Stricter rules on supervision and storage

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! The Government's bill must be seen in the light of the debate that will be held here in the Riksdag regarding the National Audit Office's review of the defense activities. We Social Democrats have submitted a motion in that matter where we address the serious deficiencies that have emerged in the defense activities.

It is about the fact that cooperation between the Swedish Migration Agency and the police is failing and that coercive measures and control measures have been used in a routine manner. Seen in light of the fact that children are separated from their parents behind a glass pane, the audience to this debate can gain an understanding of how serious the criticism is.

Furthermore, it is a matter of the Swedish Migration Agency not having ensured the competence of the staff. There is even talk of a training debt, which further emphasizes the seriousness of the criticism regarding the previous point. In our opinion, this criticism has not been fully taken into account in the bill we are now dealing with. We therefore maintain the criticism and explain this in the form of a separate statement.

What further needs to be highlighted is the carelessness with which the government handles the legislative process. In its eagerness to appear proactive and engage in signal politics, the government does not fully take in the criticism directed at its governance and processes. This applies regardless of whether the criticism emerges in the referral process or during reviews. The government considers itself to be doing everything right, and everyone else is wrong as usual, whether it concerns the research world, the agency sphere, or civil society.

Madam Speaker! With this said, not everything in the government's bill is bad. That more forms of supervision are being introduced is welcome. That, for example, families with children and other vulnerable groups can live outside the detention center is good. The government also takes steps to make the division of roles between the authorities clearer, which is good, given the criticism. That the question of security matters can be handled within the framework of the detention center is also an advantage. Therefore, we believe that the bill can be approved.

Madam Speaker! The big problem is not the bill itself but the government's management of its agencies. By focusing on an expulsion policy where symbolic issues and fear propaganda are key components, the government once again loses focus on what are real problems and which thus need real solutions. It is another strong reason to replace the government this autumn.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating a proposal that, among other things, contains new possibilities to place more children in detention, doubled detention periods, and furthermore a rule that detention may also be used to separate children from their guardians.

We in Miljöpartiet think that Sweden should listen to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. They recommend that Sweden completely ban and prevent children from being placed in detention solely because of their or their parents' migration status. The government chooses instead to do the opposite. More children who have committed no crime will be locked up under conditions that we all know are worse than those prevailing in many prisons.

Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet will today, together with Centerpartiet, demand that the parts concerning Chapter 10, Section 4, points 1 and 2 on new grounds for detention and custody of children, Section 7, second sentence, on the new possibility to separate children from their guardians through detention, as well as Section 13, first paragraph, which replaces the current provisions on the time limit for detention of children in Chapter 10, Section 5 of the Aliens Act, shall rest equally according to Chapter 2, Section 8 of the Instrument of Government as Chapter 2, Section 22 of the Instrument of Government.

It is, therefore, an emergency brake in the constitution that is intended to stop authoritarian decisions that conflict with fundamental freedoms and rights in the Instrument of Government.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! This was interesting. Could the member tell us more?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's view is that the government is proceeding in a very hasty and careless manner with legislation that restricts fundamental civil and political rights. In this case, it concerns the locking up of children who have not committed crimes and cases where there are no security issues.

Through the constitutional brake that we propose, we can, if we get a sixth of the members of the House with us, stop the law for twelve months. This means that the government's policy cannot be implemented before the election and that we, when we take power, can establish a rule of law that protects children's rights.

I wonder: Can the Social Democrats also stand behind stopping the law? It would be the first time that we in the chamber prevent the Tidö parties from implementing parts of their policy.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I was about to say, given all the discussions about overtaking that have taken place here in the chamber earlier today, that it is sometimes necessary to pull the handbrake.

It is a wise argument that this should be reviewed in peace and quiet and that a new government can review it in twelve months. Given that, we Social Democrats will, of course, support this moratorium.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! This was perhaps the worst political theater I have seen in my entire career in this assembly in nearly four years.

(Applause)

Good God! Here one stands and says roughly: "Yes, tell me more! How exciting and interesting!" I read half an hour ago that Annika Hirvonen was in Aftonbladet and told that the entire opposition is united behind this.

You have had several months. You have had preparation meeting after preparation in the committee to submit your own motions and support others' motions. But you stood behind this proposal.

Suddenly you are standing there playing political theater: "Oh, this is interesting!" The entire Social Democratic Party stands behind Hirvonen's proposal, which is presented in an exchange of remarks. The Social Democrats are the country's largest party. Do you have no honor in your bodies? Get up and say it in the speaker's chair! Do not stand here and play theater!

This shows once again that the Social Democrats are not for a strict migration policy. But one is also not for a humane migration policy. We are submitting a proposal that instead of being in detention, people should be able to receive an electronic ankle bracelet in order to live in freedom. That is very humane, and it is part of this proposal. You say no to that as well. Instead, people may have to wait for a year to be allowed to live in some degree of freedom.

I think this is embarrassing.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I have seen many of Magnus Resare's changes of subject and can state that there is a lot of bad political theater in this assembly, if the tone is to be that way.

I think it is reasonable, Madam Speaker, to sometimes think things through and take it easy. Magnus Resare has listened to the debate here during the day regarding the implementation of the enormously repressive proposals being put forward. And the speed at which his own underlying material is being legislated is criticized by virtually all experts – by the Council on Legislation, by the Bar Association, and so on. It is a criticism that is so massive that Magnus Resare should look at himself in the mirror and reflect on why it is coming.

Sometimes it is actually reasonable to take and think one extra turn. I advise Magnus Resare to do that sometime.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We have a long series of preparatory meetings in the committee where objections can be raised, as the other opposition parties have done. They have taken this seriously.

That five in twelve realize that this is not something for the Social Democrats, just so one can get a political point by joining Annika and the others, I find that embarrassing. How can social democracy seriously engage in this?

Tell us already in the committee work the next time we are preparing something whether you are for or against it! You have said all the way that you are for it, but then Annika comes up here and tells us about something. "Oh god, fantastic!" one thinks from Ola Möller's side. "We're jumping on this. That sounded super exciting." It is bad political theater.

Vinn is the front page of Aftonbladet if that is the case, but do not go out and tell the voters that you are serious when it comes to conducting politics in this chamber! I do not think you are when you behave in this way.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that the Tidö parties have, not once during the preparation or during the four years I have sat on the committee, listened to any kind of input or desire. Despite outstretched hands, both here in the chamber and outside and also in the committee, to discuss, for example, how we could stop the deportations of teenagers in a serious way, the Tidö parties have never once shown this enormously restrained approach and said: "Come to us and talk, and we will solve issues together!" It is, speaking of theater, merely a charade that Magnus Resare is playing.

I still think that Magnus Resare should consider why his government and the basis it stands on receive such harsh criticism time and again. It is because you are speed-blind. You have a razor-thin majority, which you lost in here because the Sverigedemokraterna cheated away the balancing system, and now Ulf Kristersson and the Moderaterna have lost control over their own government basis. And then you are outraged that others use the parliamentary tools that exist. I understand that it is stressful and frustrating. Just as Member of Parliament Haddou, I believe it was, said that the Moderaterna are now almost less than MP and V combined.

I understand that Resare is upset and stressed, Madam Speaker, and angry at these evil, horrible Social Democrats. But instead, he should calmly and quietly sit down, look in the mirror, and see that it is this government that has received the most serious criticism ever from the Fiscal Policy Council. It is this government that has received the most serious criticism ever, in total, from the Council on Legislation. It is this government that is pushing forward legislation where people get squeezed.

I thought that Magnus Resare had some kind of liberal vein in his body and cherished human dignity and individual individuals. But that is gone in Tidösverige.

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe it was two debates ago that I said the Moderates are very stressed. I had to repeat in that stress situation and anxiety attack that the Moderates had in the last debate that they seem stressed. And in the third debate today, the Moderates are very, very stressed.

I thought the Moderates would request a reply regarding the actual issue. It was a bit strange.

I requested the floor because I believe that sometimes things should be handled in this way. I would like to thank the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Centre Party and announce that the Left Party will support a statement of concern on this issue. I will go into a bit more detail on that in my speech, but the basic thesis from the Left Party's side is that we believe this proposal represents a very serious shift in the view of children in the migration process. Children seeking protection should primarily be met with safety, legal certainty, and support, not with deprivation of liberty and control measures as the government is proposing. Here, the government goes much too far.

With that, I would like to say thank you very much and that we will support this.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the announcement from the Left Party.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! We hereby wish to say that we also support the proposal. I appreciate that Hirvonen was very clear about what it entails. The Speakers have also received a copy.

I can explain why we support the proposal. It is because the government proposes that children who have not committed a crime should be able to be placed in detention in more situations and for twice as long, and in some cases also be able to be separated from their guardians by the child or the guardian being taken into detention. The UN and the Council of Legislation are very clear in their criticism of this.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is clear that we need a clear and regulated migration legislation. We need to ensure that people leave the country when they do not have the right to stay, but we must also ensure that they do so under civilized and decent conditions. Somewhere here, there is a limit. Therefore, we support this declaration of intent.

I appreciate the cooperation with Miljöpartiet in terms of presenting this, and I appreciate hearing that both Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet stand behind it.

(OLA MÖLLER (S): Thank you very much for the announcement!)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that the Left Party agrees with the Council on Legislation's criticism of the government's legislative work in this area.

The proposition is part of several parallel legislative projects within migration law that have been submitted in a short period of time. This has contributed to an opaque and difficult-to-apply regulatory framework where there is a risk that the consequences of the collective changes are not sufficiently analyzed. A regulatory framework as intrusive as this, concerning people's freedom and fundamental rights, must be characterized by clarity, predictability, and careful legal certainty assessments.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the government fails in this in several respects. This proposition from the government implies a further shift towards increased restrictions on freedom, expanded control, and a weakened protection for the fundamental rights of children and adults. The proposals raise significant questions regarding proportionality, legal certainty, and compatibility with international conventions such as the European Convention and particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Vänsterpartiet considers that several of the legislative proposals are problematic because they contribute to the continued criminalization of people in the migration process despite them not having committed any crimes. I will focus on precisely those sections concerning children in the migration process and the proposals the government has put forward that Vänsterpartiet has expressed opinions on.

