The National Audit Office's report on detention in the migration process

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate a report regarding the National Audit Office's report on detention in the migration process and the government's communication regarding this.

The report shows that there are many deficiencies within the detention operations. One of the biggest deficiencies is that there have been instances where individuals have been released from detention to make room for more prioritized cases. This is something that absolutely must not happen because those who end up in detention are often foreigners who are to be deported and risk absconding. It can also involve foreigners whose identity is unclear or whose stay in Sweden needs to be investigated. These people must be held in detention and absolutely not released because there is no space.

This government has continuously expanded the detention capacity to ensure that the foreigners who are to be detained are actually detained. Since 2024, detention activities have been one of the Swedish Migration Agency's focus areas. During 2025, the Swedish Migration Agency has carried out the work within the detention activities in accordance with the government's mandate for the rapid expansion of detention capacity, which has led to concrete capacity increases. At the end of 2023, the total number of detention places was 567. It had increased to 678 at the end of 2025.

But increasing the number of detention places is only one way to address the problem. Another way is to reduce the number of foreigners who need to be placed in detention at all. Even in that area, this government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has achieved good results. The number of asylum seekers during Magdalena Andersson's last years as Prime Minister was approximately 16,700. Last year, approximately 6,700 asylum applications were received. The number of asylum seekers during this parliamentary term has been significantly reduced. Last year, the number of asylum seekers was therefore one-third of the number that arrived during Magdalena Andersson's last years as Prime Minister.

If we have a smaller asylum migration, it means that fewer need to be deported. It is fewer who deviate and fewer foreigners who need to be identified and whose stay needs to be investigated. It is simply fewer foreigners who need to be placed in detention.

The solution is therefore not always to build more reception centers, even though that is what the Migration Agency is currently doing on the government's instructions. We must also continue to work so that fewer asylum seekers come to Sweden.

Another dimension of the whole is to make it difficult to be an illegal migrant in Sweden, which this government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has done. Yesterday, we made a decision on the bill Strengthened Repatriation Activities, which will make it very difficult to be an illegal migrant in Sweden. Many more illegal migrants will be caught and deported.

What does this mean? Yes, it will mean that fewer will deviate because there will not be a society that one can turn to as an illegal migrant. Relevant authorities have been assigned a duty of task so that illegal migrants can be detected by the Swedish Police Authority. Last month, the Riksdag decided that illegal migrants shall no longer be able to receive financial assistance from social services.

Many internal immigration checks are already being carried out, and following the decision that the Riksdag took yesterday, even more internal immigration checks will be carried out. It will also be possible to check foreigners' mobile phones and computers during such internal immigration checks to see if the owners have the right to stay in the country.

It will simply become much harder to be an illegal migrant in Sweden, and in that case, there is no point in deviating or even coming to Sweden if one does not have good reasons. It will result in that group of people who are most often relevant for detention being significantly reduced.

It should also be added that mass immigration always leads to a shortage in detention capacity. It is not the intention that masses of foreigners should deviate and stay in the country illegally. An exemplary process in the migration system would be that they state their grounds for asylum, let them be examined, and follow the decision they receive from Migrationsverket. It is only when we have an excessively large immigration and many foreigners who risk deviating or cannot identify themselves that it is necessary to have enough detention places. If more foreigners actually followed the deportation decisions or cooperated with the authorities, no detention places would be needed at all.

Mr. Speaker! From the National Audit Office's report, it appears that three-quarters of all detention periods ended when the foreigner either voluntarily or by force followed their deportation decision and left Sweden. The more deportations that are carried out, the fewer need to be held in detention.

Some parties in the opposition oppose in practice many of the measures aimed at streamlining the return and enforcement of deportation decisions.

But the person who has received a legally binding deportation decision shall leave the country. Executing the decision as promptly as possible is not only important for the confidence in the migration system – it is also better for the individual.

Detention is an intrusive coercive measure that entails a restriction of personal freedom and furthermore entails costs for the taxpayers. The faster a deportation decision can be executed, the shorter time someone needs to stay in detention. It is better for society, better for the taxpayers and better for the individual, who can move on with their life in another country more quickly after the decision has been executed.

Mr. Speaker! I am going through all of this because I want to emphasize that this government has done so much more than just increase the defense capacity. Our policy will, in the long term, reduce the need for defense sites, which benefits both the taxpayers and the affected foreigners.

But we can also be certain that the red-green parties' policy would lead to a significantly greater need for detention places. With such a large immigration as they advocate for, more foreigners will seek asylum in Sweden. More will deviate from the authorities, and more will then need to be taken into detention.

Mr. Speaker! Something that is very worrying in the Swedish National Audit Office's review is the presence of narcotics and sharp objects in the detention center. It is important that the detention center is a safe and secure environment because those in detention cannot choose for themselves where they should stay. Those held in detention should not have to be exposed to narcotics, threats, or violence.

Even here, the government and the Sweden Democrats have shown decisiveness. Tomorrow marks one year since the Riksdag voted through the government's bill Improved order and security at detention centers, which enabled several measures that make the detention centers safer environments. Detained foreigners can be body-searched more often. The Swedish Migration Agency can decide on general entry control, where body searches are carried out on everyone entering the detention premises through the use of metal detectors or other aids. These new measures make it more difficult to get drugs and various weapons into the detention centers.

Yesterday, the Riksdag decided to approve the bill "Stricter rules on detention and custody". That bill gives the Swedish Migration Agency the possibility to place certain detainees in security wards if the foreigner, for public order or security reasons, cannot stay in a regular detention ward. The Government and the Sweden Democrats have worked hard throughout the entire parliamentary term so that we can achieve safer detention.

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office's review shows that there have been deficiencies in the defense activities, but at the same time, the government has acted with great decisiveness to rectify these deficiencies. There is much left to do.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats continue the work of increasing the detention capacity, strengthening order and security in detention, sharpening the return work, and implementing reforms that make it harder to live as an illegal migrant in Sweden.

But in the long run, the goal is not to build an ever larger detention operation: The goal is that fewer people should end up there at all. Then fewer asylum migrants must come to Sweden. Taxpayers should not have to pay for detention places for deported migrants who refuse to leave the country. We need fewer asylum migrants and a society where no one can even imagine being an illegal migrant. Then we would also not need so many detention places.

A migration system works best when foreigners follow the decisions that are made, when deportations are carried out, and when those who lack the right to stay also actually leave the country. That is how we create order and clarity in migration policy and in the defense work. That is how we safeguard trust in the right of asylum.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and for the rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! The National Audit Office has conducted a welcome and thorough audit of the defense activities. The audit reveals serious deficiencies in governance and coordination issues, both within the Swedish Migration Agency and in the police's own operations as well as in the coordination between them. It also appears that coercive and control measures are used routinely. In addition to this, there are problems with, among other things, the supply of competence, and there is an education debt.

