the Social Democrats are to build their government base on. They do not want sharp tools but more interventions in other ways. This shows the differences in Swedish migration policy in a clear way.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, we think this bill is good, and therefore we have also agreed on almost everything. But we have two reservations. One of them concerns the importance of securing the children's perspective. The Red Cross writes in its referral opinion that it is important that the contact between parents and children is ensured. We think that is an important point to hold fast to.

The second reservation concerns our opposition to the privatization. In the bill, a new market has been smuggled in. That security companies should be able to engage in the exercise of public authority, which the union ST points out in its referral opinion, we consider unfortunate and something that we oppose.

The reason for that is first and foremost that a good deal of the measures that the bill proposes will require more staff, and they need more competence. The good thing is that one reinforces the defense with more personnel, who could also perform the interventions that the authorized guards are proposed to perform. Given the previous discussion on training and the like, this would also strengthen the competence in all levels. It would reduce the risks of, for example, external influence reaching the defense.

For us, this is an unnecessary privatization. We can only see that it would be ideologically motivated. There is nothing that argues against the fact that Migrationsverket's own staff could perform these services and carry out other additional tasks. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 5.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish a pleasant summer to the Speaker's Office, to the administration, to the committee's staff and to my colleagues in the committee as well. I hope that you have a long and wonderful summer.

(Applause)

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In March this year, two men were released from the Migrationsverket detention center in Åstorp when a forklift rammed the building's facade, whereupon the men were able to escape from there. As far as I know, these individuals have not been apprehended, and they can still move freely in Sweden.

Besides the fact that it was a completely senseless act of violence that caused direct danger to life, since the prison is usually staffed even at night, it is a reminder of what kind of people the rights-based migration forces us to handle. These are people who completely disregard laws and rules. They are completely indifferent to causing danger to others, and they cynically abuse and exploit the rights that Swedish society gives them.

Even though this particular escape was particularly spectacular, it is in no way an isolated incident. According to a compilation that the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet made a couple of years ago, 257 people escaped from the Migration Agency's detention between 2010 and 2017. As far as I know, there is no official consolidated statistics from the agency itself, but we can say with quite good confidence that the situation has become significantly better. According to last year's annual report, the number of escapes was three. The situation is therefore significantly better today, even though three escapes are naturally three escapes too many.

Spectacular escapes are also just the tip of the iceberg. Other problems such as alcohol, drugs, weapons, and violent incidents have long been well-documented. This has been pointed out by both the agency itself, trade unions, the JO, and various interested parties.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say something about why migrants are taken into custody. It can be interesting to know for those watching the debate.

Detention is not a measure applied generally towards persons who do not have the right to stay in Sweden or when it is unknown whether the person has the right to stay in Sweden. It occurs in certain specifically designated cases, for example when the foreigner's identity is unclear or if the right to stay in Sweden needs further investigation. When it concerns persons who are to be deported and expelled, detention may also be decided if there is otherwise a risk that the person will commit a crime, evade, abscond, or obstruct the execution of the expulsion.

Only the latter category is particularly problematic. It also tends to be these persons who remain in detention a bit longer. It can be about the fact that there are threats to security or against regulated immigration.

That the Social Democrats, despite having clearly known for a long time how bad the situation is, have ignored doing anything about today's completely substandard rules is further evidence in a long chain of evidence that they are prepared to give Miljöpartiet just about anything to be able to form a government. They do it completely without a thought for the fact that they are exposing the general public but, above all, those people who work on the front line to direct life-threatening danger.

The fact that the board of the trade union ST, which Ola Möller mentioned in his speech, has been pushing for a long time to modernize the rules and improve safety and the working environment at the detention center, the Social Democrats are completely indifferent to. They are also indifferent to the requests that the Swedish Migration Agency has made regarding, for example, safety concerning transports. Miljöpartiet demands total chaos in migration policy, and the Social Democrats are prepared to deliver.

Mr. Speaker! What rule changes are we pushing through today? First and foremost, body searches will be able to be carried out in more cases and at a lower level of suspicion compared to what applies today. Today, a body search can be carried out upon reasonable suspicion that the person has objects that they are not allowed to have. We will likely change this to "if it is necessary to maintain order and security." The difference is that a concrete suspicion in the individual case will not be required, but it will suffice that the situation is such that this type of intervention is needed.

Body searches can also take place after arrival "if it can be suspected that a foreign national held in custody is carrying something that he or she is not allowed to possess."