The Government proposes that children seeking international protection shall be able to be placed under supervision or taken into custody in more situations than today. This applies, among other things, to children who do not comply with decisions on residence for a fixed period and place, children covered by border procedures according to the EU Asylum Procedures Directive, as well as children who are already held in custody pending removal and where authorities assess that an asylum application is being made to delay the execution. The proposal also means that children shall be taken into custody for reasons of national security or public order.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the proposal implies a very serious shift in the view of children in the migration process. Children seeking protection should primarily be met with safety, legal certainty, and support, not by deprivation of liberty and control measures. The proposal risks normalizing the use of detention even when it concerns children, despite both Swedish law and international conventions clearly stating that the deprivation of liberty of children may only be used as a last resort and for the shortest time possible.

The criticism from the referral bodies is extensive. The National Board of Health and Welfare emphasizes that detention is harmful to children's mental health and development. There is strong research support that deprivation of liberty causes anxiety, distress, sleep difficulties, and trauma in children. The Children's Ombudsman considers that the government's proposal goes further than what EU law requires and that the analysis of the child's best interests is insufficient.

The Institute for Human Rights and the Red Cross argue that children should not be held in detention at all. Save the Children directs particularly strong criticism towards the proposal that children should be held in detention when authorities consider that the purpose of the asylum application is to delay a removal decision. The organization argues that this risks undermining the fundamental right to seek asylum. It is a criticism that Vänsterpartiet shares.

The right to seek protection from persecution is a fundamental human right, and it must not be eroded by vague suspicions regarding motives behind an application. Particularly problematic is the low level of proof in the phrasing "reason to assume." Vänsterpartiet considers that such an unclear requirement risks leading to arbitrary assessments and an insecure legal application.

When it comes to children, the legislation must be characterized by high legal certainty and great restrictiveness. Vänsterpartiet considers that the government's proposal violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child's principle of the best interests of the child and risks causing serious harm to already vulnerable children. Therefore, this proposal should be rejected.

The government has also presented a proposal where they suggest that the possibilities to place children who do not seek international protection under supervision or to take them into custody should be expanded. This shall, among other things, occur if it is likely that the child will be refused entry or if the decision on refusal or deportation is to be enforced. The proposal also means that children shall be taken into custody if there is an obvious risk that the child will abscond, hide, or otherwise obstruct the enforcement.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the proposal entails a very serious weakening of children's rights. According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the detention of children shall only be used as an absolute last resort and for the shortest possible time. The government's proposal goes in the opposite direction by expanding the possibilities for deprivation of liberty and lowering the thresholds for when children are to be taken into custody.

The Children's Ombudsman also considers that the proposal goes further than what EU law requires and risks being in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Equality Ombudsman emphasizes the importance of using less intrusive measures that better accommodate children's right to freedom and family life.

Vänsterpartiet shares this view and considers that the government's proposal implies an all too repressive approach where children's rights are subordinated to migration policy control interests. The basic principle must be that less intrusive measures shall always be tested before detention is considered.

As previously mentioned, children held in detention risk developing serious mental ill-health. This applies particularly when they are already in a vulnerable situation characterized by flight, uncertainty, and trauma. With the government's proposal, this situation risks being worsened, and therefore this proposal should also be rejected.

Madam Speaker! The Government also proposes that a child or a guardian, provided there are exceptional reasons, shall be able to be taken into custody even if it means that the children are separated from their guardians. The proposal applies to children who are not seeking international protection. Vänsterpartiet considers the proposal to be directly harmful.

Separating children from their guardians through coercive measures risks causing deep insecurity and far-reaching psychological consequences. For children who are already in a vulnerable migration situation, separation from parents or other guardians can be very traumatizing. No lower age limit is proposed either, which means that even very small children can, in practice, be separated from guardians.

Save the Children requests clearer clarifications of what constitutes special reasons, and the Left Party shares this criticism. Measures that are so intrusive cannot be based on ambiguity or open criteria. Otherwise, the risk of arbitrary assessments is significant.

Family unity is a fundamental right, and Vänsterpartiet does not believe that the state should contribute to splitting families except in extreme cases of exception and only when the child's safety requires it in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by saying that there are situations where children will be able to be held in detention for longer than today, including in security matters where detention shall be able to continue for up to six months. Vänsterpartiet opposes this development as well. Detention of children is one of the most intrusive measures the state can take against children and shall, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, only be used as an absolute last resort and for as short a period as possible.

This has, like almost all proposals in this bill, been met with criticism from the referral bodies that longer detention periods are not compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and that it is harmful to children. The Government has not presented sufficient evidence showing that the changes are necessary. This can only be criticized.

Vänsterpartiet considers it particularly noteworthy that earlier periods of detention shall no longer be counted after a twelve-month period. Rädda Barnen warns that even this can, in practice, lead to children being deprived of liberty for disproportionately long total periods. Vänsterpartiet considers that the government's proposal implies a very serious weakening of children's rights and risks causing long-term psychological damage to already vulnerable children.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of reservation 1 in the report and support the motion to shelve that is on the table.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, we must establish what it actually is we are talking about when we talk about reserves.

In the sense of the law, detention constitutes a deprivation of liberty, and it is naturally not unreasonable to designate it in that way even if there are reasons to perhaps question even this. The persons are de facto locked in an institution, that is correct, but there is not as much restrictiveness as in a prison. The persons are free to move between departments, they can have personal belongings with them and they can have unhindered contact with the outside world via their phones and computers and so on.

The most common thing we have in Sweden is detention for execution of sentences, and when it comes to these, it is above all important to remember that most people are there entirely voluntarily. It is something that often gets lost in this debate.

So, it concerns cases where a court has concluded that the person can return home in a safe and secure manner, so that part of the question is already settled. But these people very often try to delay and complicate the return process by destroying their ID documents, opposing applications for new ID documents, refusing to go to the embassy to collect passports, and so on. All of this they do, naturally, so that the deportation cannot be executed.

Is there anyone from the opposition side who is critical of the proposal because it has consequences for the individual – there are a couple of reservations with that content – it is important to remember that it concerns persons who, in the vast majority of cases, have caused the situation entirely by themselves. We do not want these persons in detention in Sweden, but we are forced to because they oppose a return home that is fully possible to carry out.

In which cases is detention then used? There are four situations in the typical case where we take people into detention.

One is identity verification. That is about establishing identity, i.e., finding out who the person we are dealing with is.

Investigation detention concerns investigating a person's right to be in Sweden. It can, for example, involve asylum seekers or other situations where it is not known whether the person is allowed to be in Sweden.

Probability detention is when it is probable that the person will be rejected or deported.

Execution detention is when there is already a decision that a person shall leave the country. While waiting for the deportation to be executed, the person can be taken into detention. The purpose is thus to ensure that persons do not abscond or attempt to obstruct the execution of the normal course of the migration process or, which perhaps is even more important, that dangerous persons do not remain in society while waiting for execution.

It is important to remember that approximately 60 percent of all decisions regarding detention made in Sweden concern exactly execution detention. If one looks at the number of days that persons are held in detention, time in execution detention accounts for the absolute largest part, because the detention period in those cases is significantly longer than when it concerns, for example, investigation detention. The absolute most common situation in detention in Sweden thus concerns persons who are to leave the country.

Today's rules on detention and custody are quite outdated, but we are not making any huge changes to them here. The rules were primarily established in the 1989 Aliens Act and are not adapted to the European minimum level. There are quite a few European legal rules in this area, perhaps especially based on the European Court of Human Rights' case law, and what we are doing today is in many respects to adapt the rules to the legal minimum level according to EU law.

There are quite detailed descriptions regarding precisely the legal minimum level according to EU law, and the one that the opposition claims the rules contravene the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the European Convention has a significant uphill battle. That analysis is relatively well-elaborated in the investigation and in the bill.

First and foremost, a new form of supervision is introduced. In the bill, it is called, somewhat unimaginatively, reinforced supervision. Supervision today means that a person is given a reporting obligation, that is, the person shall report themselves at a certain time interval. The purpose is that the person shall not deviate or hinder the removal process. Reinforced supervision means an ankle bracelet, to use simple language, that is, electronic surveillance.

This is both more humane, if one wants to use that expression, cheaper and less intrusive. It is a bit odd that we have parties that oppose the introduction of this as an alternative to detention, considering that it is an obviously much better measure for persons who do not pose a security risk to society or themselves.

We are also establishing security departments for dangerous persons in detention. Today, such persons can in some cases be placed with Kriminalvården, but this is now being changed so that even these persons will be able to be placed with Migrationsverket in special departments for security cases specifically.

The possibility of so-called external placement, i.e., that one places those in preventive detention with the Prison and Probation Service, will remain, but it will require special reasons for this to occur. When it otherwise concerns rules that require special reasons in preventive detention cases, it tends to be very unusual, so we can well imagine that the external placements will decrease. It is naturally good considering that our detention centers currently tend to have many clients.

It will also become possible to detain persons for a somewhat longer period. We are adjusting the detention periods to the European minimum level. To take just one example: Regarding identity and investigation detention, a time limit of 48 hours currently applies for investigation detention and two weeks for identity detention. The time is now extended to one month in both cases.

One can reflect on this a bit. Politicians have, therefore, decided that the police have 48 hours to carry out an investigation into whether a person is allowed to be in Sweden before the person must be released. This is the Socialdemokraternas variant. Does that party really want to prevent illegal migration in Sweden? No, it is completely obvious that the system has been rigged to help illegals get in. It is completely obvious.