This picture can furthermore be supplemented by JO's inspection of three shelters during the autumn of 2025. The reading is not beautiful and describes major deficiencies in reception, competence, physical environment, and how vulnerable groups are handled. Taken together, a very problematic picture emerges of how the shelters are operated, managed, and governed. Both the agencies and the government should be criticized for this.

Mr. Speaker! How could it have become like this? Since 2015, the detention center has been significantly expanded, from an average of 255 places in 2015 to over 500 places today. After the pandemic, however, the expansion rate has stalled. The current government has focused very much on continuing to expand. Less focus has, on the other hand, been placed on the quality in the detention center and on issues regarding, for example, children.

When I read the regulatory letter to the Swedish Migration Agency during this mandate period, I can observe that there has been a strong focus on deportation. The children's perspective, on the other hand, has been conspicuously absent.

In this year's regulatory letter, some of the recommendations from the National Audit Office's report are taken into account, which is obviously good. But in terms of children and other vulnerable groups, it is even more meager. The word "detention" is mentioned 25 times in the letter. The word "children" is mentioned 13 times, and in those instances, the children are not mentioned primarily in a detention context but primarily when it concerns unaccompanied minors and citizenship.

The word "children's perspective" is mentioned once in a heading about return centers – an activity that has a completely different history even if it has some similarities with what we are discussing today. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not mentioned at all.

I can only conclude that there is no greater focus on children's rights, despite these well-known deficiencies in the defense work, on the part of the government.

Mr. Speaker! A number of the recommendations from the Swedish National Audit Office are also expressed in the bill we dealt with in a debate here in the chamber on Sunday. There, we Social Democrats were clear that we referred to the motion in this matter by highlighting this in our special statement. But we were also clear that we, for example, welcome the opportunities for increased oversight, the question of security matters, and that certain questions regarding the division of roles between the authorities are clarified. What we mean, however, is that the question of children specifically needs to be handled further.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 5. I would then like to thank the Swedish National Audit Office for the audit and wish the Speaker's Presidency, my colleagues in the committee, as well as the chamber and office staff, a happy summer.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is not so strange that children are hardly mentioned here because children practically never sit in pre-trial detention in Sweden.

Detention is an absolute necessity when a person over time does not comply with the decision he or she has received from Swedish authorities. But if one is a family with children, it is normal for one parent to remain outside of detention, in a residence, and one parent ends up in detention until the time the family is to go home. One does not want to place children in detention.

I have visited some of the country's prisons during the term of office, and in all places they say the same thing: We practically never have children sitting here, because children should not be in prison.

I share the view that children should not be held in detention. But the legislation must have room for the few cases where we cannot resolve a deportation in any other way than, for example, when a single parent has a small child with them in detention. It is terrible when it happens.

But the Social Democrats have also seen this before. There must be room in the legislation to be able to have children in custody for a short period before they go home. As I understand it, the Social Democrats always want there to be room to have children in custody for a short, short time. As I understand it now, even though there was no reservation on the other day, it is desired that there should be room to have a child there for 72 hours. But we can surely agree that it will almost never need to happen. Surely no one here wants to see children sitting in custody. And that is probably why one does not place much focus on it when governing authorities, but instead focuses on those who most often sit there. Those who most often sit there are unaccompanied older children or usually adults who refuse to follow Swedish authority decisions.

We are in agreement, surely, that children shall also be able to be held in detention in the future?

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat embarrassed when I hear Member Resare, because the Member says that since it is not so common for a child to sit there, the government has not bothered to rewrite it. It is enough, for me at least, that a child should sit there. It is as the Member says: It will happen in the future as well.

To downplay the child's importance when JO's review is so clear that vulnerable groups – children, people with disabilities and others – are suffering, I find it remarkable. I actually want to ask Member Resare to clarify if he really means that the government has refrained from talking about the child perspective and the Convention on the Rights of the Child because so few children are affected. Is that why the government does not want to talk about them in its regulatory letters regarding this activity – despite the serious criticism that has emerged?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Ola Möller is fully capable of understanding exactly what I meant. It is clear that we do not want to see any children there. And it is clear that we want that on the occasional occasions when a child ends up in detention, they should have a bearable life there – a life as good as possible, given the circumstance that the child is locked up.

Möller understands exactly what I am saying. But one can choose to try to make some strange interpretation of what I just said. That children are not mentioned to the same extent as adults is not particularly strange, because storage is an activity that primarily targets adults.

I do not think it is serious to engage in some kind of word bingo and count how many times one has mentioned the word child in a regulatory letter. But you were not particularly serious the other day either when we talked about this issue. That is what social democracy has become now, when one has a government base that is not even able to hold together.

Vänsterpartiet is pursuing one line. The Social Democrats are pursuing another line. And one does not know where the Green Party and the Left Party are heading. One must then try to hold it together. What is then easier than defending that one has no government-capable alternative? Then one starts playing word bingo and counting how many times a certain word has been written in a regulatory letter.

Ola knows that we do not want to see children in detention, but sometimes it will happen, even with your politics. When it happens, we want them to be well, and we want the detention to function in the best way for everyone who is held there. The norm is that it is adults who are held there, preferably men. That is the reality. Therefore, I think this becomes silly. I think it becomes dishonest towards the voters, who perhaps want to hear where the detention activities are headed now that we have received a good National Audit Office report with criticism that the government is taking to heart and that the Swedish Migration Agency and the police are taking to heart.

Let's have a serious debate instead!

(Applause)

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I maintain that this is a problem. I listened to what Member Resare said. He stated that there are not that many children and that the government therefore has not made an effort to rewrite them. That is the crux of the matter.

Since we agree that children unfortunately will have to sit there, it is a distressing announcement from Member Resare that the government has that approach. It is, as said, good for the voters to know this.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats continue to show their new unserious face, as they showed us a couple of days ago, when, without a single reservation regarding the new defense legislation that we have presented, they suddenly said: No, this shall be suspended for one year.

The serious parties in the chamber on this issue are Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet. It is perhaps not so common for Moderater to stand and say it in this chamber, but now it actually is.

Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet had gone through the legislative proposal that was on our table – it was prepared week after week. They said: We do not think it is good legislation to move forward with, so we have a reservation. When it was finally to be voted on in the chamber, they chose to use a very unusual tool to declare it dormant for one year.

I think it is a serious way to conduct politics and enact laws. It is about being open and honest about what one thinks, and when it actually arrives here, one can pull this emergency brake, or whatever it was called from parts of the opposition.

But the Social Democrats are showing that they are not serious about these issues. Now Ola Möller stands here and argues that the government doesn't care one bit about children simply because a word appears in a certain amount in a regulatory letter. This is, like, not worthy of this chamber.

