Response to interpellation 2023/24:431 on the introduction of a state identity card
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the introduction of a state e-identification. KD considers a solution at the highest trust level to be necessary infrastructure for society, the business community, and crisis preparedness. KD argues that the government prioritizes this to increase accessibility and reduce fraud 1, but that the process is technically complicated and requires time until the autumn of 2026 2 3. S considers that the government has not answered questions regarding speed 4 and that the minister has been vague in their statements 5. S argues that a state solution is needed to break digital exclusion, increase competition 4 6 and combat economic crime 7. S emphasizes that the state must secure this critical societal function because it is currently dominated by private actors 6 8 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Ingela Nylund Watz has asked whether I consider the government's process for introducing a state e-identification to be sufficiently swift and when I intend to submit a proposition to the Riksdag.
The increased digitalization makes it increasingly difficult to manage in society without access to an e-identification. It is therefore important that as many as possible are given the opportunity to obtain a secure e-identification. An e-identification is essentially completely necessary to access important digital services and societal functions, for example to handle banking matters, or to have contact with the public sector.
E-identifications also constitute a socially important infrastructure that needs to function even if society is subjected to a major strain and, ultimately, even in war. Disruptions in e-identification systems can quickly have tangible effects for businesses, banks, and the public sector and, not least, for individuals even under otherwise normal conditions.
The Government has appointed the investigation A secure and accessible digital identity (Dir. 2022:142), and at the end of October 2023, the investigation submitted the partial report A secure and accessible government e-identification (SOU 2023:61).
Sweden is one of the few countries within the EU that lacks an e-identification at the highest level of trust. In the partial report, a proposal is presented on how a state e-identification at the highest level of trust can be designed and provided by a state agency. The partial report has been referred to approximately 150 referral bodies, and the referral period expired on 31 January. The investigation's proposal and the outcome of the referral will be further prepared within the Government Offices.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister has just read out the lines in the document that I have received as a response to my interpellation, and I must begin by stating that it leaves everything else to be desired.
Without a single word does the Minister comment on or even mention anything that can be seen as an attempt to answer my questions. The Minister has no conception of whether the government's process for introducing a state identification at the highest trust level is sufficiently swift or when we can expect a proposition to the Riksdag.
Madam Speaker! I think this is disrespectful both towards me and towards the Riksdag, and I hope that the Minister takes the opportunity to rectify the mistake now here in the chamber. I am proceeding on the basis that the Minister has views on this.
With this said, Madam Speaker: Why is it then so urgent to obtain a state e-identification at the highest level of trust? One thing is that it is a requirement from the EU. Sweden is, as the Minister states, one of the few countries within the EU that does not have such a secure e-identification. We have a couple of years according to the eIDAS Regulation to arrange this.
There are also other very heavily weighted reasons why it is urgent, which I shall come to now. I do not believe I was alone here in the chamber in being both upset and angry when I saw SVT's Uppdrag granskning about fraud last week. It concerned an increasingly extensive and important part of organized crime and showed a ruthless, raw, and completely despicable activity that primarily targets the elderly and people with disabilities. The frauds are increasing avalanche-like in Sweden, which has now become commonly known, and the government needs to act.
Sweden is a digitized country, and what the Minister of Justice says is completely correct: It is becoming increasingly difficult to manage in society without an e-identification. Approximately 1 million people in Sweden, however, live in digital exclusion and have been caught in the squeeze as a result of the rapid digitalization of our country. It primarily concerns the elderly, people with disabilities, and additionally people without personal identity numbers. The digital exclusion must be broken, and even here, measures are required from the government.
E-identifications are a society-critical service, and the completely dominant actor for e-identifications in Sweden is BankID with over 8.5 million users. There are also some smaller actors, but a state e-identification would promote competition in the market as well as increase society's robustness and possibilities to meet crises both in peacetime and during high alert.
Madam Speaker! The SD government has recently presented a strategy against system-threatening organized crime. It is commendable, but we do not yet know what effect it will have on the ground. The strategy mentions the work with a state e-identification and a new state ID card, and that is good. I have noted that the Agency for Digital Government has been given a mandate to develop a state e-identification that is to meet the EU's requirements for the highest level of trust.
Madam Speaker! The investigation on secure and accessible digital identity assesses that the proposals for new regulation can enter into force at the earliest on March 1, 2026. That is two years away. In my opinion, there are strongly compelling reasons for the Riksdag to demand clear statements from the Minister on a number of points. Does the Minister consider the process in the government to be sufficiently expeditious? When will a government bill be submitted? What is the Minister's timetable? When does the Minister assess that we will have such an identification in place in Sweden?
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Digitization has truly increased significantly in our society, and from an international perspective, Sweden has a very high use of e-identifications. This also means that it is truly difficult to manage without access to e-identification as a way to verify one's identity. It is essentially necessary in order to be able to use several important digital services and societal functions. It is therefore more difficult to manage without an e-identification.