New rules will also be introduced that make it possible for shipments to be inspected at a lower level of suspicion than today. Even though shipments are uncommon at the border, as it looks now, this is important here. It can be suspected that those who smuggle in narcotics will use shipments instead when it becomes more difficult to do so on their person.

The detainees' living quarters and other enclosed storage areas shall be subject to inspection, and security checks with metal detectors or alarm arches shall be permitted inside the detention center.

The Swedish Migration Agency shall also be allowed to introduce something called general entry control, which means that all persons arriving at the detention center can be body-searched when searching for prohibited items. This rule is primarily aimed at persons arriving as visitors. It is a somewhat odd situation we have today in that these persons may not be searched. There is a lack of legal basis for it today, which is completely insane.

A new form of visit will also be introduced, so-called glass partition visits. This means that the visitor is screened off from the person they are visiting so that it is not possible to hand over unauthorized items.

Last but not least, authorized guards will be able to perform certain guarding assignments together with Migrationsverket's staff and not instead of them, a perception one might have had after listening to Ola Möller. It is a question of persons who shall support Migrationsverket's own staff in that role.

This is being done because it has previously occurred that people, for example, fake a need for a doctor. When they then receive free medical care in Sweden, they choose to get help from armed criminals to escape from the medical visit. So we absolutely cannot have that.

There seems to be some ignorance regarding the purpose of guards. Guards have a completely different training than the people who work at Migrationsverket when it comes to guarding these types of transports.

One final question must be asked: Is this enough? Yes, I really hope so. This is, in itself, only the first partial report on Tidösamarbetets reforms of detention. The second partial report is currently being prepared at the Government Offices. It contains alternatives to detention, for example, ankle bracelets instead of being held in custody, and expanded grounds for being able to take persons into detention. People should be able to be taken into detention in more situations than today. Last but not least, the detention periods will become significantly longer. But this will come in the next step.

I add to that, it should also be mentioned that this government, unlike the previous one, is actively working to ensure that people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden leave the country. Returns have increased by approximately 40 percent since 2022, while immigration overall has decreased very significantly.

My concern, however, is that the detention activities are facing a sharp increase in the problems we already see. In light of another investigation, which was submitted earlier this year and concerns deportation due to crime, the number of persons sentenced to deportation will increase very sharply – by up to 600 percent, according to a calculation. This will, of course, in turn lead to that more persons sentenced to deportation will subsequently be taken into detention for execution, that is, taken into detention on the way out of Sweden. These are generally more dangerous persons.

Against this background, there is reason to assume that the security situation in the defense can become even more strained during the coming years. But we are, of course, monitoring the situation.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can only state that it will take several parliamentary terms to manage and clean up the migration policy chaos that the Green Party orders and the Social Democrats deliver. There is not a single area regarding migration and border management where the regulations have not been and are embarrassingly neglected. It is also obvious that this is not a matter of an oversight, but that the very purpose is to leave Sweden completely defenseless in the face of this complex of problems. But we will get the job done – trust me!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is not particularly fun hours here in the chamber. The Moderates began by, for more than half of their speech, talking about everything other than exactly what the debate is supposed to be about. The Sweden Democrats are into criminal policy measures and debates, and that reflects their view on asylum seekers in general. So, it is not particularly much new here, Mr. Speaker.

But to deprive a person of their freedom is one of the most intrusive coercive measures that the state can legally take against individuals. It is therefore of the utmost importance that detainees are treated humanely and that their dignity and personal integrity are respected. The right to asylum presupposes a reception procedure that is safe and dignified and takes place in accordance with human rights.

This is one reason for the principle in international refugee law that the detention of asylum seekers should be avoided and only be a last resort. Asylum seekers and people in situations that have arisen as a result of so-called irregular migration are also, like everyone else, protected against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

But asylum seekers who are taken into custody according to the rules that exist today should be placed under conditions that reflect the purpose of the deprivation of liberty and are appropriate with regard to the asylum seeker's situation. Prison-like conditions should be avoided, and staff should have appropriate training and, for example, be able to identify traumas and so on.

Common to the proposals from the government that we are debating today is that they concern measures that constitute a restriction of the individual's rights, and unlike in cases of deprivation of liberty due to a crime, these deprivations of liberty concern ensuring investigation or the execution of removal decisions and so on. But with the government's proposals, the dividing line between imprisonment and detention is reduced.

Implementation of the proposal will mean that adult detainees will be subjected to intrusive measures, such as body searches, to a greater extent than today. Also, detained children and children visiting the detainee will be subjected to such intrusions into personal integrity.