We have received a National Audit Office report on our table that I believe addresses relevant deficiencies in the Swedish Migration Agency's and the police's handling of a very, very serious issue. I think it is very good that the government, the Swedish Migration Agency, and the police can address these deficiencies and heal this, so that we have a serious, good, efficient, and legally secure detention management in this country.

One thing you must keep in mind, Mr. Speaker. It is that we Moderates do not want to see a single person sitting in detention in Sweden. Every person who sits there, old as young, is a failure. It is a failure of the Swedish state that we have not been able to help this person with the journey home earlier and that we have not ensured that the person is put on a plane. Above all, it is a failure that that person has not ensured that they travel home as they should.

If you get a no in Sweden, you should leave Sweden. If you get a yes in Sweden, we shall help you become integrated and a part of this society as soon as possible, so that you can quickly start your new life here with your family and your friends and become a part of this country. It is about working and contributing, just as the vast majority of immigrants do in this country. Those who are here and are doing well are a huge asset for us.

Those who do not obey the authorities' decisions and those who refuse to comply are not an asset to Sweden.

We must agree in this chamber that we want a regulated migration. But if one thinks it is more important to see how many times a word has been written in a regulatory letter than to listen to the government, which is addressing the deficiencies that exist regarding housing, I do not think one is serious. If one claims that one's party leader should be Prime Minister in a few months, I think one should take the work in this chamber significantly more seriously.

As said: We do not want any human being to be held in detention. We want people to leave the country when they receive a no. It can be that we say "You have received a no. You must leave the country now" and the person still does not do so. When we tell them once more and once more and once more, it can sometimes become relevant to put someone in detention. It must then be a well-functioning operation.

We do not want people to sit in prison either. That does not mean that one should not have prisons that function when people do commit crimes. Our basic stance is not that we should put as many people as possible in prison regardless of what they have done. When nothing else is sufficient, one puts a person behind bars.

It is about breaking laws or not following authority decisions, which is also breaking laws. And in this case, one ends up in detention.

I wonder where Sweden will head in a change of power when the Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet so clearly move in one direction when it comes to migration issues and the Socialdemokraterna have so clearly voted with us regarding practically every migration issue. Either the Socialdemokraterna will show the entire Swedish people that they have played political theater here for four years and voted with us against better judgment in order to triangulate parties in Sweden's Riksdag, or Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet and Centerpartiet will completely run over the Socialdemokraterna, whose only focus seems to be to take Rosenbad, at whatever cost to the Swedish people.

I think we should have a more honest and fairer handling of the legislative work in this chamber than what we have seen over the past few days.

I think it is good that the Swedish Migration Agency, the police and the government have taken in the information contained in the report – that there are deficiencies in Swedish detention centers – and I think it is good that work is being done to rectify these.

During this parliamentary term, we have done really good things to get order in the prison. We have ensured that one can no longer wander in with drugs, weapons, or alcohol, for that matter, and we have ensured that it has ceased what we found out at the beginning of the parliamentary term, namely that people have been able to come in and sell sex in Swedish prisons.

We have, therefore, had prostitution in Swedish authority premises where people are sitting because they are waiting for deportation. It is completely bizarre. This is a system that has grown during previous governments during the Social Democrats' eight years in power. I heard about it half a year into the mandate period.

That it happened was not a consequence of moderate politics, but it was a consequence of that nothing had been done about the Swedish prisons for eight years. It was thought that it was more important that people could unhindered and without having to legitimize themselves or explain why they were at a prison visit a person who was held there. One did not need to state if one was a parent, brother or friend, instead one could enter there as a drug dealer and conduct that type of business in Swedish prisons in government premises.

We have put a stop to that now. I think it is fantastically good that this government is taking action and sorting out such things. I hope that we win the election so that we can continue to manage this country and make it even better.

I am afraid of what would happen if the parties that at every given moment write reservations about taking back Swedish migration legislation to 2015 gain influence in these issues and if the migration minister is named Tony Haddou or Annika Hirvonen. It is not because they are bad people, but because I think they have a policy that does not hold. I hope, as I said, that we win the election. I hope that the government continues its serious and important work to reform this.

I also hope that everyone here has a nice summer. We will convene in a few months and debate here while our fellow members are at home in their constituencies and campaigning so that just their ideas and thoughts win support so that they might be re-elected or whatever it may be. Then we will stand here and talk about important issues in the chamber.

I may not be completely bidding farewell to this rostrum now, as I hope to be able to return to it after the next election, but I would at least like to extend a thank you to my party, which has given me the confidence to sit here during this mandate period.

I want to thank my family, who have been very supportive throughout my entire political career, and above all my partner who has put up with me coming here every Monday evening to, at best, get home again on Thursday evening and that I am often away on the weekends doing party work. A big thank you, Isabelle and everyone else!

I wish the chair and all my fellow members a happy and pleasant summer until we meet here again. We will be back in this committee.

(Applause)

In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD) agreed.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Magnus Resare accused the Social Democrats in his speech of being responsible for the fact that prostitution has occurred in detention.

Politicians are naturally responsible for taking various measures to ensure the safety of the people whom society deprives of liberty, in the same way that one has a responsibility to ensure that children who are taken into foster care are not mistreated in their foster homes. It is nevertheless a bold accusation to stick on a party that actions which are criminal and which are committed by individuals are directly the party's fault.

I cannot help but think about the appallingly crude report published recently in the newspaper Arbetet, which concerns appalling, repeated sexual assaults that prisoners in the country's prisons have been subjected to inside the prison cells.

It is a completely new phenomenon that was not possible previously since there was one person in each cell. Now, double-occupancy is the rule. I would still not go as far as to accuse Magnus Resare for these rapes committed by persons who now share a cell, even though it is a result of the Moderates' crime policy.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have not accused the Social Democrats of being behind any gang rapes. I have, however, said that under their leadership, the purchase of sexual services occurred at the expense of the country. I think it is appalling that it could have continued.

I received this early in the term and took the information to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and to our Migration Minister, who was completely dismayed to hear that such things were occurring. That is why we have ensured that it is not just a matter of walking into a detention center with drugs, with the intent to sell sexual services, or with a bottle of alcohol, which also occurred. It was observed that detainees became intoxicated after having visited by friends. When they returned into the detention center to the others who were sitting there, they were intoxicated, and it resulted in fights and acts of violence.

I think the Social Democrats made a big deal out of interpreting that we do not care about children because the word children did not appear in a regulatory letter enough times. In that case, Annika Hirvonen should be just as disappointed with the Socialdemokraterna as she is with me.

What is happening in Swedish prisons is truly something that the government keeps track of and wants to address and ensure that it changes. Why would our government think it is positive if sexual assaults occur there? But when we receive that type of information, we take action, improve the situation, and ensure that it does not occur.