It will also become easier to keep those subject to deportation and security cases in detention for longer periods than today. For those subject to deportation, the exception that makes the time limits inapplicable to foreigners who have been deported due to crime will be clarified. That exception will be explicitly stated in the law. There is therefore no time limit, and detention can continue if there is a risk of repeated crime or obstruction of enforcement.

It is also important there that the requirement for suspicion is lowered from "probable" to "can be assumed." It thus becomes easier to take someone into custody and keep the person longer. This does not, however, apply to children, as Tony Haddou said in his speech. He has read a bit carelessly in that part. It applies to adults who have been deported for crimes. For children, special reasons always apply, which means a significantly higher threshold to overcome.

For persons who constitute a security threat, the following shall apply: ”If a lack of cooperation on the part of the foreign national, the time required to obtain necessary documents, or any other significant reason relating to the execution results in it being likely that the execution of a decision on rejection or deportation will be delayed for more than twelve months, the foreign national may however be held in detention for an additional maximum of twelve months.”

This is, naturally, about not creating incentives for anyone to refuse to collect their ID documents or to attempt to delay or obstruct the execution in various ways, which, as mentioned, is very common today.

Madam Speaker! We are now getting a new and modern regulatory framework in this area. All things aside, more people will be taken into custody for longer periods than today, which will entail certain costs. Those costs are, however, significantly lower than the costs of having these people loose on the streets and squares, especially when it concerns persons subject to deportation where the deportation cannot be executed.

It is therefore also important to emphasize that our solution to the problem is not actually detention. Our solution is instead that the cases of execution are moved to return hubs in third countries. We do not want to have people in detention in Sweden, because it is expensive, complicated and a great responsibility. These people should not be here at all.

When one listens to how the opposition reasons, one often hears them claim that it is some kind of ideological goal for us to have as many people in custody as possible. That is absolutely not the case; I would be very happy if these detention centers were empty and people just used their common sense and went home when it was time to go home. But people do not do that, and that is why this is sometimes needed.

The return hubs are a relatively new EU legal figure that allows illegal migrants whose deportation to their home country cannot be enforced to be placed in a hub – a collection center – in a third country. It should be said that it is naturally not necessarily a cheaper or simpler solution to place people in a hub. It also entails problems. But the hubs constitute a fantastic means of pressure to get people to return home.

What will happen when the hubs are introduced is that the person will be given a choice: Either you are placed in a hub in a third country while waiting to return home, or you simply take a ticket and go home. In 99 out of 100 cases, these people will simply give up and go home in that situation, because there is no longer any upside, so to speak, to continuing and delaying the return process.

It is important to emphasize that the rules we are now introducing regarding storage are only part of a larger regulatory framework. This is not, so to speak, the end, but it is a piece in a larger puzzle.

(Applause)

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 4.

A functioning return process is a central part of a sustainable migration policy. We have talked about that before as well. Therefore, the Center Party fundamentally welcomes much of what the government presents in Tightened rules on supervision and detention.

It is good that alternatives to detention that are less intrusive are being introduced, as previous speakers also mentioned. It is good to have more and more differentiated measures, such as increased supervision. It is an important step that can mean that fewer individuals and in particular fewer families with children need to be deprived of their liberty.

We also welcome that the right to a public counsel is strengthened, at least to some extent for the children. It is also good that it is clarified that family unity shall be the main rule and that children in custody shall, as a rule, be offered accommodation together with their family. Those parts are good.

It is also good that the less intrusive measures should be tested first, so that the principle of proportionality can hopefully also gain traction in practice at some point. It can strengthen the individual's rights.

I have said several times today – and I believe I need to say it again – that we need to have clear regulations, ensure that people comply with the regulations, and ensure that those who are denied also leave. Otherwise, it will not be regulated immigration. And in the meantime, we need to treat those who come here as human beings. It is actually possible to combine them.

It is there that it must be pointed out that there are problems with the proposal, especially when it comes to ensuring children's basic rights but also when it comes to ensuring that the vulnerability of girls and women as well as hbtqi-persons in detention and at the return centers is taken most seriously.

We see that the proposals in the bill in practice risk leading to children being deprived of liberty to a greater extent and for longer periods. Even if the detention periods for certain categories of children are shortened, the possibilities to take children into detention are expanded, Madam Speaker.

For the Centre Party, it is crucial that the child's best interests always carry the most weight. We do not believe that the government's proposal lives up to the high requirements set in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law – contrary to how it has sounded here earlier today. There, high requirements are set that deprivation of liberty of children may only occur in absolute exceptional cases and for the shortest possible time. That can be read again: absolute exceptional cases and for the shortest possible time. It is, after all, an extremely intrusive measure with proven negative consequences for the child. The Centre Party believes that it is still worth holding fast to those kinds of fundamental Swedish values.

If a child in an absolute exceptional case still must be taken into custody, it is unacceptable that it additionally occurs in an environment that in no way takes into account that it is a child one is dealing with and without accommodating the child's basic right to play, development, social interaction, and contact with their family. So we cannot have that, Madam Speaker.

A storage facility where children may also have to be kept in the worst-case scenario cannot look like a storage facility for adults. It needs to be safe, adapted, and stimulating. There must be access to outdoor environments and nature and the possibility for meaningful activities. We believe that the government must ensure that storage used for children is fully child-proofed and child-adapted. Because they are not today.

We know that sexual abuse of children has actually occurred in some of the Swedish Migration Agency's facilities. I think that should be included as well when one speaks about these issues. It has actually looked like that. The state has children deprived of their liberty, and these children have been subjected to sexual abuse during the time they have been deprived of their liberty. I think that is something that one cannot easily ignore. But apparently, some of the Tidö parties think otherwise.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough that the premises are adapted. There must, of course, also be an active obligation for the Swedish Migration Agency to ensure that those in detention have their rights met. It cannot depend on the individual facility's resources or the staff's discretion. We also know that voluntary actors try to help and be there but hardly get the opportunity to do so. These children are therefore left in an unacceptable situation. It must get better.

Centerpartiet also views with great concern the particular vulnerability that women and hbtqi-persons face in the Swedish Migration Agency's detention. Several heavy referral bodies highlight this. These groups are already overrepresented when it comes to vulnerability to violence, threats, and harassment. In such a closed environment, which is very harsh, it is known that they additionally end up in an extra insecure situation.

Depriving people of their liberty who, again, have not committed any crimes without being able to guarantee their basic safety is actually a challenge. We must therefore ensure that the Swedish Migration Agency secures its detention centers in a better way than today, so that the living conditions for the people in detention are secured in a better way.

Madam Speaker! We know that the government's policy creates great challenges for the Swedish Migration Agency and contributes to reduced efficiency, which is the opposite of the government's stated goals. People talk about order and tidiness, but then one needs to become better at creating a regulatory framework that is also well-thought-out, coherent, and predictable.

Madam Speaker! Today we support the proposal on the declaration of age, which has been up for debate today. We must, in fact, ensure that children's rights are upheld in Swedish migration policy. I hope – despite statements in TV outside the chamber just now from among others the Sverigedemokraterna – that we can ensure that we hold fast to the completely basic fundamentals: that children's rights are of great importance even in migration cases. Even when we know that people are to be deported, it is, once again, not only migration policy that counts. Human dignity counts as well.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I must react when the reason for suspending the reform of detention is that children today are subjected to sexual abuse in detention. That was exactly what the member said in the rostrum. He said that children today are subjected to sexual abuse in detention. Therefore, they want to suspend a change of the detention activities that we want to carry out. I think it is a very strange reasoning.

It is such a shame that the Center Party is involved and putting spokes in the wheels of moving forward with new legislation. We can ensure that people, by having an electronic ankle bracelet, can live outside instead of being held in custody. I know that several of the opposition parties think it is good and highlight it as something positive. It is in this proposal.

One stands and says that the reason for wanting to declare a moratorium and that it should be another year before we reform the defense activities in the country is that children today are being subjected to sexual abuse. Should one then let it continue?

I think the handling of this matter is directly unprofessional. I am disappointed in many in here, including the Center Party.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! My low expectations for the reply were still set too high. There was no "therefore" in my speech, to begin with. I spoke about how important it is that the defense is secured, because we have seen, among other things, these consequences. That is what I said. I assume that the Moderaterna realize that it is important too. I will try to interpret this positively here, not negatively.

The legislation that Magnus Resare is talking about is not covered by the statement of intent. It only concerns the paragraphs that specifically relate to children. We might be able to get a paper and email him, so that we can ensure there are no more misunderstandings. That which concerns providing more alternatives is not included in the statement of intent – it is only a few paragraphs that are included, and they were specifically mentioned in the report. These parts are not covered, precisely because we believe they represent improvements, which I also mentioned in my report.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates will always ensure that we try to bring order to Swedish authorities through legislation and agency governance, in the way we can be involved in governing authorities.

It is never okay at all for anyone to be subjected to any type of crime while being held in custody. Therefore, during this parliamentary term, we have, for example, ensured that one can no longer enter a detention center with drugs. And we have put a stop to people entering detention centers and selling sexual services to those who were held there. It was nearly brothel activity without Swedish authorities handling it or doing anything about it when the Centerpartiet was part of the government with the Socialdemokrater for eight years.

We put a stop to it. We have reformed and given the detention center the opportunity to monitor people. We know that drugs came in. We know that people sat and drank alcohol unmonitored in detention. It leads to fights inside the detention center because of this.

It is the kind of thing we have dedicated ourselves to addressing during this parliamentary term. We would very much like to see more flaws in the defense, so that we can heal them. That can be done by having sensible conversations about the issues that we can take part in when we are, for example, out on site visits, not by a minute in twelve presenting a proposal on a declaration of peace.