The need for a secure and reliable e-identification is therefore great, and I am quite sure that most think that we should have a state solution to this. It is expected. What we have today is the major banks' solution to the need for an e-identification, and therefore the state must step in and secure this.
It is about, among other things, what my colleague has described so well, namely that there are an enormous number of and large-scale frauds. We really must curb this. Every year, approximately 200,000 frauds are reported, but we believe we know that the dark figure is very large. These frauds against individuals generate approximately 3 billion kronor in criminal profits. Powerful measures must be taken, and this is a part of handling the issue.
It is also the case that we need to have a security. We have now experienced several years of crisis times, and our concern for how it will go in the future is great. Therefore, it is truly necessary to build up a civil defense in many different parts. That a private actor is given such a dominating position on the Swedish market is worrying. We need a state e-identification for such an important societal function.
I believe that all of us who are digital and have e-identification think that it is quite convenient. We think that it is practical and that it works, regardless of whether it is a private actor or not. But I have now seen how affected the many people who do not have any e-identification are. When I am going to help my parents, who do not have e-identification, it becomes very tricky. When a state e-identification is now developed, which I hope it will be, one must keep this digital exclusion in mind and find a state e-identification and a way to handle it that makes this easier and more possible for these people.
Even though it does not involve many people in percentage terms, it is still many people who live in this digital exclusion. We need to keep them in mind, and when the government now hopefully produces a state e-identification, I hope that they truly invite those people who are in the digital exclusion. Help is needed to find a good way and a good function even for them.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! E-identification - what form it should take and so on - may seem like a technical question, but it is actually a quite important question. As has been put forward several times, we have quite a number of people who live in a digital exclusion today, and I am sure the Minister is fully aware of that. A state e-identification could hopefully be a way to close that gap.
In addition to that, we have the problem that a fundamental infrastructure such as e-identification is owned by the country's major banks. It is not for nothing that Sweden does not meet the requirements for the highest security level for e-identification; it is precisely because we have outsourced this to the market. In times when preparedness and redundancy are discussed a lot, it is something concerning, I can think.
I think, as I have said, that this is an important issue, and I have myself submitted a written question to the Minister some time ago; it is approaching one and a half years. I have also submitted a motion on the issue. I experience that there is no political conflict in this matter in that sense - I experience that the government wants a state e-identification - but I experience that it is moving quite slowly.
When I received the answer to my written question, the message was that this would be in place within a fairly near future, and now there is talk of 2026. In the final report that Digg wrote in January 2023, it is mentioned that it would take 24 months from the time the government and parliament have made the necessary decisions until this can be in place.
I actually just want to ask the Minister something based on what has been put forward earlier, namely: When can we expect this to be in place? I know that the question was also discussed during the previous government and that there was work underway. I therefore think that there must be something to build upon.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Thank goodness the tone changed a little bit when Adrian Magnusson came up to the rostrum. Before that, I was very surprised by the tone, I must say.
We completely share the view of the need for a state e-identification. The important thing is not that it is state-run, I would say, but the important thing is that we have an e-identification at the highest trust level. We have concluded that the best way, therefore, is that it is issued by a state authority and that the basic identification is performed by a state authority. This is how it is with other identity documents such as passports, driver's licenses and ID cards, and it is reasonable that the electronic version is handled in the same way. We also completely agree with the private issuers; both BankID and Freja think it is good that the state develops this.
We are, therefore, in complete agreement, and we agree that this is important to increase the accessibility of e-identifications so that more people who do not have an e-identification today can obtain one. It is about reducing the risks of fraud.
However, we must not believe that this is a universal solution to tackle the appalling fraud crimes that are increasing in number and which affect far too many elderly people who are robbed or stolen from of their savings. It is not a universal solution, but it is a solution on the way to making fraud crimes and hijackings of electronic identities more difficult. Therefore, it is important.
From the tone, especially from Nylund Watz and Lindh, I think it sounds as if we were to have some conflict regarding this. We do not, however. It is because the government thinks this is so important that we have prioritized it so strongly. If I remember correctly, this was the first investigation I appointed as Civil Minister with responsibility for digitalization, and the reason was that we thought it was important to have a state e-identification in place as quickly as possible. The investigation is to be completed in May this year. Even before it is completed, we have therefore allocated funds so that the Agency for Digital Administration shall develop an e-identification, so that we can have it in place as quickly as possible.
Then one asks: When will it come, when will it come? This is no small matter. Developing an e-identification at the highest trust level is not something that is done in a heartbeat. It is important that it takes the time it takes for it to achieve just that highest trust level. There are many different ways to develop an e-identification. Sweden is one of four countries that lacks an e-identification at the highest trust level, and that is because the Socialdemokraterna did nothing about the issue during their years. It is this government that has begun the work of developing a state e-identification, and I think it can be well worth reminding of that.