If it is about building more prison cells, that is what we are doing now. We have even started entering into agreements with other countries to ensure that we get more cells so that we do not have to have the situation with overcrowding that we have. It is unfortunately a consequence of the fact that for far too many years in this country, we did not tackle organized crime when we saw it spreading and that people in larger and larger proportions began committing murders. They are behind bars now.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A measure that I would like to recommend that the Moderaterna, and for all intents and purposes also others here in the chamber, consider is to take to heart the Swedish National Audit Office's criticism regarding how people are held in custody for very long periods despite the fact that the decisions obviously cannot be executed, while at the same time we have a shortage of space in prisons. This leads to inmates having to share cells and in these spaces they are systematically subjected to sexual assaults and rape.

One possible solution is to prioritize so that places for detention are used precisely for those who need to be detained because they have committed a crime, not for persons who have not committed any crime but are being detained, for example, because one wants to blackmail them into buying plane tickets themselves that Sweden cannot buy for them on insecure airlines that do not meet EU standards, to travel to Afghanistan, for example. They could be kept under supervision, that is, not be deprived of their liberty. Then places can be freed up for persons who actually need to be detained so that they can serve a sentence or because they are dangerous to others.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! How fortunate that we are now moving forward with legislation that means one can have an electronic ankle bracelet instead of being locked up.

I have been very clear during the two days that we have debated this issue. I think that every time we put a person in Swedish custody, it is a failure – both for the state and for the individual. People who receive a "no" should arrange their own journey home.

Annika also stands for a regulated migration. I have heard Annika say several times that a yes must be a yes and a no must be a no, and the person who is not allowed to stay must leave the country.

But when people repeatedly refuse to leave the country, one must eventually have a detention center where they can be placed. The same applies to people who are released from prisons but are too dangerous to be out in society. It could be about someone who commits repeated rapes and where there is reason to suspect that the person in question will commit such crimes again.

Now, new rules will be introduced so that one can have an electronic ankle bracelet if one is someone who is currently in detention but perhaps does not need it if one can stay within a limited area. Perhaps the family with children can avoid being in detention if they can stay within a limited area and have an ankle bracelet. That is such a proposal we are putting forward now.

It will be nice to see how Swedish authorities handle the legislation that we have largely hammered out now. I believe it will become better for very many people. It concerns people who actually do not have the right to be in Sweden but who do not necessarily need to be locked up. It would be very good if we could get less restrictive legislation in place.

I know that Annika Hirvonen wrote very positively about the part of the proposal that concerns the possibility of electronic ankle monitors. It is very good.

This government is doing things ambitiously because we want to make Sweden a slightly better country, even for those people who actually shouldn't even be here. But when you have received a no, you shall leave the country. The state will then help you do that. If you do not cooperate with that, you can end up in a detention center, and there it shall be safe and secure until you go home.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Magnus Resare said a few things in his speech that I would like to hear a little more about.

The first was: "I would not want to put a single person in detention." But why then did you expand the rules to put more people in detention? Why did we have to use the constitution to stop you from putting more people in detention? This does not hold up.

It is in this way we have had to act over the last few days. You want fewer people in detention, but we were forced to use the constitution to stop you from doing so. It does not add up.

The second was: "Those who work and contribute shall not be deported." Nevertheless, the wage floor has now been raised to 34,470 kronor, which means that more people are deported.

Why do you say one thing time and again but deliver another?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want people in detention, and I do not want people in prison. Unfortunately, there are people who commit crimes, and then they are put in prison. Unfortunately, there are people who do not follow Swedish authority decisions when they receive a no on their application for a residence permit.

When Swedish authorities examine your right to be here in the country and conclude that you lack such a right, you shall leave the country. Everyone who is open and stands for regulated migration thinks that a no should be a no. I believe that even the Center Party thinks that a no should be a no.

The absolute last measure one takes when someone does not leave the country is to place the person in detention to await a flight. It is a reasonable order that one can do this as a last necessary resort when the state cannot get a person to leave the country voluntarily.

There is nothing positive about this, and it is nothing I want. It costs money and involves suffering for the person who ends up there. I do not think it is good when people suffer, but I believe that the one who acts wrongly against the Swedish state and what our authorities have concluded needs to face the consequences of their actions.

In the worst case, it becomes detention when you are here to apply for a residence permit and are denied one. So, there is nothing positive at all about this.

The question of wage requirements and subsistence requirements is a completely different debate. I think we have reached a good compromise. There are exceptions for many occupations, otherwise we would have had to deport many people. We have now introduced an exception rule that will allow them to stay.

In the end, it applies that if you are here with a work permit, you need to be able to support yourself. We have now presented an exception of 75 percent of the median wage, which will lead to that very many of the people we have debated over the past year will be able to remain in Sweden.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Do children follow authority decisions? No, they do not have the prerequisites for that because they are children. And they are to be in there for a longer period!

There are also people in detention who do not have the possibility to leave the country. That is also a reality that exists. They cannot leave the country even if they want to. Even they can end up in detention sometimes.

Yes, a no is a no. There is no doubt about that. The question is how we treat people who have been given a no to whether they can leave the country.

If one does not want to have children in custody, why is it necessary to have legislation that allows one to split up families? Why is it necessary to have that part included? Why is it necessary to have legislation that allows children to stay there for a longer period, if one really does not want them there?

Why was it necessary for us to go to the Committee on the Constitution regarding a declaration of violation to convince others that this is not necessary? We may not have convinced them, but we at least managed to ensure that this does not happen.

This is still a reasonable question. Why is this legislation being introduced if you do not want them there – especially not children?

The Moderates say that they have reached a good compromise in the area of labor migration. One must be able to support oneself, they say. Yes, one must. But one can support oneself without earning 34,470 kronor.

Sandra is 13 years old and has never lived anywhere else than in Sweden. Her mother was a labor migrant and had a job with a salary according to a collective agreement. She was deported yesterday. It happened yesterday while we were standing here in the chamber. This morning she slept at the airport in Istanbul and today she landed in Ulan Bator.

She is 13 years old and has never lived anywhere else. She was deported because of the Moderaternas wage demands of 90 percent of the median wage. Without that, she would have stayed, and her friends would have kept their classmate. Why is this a good compromise?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will start in the right order. First and foremost, I do not comment on individual cases at all. Niels knows this, and therefore I think it is unserious to debate in that manner.

We do not want children to be held in detention, but there will be occasions when children must be held in detention with their parents. It is in absolute exceptional cases, and it is clear from the bill for anyone who reads it how rarely this is to occur.

When I have visited detention, it is told that there are practically never any children there. Sometimes a single woman who has stayed here for a long time may be forced to have her children there for a very short period. Even in the bill that the government is now presenting, it is about being able to stay in detention for an additional couple of days.