We want to make life better for those people who today may be forced to sit in detention but for whom a less restrictive measure could have been applicable if our law had passed. It is those people who will now sit locked up that you have on your conscience. They could have lived with their children, who would have been able to attend school for a few more months instead of being locked up in detention. Mom could have been at home instead of sitting in detention when dad might be allowed to stay with the child in freedom. The whole family could have been together, even though they are still to be deported from the country. But you are stopping this for another year now, even though you are fundamentally in favor of this proposal and think it is good. I think it is strange.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Madam Speaker! The only strange thing here is the inability to listen. I repeat: the Viland declaration does not cover those parts. I can say it one more time: the Viland declaration does not cover those parts. Shall we take it a fourth time? The things that Magnus Resare raises are not covered by the Viland declaration, because they are good, as I said from the rostrum. We are trying to stop bad legislation, not good. If the government presents more good legislation, it will take us with it much more often. That could be a tip for the future.

That matter regarding the steering of the authorities is amusing. We are talking here about a government that fires the grayest and most boring director of migration that the Swedish Migration Agency has ever had – a competent and proper person who follows the law and is a civil servant to the core – because the Sweden Democrats call him an activist. Get rid of him! That is how you exercise steering of the authorities in this government. It is absurd to call it something good and positive. When you fired the director, it was a clear commissioned job from the Sweden Democrats, who have decided that a director who in every way is a super civil servant to the core is an activist. He has without any problems deported persons in accordance with the law, even if normal people would say that it hurts the heart. He has always followed the law to the letter and tried to ensure a good and proper operation. But he is fired because the Sweden Democrats call him an activist. If anything, it is political theater.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes there are sudden jerks in this chamber. In my speech, I had actually intended to praise the Social Democrats for having been constructive in the process and wanting to ensure that we obtain modern and more efficient legislation even in this area. Now, I am genuinely disappointed.

I have often, in both internal and external contexts, highlighted Ida Karkiainen as an incredibly serious politician. It has become a bit more orderly now than when Anders Ygeman was the Social Democrats' number one in the Social Insurance Committee, and it perhaps was not always completely serious.

That the Social Democrats, now under the leadership of the former chairman of the Committee on the Constitution, choose to handle Swedish legislative work in this way, I find completely appalling. One arrives three or four minutes before we are to debate and speaks in an exchange of remarks that this should be suspended. Throughout the entire extensive and serious process that has preceded this debate, one has not had a single objection to it. One has sat in committee meetings after committee meetings and had the opportunity to submit objections. Not a single reservation has the Social Democrats made against that which we will hopefully make a decision on. Nevertheless, one acts in this way.

Above all, I think it is wrong that a party like mine, which claims the position of Prime Minister, acts in this unserious manner. I think there is every reason for our two parties to maintain the public's confidence in the legislative process and the work in the Swedish Riksdag.

With that said, we can proceed to the matter. In my manuscript, I have now deleted a paragraph that dealt with the Social Democrats' constructive way of handling the proposal.

Madam Speaker! Detention is an effective tool for organizing the return from our country. It should only be used when one must and when it is truly needed, but when it is used, it must be legally secure and lead to good results. The sooner a person who is not to remain in Sweden can leave the country, the better for both the individual and Sweden. Sometimes, but perhaps not always, a decision to take someone into detention can be the only or in any case the best solution. However, it is both expensive and perhaps above all restrictive of the individual's freedom. For me, it is therefore very important that the tool is used with great deliberation.

Detention is used today primarily when a person who has received a deportation decision does not leave the country voluntarily but remains for a long period, or when a person who may have committed serious crimes and is to be deported awaits their journey home. Personally, I think it is reasonable that rapists, pedophiles, and murderers who are to leave Sweden are not allowed to await their journey home in freedom but are kept locked up until the flight is scheduled to depart, and that we have a system that ensures there are no more crime victims because of the worst of the worst of foreign criminals.

I also think it is reasonable that those who have been denied the right to be in Sweden but refuse to follow Swedish authorities' decisions can be placed in detention awaiting return home if no other alternatives are judged to be sufficient, when it is people who otherwise go underground and hide to avoid being sent home from here. It is ultimately such that Swedish authorities' and courts' decisions must be what prevails in this country. Otherwise, we will once again get the disorganized migration situation that prevailed before this government took over nearly four years ago.

Then we will see more children living on and rooting in Swedish society despite having deportation decisions hanging over them – children who, after a few years, become the cases we read about in the newspaper when they are suddenly torn from their lives, their school classes and their football teams and need to return to the country they no longer remember. These are children that we of course all feel sorry for, and we do not want to have to see such situations. These children would have fared much better by quickly returning to their home country and continuing their lives there but do not get to because the parents make bad decisions.

It is not the case that everyone who comes to Sweden is in need of protection. Many who come to this country actually have quite good conditions to live in their home countries. Sometimes one almost forgets that and believes that Sweden and possibly Western Europe is the only place on earth where it is possible to live a bearable life. That is not the case.

It is important, however, that children should only, in very specific cases and very rarely, have to be held in detention. It should truly only occur in exceptional cases when nothing else is possible. That is our starting point, and it is stated with all clarity in the bill. It is clear that everyone here would preferably not want to see children locked up. But we want to see children who are given the opportunity to be with their parents and go home with their parents if grounds for protection and the right to live in Sweden are lacking. Children should not be forced to go underground because the parents make that type of bad decision.

If we are to have a regulated migration, then detention is part of the system. They must exist so that certain deportations can be carried out when a willingness to cooperate is lacking or when an individual poses a threat to security in Sweden – when nothing less intrusive is sufficient, as I said.

The government is now also proposing that one can be kept in detention longer than before. The reason is, among other things, that we have sometimes had to release persons from detention because they refused to cooperate with their deportation and that it can then take too long to make it possible for that to occur. So I do not think we can have it that way. Therefore, we propose that the time one can be held in Swedish detention be extended.

The government is not only proposing legislative changes for a more efficient detention. The government also wants to expand with the possibility for other forms of custody that are both more cost-effective and perhaps, above all, less restrictive of individual freedom.

For example, one should be able to have an electronic ankle bracelet. In that case, one is indeed forced to stay within a certain area while waiting to go home, but it will in any case mean greater freedom for the individual during the time one, for example, arranges for their travel documents or whatever it is one does to prepare for the journey home.

It will also mean lower costs for the state as the individuals can take care of themselves to a greater extent. It will provide better opportunities for children to go to school, to continue with football practice or whatever it may be. In any case, it is a welcome and positive change that will lead to gains for the state and perhaps above all for individuals.

Through a broad palette of different forms of surveillance of those who are to leave the country, I believe that we will get a better order on migration. It is necessary. We cannot continue to live in a time where the individual's defiance of rules and judgments trumps Sweden's ability to carry out deportations.

Madam Speaker! As usual, we have the "no-sayers' orchestra" in the chamber when it comes to migration. If one ever wanted to play parliamentary bingo, one should try to find a bingo card with squares containing that Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet say no to proposals aimed at getting order in Swedish migration policy.

I think one would get bingo at the first migration debate if one had such a card. Then I don't know if it is the Social Democrats' lottery that will also sell this type of bingo card. But if it is, I hope that the one who plays wins very fine prizes, because the price we will have to pay for that type of politics will be very high. As usual, it will probably be an invoice sent to the Swedish people even for these lotteries.

Just as always, the three parties have once again thrown in a whole bunch of reservations. The Left goes the furthest by proposing to scrap the entire proposal. They want to say no to extending the time we can hold someone in custody so that dangerous individuals can instead get out and commit new crimes.

One wants to say no to that people who are currently in detention instead should be able to come out and wear an ankle bracelet, which in any case I think would be less restrictive and a good idea if the person is deemed suitable.

We have seen a party that in a few months could claim the position of Minister for Migration run a completely separate race even in this migration policy issue.

Despite the fact that I have nevertheless debated with and listened to representatives from Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Vänstern in this chamber for nearly four years, I cannot understand why there is a constant desire to retain the old systems regarding migration when we saw the consequences and what they led to.

Quite honestly: One sees the appalling situation that has been created in our country, and not least in the suburbs with high concentrations of immigrants. People are panicking over the lawlessness that has spread as a result of a demand-free migration policy and a non-existent integration policy.

It is 80–85 percent of the Swedish people's representatives in the Riksdag who say that we can no longer have it this way. This country is collapsing if we continue in the same tracks.

The Left wants to mean that it represents people in socioeconomically vulnerable areas where the situation is at its worst. There, the need for welfare is greatest. But the system risks starting to fall short because the welfare has become too burdened as far too many people come here and do not enter the labor market.

We should still be able to see that migration must be at a level that allows us to take care of people. It should not be so large that it destroys life both for those who come here and for those who are already here.

Madam Speaker! Migration policy is one of the clearest dividing lines in Swedish politics. The left side always wants to coddle everyone. It should be increasingly clear that the Left Party and the Green Party do not care if Sweden returns to the derailed situation that prevailed before we took over if they are allowed to come to power.

Everything risks becoming chaos again if one continues to let more people into the country. Quite honestly, both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet seem to believe in open borders and free immigration. One simply has to realize that it is not possible. Our country will collapse if one returns to that.

I think that all Swedes who may be listening to this, or in any case exist out there, should reflect on and remind themselves of the state of distress that prevailed in 2022 before we took office. We read daily about murders and thermos bombs. Innocents died when homemade bombs exploded in stairwells.

Look at where we are now. Even if Sweden is not perfect yet, no one can claim that the situation in Sweden is not better. There is hope in this country now, something that was completely missing just a few years ago.

It is a country that we have now built where everyone who works gets to keep a little more. It is a country where the police have received new tools so that they can convict those who destroy. It is a country where we move forward with legislation so that people who commit crimes and are not citizens will now almost always be deported.

It is a country where we ensure that those deported actually leave the country and do not live as if nothing has happened. It is a country where we want to help immigrants into society so that they can become a part of the country they now live in.

It is the Sweden that Tidösidan has spent four years creating, and which we want to spend another four years making even better. We want to integrate people and achieve a culturally homogeneous Sweden where people become part of a community that we all in this chamber probably feel like a part of.