There are different ways used around the world to develop this. Above all, it is Europe that we are looking at. Sweden is, as mentioned, one of four countries that lack this in the EU; the others are Romania, Greece, and Cyprus. This is a requirement for introducing the digital European wallet. It is not completely clear, but we expect that the digital wallet will be in place in the autumn of 2026. This means that a state e-identification needs to be in place before the autumn of 2026.
The consultation period for a partial report from this investigation expired less than two weeks ago. 150 consultation bodies have been heard. In addition, a number of consultations have been submitted independently. The consultations are now to be analyzed. There are a number of difficult questions to take a position on. It must be decided not only which authority should issue the e-ID but also which authority should be responsible for the basic identification; these are among the questions we must crack before this is finalized. I do not have an exact timetable, but we need to have an e-ID in place by 2026 at the latest.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker! Minister Slottner may be surprised by the tone, but nor in this statement from the Minister did we get any greater clarity on what ambitions the government has when it comes to getting a state e-ID in place. It is a very long way to autumn 2026. Could an e-ID possibly be introduced before then? I think there should be reason for the government to consider whether it would be possible to speed up the processes a little bit in the Government Offices. It is, as mentioned, possible to prioritize investigation resources and other things if one wishes.
Why do I think then that it would be reasonable for the government to speed up this work a little bit? Well, it has to do with the fact that we now have a situation on the Swedish scene where fraud is becoming an increasingly significant source of income for serious organized economic crime. This SD government says in all other contexts that it will do everything that can be done to ensure that organized economic crime and serious violent crime are combated. Here we now have a tool that could mean that we would get significantly better control over how the digital market functions and fewer digital frauds.
I have no ambition to scold the government, because I know that the government wants this. The point of my interpellation is that I think it is going too slowly. That is why I have asked two very simple questions to the Minister: Does the Minister think the process is fast enough in the Government Offices - or expeditious, as I have expressed it? When does the Minister intend to present a bill? We have also sent a written question to the Minister regarding this.
I sensed, thought, or hoped that the bill on safer identification that one is advocating for, which is expected to be submitted for consideration after the summer, would include this with a state e-identification. But the Minister responds that it is not at all like that, but rather concerns completely different matters. We still do not know what level of ambition the government has. That is why I think it is important that the Minister is a bit clearer and opens up a bit more for a discussion on whether it is possible to move forward faster.
Why am I then so eager to get clearer answers from the Minister? Well, Member Adrian Magnusson asked a question in December 2022 as to whether the government was considering introducing some type of state e-identification. In the written response, the Minister stated that the government would take a position on a proposal for a state e-identification during the spring. A week later, the Minister appointed an inquiry to further investigate the state e-identification. The answer given to Member Adrian Magnusson was therefore not correct. I mean that the Minister has something to prove when it comes to what the timeline for a state e-identification will look like. As said, it is a very long way to autumn 2026. Economic crime is increasing, as is the lack of accessibility for many citizens in Sweden. The Minister can count on our support. But speed up the work a bit, because now it is going too slowly!
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I do not think I was that upset in my contribution. I was simply trying to describe the need. Well, people interpret a person in a speaker's chair in different ways.
I thought I heard some back-and-forth on whether it should be a state e-identification or not. I would like to have an answer on that again. Did I hear incorrectly? What did the Minister say? Our point concerns the need to do this expeditiously, but also the need for it to be a state e-identification. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer this question.
Just as the Minister has also said from the rostrum, Sweden is one of the few countries that does not have a state e-identification. The issue has been discussed and investigated in several rounds. All investigations reach the same conclusion: Sweden needs a state e-identification. It has to do with the security policy situation. We must ensure that one has access to an e-identification at all hours of the day, all the time. Even the digital exclusion that we spoke about is a reason why a state e-identification is needed. We need to collectively have access to this way of ensuring people's identity. Right now, the world looks like this, and then we need a state e-identification. I would like to receive an answer from the Minister in this debate.
Adrian Magnusson (S)
Madam Speaker! I was also a bit surprised to hear that it does not have to be a state e-identification. Anna Kinberg Batra led the Payment Inquiry as a special investigator.
She wrote in DN Debatt on November 16, 2022: Sweden must introduce a state e-identification. That was the headline. She further wrote that it is problematic that a few banks and private companies today own and control socially important and sensitive infrastructure which, in the case of BankID, extends far beyond the payment system.
It is correct. We have today an arrangement where it is banks that ensure you get an e-identification so that you can log in and see your records, for example. It is a rather strange arrangement, one might think. One must turn to one's bank in order to be able to log in and see one's records, book a doctor's appointment or the like.