I am very clear that it is a failure. Children should not have to sit there. Children should also not have to sit in prison. Nevertheless, we have legislation that tolerates that children up to one year old are with their mothers in prison.

It is possible because we have written it into the legislation to provide for possibility in extreme situations. It is not desirable. It is nothing we want to see. But we must have room for extreme situations in Swedish legislation. What else is one to do when a situation arises that perhaps makes it necessary to place a person with children in detention?

It is important to remember that these people are to leave the country quickly. They must be helped immediately to obtain plane tickets to the country they come from. They should not have to sit there for a second longer than they need to.

Regarding the subsistence requirements, I note that when the Centerpartiet was part of the government, one needed to earn 13,000 kronor a month to be here. There is surely no one here who believes that one can support oneself long-term and in a sensible way for 13,000 kronor. I did not think that was good, and we had to do something about it.

There is a difference of a few thousand kronor a month between what the Center Party proposes and what we propose regarding the maintenance a labor migrant should have. But it is being painted as if one would need to earn 100,000 kronor a month. So it is not even with the Center's proposal.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We in the Social Insurance Committee are gathering again in this chamber to discuss proposals within the migration area. This has occurred a few times over the past few days.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal, which naturally implies the rejection of the motions in the report regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report on detention.

So, here in the conclusion of this spring session, we have reached the final debate within the migration area before we go home and take a little break to meet again for a new debate in August. This evening, we will therefore take up the final migration matter.

It has been an eventful time to look back on. Many new investigations have been presented. A large number of propositions have been adopted in this chamber. We have spent a lot of time together in the committee and the chamber to debate, discuss, and decide on changes in policy. Now we have reached the matter concerning the Swedish National Audit Office's report on detention.

Mr. Speaker! Just as I have said in previous debates in this chamber, a strict and sustainable migration policy is based on the fact that one returns after having been denied their asylum application. This occurs after a legally secure review, which I am convinced we have in Sweden in many cases.

The purpose of detention is to create a more efficient return process. Decisions on detention are made by the Swedish Migration Agency, the Swedish Police Authority, the Swedish Security Service, and in the final instance, the court. As a rule, it concerns persons with deportation orders who do not cooperate with the authorities and who are judged to run a risk of absconding.

The detention capacity has been expanded over the last ten years due to an increased need for places, just as has been mentioned in the debate. The large expansion actually took place during the previous government's mandate period. It is also important to say that the situation we have at the detention center may be related to the large expansion that occurred in a short period. Naturally, it is important that the detention center functions in a legally secure manner and that people who are placed there are treated well.

Mr. Speaker! In a new report, the Swedish National Audit Office, in view of the current situation, directs criticism towards the Swedish Migration Agency's and the police's management and follow-up of the detention activities. The Swedish National Audit Office has audited whether the authorities' work with the detention activities is effective. The audit also covers the work on how detention decisions are made as well as the operational activities at the detention center.

The National Audit Office finds that the authorities' processes do not ensure effective decisions on who should be taken into custody, that cooperation between the authorities is insufficient, and that the Swedish Migration Agency does not ensure that detention is conducted in a legally secure and cost-effective manner. The National Audit Office's report results in a number of recommendations, both to the government and to the authorities.

Mr. Speaker! Detention is, as I have previously mentioned, an important tool in the return work. At the same time, it is also a very intrusive measure for the individual. We Christian Democrats therefore want to particularly emphasize the importance of ensuring that detention activities are conducted in a legally secure manner. Like the government, we believe that the National Audit Office's report constitutes a valuable basis for the continued work with an effective and legally secure detention activity. The Swedish Migration Agency also welcomes the National Audit Office's audit and points out that extensive development work is underway in the area.

We can observe that the government has already taken a number of measures in line with the National Audit Office's recommendations. It is reported, among other things, that cooperation across agency boundaries has been a constant feature in both regulatory letters and dialogues with the agencies specifically to highlight the need for change and improvement. Assignments have also been given to cooperate and to jointly create good planning conditions in order to achieve better foresight and an efficient and purposeful use of storage sites as well as ensuring necessary transports.

We Christian Democrats see the National Audit Office's report as an important tool in the development of the defense activities. Naturally, it will also continue to be required and occur, a continuous follow-up of the defense activities based on these aspects in reports and other inputs, so that we have a legally secure defense activity that is continuously developed. We Christian Democrats assess that relevant measures have already been initiated and communicated by the government and that further measures in accordance with the reservations in the report are not necessary.

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, the red-green opposition is taking the opportunity to raise a number of issues that need improvement in a series of reservations. But the government, as stated, has already acted and will continue to act to improve the situation. There is no reason to make further announcements in this matter.

Mr. Speaker! I want to conclude with an overview of the political landscape. This parliamentary term shows that if one has the will for both change and cooperation, it is possible to get a great deal done. Migration policy in Sweden has turned from a worrying situation that has affected and still affects many parts of society to a strict, fair, and responsible policy that ensures we have better opportunities to meet the challenges that still exist. This is what we in the Christian Democrats have done together with the other Tidö parties. We requested a mandate in the election, and we received it. Since then, we have implemented changes, and we continue to do so.

We are ready to take that responsibility even in the next mandate period. That is the direction Sweden needs, not a red-green chaos government that lets MP and V rule the politics like what became clear in this chamber just a few days ago. We Christian Democrats are part of a government basis that has seen the problems and also acted. It is such a government that Sweden needs even in the next mandate period.

With that message, I would like to wish a pleasant summer to the Speaker, the civil servants and other officials here in the Riksdag building, and naturally also to the political committee colleagues, who have fought bravely evening after evening, almost night after night, to discuss the political proposals. We are not always in agreement, but that is what politics is about. I hope that everyone has a pleasant and relaxing summer, and as I said, we will see each other again in August.

I move for a second approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservations 2 and 5.

I want to start by saying that the Swedish National Audit Office does a good job in all important respects. I am grateful that we have the Swedish National Audit Office, which audits how actions are taken here in the Riksdag and in various government agencies.

The National Audit Office says that the way the detention center is managed by the government and the Swedish Migration Agency is inefficient and leads to unnecessary suffering as well as high costs for the state. The government's response is that they believe they have acted with decisiveness. But what is it that they have done? Well, they have refused to give the Swedish Migration Agency the money that the agency requested. The Swedish Migration Agency requested extra funds to be able to manage its operations better. We said yes – the government said no. It is difficult to perform all its tasks when one does not receive the money it needs.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the processing times are already incredibly long at the Swedish Migration Agency many times. It can take several years to get an answer, but one is expected to give an answer in just a few days. The processing of these cases is therefore worth reflecting on.

Mr. Speaker! As mentioned here earlier, there are people who have been subjected to sexual abuse or suffered in other ways in accommodations that the state, via the Migration Agency, is responsible for. We have heard about how the double-layering affects this. It is still something that the government should consider.