The government has, as usual, not returned with any detailed analysis of what consequences the implementation of the proposals would have for, for example, children and children's rights. Nor have they returned with arguments regarding alternative methods to achieve increased safety and security in the defense activities. I will return to exactly this regarding increased safety and security and alternatives when it comes to that.

Now it is as usual: The Government intends to proceed with tougher measures and give Migrationsverket expanded opportunities to use coercive and control measures during detention. The proposals mean, among other things, that body searches shall be allowed in more cases and at a lower level of suspicion than today, that shipments shall be allowed to be examined at a lower level of suspicion, and that the detainees' living quarters and other enclosed detention facilities shall be allowed to be examined. Migrationsverket shall, if necessary, be allowed to introduce entry control, and a new form of visit control with so-called glass-pane visits shall be introduced.

Mr. Speaker! We do not share the government's assessment. Vänsterpartiet considers that the conditions in detention need to be improved, but we are critical of the government's proposal. A number of referral bodies share our criticism. Among others, Sveriges advokatsamfund, Asylrättscentrum, Civil Rights Defenders, Barnombudsmannen, Röda Korset, and Institutet för mänskliga rättigheter largely share Vänsterpartiet's view of the problem. They argue, in particular, that clear justifications and evidence are required for this type of restriction. Statistics are required, for example. It is completely incomprehensible that this government cannot justify the proposals any better than it does.

If, for example, the Swedish Migration Agency suspects that you have items that you are not allowed to have, staff already have the right today to body search you and seize items that are not permitted. Shall we be honest, body searches already occur to a large extent today. If it is necessary for order and security, the Swedish Migration Agency can also decide that you shall be kept separate from others living at the detention center.

Regarding visits, Migrationsverket can in some cases make decisions that visits shall be monitored, and one can also deny visits. This with glass-partition visits is totally unnecessary, I would say, and means that those in detention receive no human contact. Today, visits can, for example, be monitored, as I said. This risks making it so that, for example, a mother or a father does not get to hug or hold their child. We consider this to be a completely incomprehensible attitude from the government's side.

Much of this is already being done today, quite simply. JO points out, among other things, that staff to a large extent carry out body searches, attendance checks, and so-called room inspections in the detainees' living quarters. It can, of course, be questioned whether this is compatible with the requirements of the Instrument of Government regarding legal basis for measures and so on. But in the name of honesty, an incredible amount of this is happening, and very many searches are being conducted. It is very reasonable that there should be a reasonable suspicion. We do not view this as the government does: that one should just keep on searching and can skip over the reasonable suspicion and so on. So let that, above all, be said by the speaker before me. It is completely incomprehensible, I would say.

Mr. Speaker! We do not trust this government, which is the worst imaginable for asylum seekers and human rights. While we debate this proposal, the same government is reviewing a new regulatory framework for detention, where they want to make it easier to deprive children of their liberty and double the maximum time for children in detention. They want to see more coercive measures for children. They want to make it easier to separate children and parents, and they want to extend the time limit for detention from 12 to 18 months and so on.

The proposals that the government is putting forward go in that direction, and it is simply not the development we want to see. We believe in safeguarding people's freedoms and rights and people's dignity and security. To achieve this, completely different proposals are required. It is not something one gets with this government, but it only offers repression and short-sightedness.

Mr. Speaker! It would be much better if the government returned with a perspective on legal certainty and a focus on safety and security from a long-term perspective, which benefits both the detained and the staff. That, of course, is about the psychosocial environment and dynamic security, which I believe it was the Moderaterna who spoke about with profound ignorance. It is about a present, attentive staff that works to maintain a good relationship with those detained. But it is also about offering activities, a substantial treatment operation, employment opportunities, support, conversations, counseling, and improvements aimed at better development and health. But none of this is this government interested in at all, because they work short-term and only with repressive measures.

With this said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 in the report and rejection of the government's proposal.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I noted a graphic that appeared on the Social Democrats' Twitter the other day. The party writes as follows: "It is weak that the Prime Minister is not telling the truth. Ulf's falsehood 1: Increased immigration would be negotiated in a left-wing government. Wrong! Fact: S has already said no to negotiating this."

The Social Democrats can be a bit slippery. You in the Left Party know that, I assume. I just wanted to hear if this is actually true. Have the Social Democrats already said a flat no to negotiating on migration policy in a future government? Tony Haddou should know that in that case.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is very sad – Ludvig Aspling must wait a whole year, until after the election.