We differ very much on many issues. But we can all agree on common basic values and a common base culture. It is a Swedish culture that I think is the best in the world.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to turn to the Centre Party and quote Obi-Wan Kenobi when he is forced to realize in pain that his former close friend and apprentice Anakin Skywalker, later Darth Vader, has chosen to cross over to the dark side and that all hope for him now seems to be lost.

He said: You were the chosen one. You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them. You were supposed to bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness.

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the floor, and may the power be with you!

(Applause)

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! After around six, seven, and soon eight hours of debate, many accusations fly against all opposition parties during the presentation. There was not particularly much about what the government wants. There was a great deal of agitation at the beginning of Magnus Resare's presentation regarding the declaration of decay. It was perhaps directed primarily at the Social Democrats. They will defend themselves later.

Magnus Resare mixes up so much regarding detention, what the Left Party wants to reject and so on. It is primarily about children in detention. I read out the proposal in my speech, and the motion from us has been up in the committee for a very long time. It is quite specific regarding which points we criticize the proposal in. It is primarily about children in detention.

The outrage is primarily about the fact that we do not agree to separating children from their parents as easily as the Moderaterna want to do. We also cannot agree to placing children in custody any longer.

My question is actually: How long does Magnus Resare think children should be held in detention? Has the member read the referrals from Rädda Barnen, the Children's Ombudsman, and all children's rights organizations?

Has the member read and understood the seriousness of what children develop in detention, even for 72 hours? Magnus Resare wants to double that time. Does Magnus Resare understand what it means for a child – that trauma, that terror and that anxiety it entails to be in detention during those hours?

It is a time that you want to double. It is to double that trauma and that terror. Have you even read the referral reports?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not, of course, want to see a single child in detention. I do not want to see a single person in detention. I believe that one should follow the decisions one receives from Swedish authorities and leave this country. We can agree that every child in detention is a failure; surely no one here thinks that it is good.

We have children who are in Swedish prisons today. One can be up to one year old, and one can spend an entire year in prison as a child. I do not think that is anything positive either.

When it comes to the fact that we have children who need to be held in custody, it states in the bill that it should only be in extremely rare cases. The main rule is that children should not be held in custody. The government is now trying to create a situation where one can instead use, for example, an electronic ankle bracelet and let someone live in freedom.

The government stands for regulated migration in this country. Those who refuse to follow decisions cannot repeatedly use children as human shields. Eventually, one reaches a point where one unfortunately must place children in detention with their parents. That is already done today, and it is done for 72 hours. It is a failure every single time. I think it is terrible that parents expose their children to this and that we as a society are forced to resort to that type of measure.

If one reads the proposal and the committee's position, it is obvious that this is not something desirable and that it is something that should only be used in exceptional cases when nothing else is sufficient. But we must still maintain an orderly migration in this country. I am so saddened that Vänsterpartiet always wants to be against it. But soon perhaps you will be in the government with the Socialdemokraterna, and then perhaps it will return to the chaos that prevailed until a few years ago. I will be dismayed if that happens.

I believe that what is best for children is always to be with their parents. The Convention on the Rights of the Child must always be taken into account when making decisions on whether a child should or should not be held in detention. It will continue to be so if this legislation passes. It might happen in a year; we shall see.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The member compares detention with prisons. This is about innocent children; the only thing they have done is seek asylum and nothing else. I actually do not understand how the member can stand here and compare detention with prisons. This has nothing to do with crimes at all.

If children, for example, seek asylum according to the international commitments Sweden has made, they shall be met with protection, rights, support, and security. That is what children should be met with, and not this, where the Moderaterna let children's rights be subordinated to their own migration policy interests.

Now the member is upset that we want to stop the time for how long children should be in detention. The government wants to double the time. But I received no answer to the question: How long then? How long does Resare think they should be in detention? It is clear that one can answer: They should not be there at all. But why are 72 hours not enough? Why does one want to double the time? I do not understand that.

I actually do not believe that Magnus Resare has read the referral responses and the stories and horror stories that are raised in several of them. It is about the trauma, the stress, and the anxiety that children are faced with in detention. It is completely incomprehensible to me that one can then want to extend the time in detention.

I hear Magnus Resare in the exchanges here saying that it is not desirable for people to be in pre-trial detention. If it is not desirable – why do you then want to extend the time even for children?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! Because when nothing else suffices, there are exceptional cases where one must act with detention even when children are involved. I think it is just as deplorable every single time one is forced to do so. It is extremely rare today, and it will be extremely rare even in the future.

Tony Haddou stands here and argues that one is one hundred percent good if one thinks that 72 hours is okay and that one is one hundred percent evil if one thinks that 144 hours in detention is okay. What is it we are talking about? It is three days more or less. One is apparently an angel if one thinks that children can be held in detention for 72 hours, but one is the devil himself if one thinks otherwise. It is not serious, Tony.

The opposition has for all years been involved in and supported governments that have thought it has been okay to have children in detention for 72 hours. Why was it so much better?

(TONY HADDOU (V): No.)

Yes, that's how it is. You supported a government for eight years, and you didn't change this. There were a lot of children who had to return to their countries after having sat for 72 hours with their parents in detention. Why was it okay in your time but not in our time?

It is easy to stand here in opposition and criticize everything that happens. We will have to see where the Social Democrats head in this. They have, until today, thought it was okay to double the time in detention in those exceptional cases where one is truly forced to place a child in detention while waiting for a flight a few days later.

It is not weeks, months or years they are to be held in detention; the member says so themselves. It is 72 hours or 144 hours. I do not think that is good. I think it is a failure.

Somewhere we must, however, if we want an orderly and regulated migration policy in this country, accept this fact. When parents repeatedly stay away, refrain from going home, and refrain from following the decisions that Swedish authorities have made, we must do it this way. And it is only then that this will happen.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! I find it interesting that Magnus Resare stands up and accuses the Social Democrats of being unserious. He is deeply surprised by our views in the matter.

It only shows that he has not read the specific statement that we have written, where we refer to the motion. In the audit from Riksrevisionen, it is clearly stated that, among other things, children and other vulnerable groups must be protected to a greater extent. We are therefore highlighting the lack of a children's perspective in the specific statement with reference to a motion that is on the Riksdag's table.

Then I must also, for the sake of the audience, correct Magnus Resare and his agitation over this matter of the declaration of unconstitutionality. A declaration of unconstitutionality is not made during the preparatory process. The declaration of unconstitutionality is made because the matter is adjusted and lies on the table in a way that someone does not consider compatible with how our constitution is formulated. Then one pulls the handbrake and says: Stop, let us think! This we need to evaluate one more time!

In light of that, it also becomes strange when Magnus Resare stands and says with emphasis: Children shall not be separated from their parents! It is precisely this, Magnus Resare, that is in the dormant declaration. The point is that children shall not be separated from their parents, but the legislation that is now being put forward allows for this.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Magnus Resare is therefore: Why does he, despite expressing a different opinion with emphasis, think that children should be separated from their parents?

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I was very clear in the previous exchange, but I can repeat it once more: I do not think that children should be held in detention.

It is also what is stated in the bill: It shall be an exception in all forms to place a child in detention. Separating children from their parents shall be even more of an exception. Room must exist in the legislation, but it should in principle not happen.

Every child in detention is a failure of society, of the child's parents, and of the person who has received a deportation decision but has not complied with it. Before one ends up in detention, a considerable amount of time has passed since the decision was received. One has been given quite many opportunities to voluntarily leave Sweden and return to one's home country. But if one goes underground and remains here year after year and opposes Swedish authority decisions, it will eventually sometimes reach a point where we need to place people in detention.

It is not uncommon today, if there are two parents, to put one parent in custody and let the other parent stay with the children out there. Then you know that one parent will be going home, and then you get the whole family to travel as a unit.

I believe that what is best for the children is always to be with their parents. It also states in the bill that the Convention on the Rights of the Child must always be taken into account – that the child's best interests must always be taken into account. It is stated. I understood it earlier as that was why the Social Democrats were on board with this. One has been very careful and very cautious regarding when a child can end up in custody.

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

Ola Möller (S)

Mr. Speaker! That Star Wars quote came up recently. I will be thinking of Admiral Ackbar when they attack the second Death Star: ”It’s a trap!” That is what it is. Excuse the English, Mr. Speaker, but it is better in the original language.

It’s a trap – that is what Magnus Resare is doing here. He says that it was a gigantic failure last mandate period that children were held in detention for 72 hours. And then you say: Ping! We extend it to 144 hours! Apparently, that is a lesser failure.

With emphasis, he speaks about how we should not separate parents and children. And then he says: Ajabaja, you who think that it should not be done! It is bad that you think so. But Magnus Resare obviously thinks it is okay, because that is exactly what he is now arguing for in his speech, nota bene: Sometimes it can be so that parents are separated from their children.

This is problematic. It almost seems as if Member Magnus Resare does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker. It seems as if the Member does not understand that the stay of proceedings does not affect the entire matter. It seems as if the Member does not understand that what we are now putting forward is that we must pull the handbrake so that children are not separated from their parents. It seems as if the Member does not understand that we believe the extended detention periods should be reviewed in light of our specific statement, which refers to motions we have submitted in a matter on the same theme.

It even seems as if the member does not understand the parliamentary preparation processes, Mr. Speaker. That makes me a little worried.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! It also seems that Member Möller does not at all understand what we have been engaged in in the committee over the past few weeks. We have had preparation meeting after preparation where it has been possible to raise objections against parts of or the entire proposal, just as the other opposition parties have done anyway. From the Social Democrats, however, they have chosen to sit in silence and say: This is a good proposal; we will pass it.

I do not know if anyone from the Social Democrats has even read through the proposal. It is distressing that Sweden's largest party, with all its resources, cannot manage to go through a bill before being tipped off at the coffee machine about an opportunity to join in and cause the government a bit of a headache.