We have heard several times in the speeches from the rostrum today and in the replies that we practically never have children in custody. So that is the case, and that is good.

But the government was not satisfied with that, they wanted more children there. They wrote legislation that opened up for more children to go there. That was why the government submitted a proposal for new legislation with more opportunities to take children into custody.

We have stopped that proposal today with the help of the Committee on the Constitution. I am very grateful for that. I am glad that we are still governed by the constitution here in Sweden and that those possibilities exist to stop restrictive legislation that is introduced unnecessarily for children.

A summary of the situation in reality is: the Swedish Migration Agency would not receive more money, but there would be more children in detention. They could be kept there for a longer period and without their parents.

Thanks to good cooperation in the opposition, we have stopped this. Thank you for that, to the rest of the opposition! This applies in particular to Miljöpartiet, which has done a great deal of work with this.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to say something to conclude. The Moderates highlight that they are afraid of what happens after the election. I am too, and I believe that very many out there are as well. That is why public opinion looks the way it does.

We have seen what this government is doing. As soon as it has the chance, legal certainty will be gone. Children will be put in detention, teenagers will be sent out of the country, people who work and contribute will be sent out of the country, and children will be forced to leave their classes. That is the reality that the government has created.

The defense part is only a small part of it. But it is the same direction every time. Legal certainty is diminished, and there are more deportations. Then we are not talking about the criminals. It is always brought up that the criminals must out. I can urge the ordinary citizens out there to go through the proposals that exist regarding criminals being sent out of the country.

When it comes to detention, we have resorted to the highest tool we have, namely the constitution, to stop certain parts. But that which concerns children who commit crimes was not stopped.

Mr. Speaker! As an example, there is a broad consensus that it has been too easy to remain in Sweden when one is a criminal. That is how it has been, and we all agree on that.

That responsibility has rested on both previous Alliance governments and Social Democratic governments. To claim that it is only due to one party, regardless of who you are, is not serious.

That responsibility rests on all previous governments. We have been part of several of them, so it also rests on us, but perhaps not so much on me. That is how it is. It is all previous governments that have had that responsibility.

Where we are now, the problem is still that we do not send out enough of those who are criminals from the country. But we also have a big problem with that we send out very many who are not. I think we all need to take that with us anyway.

Mr. Speaker! That is where we are now. Now it is almost Midsummer. I hope that everyone has a very nice Midsummer. I hope that we have a good summer and can be at home and rest a bit.

Then it becomes a huge amount of work, and after that, there will be a lot of voting. After September 13, we will have a new government. I look forward to that, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the chair!

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the view that no parties are free from blame. This has been built up in our country during mandate period after mandate period.

The difference between you and us, however, is that we have reconsidered our policy. We have seen that the development we had in this country was not right and proper. It went completely in the wrong direction.

We began during previous parliamentary terms to try to steer the country in the right direction in opposition. But it was a government that did not listen.

You had an agreement with the then sitting government where you got in questions that were important to you. At the same time, most of Sweden was just allowed to become more and more chaotic.

Organized crime spread. People had to learn what a thermite bomb was when innocent people died because such bombs had been placed in stairwells.

Young people were shot dead. Some were completely innocent. Some were shot because they were part of a criminal gang they had been lured into and remained in without society doing anything.

We began advocating for all this to tackle it during previous terms, but back then we were in opposition.

When we suddenly got power and the chance to be involved in the decision-making, we decided not to do as previous governments did and just let the issues be. The headache is in the suburbs where not so many politicians come from.

We said that we would solve the problems, get back the safe Sweden and get order in Sweden again. I think we are on the right track. The shootings are decreasing, the bombs are fewer and society is a bit brighter now than it was then.

Regarding long processing times at the Swedish Migration Agency, we now have Europe's second fastest time for obtaining a work permit. It takes less than a month.

If one seeks asylum, one receives a decision after between six months and a year, which is much faster than it was with previous governments.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I come from Malmö. I know everything about how much it has been shot. We have other people from Skåne here who have also spoken a lot about it.

The difference is that when it happened in Malmö, people spoke about it as if it were about Malmö, as if it were not a question of Sweden. It was when it came to Stockholm and to other parts further north that people began to speak about it as Sweden.

I remember how Moderate MPs spoke about the problems in Malmö as if it only had to do with Malmö and not Sweden. I remember it very well.

I know that I spoke with representatives for Alliansen about that it was handled too much and that one had to make a new weapons legislation. Did Alliansen do it? No.

It is not that the alliance government gets away with it or that the Moderaterna get away with responsibility when they failed to act. They ensured that no police officers were trained at all.

Who was the Minister for Social Insurance when the rules for migration were largely introduced? It was Ulf Kristersson. Who was the Chief of Staff during that time in the Alliance? It was Johan Forssell, who is now the Migration Minister.

One stands here and says that it is only about us while others do not take responsibility. I am not saying that it is only the Moderaterna who have the responsibility, but we all do. I have seen how it was. I have been to funerals in Malmö.

I will also say something regarding the fact that work permit decisions can now be obtained so quickly. I spoke with a restaurant owner last week or the week before, I don't remember exactly. They had had an application in since 2023.

They receive an answer after approximately two and a half years. In the notice that arrived, they were to answer within a week. They were given a week to answer after they had waited for two and a half years. The Swedish Migration Agency says: Who is this? We don't believe that. It is not serious that they have had to wait so long to get an answer.

There is a hell of a lot left to do, I must say, when it comes to the processing times! The Migration Agency asked for more money, and you said no to it.

Forgive me for swearing! I deeply regret it, Mr. Speaker. Forgive me!

(First Deputy Speaker: We note the apology.)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I began my first speech by saying that we are not free from guilt, but that we have reconsidered our policy.

We see problems in society that we want to solve. They are problems that we perhaps should have seen ten years ago, and where we possibly did not act sufficiently. But that does not mean that we should continue to turn a blind eye to them.

We began during previous parliamentary terms to submit proposals to get Sweden in order. But it was a paralyzed government that sat here, tied up by parties that wanted very different things.

They entered into suspicious agreements aimed at pushing through some policy issues while Sweden continued to burn in so many areas.

I think the government has made this country a bit more hopeful. Over four years, we have made the death sentences decrease, and that is good.

The police have been given more tools so that they can prevent crimes before they are committed instead of trying to solve something when it is already too late, when the person has been shot.

Now, for example, there is preventive wiretapping which has caused crime to go down very much when it comes to fatal shootings.

It is therefore possible to make Sweden a better country, and we are on the right track. I believe that Centerpartiet is often with us on these issues. But what has happened has happened, and we can only try to be better than previous generations.