This question arises at regular intervals in the committee. I think it eventually becomes some kind of pathetic discourse because the government does not want to talk about what is happening, for example, its low support – that there is not that much support for what the government is doing.

The Sweden Democrats might have to be honest about having some problems within their own base and that there are parties there that say the Sweden Democrats should not sit in a government. How does Ludvig Aspling view that? Will he sit in a government?

I am not particularly interested in that right now when we are debating substantive policy, but perhaps Ludvig Aspling is not so interested. He wants to talk about the Social Democrats. It is some kind of thing for this government to talk very much about the Social Democrats, but I am not very interested in the Social Democrats. I am interested in the Left Party's policy.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our entry into this issue is very simple, and Tony Haddou is also aware of that. Then it is not the case that this issue "pops up." I would not bring this up if the Social Democrats themselves had not posted it on their Twitter account. It is not I who am raising it. I do not run their Twitter account, but it is something that they themselves have gone out and announced.

Tony Haddou gives an evasive answer. If this had been an interview, the answer would have been: "I do not comment on this." That is also an answer, but it might not be exactly the answer the Social Democrats want to hear. It means that what is written is not true. They couldn't have said a flat no to negotiating with Vänstern, could they? What is the actual situation?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Mr. Speaker! I could have spent two minutes talking about the right of asylum right now. That is what I mean by that this is becoming incredibly unserious. From the Speaker's chair, one is occasionally told that it is unnecessary to come up here if one does not ask questions about what the debate is about.

Just as Ludvig Aspling said, I give no comment. I am quite uninterested in what the Socialdemokraterna post on their Twitter account. We in Vänsterpartiet stand by our migration policy generally, and that cannot be news for Ludvig Aspling.

However, we will of course speak with the Social Democrats after the election. We naturally want to do everything in our power to, together with the Social Democrats and other parties, get rid of this government. Just as I said in my speech, it is the worst imaginable government – the worst we have had in Sweden in modern times. We have a government that kicks people, that completely ruins Sweden, that blinks and calls a press conference about socialists, when we have an unemployment rate of 10 percent – almost the highest in Europe.

It is completely catastrophic. We have a government that doesn't give a damn that people cannot afford to stay, that doesn't give a damn that more evictions of children are occurring, and that doesn't give a damn about very much. It doesn't do much about these things, but it calls a press conference about the Social Democrats.

Here in the chamber, we have a debate concerning order and security at the detention center, but the Sweden Democrats are asking – seriously – about the Social Democrats. It is very pathetic, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by approving the committee's proposal for a decision and thereby support the government's proposition, and the consequence of that is that I move for the rejection of the reservations.

Improving the order and security in our prisons is not just a matter of the exercise of public authority, but it is a matter of safety and legal certainty.

The government's proposition is an important step towards creating a more functional and responsible defense activity. As a Christian Democrat, I want to express my support for these reforms.

Sweden is a country characterized by openness, compassion, and responsibility, but for this openness to be able to endure, there must be order and clarity. Those who receive protection in Sweden shall feel security, but those who receive a legal decision to return must also do so. In order to maintain regulated immigration, it is a prerequisite that those who receive a deportation decision also leave the country. It is a cornerstone of a responsible and functioning migration policy.

Mr. Speaker! Last year, Sweden had the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1996. The number of asylum seekers has decreased by 42 percent since the government took office, even though it has increased in the rest of Europe. But the fact is that despite the lower application rate, three out of four asylum seekers are judged not to have grounds for protection. That is a very high proportion. They are therefore to return home. Some do – the return rate has trended upwards during this parliamentary term – but far too many do not follow the return decisions but instead choose to stay in Sweden after all.

We see today that there is a shadow society. Tens of thousands and perhaps up to a hundred thousand people live here in our country without permission, often under undignified and lawless conditions. This is not worthy of a welfare country like Sweden. It is not right against anyone – not against those who live that way, not against the civil society that tries to help them, not against those who follow the law, and not even against those who work within our authorities. It also undermines confidence in regulated immigration. Therefore, the return activities must work, and detention is a tool in this work.

Detention is used, among other things, to ensure that a person is available to the authorities so that a deportation decision can be enforced. A well-functioning detention system is therefore an important component in the work of combating the shadow society and increasing the return of those who have received a deportation decision. The Government is currently implementing far-reaching reforms aimed at improving and streamlining detention activities in a number of different ways.