That is what you devote yourselves to. It is all just a big political theater. You know very well what we are going to pass, and you are for it. But it is always possible to get some small front-page coverage and see if it perhaps yields a vote here or there.

We others in this chamber, we in the majority, want to make Sweden a good country. We present good policy and good political proposals where it is balanced that young people should not be held in detention if it is not absolutely necessary. Young people shall also not be separated from their parents if it is not absolutely necessary. It shall occur in exceptional cases, on occasional occasions, when the Migration Court finds that there are grounds for it. It is not I who will be standing out at the Swedish Migration Agency's detention center and speaking about who should be held there and not.

We are presenting narrow legislation that shall enable one to be held there when it is truly needed but which shall also ensure that one usually will not need to be held there. One shall be able to be and live in a certain area, perhaps with an electronic ankle bracelet on one of the parents, instead of needing to be held in custody.

I think it is great policy. Children should be with parents, instead of in custody. I mean that seriously: I think it is a failure when it goes so far that a child needs to be locked up. Ola Möller should also think so.

Once again, however, it is the same with Social Democracy: One stands and speaks about something – that one is for a strict policy, that one wants order and discipline in Sweden – but then acts completely differently and tries to make a circus of our parliament.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that I appreciate being called the chosen one. I will say nothing else. But I must nevertheless state that the member is not Obi-Wan Kenobi but rather Obi-Wan Kanljuga. To claim that we have stopped masses of things when we have actually voted for them is still a challenge.

Regarding the issue at hand and why we did not act earlier, the fact is that the only space to make a statement of abstention is between the laying on the table – which was, therefore, on Thursday or Friday; I am unsure – and the end of today's debate. That is the only window that exists. It could not be done earlier – not during the committee's processing, only now. That is why this is coming now.

Then there was this thing with the Siths, which I have apparently transitioned to. The Sith strive for boundless power, and there is perhaps a small ounce of recognition linked to the Social Democrats. I can admit that, at least. Otherwise, I do not think the similarity is that great. I see no horns or any red and black stripes etcetera, and no one can shoot lightning from their hands, as far as I have seen.

But now that we are on the subject of film, I can still give a small film tip – or two, actually – to Magnus Resare. It won't be the George Lucas film Star Wars that came out in 1977, but the two films that came before and after. The one that came before was Sista natten med gänget, and the one that came after was Festen är över. It is indeed time now to leave this government behind us.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! It may be late in the hour, but I am not entirely clear on what the question was.

When it comes to the declaration of intent and that it is coming now, I am therefore not blaming the Center Party for it. You have been clear in your reservations during the preparatory work regarding what you are against. I think it is an honest way to prepare such a bill: One speaks about what one is against.

I have no comments on the fact that this is coming from you now. My criticism was not directed at you. My criticism was directed at the Social Democrats, who are coming and doing this now. They have had to answer for it themselves, and the member and I do not need to have a dialogue about them. I do not like them as a party as much as the member does. Some of them are, in themselves, fine people, and who knows what they can do at their parties? If they can shoot electricity or fight with laser swords, it does not concern me. But it is them I direct criticism towards.

To you, Niels Paarup-Petersen, I direct criticism and a Star Wars quote because I think it is utterly deplorable that the Center Party has chosen to switch sides, from having been in any case some kind of balance in Swedish politics to openly saying that you will support Magdalena Andersson as Prime Minister.

We know that Vänsterpartiet has been clear that they want ministerial posts. Nooshi Dadgostar will lay claim to being finance minister. I do not know how the member can then go home to the farmers in Sweden and the many small business owners who voted for you and talk about how it might perhaps become compulsory acquisition of Swedish companies because you so very much do not want to see Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister, God knows why.

The Moderates and the Centre Party have held together very many times. Yet now, instead of standing in the middle of Swedish politics, one chooses to lean heavily to the left. One does not go out and say: We have two prime ministerial candidates, Ulf and Magdalena. Instead, one says: We have one prime ministerial candidate. We have become a left-wing party.

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

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was a somewhat surprising view of the Social Democrats' abilities regarding electricity. It is usually more the case that we complain that they have shut it down.

For the Centre Party, there are two prime ministerial candidates. The only problem is that one of them is not willing to do what is required, namely to create a serious policy. The day Ulf Kristersson returns to being a bourgeois prime ministerial candidate, a prime minister for Sweden rather than for the Sweden Democrats, is the day Ulf Kristersson is absolutely our prime ministerial candidate. But Ulf Kristersson has chosen not to do that. We have for quite many years been clear that this is the challenge.

We have an Energy Minister who says that the Moderates stopped the energy agreement that is a prerequisite for us. Here we have talked about labor immigration as a prerequisite for Sweden's companies – if we are now to talk about the companies' conditions. It is the Moderates who in today's Sweden are a greater obstacle to the companies' development than the Social Democrats are. I never thought I would experience that in this chamber. It is completely absurd, but unfortunately, that is how it is now.

There is much I am dissatisfied with also in the Social Democrats' policy. Regardless of whether we will be sitting with the Moderates or the Social Democrats after the election, I can nevertheless say this: What has characterized us in the Center Party is not that we have changed sides. It is that we are the only stable and serious bourgeois party that has kept its backbone straight. I have no problem standing up for that.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I remind, somewhat cautiously, that the subject of the debate is tightened rules for supervision and storage, if I have understood correctly.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! Then we will keep the Centre Party under observation when they are in the Social Democrats' custody.

We will continue to work so that we have a bourgeois Prime Minister, an Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister. We invite the Center to agreements; to broad collaborations on how we can make it better for entrepreneurs in this country.

One way to make the country what it once was is to get the migration policy in order. We need to have regulated migration. We need to ensure that there is integration, and part of that work is to have functioning detention, which shall be used in cases of extreme necessity. The main rule is, of course, not that people are held in detention, but the main rule is that people get a yes or a no. If you get a no, you go home.

One receives help in obtaining plane tickets from the Swedish Migration Agency. One cooperates with their return journey. But some people do not do that. Some people choose to go underground, and they take their children and use them as human shields to avoid following the decisions of Swedish authorities.

It is wrong, and I think we should do everything so that the innocent children are not affected by their parents' actions. But ultimately we end up in a situation where the consequence must be that even a child ends up in detention. Whether it is for 72 hours or 144 hours, it is a failure. We want children to be there as rarely as possible and for as short a time as possible.

Children should be with their parents, and they should return to their home countries with their parents if they do not have grounds or a right to be in Sweden. That is the Moderaternas policy, and the Center should be able to sign off on it.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have debated for over eight hours, and I can state that the order of the day is growing. Even though the Star Wars references are entertaining, the laughter still catches a bit in my throat when my thoughts return to what we are actually talking about.

We are locking people up. It is a question of people who have not committed any crime, whose only act has been to come to us and say: "Help me! I need protection." But they have not succeeded in proving that the fear of persecution they feel is real.

Sometimes there are people who cannot obtain travel documents to go home, but they are distrusted for not doing their best to get a home country passport when the embassy refuses.

Of course, there are certainly some for whom the suspicion hits home, but we also know that there are children born in Sweden, who never hide from the authorities, who grow up at Migrationsverket, and yet can never travel to the home country that Migrationsverket considers to be theirs. The Majblomma seller Murhaf Hamid was one of them.

Even though there are families who keep themselves hidden, it is not always so simple that those who remain stay hidden. I think we should be careful not to compare a family hiding out of fear of being deported for persecution to war criminals who use people as shields so as not to be hit by violence in a war. It is still a rather hair-raising analogy.

Mr. Speaker! Today we are therefore debating the deprivation of liberty of individuals. Depriving a person of their liberty is one of the state's most intrusive measures. In a constitutional state, the deprivation of liberty shall, as a rule, only be reserved for situations where someone has been convicted of a crime or upon suspicion of serious crime, and in some cases to protect a person from seriously harming themselves or someone else.

The people who are deprived of liberty through detention have typically not committed any crime at all. They are deprived of liberty because decisions that they may not continue to live in Sweden are to be executed. Such a deprivation of liberty places very high demands on proportionality, legal certainty, and humanity. The situation in detention is already today deeply problematic. Recurring reports from JO and the National Audit Office testify to overcrowding, which contravenes the UN's guidelines against inhuman and degrading treatment. It is long detention periods, and people are held deprived of liberty without being able to foresee when they will be released, sometimes even when it is not possible to return.

There have also been alarms regarding abuses and serious violations of human rights, including those of children. Against that background, we in Miljöpartiet believe that the government's self-evident starting point should be to reduce the use of detention to a minimum, to immediately ban the detention of children, and to ensure that less intrusive alternatives are used where possible.

It is good that the government in its proposition expresses that supervision should be chosen over detention in more cases, that more forms of supervision are introduced and that the rules on responsible authority become clearer. In that way, the intrusion into people's freedom and privacy can still be reduced compared to locking them up under conditions that are actually worse than in many prisons.

We see that some of the changes, also with security departments, can lead to that people need to be placed in the criminal justice system to a lesser extent. There are certain parts of the proposal that we also think are improvements compared to how it looks today. But we think that the government should actually decide that one should not place detainees at all with the criminal justice system, and one should absolutely not hold people in police custody.

We in Miljöpartiet also see that serious criticism has been voiced regarding the increased scope of electronic surveillance. For example, the Institute for Human Rights has rejected the proposal. Asylrättscentrum and the Swedish Bar Association have questioned whether it will be effective, and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection has warned that the measure could become more intrusive than intended, partly because it is unclear how alarm and positioning data should be handled.

Our view is that the government should be urged to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the proposal before returning to the matter, if the proposal proves to meet the requirements that it must be effective, necessary and proportionate.

We think it is wrong that the government proposes extended detention periods, and we are critical of it.

The Institute for Human Rights as well as the Swedish Christian Council advise against the longer time limits because there is a lack of an investigation showing that such a need exists. That there is a need is still the most basic requirement for a state to be able to deprive a person of their liberty. We must still agree on that, Mr. Speaker?