It is certainly a lot of what we are doing now that we will need to reconsider in ten years, but that does not mean that we should not continue in this assembly with trying to make Sweden a better country. That is why we come here every week. It is at least why I get into the car or on the train and travel to Stockholm and spend day after day here in debates and committee meetings. I do that because I want Sweden to become a little better.

If we stumble at some point and something does not give the effect we want, we will present new proposals next mandate period. That is what we are going to the election for now – to make Sweden a little better.

I unfortunately have no speaking time left, so I must thank you for a pleasant debate. Let us together make Sweden a country worthy of its name again!

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can say very honestly that I have no other opinion than that Magnus Resare is making a great effort and doing what he can to make Sweden better. He fights for what he believes in; I can truly say that. I have no other opinion. I appreciate both our debates and the conversations outside the chamber – the member should not think otherwise!

I believe that all parties have reconsidered their policies; I can also say that. Already at the time we were part of the January Agreement with the Social Democrats and the Liberals, before the Liberals forgot what they stand for, and during that government, I believe that it was 200 increased penalties and new tools for the police that were created.

I agree that before that, there was a period under the Alliance when no new police officers were trained. It is incredible! And this was, of course, when the Moderaterna held the position of Prime Minister, the position of Minister for Justice, and the position of Minister for Finance.

We were involved in these parts as well, but we did not have enough focus on this during the January agreement. I can truly say that. I also believe that the whole way the agreement came about was perhaps not the best for a long-term political project. We can well be honest and say that.

Much of what the government has now done in connection with organized crime is good. But I think one has somewhat forgotten economic crime, which the Centerpartiet has had a bit more focus on. Much has been good, but I also think that one has sometimes gone too far. We have been clear about that.

This whole process actually began during the previous government, but not the first Löfven government. Back then, very little happened; I can truly say that. But during the next government, a lot happened. One also saw the effects on the shootings, which came very quickly. Even before Tidö's legislation had been put in place, the shootings began to decrease. It perhaps still wasn't because of an upcoming legislation – I don't believe that much in the long-term nature of criminals' actions.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is always interesting to listen to Niels Paarup-Petersen. One has to sharpen oneself both to understand and to keep up with the changes. I do not live far enough south to always keep up, but so be it.

I just want to point out and ask a little bit. In the speech that Member Paarup-Petersen gives, one gets the impression of an argument that before the bill came as it does now, correctly, no children have been placed in detention and that the possibility did not exist. But this possibility has de facto existed for a long time.

I want to ask Member Paarup-Petersen how he views that possibility. Should we remove it? I do not interpret it that way, but the suspension declaration applied to the expansion. There we may have different political opinions. But even today, with the existing legislation, children can be placed in detention for up to 72 hours. In extreme cases, the time can also be extended further. One can, therefore, place children in detention.

I interpreted member Paarup-Petersen's argument as that, according to him, children should not be held in pre-trial detention, and I would like to have a reflection on this.

One must also consider who it is that ends up in detention. We do not want anyone to end up in detention, but these are people who either pose a risk to society or who risk deviating. The major expansion of detention actually occurred during previous government periods, when it went from 200 places to a little over 500.

We perhaps should be a bit self-critical and think about the fact that not all problems have necessarily arisen after the election in September 2022. Perhaps the defense was expanded at a pace such that one did not let the possibilities be in that way.

It would be interesting to have a reflection from the member. What does he think regarding these issues?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Member Kihlström, for the opportunity for reflection!

I agree. The debate can easily start to be about whether the whole thing is completely one way or the other. I completely agree that it is not that, but what the government proposed regarding detention and which we stopped here together – which I am very happy about – was about more children and longer periods. It was not about children not being able to be held in detention at all.

What we wrote in our follow-up motion – and I believe these are the correct words – is that children should only be held in detention in absolute exceptional cases. That was the point. When one, as our party, wants absolute exceptional cases when it comes to children in detention and that it should only happen then, one does not want more children and longer periods in detention. That is actually what it is about.

The second part is about the expansion. How interesting to hear that it was under the previous government that the defense was expanded and something was done! I do not think one is often told that something happened under previous governments. It is fun and good that we have that openness and honesty when it comes to this! Nor have previous governments only made mistakes. That is how it often sounds otherwise. But governments do both good and bad things, and so as a voter, one has to weigh how much good and how much bad they have done. The voters' judgment in that assessment is, in the current situation, quite clear.

Criminals, those who risk deviating or who constitute a threat in society are those who primarily are in custody, and that is how they should also be. But what was presented last did not only concern that group. We also voted for those parts, but now it concerns those children who are not among the criminals etcetera. It was this that we stopped, and I am very happy about that. I hope that was the answer to the question!

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In a way, it becomes an answer to the question, because as I interpret it, Member Paarup-Petersen does not want to continue with the law we have today.

The law today is such that children may be placed in detention only in extreme exceptional cases. The criteria for placing a child in detention are much stronger already today, and they have been so throughout the entire period of detention.

I interpret the direction that C and MP pushed forward and that S have stood behind as actually concerning a law that deviates from what has been the basis for detention activities: that children can be placed in detention in exceptional cases. I interpret the answer in that way.

C and MP can of course argue. But this is a relevant question, because if one is to follow the wording that I interpret was in the moratorium, it means that one tears up the law. The moratorium only means that the law is postponed for twelve months as it is. In that case, the government's proposal actually goes through. But I interpret it as that C and MP want to go a step further and remove the possibility or make it even more difficult.

Then the question is: Is this the direction? It is very good if it is in that way. There are already limited time limits and very high requirements for this today.

When one reads the basis for being placed in detention, one sees that the large part concerns enforcement detention. It is thus when one has deviated and when one stays away or obstructs the enforcement. In that case, I think at least it is highly relevant to place someone in detention to follow a legally secure decision.

In 2024, it concerned 2,624 people. They are naturally not criminals, but they have chosen to take another path after a legally secure decision and risk deviating. I think it is relevant that they are placed in detention awaiting deportation. Does Member Paarup-Petersen think so?

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to answer all the questions.

The first question was, as I understand it: Does the Center Party want the new legislation on detention, linked to what we declared void, to be overturned? Yes, we want the extension to be overturned – absolutely. We do not want it to be a longer time, and we do not want it to be more children. So that is it; it is completely correctly understood.

When it comes to what already exists from before, that was not what the moratorium was about. It was not about what existed, but about what one wants to introduce and what we do not want to introduce. So no, not the new, and yes, the old.

Then there are certainly things that we need to review in detail. That is always the case with legislation. But fundamentally, it is completely correctly understood: the Center Party will, when we get a new government, ensure that that which we now suspended is dismantled. I can absolutely guarantee that, and I assume that the other parties who signed the suspension declaration also stand by it. Otherwise, one should not have signed it.

The second part is this with detention overall, about whether people should be able to be detained. It is clear that they should. But there are also people in detention who do not have the possibility to leave the country, who would like to cooperate but do not succeed. It is not the large group, but here we agree – of course it is so.