Mr. Speaker! It is about three important steps, where an important part is to increase the number of detention places. The plan is that there should be 1,000 detention places by 2029 at the latest. Recently, the final report from the 2023 detention inquiry was also submitted. The report contains a number of important proposals and is now out for consultation. And then we have that which we are debating today and which is based on the detention inquiry's partial report. There are, therefore, many changes underway for the detention operations.

Mr. Speaker! Detention is not about punishment, but it is about ensuring that decisions are complied with, in a humane, legally secure and safe manner. Detention should not be a place of fear, threats or insecurity, neither for those who stay there nor for those who work there, but unfortunately we see that the order in the detention center has been eroded.

It occurs that drugs and weapons are brought in. Persons under the influence of drugs stay together with other detainees, sometimes even families with children. There is instances of drug sales. Staff testify to a tough working environment, lack of resources, and insufficient powers. Today, staff have far too limited opportunities to, for example, search detainees or go through packages sent to the detention center. They also lack, in many cases, the possibility to search the detainees' rooms.

The combination of drugs and weapons being brought into the detention center and the staff not having the correct powers creates an unsafe situation for the staff and for those detained. It is not dignified, and it is not sustainable. It can be stated that a majority in the committee largely share this view.

As has been said in the debate, the Swedish Migration Agency already requested in 2017 expanded possibilities to conduct searches, search rooms, and manage security in a professional manner. It is therefore truly high time to listen to the agency.

In the proposition, a number of measures are proposed which, each individually, but above all collectively, give the Swedish Migration Agency significantly better conditions to address the problems and in an effective manner be able to maintain order and security at the detention center.

Mr. Speaker! There are many changes underway, and several of them have now been enumerated by previous speakers. It concerns greater opportunities for body searches. It shall be possible to carry out these at a lower level of suspicion than today. It shall be possible with room searches to create safety in the residences. There shall be an opportunity for security checks. Visits shall be able to take place in secured rooms, if necessary also with a glass pane. One gets the right to introduce general entry control and to use authorized guards for transport and guarding of those in custody together with Migrationsverket's staff.

All this is based on important fundamental principles. It shall be used in a legally secure manner, proportionately, and with respect for human dignity. Therefore, it is also important that the bill explicitly enshrines the principle of proportionality in the Aliens Act. A measure may only be taken if it is reasonable in relation to the purpose, and less intrusive alternatives shall always be considered first. This is the heart of the rule of law. It is also in line with the Christian Democratic conviction that power must always be exercised with responsibility and compassion.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about the working environment in our agencies. We have in Sweden a public administration characterized by professionalism and care. But we cannot demand that our civil servants take responsibility for order and safety if we do not give them the right tools. Today's bill is largely about strengthening the working environment for the employees. It is about their safety and their conditions to do a good job.

Mr. Speaker! Overall, this is a necessary reform. It is well-founded, requested by the authorities, and fully compatible with both the principles of the rule of law and our moral compass. These are not measures aimed at punishment but at restoring order, responsibility, and security. The legislative changes are proposed to enter into force in August 2025.

One can regret that these steps have not been taken by previous governments. During eight years of Social Democratic rule, the opportunity existed, but not the will or the capacity for action. Now we stand here today, largely with the support of S and C, while Miljöpartiet and Vänstern, as usual, duck the problems and would prefer to continue with the management we have always had.

It is only now, with the current government and through the Tidö Agreement, that necessary reforms are actually starting to be implemented in many areas. Now it is being done when it comes to defense. People see that decisiveness, and it creates faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker! I move, as I have said, for approval of the bill and the committee's proposal for a decision.

Sweden shall be a safe country, a country of the rule of law, and a country that helps those who need protection but which also upholds laws and decisions. That is how we create trust for our migration policy, for our institutions, and for the sense of community. The reforms we decide on today are an important step on the way. The Tidö parties look out for Sweden's best interests and implement change. That is what Sweden's inhabitants expect, and that work is now being carried out.

In closing, I wish the Speaker and the Speaker's staff, fellow committee members, and also the brave and committed citizens listening to the debate a pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ingemar Kihlström speaks of how power should always be exercised with compassion. If one wants to exercise power with compassion, one should never draft a law stating that persons who are locked up despite not having committed a crime shall furthermore be prevented by a glass pane from hugging their children when they come to visit.

The possibility facing Ingemar Kihlström here today. I cannot see anything that is further from the exercise of power through compassion that the Christian Democrats speak of. It is not proportionate. It should not enter the law from the very beginning.