Asylrättscentrum, Civil Rights Defenders, Rädda Barnen and Svenska Röda Korset are also critical of or oppose longer deadlines for removal. They argue that there is a lack of evidence showing that longer periods in detention lead to increased return, while we know that detention affects the individual strongly negatively. Asylrättscentrum specifically points out that there is a lack of factual basis and analyses showing that this would be effective and expedient.

Regarding the issue of children, we share the same view as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, namely that children should never be deprived of their liberty simply because of their migration status. It should simply be prohibited to lock up children just because they have applied for asylum or received a decision that they are not allowed to continue residing in Sweden.

The government's proposal means that the state is opening up for further coercive measures against children when they are already in a very vulnerable situation. That the government also increases this vulnerability by proposing that children should be able to be separated from their guardians through detention is a very harmful and intrusive measure. It contradicts fundamental principles in the Convention on the Rights of the Child that children should not be separated from their parents.

The Council on Legislation has also noted this part of the government's proposal and emphasizes that if such an arrangement is to exist at all, the Council on Legislation considers that it should at least and explicitly be limited to cases where the child has been deported by a court due to a crime. And in that case, the proposal is in practice limited to criminally responsible children.

It is also serious that the government opens up for increased oversight with electronic surveillance without a lower age limit. In practice, this means that one can put an ankle monitor on preschool children. It is incredibly intrusive and stigmatizing, and it risks harming children's health, development, privacy, and family life.

The Council on Legislation particularly criticizes the government's way of describing the surveillance of children. It incorrectly weighs the state's interest against the child's interest of not being electronically monitored, when it is in fact also the state's interest to protect children's rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 2 and reservation 3 in the proposal.

In addition, we in Miljöpartiet have today, together with Centerpartiet, requested that some of the extended restrictions on freedom concerning children be completely declared void.

A suspension declaration means that a sixth of the members of the Riksdag can decide that the proposal shall be paused entirely and may not be decided upon for twelve months. It is an emergency brake in the constitution that is intended to ensure that a government does not hastily restrict fundamental freedoms and rights in our constitution, and it definitely concerns several of the government's proposals right now.

Point by point, intervening legislation has been rushed through in a way that even makes it difficult for the most experienced and knowledgeable jurists in Sweden to get a holistic overview.

We cannot succeed in justifying everything that is bad. But when it comes to the parts concerning children who have committed no crimes and which concern more children being locked up and separated from their guardians for twice as long through detention, we have now formed a sufficiently large minority in the Riksdag to stop the law from passing before we win the election on September 13. Then we can change the direction for Sweden to a direction that respects and protects children's rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! I shall ask a short question, and I can be satisfied with a short answer. Does Annika Hirvonen think that prison should exist at all?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to children, we never think it is right to deprive them of their liberty solely because they have sought asylum or received a decision that they are no longer allowed to stay in Sweden.

Under certain circumstances, however, we believe that it should be possible to deprive adults of their liberty. But even when it concerns adults, we believe that one must always ensure that it occurs only when it is necessary, effective, and proportionate. Less intrusive measures should always be taken in the first instance.

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

Magnus Resare (M)

Mr. Speaker! In that part, we are in agreement. But then my follow-up question must be: How could Annika Hirvonen and Miljöpartiet tolerate this here during those eight years – or in any case seven years – when you sat in government? You also supported the government that remained after you chose to leave it. Why was that okay then? Why did you do nothing about this then?

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There is much in the area of migration policy that we did not think was good – or okay, to use Magnus Resares' words. But Miljöpartiet does not have its own majority, and we cannot decide everything ourselves even when we are in government. So that is how it is in politics.

Sometimes you simply have to work with opinion-building to gain greater voter support and to bring more colleagues in the Riksdag along so that they see the problems that you yourself see.

Now we have an extremely clear basis from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who has audited the prison and discovered large and serious deficiencies, and from the National Audit Office, whose report we have dealt with in the Committee on Social Insurance.

I can only be pleased that we have succeeded today in gathering the entire opposition to declare a moratorium on parts of the intrusive, liberty-depriving measures concerning children.

One step at a time, we in Miljöpartiet will fight to strengthen children's rights. And after we have won the election, I look forward to us, together with colleagues in the opposition, being able to once again elevate the Convention on the Rights of the Child and children's rights to the place they should have.

It will happen after four years of deportation policy and SD's line, which completely ignores the convention on human rights, has trumped almost everything else in the area of migration policy.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! After eight and a half hours here in the chamber, there might be a bit of low blood sugar and oxygen deficiency in the brain. I nevertheless want to begin by moving for approval of the committee's majority proposal and rejection of the motions made within the report and, naturally, rejection of the motion to postpone.

It appeared completely astonishingly and suddenly just out of nowhere from the left side and gathered a majority in the chamber, despite the fact that there was a majority in the committee for the government's proposition.

Mr. Speaker! This is about creating a strict and sustainable migration policy. Just as we have discussed in a previous matter, it is about the fact that one must leave the country when, after a legally sound review, one has been denied their asylum application.

Today's proposal regarding detention is an important part of the work to ensure a regulated immigration. The Government's proposal contains stricter rules on supervision and detention. The purpose is to maintain an orderly and efficient migration process, which can also mean that people – women, children and men – are prevented and protected from suffering in the shadow society.

The new legislative proposals involve, among other things, an expansion of the conditions for authorities to decide on detention, while the detention periods in several cases may be extended. The purpose of the proposals is, as stated, 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, as a last resort, a court. As a rule, these concern persons with deportation orders who do not cooperate with the authorities and are assessed to be prone to absconding.

An effective and legally sound defense operation contributes to countering the shadow society and maintaining a regulated immigration, where a no really means that one must leave Sweden. To ensure safety in Sweden, it is important that the authorities are given expanded opportunities to ensure that persons who have been denied their asylum application really leave our country. Through the tightened rules that are now proposed, conditions are created for a more effective return process.

Mr. Speaker! Much has been said about the bill and its parts. We can state that in the Tidö agreement, we are making changes to create order and clarity in Sweden's reception and provide better conditions for integration. Nevertheless, the opposition stands aside on many parts. In this matter, it becomes clear how a future red-green government alternative might be expected to act.

Vänstern and Miljöpartiet usually oppose the entire proposal in a few reservation points. It is also, as has been said from this rostrum and in the exchanges of remarks, a fact that Centern stands behind parts of the proposal.

The Social Democrats did this in the chamber for a few minutes, when the government's proposal was rejected. Then a change occurs; one chooses to open Pandora's box. Is this what we are to see in the chamber, after it was first rejected in all parts, or at least not reserved, in both committees and the chamber, even when there is a reservation concerning children and vulnerable persons? Would it not have been more straightforward and honest to say, "You have gone too far in the government – we reject the reservation that the Left, the Center, and the Green Party have"?

We see a clear example of what it will look like if the Social Democrats, against all odds, try to form a government. They stand and speak about a strict migration policy and say they want to have it. It has been established that we actually already have children in detention, exceptionally. Now we are talking about adjustments.

This is how it is going to be. When one strives for power, one abandons principles and lets Miljöpartiet govern the migration policy. Good heavens, I say.

We need to have order and clarity in the migration policy. We in the government may not always think and reason correctly. But in those cases, one expresses reservations. One acts in committees and in the chamber, instead of winning cheap points on Aftonbladet's website.

I say as I have said before, Mr. Speaker: Sweden needs a strict, fair and responsible migration policy. We now get a foretaste of the red-green chaos that will arise if this opposition is allowed to lead Sweden. Much of what we have set right will be twisted out of the hands of both authorities and other functions in our country. I am dismayed. I expected much more from a government-bearing party.

I wish to move for approval of the committee's proposal and for the rejection of the motion requests and reservations. I note that Pandora's box is now open.

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

Patrik Karlson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A country shall be built by law. But the law is not enough if the state also does not have the tools to uphold it.

That is exactly where the question of oversight and enforcement comes in, because one of the biggest problems in Swedish migration policy has for a long time been the gap between decision and execution. We have made decisions on rejection or deportation, but all too often the state has lacked sufficiently effective tools to ensure that the decisions also take effect in practice.

This has contributed to people deviating, the return is hindered, and the shadow society grows. When decisions are not enforced, the rule of law becomes weaker, not stronger. When the state is unable to hold the entire chain together, from review to decision to enforcement, the legitimacy of regulated immigration as a whole is also weakened.

We are debating here today, in part, the government's proposal on stricter rules regarding supervision and detention. The proposal addresses a part of the system that has long been inadequate. It is about how Sweden can ensure that people who do not have the right to stay in the country can be kept available for enforcement. It is about giving the authorities tools that are clearer, more purposeful, and more effective.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's bill therefore changes the regulatory framework on several points. A central change is that a new regulatory framework for detention and custody is introduced, where the distribution of responsibility becomes clearer and more functional. The Swedish Police Authority and the Swedish Security Service shall be allowed to decide on detention and custody when they are responsible for the execution of decisions on rejection or deportation. Decisions on detention and custody shall be made by those authorities that actually have the mandate to execute the decisions. This makes the system more coherent and more efficient.

Mr. Speaker! Another important part is that the government proceeds with the possibility of a residency obligation, i.e., that a person shall be obliged to reside within a specifically designated area and that this shall, if necessary, be able to be monitored electronically. It is an important change.

Between the weaker alternative of supervision and the much more intrusive alternative of detention, there has long been a gap. The state has either had tools that were too weak or been forced to use a more far-reaching liberty-depriving tool than the situation perhaps actually requires. Residence obligation fills exactly that gap and makes it possible to control and keep a person available for enforcement in a more accurate way. It is both more effective and proportionate.

Mr. Speaker! Detention is still a very intrusive measure and should be treated as such. But it must also be possible to use it when it is actually needed. If Sweden is serious about ensuring that deportation and expulsion decisions are enforced, there must be functioning possibilities to hold persons in detention when required. This applies in particular when the risk of absconding is high or when less intrusive measures are insufficient. Not having a functioning detention system is, in practice, to accept that certain decisions will never be able to be carried out.