Where we are now, it feels a bit like – and that is what scares me – that if Josef and Maria were to come and seek asylum here, they, because they cannot return, would be in detention due to the Christian Democrats' policy. Perhaps that was not the case in the past.

(Applause)

I believe that we can find a good balance where those who receive a no are sent home but are treated with humanity in the meantime.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating incredibly serious issues that have implications for people's fundamental rights and life and death. At the same time as we may be deeply in disagreement on such central issues, we can nevertheless sometimes maintain a good tone with one another.

I appreciate that here in the Riksdag one can have tough debates and at the same time get help from one's opponent to get a poster from UNHCR, which Magnus Resare so thoughtfully took home from a committee trip, or when after very many hours of debate one needs a little sugar and the Social Democrat Ola Möller runs to the cafe to buy some pieces of candy.

Mr. Speaker! I believe that in issues such as those that are currently polarizing many in the population, it is extra important that we elected representatives meet each other with respect. Sometimes it might be a small twinkle-in-the-eye glance about how Joseph and Mary would have been treated if they had sought refuge in the Kristdemokraterna and Tidögänget's Sweden.

But to the matter at hand: the Riksrevisionen's report on detention in the migration process.

The National Audit Office has truly done a solid job. And they are not the only ones who have done so. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has a special responsibility to specifically follow up on how the facilities where Sweden holds people deprived of their liberty comply with international standards to not treat people in a cruel and inhuman way in violation of the commitments that Sweden has to respect the most fundamental human right: freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The flaws that have emerged both in the Swedish National Audit Office's report, which in some parts also confirms JO's reviews, and in JO's special reviews are very serious. People who do not need to have committed any crime and who can have varying ages, disabilities and mental illness – including children – are being detained. They are held against their will. The detention periods are on average no longer than a couple of months, but it occurs that people are held for a year or more.

When one, through review after review, notes that the living spaces do not meet the basic standard to not constitute cruel or inhuman treatment, we must conclude that the priority, therefore, has not been to live up to the standards that Sweden has committed to in, for example, the convention against torture. It is a matter of that one cannot even live up to having four square meters per person in living space.

There are deficiencies regarding health checks and medication management. The response is inadequate. Detained individuals testify that they are sometimes treated as if they were criminals, despite their only action having been to seek protection, which they were denied.

It turns out that the proportionality in the detention decisions is not being considered to a sufficient extent, that is, whether it is justified to lock up a person to achieve the purpose for which the person is being locked up. A safe and secure living environment has not been sufficiently ensured. Routine coercive and control measures have occurred in violation of the regulatory framework.

The activity that has been offered has been too little and of too poor quality. There are deficiencies in the supply of competence. Body searches have been carried out without the staff even having made an assessment in all cases as to whether it is legal to conduct a body search. Those seeking home care have sometimes been denied home care and thus the care they are entitled to.

These were just some of all the deficiencies.

We also know that a quarter of those held in detention are released without returning to their home country. In up to as much as one-fourth of the detentions, detention has therefore not been effective. If we look at a slightly longer period than immediately after leaving detention, the figure drops slightly, but we are still talking about around 18 percent.

Then we can state that the Swedish National Audit Office has chosen a rather striking title for its report: A costly tool without clear steering. It is, in fact, also expensive in real money to keep people locked up. For the individual, it is terrible in terms of suffering.

I want to tell you about two people who have shared their experience of being locked up in detention: Najib and Aliya, twin siblings, 21 years old.

One day, while she was on her way to work as an assistant nurse at a nursing home, Aliya was going to swing by the Swedish Migration Agency to register. She had a cup of chai latte with her. She never arrived at work that day. She was locked up in detention and testifies that there was only one PlayStation to occupy herself with.

The siblings are two of the youths we have become acquainted with through the reporting on what has come to be called teenage deportations or deportations of young adults.

Who are the ones who end up in detention? There are, of course, different stories behind it, but some of those who end up there are people whom the government has made deportable through its policy.

It is about people who, without the Tidö parties' legislative changes, would have been able to continue going to work as an assistant nurse at the elderly care home or the LSS residence, who could have continued their upper secondary education and graduated instead of walking around with a lump in their stomach and wondering what to pack after a whole life in Sweden, when they are to travel for the first time to the country they last visited as a four-year-old.

Mr. Speaker! We must ask ourselves which policy we prioritize. The government has prioritized deportations. When one deportates more and more people in situations that are becoming increasingly unreasonable, then one also fills the void with nursing assistants who previously worked in our elderly care homes, young people who have grown up and rooted themselves in Sweden, or people who have come here just to work but who suddenly are not allowed to stay because the salary requirement is too high.

Let me repeat what one of all the competent ones has said: What should I do? I do not dare to travel back to Iran, and I am not allowed to stay here. I do not want to become undocumented. What should I do?

We can all ask ourselves what we would do in that situation, as the woman who protested against the Iranian regime, but who is not believed to have sufficient grounds to fear persecution by the Iranian regime, who does not earn enough, 34,000 and a few hundred kronor, to be allowed to stay on a work permit in Tidöpartiernas Sweden.

What would you have done, if it were you?

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have many proposals to reduce the number of people who receive unreasonable deportation decisions. Among these are also questions concerning execution obstacles when it is impossible to travel back to the home country for purely practical reasons. The Swedish Migration Agency wants to send you to a country that you say you do not come from, and that country does not want to receive you. But the Swedish Migration Agency is convinced that it is your home country. You do not get a passport.

There are many situations where the home country refuses to issue passports. What do you do then?

A mother is currently locked up in detention, and her six-year-old daughter is being held in compulsory care because the father has abandoned the family. The daughter is a Swedish citizen and cannot be forced out of the country. One also cannot send the mother away without her child. Society chooses to continue to lock them up.

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that the National Audit Office has conducted the review of detention in the migration process. Even though I do not agree with many of the government's proposals, I am also pleased that the government is taking certain measures and making some improvements.

Rule of law must come first. It must always be central when people's freedom is restricted in the incredibly intrusive way that it is in detention. Therefore, I want to move for approval of the Green Party's and the Left Party's reservation 1, which concerns this issue.

I also want to extend a warm thanks to all colleagues in the Riksdag, the entire gathered opposition, for the fact that yesterday and today we have put a stop to some of the deteriorations that the government planned to lock up even more children at more occasions for longer periods in detention. In that way, more children risk growing up with a parent who is locked up in a detention center or separated in other ways through detention decisions. It is historic that the Riksdag will declare several parts of the intrusive bill to be lapsed. Today we have received word from the Committee on the Constitution that the motion for lapsing that I and the Center Party's Niels Paarup-Petersen submitted will also be approved.

In this speech, Emma Berginger (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 17 June.)

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