Mr. Speaker! There are many measures that can be taken to increase security and order at detention centers that still uphold a basic human dignity. This thing with glass panes between parents and visiting children does not do that.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Annika Hirvonen! We can observe that the Swedish Migration Agency had already analyzed the situation in 2017. They addressed the government and said: We cannot ensure safety at the reception center.

On the detention center, there are people, families, and children. The children's perspective must mean that there is a sense of security at the detention center. We in Tidögänget have ensured that we listen to the Swedish Migration Agency and investigate this quite thoroughly. The investigation has taken its time, and now we present a proposal for a ladder of measures, where decisions are made based on the situation at each individual occasion.

We can state that today there are drugs, drug-impaired persons, and weapons in the prison. We hear the staff say that they lack the tools to try to maintain order.

My child perspective is that the children who are in detention and who visit there should have a sense of security. For me, it is legally sound that the principle of proportionality provides the possibility that, as a last resort, after having gone through the ladder of measures, one can still allow a visit where a glass pane separates the persons. Naturally, in exceptional cases, this can also involve children, but at the same time, the child perspective and the principle of proportionality are included in the bill.

I look out for all children's safety. I see that the problems we have need to be addressed. I do not bury my head in the sand and ignore the problems. I see the problems, and we address them. I am confident that there will be a legally secure and child-focused treatment.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe one must have been blind to the criticism to feel as convinced as Ingemar Kihlström expresses that he is. When even the independent MR Institute, which is under the government, in its referral criticism points out that the basis is not sufficiently well-elaborated, one cannot reasonably stand here and claim the opposite.

How can one trust the rule of law when both lawyers and researchers, and even the JO, have pointed out that one already goes further with measures such as body searches and the like than what the law allows? How can one then say that one is secure with the rule of law?

I think that the Christian Democrats should instead vote yes to the Green Party's proposal to strengthen legal certainty. It becomes even more important now when these extremely far-reaching measures are being introduced. These are measures that we normally never even see in Swedish prisons, and now we are talking about people who are not locked up because they have committed crimes.

I think this proposal must be revised. Yes, there are measures to be taken to increase security, but I say no to these glass panes between children and their mothers.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that our perceptions of reality differ. We can observe that there are problems with weapons, drugs and insecurity in detention. We can also observe that we have a large shadow society. People have received a decision but have – unlike others, who submit and follow the decisions – chosen to remain in our society. Consequently, the needs are increasing, among other things, in detention.

We can also observe – as stated in the bill and in the committee's decision – that the government's proposal entails strengthened legal certainty for children. We clearly incorporate the principle of proportionality and clearly state that an individual assessment shall be made based on the situation in every decision that is made.

I repeat: glass partition visits are the absolute outer limit. There is a great possibility for visits and communication – and a hug – even with the new rules. But we provide the tools to those who have requested it, in order to create security for the families who are on the outside and for those who are taken in. We do it to ensure that the environment is, as far as possible, drug-free, to ensure that weapons do not enter, and to, in combination with increased legal certainty, increase security.

I can also state that it is written in the famous stars what we get after a potential election. We see that the Social Democrats for the most part stand up for what we are now deciding, while other parts of the left opposition say a flat no. To obtain security, a Tidö cooperation is needed. We execute what should have been executed eight years ago. Now it happens. That is how we maintain security on the defense.

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

Jonny Cato (C)

Mr. Speaker! There must be order and clarity in Swedish migration policy. Those who, according to Swedish legislation and international conventions, have the right to stay in Sweden shall be given the best possible ways into society. They shall be given the best possible ways to learn the Swedish language and get their first job. They shall simply be given good conditions to become a part of the common Sweden. When it comes to this, the government is failing.

The second part concerns that those who do not have the right to stay in Sweden shall return to their home country. In that part, the government performs better. Fundamentally, the Center Party thinks it is a reasonable proposition that the government is putting forward today.

My very first visit as migration policy spokesperson for Centerpartiet was to the detention center in Åstorp. It is completely obvious that detention involves a far-reaching restriction of personal integrity. But it is also completely obvious that detention activities are needed in Sweden 2025, if people who do not have the right to stay in the country are to be returned.

During my visit to Åstorp and on the visits thereafter, it became clear that the staff lack a number of important tools. These are tools that will be provided with this bill. Unlike other parties, I argue that it will become safer both for employees and detainees if, for example, searches can be carried out to a wider and better extent.