That is also why it is important that the government reviews the rules regarding how detention works in practice. The bill contains, among other things, changes aimed at improving the order regarding the placement and handling of those in detention and thereby reducing the need for external placements. This is important for the order in the operations and for creating better conditions for the authorities to carry out their mandate.

Mr. Speaker! This is fundamentally a question of the state's capacity. Of course, every interventionist measure must be in proportion to its purpose. But it is not possible to use proportionality as an argument for not implementing a change. Proportionality simply means that one should use the right tools in the right situation, not that one should refrain from having tools at all. Detention with electronic surveillance is an example of a measure that makes the system more proportionate because, in some cases, it can be used instead of detention.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a larger principle here that is important to hold onto. Sweden shall be a country of the rule of law. But Sweden must also be a country where decisions mean something. The one who receives a yes should be able to rely on it. The one who receives a no must be able to face the consequence of it. If the chain is broken – if the review exists but the enforcement does not work – we do not get a stronger system.

We are now, as said, tightening the rules on supervision and detention. We are giving the state better opportunities to follow up and enforce, and are introducing a residence obligation as a new and more accurate tool.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (-)

Mr. Speaker! It has been a long day with, unfortunately, some rather terrible laws that have been debated.

I want to start by telling about when my family fled the dictatorship in Chile. It was a while ago. The first country we came to was Argentina. It did not take long before the Argentine dictatorship began to persecute my parents. In the middle of that flight, I was born.

The Argentine dictatorship demanded that we either leave Argentina or that we be sent back to Chile, where my parents were blacklisted for their political engagement.

They also wanted to separate us. The Argentine military took me from my mother. You can imagine the anguish for parents to be separated from their six-month-old baby.

At that time, Swedish diplomacy acted differently. The Swedish officials from the embassy in Argentina succeeded in persuading the Argentine military not to separate us and to give us passage so that we could travel to Sweden together. That is how a dictatorship acts. That is how democratic countries act to stop them.

But now it is a Swedish government that is proposing that children should be able to be separated from their parents and locked up for up to three months and, in security matters, up to six months. Furthermore, they can be forced to wear an ankle bracelet for up to half a year – in a democracy like Sweden in 2026, when one should know better.

It is difficult to understand why this government hates children so much. There are so many proposals against children right now that it is terrible.

Mr. Speaker! Children should not be held in detention. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is law in Sweden. Nevertheless, the majority now wants to make it easier to deprive children of their liberty. And not only that – they also want that children or guardians should be able to be taken into detention even if it means that the child is separated from their parents. No lower age limit exists. This means, therefore, that a six-month-old baby can legally be snatched from its mother's arms if the authorities find that there are compelling reasons.

But this is not just a Swedish invention. It actually follows the very worrying trend that exists internationally. I will take some examples.

Australia has for years held asylum seekers in detention on remote islands such as Nauru and Manus Island. In practice, they are open prisons. Children have been kept locked up there for years. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child condemned the system as cruel, inhuman, and degrading.

The USA under the Trump administration has since 2018 separated thousands of children from their parents in the pursuit of migrants. Small children sit in detention-like custody while the parents are held on the other side of the fence. This obviously causes extensive trauma.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called this state-sanctioned child abuse, and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also commented on it. It has been established in their joint general comment that every child always and under all circumstances has a fundamental right to freedom and to not be deprived of liberty for migration reasons.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has established that the deprivation of liberty of children due to the child's or the parents' migration status constitutes a violation of the child's rights and contravenes the principle of the best interests of the child. Children must never be deprived of liberty for reasons related to their own or their parents' migration status, and states must urgently and completely abolish the detention of children for migration purposes. All forms of detention of children for migration purposes should be prohibited by law. Such a prohibition must be fully enforceable in practice.

These are not my own words. It is the UN's official position. Nevertheless, the Swedish government is going directly against it. They simply want to normalize child abduction.

Should Sweden be Australia or the USA? The mechanisms are the same. It is longer detention periods. Separation of children from parents and gradual normalization of that which should not be normal. History has taught us that states that go this way with arguments of national security, order, and efficiency are on a dangerous path. And we have a duty to learn from history and not repeat it.

This is a much larger issue than one wants to make it. It is a change in how one views children in Sweden. It will change one of the foundations of our state, our country, which is internationally known for children's rights. It is simply about what we are doing with our entire rule of law.

Other parts of the proposal that are also concerning are, for example, that migration centers are to become more like prisons. If they are not sufficient, they will become correctional facilities or even police detention centers.

The boundary between migration law and criminal law continues to be deliberately blurred. We say no. Persons who have not been convicted of a crime shall not be treated as criminals.

One of the proposals is also to introduce visiting bans at the slightest risk of infection. Here, the Public Health Agency has also been critical, because the wording "risk of transmission of infection" is so vague that it could be used for common colds. In that case, relatives are shut out from meeting the people in question. Civil society is shut out. People who have fled war and terrible circumstances would thus be completely isolated from human contact because of a cold.

And what does it actually mean to be detained in this way? Yes, it leads to mental ill-health, degradation, and social isolation. When a parent is locked up, the child is also affected. Surely we must understand this in 2026?

In principle, all major referral bodies have said no to this. Many reject the proposals entirely, but the government still chooses to proceed.

We are three members of Parliament who say no to the entire package. We say no to locking up children. We say no to separating children from their parents. We say no to ankle bracelets for people who have not been convicted of a crime, no to detaining migrants in prisons, no to prisons, no to visitation bans, no to transferring people directly from compulsory care to detention, and no to detention periods of up to two years.

We are against efficiency becoming an excuse to tear down legal certainty, trample on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and treat people as suspected criminals just because they have a migration status.

This human rights-violating policy looks set to continue. In that case, the way forward is simply to create resistance via the municipalities, something that I and many others will do via Stockholms vänsterallians and via Framtidens Vänster around the country. It is about creating centers so that people seeking asylum can receive help and about protecting staff who want to stand up against the laws that now want to make a difference between people. This will be required.

Furthermore, I want to say: Stop the deportation of Bella Demhat! Dangerous deportations are being carried out right now, and this would be another one. Bella is a Kurdish trans activist who is threatened with deportation to Turkey. Bella is one of many who are treated terribly by the Swedish asylum system.

Comrades here in the chamber! Tear up the proposal! Start over! Create processes that involve the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which ensure fair processes! The right to asylum must be at the center.

I move for the approval of our motion 1, which is in reservation 1. It concerns the dismissal of everything. I also move for the approval of motion 5 in our motion 2025/26:4167, which is not included in the report.

We stand behind the ceasefire declaration.

The First Deputy Speaker announced that Niels Paarup-Petersen and Annika Hirvonen et al. (C, MP), with support of Chapter 2, Section 22, first paragraph of the Instrument of Government, by means of a petition, submitted a request that certain parts of the legislative proposals presented in the report should be stayed for at least twelve months.

The motion for a declaration of cessation would be taken up for a vote at the voting on Monday, June 15.

The submitted petition read as follows:

To the Speaker

The proposal for a law amending the Aliens Act in the parts concerning the proposed Chapter 10, Section 4, paragraphs 1–2 on new grounds for supervision and detention of children, Section 7, second sentence, on a new possibility to separate children from their guardian through detention, and Section 13, paragraph 1, which replaces the current provision on the time limit for detention of children in Chapter 10, Section 5 UtlL, shall rest in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 8 of the Instrument of Government equally with Chapter 2, Section 22 of the Instrument of Government.

The Committee on Social Insurance adjusted report 2025/26:SfU31 on 11 June 2026. In the report, the committee opposes the government's proposal for amendments to the Aliens Act (2005:716) which, among other things, entails expanded possibilities to place children under supervision and take children into custody, compared to today.

The government's proposal in this part means that children who have not committed crimes in more situations and for twice as long as before shall be able to be subject to supervision or detention. The government also proposes that children in certain cases shall be able to be separated from their guardians by the child or the guardian being taken into detention. Such measures involve very intrusive restrictions on the everyday life, private life, and freedom of movement of children and families. Detention is a deprivation of liberty, and enhanced supervision with, for example, electronic surveillance involves an extensive control of how children, who are already in a very vulnerable situation, can live their lives. According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is Swedish law, children may only be deprived of their liberty as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time (Article 37). The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also recommended that Sweden prohibit and prevent children from being placed in detention due to their or their parents' migration status. The proposal thus risks constituting a serious restriction of the freedom of movement regulated in Chapter 2, Section 8 of the Instrument of Government. Such restrictions, especially when directed at children, should be preceded by very careful considerations regarding proportionality, necessity, and compatibility with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Such considerations have not been made to a sufficient extent in the current bill.

To this can be added that the Council on Legislation has criticized the government's hasty legislative work in this area. In a very short time, the government has presented a large number of extensive proposals for amendments to the Aliens Act, while Swedish law is to be adapted to the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact. This makes the whole impossible to oversee for both the Riksdag, as well as referral bodies, authorities, the judiciary, and the people who are affected. It is a sloppy and hasty legislative work from the government's side.

In light of what is stated above, we move that the proposal for a bill on an amendment to the Aliens Act (2005:716) in the parts concerning Chapter 10, Section 4, paragraphs 1–2, the second sentence of Section 7, and Section 13 shall be held in abeyance for at least twelve months. This means that the currently applicable rules on time limits for the detention of children in Chapter 10, Section 5 UtlL, which state that a child may not be held in detention for longer than 72 hours or, if there are compelling reasons, an additional 72 hours, shall continue to be applied during the period of abeyance. It also means that children may not be placed under supervision or detention under the new grounds proposed in the bill, and that children may not be separated from their guardians through a decision on detention.

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Niels Paarup-Petersen (C)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Anna Lasses (C)

Alireza Akhondi (C)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 June.)

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