I also think it is completely obvious that the detention activities sometimes fall a bit between the cracks both in the political debate and in the Swedish legislation. We have a firm grip on our prisons. We have a firm grip on our remand centers. But when it comes to the detainee, who is held by the Swedish Migration Agency, we do not quite have the same grip and the same order and clarity.

I also think that the Swedish Migration Agency does a lot with the tools they have. However, it is completely obvious that the policy needs to provide more, and we do that with this bill.

There is, however, justified criticism, and we and the Social Democrats raise it in a reservation concerning the need to strengthen the children's perspective. I therefore move for the approval of reservation 3.

All children have the right to physical contact with their parents. This falls away when it comes to the proposition from the Tidö parties. The children's perspective needs to be improved in upcoming proposals regarding the detention activities.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of Swedish migration policy is that those who are not to stay in Sweden do not stay. However, very many have the right to stay in this country, and for those people, there are no initiatives from the government. One really must see both sides of the coin. If we are to have a humane migration policy with order and structure, one must invest in those people who have the right to stay here so that they learn the Swedish language and get their first job – while simultaneously being rock-solid against those who do not have the right to stay here.

When it comes to this, the government is very good at taking a hard line but much worse at telling those who actually have the right to stay here: Welcome to your new homeland!

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are talking about improved order and security at detention centers. Let me begin by saying something about what detention entails. In a detention center, people are held awaiting the execution of deportation. They can be asylum seekers who have had their asylum applications rejected. Most of those held in detention are not there because they have committed a crime. The majority, therefore, have not done so.

What is it like to be in a detention center? Well, in many ways it actually resembles a prison. One is locked in, and one already faces different types of restrictions today. One can be placed in isolation, and one can be subjected to body searches.

Now the government wants to introduce even more opportunities for this type of control. It concerns body searches, the searching of the living space one resides in, and controls linked to visits. Ultimately, one should be able to put up a glass pane between the person being detained and a visitor. This also applies even if it is a parent who is visited by a small child.

In detention, one can be held for an indefinite period with a maximum time limit. Many can be held for a period of one year. Unfortunately, it is very common that expulsions for various reasons cannot be executed and that one therefore remains for a very long time.

We in Miljöpartiet think it is important that people who are deprived of their liberty are treated with dignity and respect. People who are locked up in detention, just like all people, have the right to, for example, personal privacy. It should not be restricted more than is absolutely necessary. There need to be reasonable requirements for efficiency and proportionality when people's privacy is restricted. This also applies even if they are already locked up – perhaps especially when one is already locked up. Several of these proposals do not live up to that.

We in Miljöpartiet are critical of the fact that even today there are deficiencies in legal certainty for people who are held in detention. I have personally heard testimony from both lawyers and researchers who argue that measures that should not be taken routinely are being taken routinely, for example, body searches. Now, increased opportunities are being given to take those measures while the majority in the chamber votes no to Miljöpartiet's demands for increased legal certainty.

Some of the most far-reaching measures involve denying people the opportunity to have physical contact with visitors. This can involve close family members and, as mentioned, also small children visiting a mother or a father. It cannot, by definition, be proportionate to prevent a child from hugging their parent. Other measures must be taken instead.

An important measure that should be taken instead of the government's proposal is to ensure that all entry into the detention center is controlled. If one wants to prevent someone, for example, from bringing in a folding knife or narcotics into the detention center, one must focus on the entry process itself. That is where these items can be intercepted, and then one cannot make a distinction as to who is passing in.

Mr. Speaker! For me, this is perhaps the clearest example of when one goes very far in the rhetoric and speaks about immigrants and asylum seekers as if they were criminals. Let us therefore remember once again that the vast majority of those held in detention have not committed any crime. With this proposal, the government goes further than what is done in Swedish prisons, where glass-partition visits practically do not occur. I do not think the government lives up to the paragraph on proportionality that it itself wants to write into the Aliens Act.

We in Miljöpartiet do, however, think it is good to clearly include the principle of proportionality in the law, and therefore we do not move for a rejection of the government's entire proposal for a legislative amendment.

Mr. Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the Miljöpartiets proposals in this report, but for the sake of time, I vote in favor of only reservation 2.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet writes as follows in reservation 4:

"The security-promoting measures being introduced must be both accurate and proportionate in relation to each individual's fundamental rights. The measures should be directed towards the actual problem, the introduction of prohibited items upon entry to the detention center, rather than towards the detainees' private lives inside the detention center. I therefore believe that general and effective checks upon entry, e.g., through security gates and X-ray checks of bags and jackets, would prevent much of the issues that Migrationsverket and JO have highlighted. This can be considered a less intrusive measure regarding personal integrity than, for example, manual body searches. The Government should allow a proposal on this to be evaluated."

Against the background of this reservation text, I wanted to ask Annika Hirvonen if she has noted any proposal regarding specifically entry control in the bill we are debating today. I also wonder if she is aware of whether her own party, Miljöpartiet, demands rejection or approval of the proposal in that part.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We want to see a different solution for entry controls, a solution that affects everyone who enters. We have therefore chosen to move for a rejection of all parts of the government's bill that do not concern the principle of proportionality. We also propose a motion for a report to the government in this part, where we believe the government should return with a better proposal.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In that case, I shall inform Annika Hirvonen that section 5.2.9 in the bill has the heading "The Swedish Migration Agency shall be allowed to decide on general entry control during detention." The general entry control shall then affect everyone, just as Annika Hirvonen had wished. But now it is the case that Miljöpartiet demands rejection of the bill in this part.

The question I would like to ask is: Why are you moving for a rejection of the proposal on general entry control when it is exactly the same proposal that the Green Party itself puts forward in reservation 4? It is, in fact, almost word-for-word the same thing as what is written in your reservation, Annika Hirvonen. You write about security arches, X-ray checks of jackets and bags and so on. It is exactly what is written in the bill.

Why do you move for the rejection of this proposal and leave exactly the same proposal in your reservation?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Our view is that general entry controls must also include everyone working at the detention center to be effective. If one has sufficiently effective entry controls, it is not necessary to have such far-reaching mandates to body-search people and search people's living quarters in so many cases.

It is much better to focus on seizing drugs, knives, or other items that are not allowed at the detention center in the entrances. That is where the effort should be placed. The other measures, for example glass panes between visitors and detainees, which in an incredibly intrusive way affect people's privacy and fundamental rights inside the detention center, are not proportionate if the problem is addressed at the door.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

The situation in several of the Swedish Migration Agency's detention centers has been unsustainable for a long time. Drugs and weapons are brought into the detention centers, which creates an unsafe environment for both the detainees and the staff. Both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Parliamentary Ombudsmand have repeatedly raised the need for powerful measures to address these problems.

To take an example: Inside the walls of the Migrationsverket detention center in Märsta, it has according to employees been chaotic, with smuggled drugs, weapon finds and a generally dangerous working environment. Threats and violence against staff are commonly occurring. In an incident report, it is described how a detainee even threatened to kill an employee when he was to be released. In another case, the alarm did not work when the staff were threatened, which the staff point out "exposes us to risks that are not acceptable at a state agency where we officials have the right to be safe".

We have also seen escape incidents that have jeopardized security; as recently as May last year, five people escaped from the prison in Märsta. Three people were arrested again, but two disappeared. During the escape, staff were threatened with violence, and the prison was subjected to vandalism.

Mr. Speaker! One of the Liberals' primary priorities in this matter is, in fact, to take the working environment for the employees at the detention center most seriously. It is evident that the staff have for a long time been forced to work under difficult conditions. The trade union ST, which organizes many of the employees, has pointed this out and welcomes these proposals for increased safety. They have also long pushed for these legislative changes. That the government is now acting to strengthen the safety for the Swedish Migration Agency's employees and those who are detained there is therefore extremely welcome.

As important as the staff's safety is, so are the security and order for those in detention. The detention centers are locked residences, not correctional facilities. Most of those held in detention have not committed any crime but are there awaiting deportation, and they naturally have the right to a safe and secure living environment during that time.

Today, however, those in detention also risk being affected by the prevailing disorder. When drugs are prevalent inside the detention center, they risk being drawn into abuse, ending up in conflict with one another, or simply feeling generally unsafe being in the same premises as those under the influence of drugs.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are, as said, taking measures to reverse the negative development. Two of the most important measures are that we increase the body searches of detainees and the possibility to inspect shipments, even at a lower suspicion level than today. This means that drugs and other dangerous objects can be detected and prevented before they cause harm. Another important measure is that Migrationsverket is given the opportunity to hire guards for surveillance when a detainee must be kept outside the detention center, for example during hospital visits.

Mr. Speaker! That we strengthen order does not mean that we compromise on any principles – on the contrary. We explicitly include a proportionality principle in the Aliens Act. This means that every coercive measure must be necessary and appropriate and constitute as small a restriction as possible. The new powers must never be abused or used disproportionately. They shall be used where they are needed, when they are needed, and under supervision.

With this said, I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a happy summer.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

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