I have spoken with elderly people who think it is quite uncomfortable. Given the frauds, one wants to be able to distinguish one's banking matters from other matters. One wants to be able to have an e-identification, and that is hardly possible today. There are some small actors who could help one. But it is Bank-id that is the big dragon here.
I would like to have that clarified. I experience that it goes a bit against previous statements. Anna Kinberg Batra is not known as a state socialist, directly. It should still be possible to resolve.
I must address what was said about the previous government doing nothing. It was the Andersson government that gave the assignment to Digg to look at how a state identification can be designed. It still needs to be entered into the minutes. The payment investigation was also an investigation that the Social Democratic government commissioned. I do not want a political conflict here. But I still felt compelled to include it a little bit in light of those statements.
I would like to have it clarified regarding the state e-identification, just as Member Lindh did.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I often feel a sense of stress. One must have a lot of patience as a politician in general. That also applies to us ministers. It takes time with these types of processes.
As I said before: It is not done in a heartbeat to offer digital e-identifications to the entire population of Sweden. It concerns almost the entire population of Sweden. It goes down to very young people who should be able to receive an e-identification.
I have no indications that we could work faster. We commissioned the investigation just a few weeks after I became Minister. It has submitted a partial report. Even before the consultation period for that partial report has expired, and long before the entire investigation is complete, we are allocating a significant amount of money already this year to begin the work of introducing a state electronic ID.
If Ingela Nylund Watz wants a concrete answer to the first question, which I think she is entitled to, the answer is: I think the government is working as fast as it can. I have a very good conscience, I must say, in precisely this question.
Now, 2026 can sound very far away. I also think that when it is said. But honestly, 2026 is not that far away. We will be there in a couple of years. That it could go much faster than two years to issue digital identities, I find it hard to believe.
I do not really know what information Ingela Nylund Watz has that makes her believe that it could go so much faster. There are many questions. The fact that we could not go directly to the agency assignment to Digg was because there was not sufficient basis to proceed with it.
There were many legal issues that needed to be reviewed in order to be able to introduce a digital identity at the highest level of trust. We had to appoint this rather extensive investigation despite everything.
I think we are working as fast as we can. I cannot give any exact timetable for a proposition. The referral period for the partial report, not for the entire investigation, expired 13 days ago. The referral responses are now to be compiled. We will have to get back to you with something more specific regarding when we can submit a proposition.
The reason I mention 2026 is that in the autumn of 2026, the European digital wallet will probably be implemented. It is a deadline we are working towards. By then, it must be in place. It does not mean that I exclude the possibility that it will come significantly earlier than that if we can manage it. It is the deadline we have. But I would like to see it happen faster.
There was a slight misunderstanding about what I said here. It will be a state e-identification. It also says so in the investigation. There has never been any doubt about that. What I said was that the important thing for me was not that it is state-owned. The important thing for me is that we get an e-identification at the highest trust level.
Now we have come to the conclusion that it is best if it is state-owned. We believe that will work best. It is also logical that it is. Furthermore, there has been no interest from the private market to develop an identification document at the highest trust level. There has been no major discussion on that issue. That I was misunderstood was probably because I said that what is important for me is not that it is state-owned, but the important thing is that it is at the highest trust level.
In the first posts, digital exclusion was also mentioned. It is a very important issue to be able to achieve digital inclusion. Sweden is one of the world's most digitized countries with one of the world's highest levels of digital maturity among the population. It is estimated that 4 percent of the population never use the internet. This means 350,000 people.
That is why the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority has now been given a mandate to return with proposals on how we can reduce exclusion. That is also why the Swedish Post and Telecom Authority has, for example, taken over Digitalidag.
Ingela Nylund Watz (S)
Madam Speaker, Minister! Thank you for two answers that nevertheless give one a sense of how the government views the continued work. It cannot go any faster. There is actually no timetable, but we are working on it.
I will not say that I have read all the referral responses. But I have taken note of the main sentence in all 150 referral responses. The Government should by this point be aware that there is monumental support for introducing a state identification card.
Many referral bodies also say that it is urgent. This applies in particular to those referral bodies that are close to the work against organized crime and digital exclusion. The Minister does not need to be worried that there is no broad societal support for it.
The reason I am still pressing this and am somewhat sharp in tone is that the Minister has been so vague throughout the entire process. In December 2022, the Minister said in a response to Adrian Magnusson that the government would take a position on a proposal for a state e-identification in the spring of 2023. One week later, the Minister instead appointed a new investigation.
There are two things that do not quite correlate with each other. It gives a somewhat shaky picture of how the Minister handles the issue. Therefore, it feels important for me as a member and as someone responsible for controlling the government power to press the Minister on what level of ambition the government has here, because it is an issue where we are fundamentally very united on the need.
I can only state that the level of ambition is what it is. It probably won't go faster than to 2026. It could certainly go faster, but the Minister believes that it doesn't. So that is how I interpret the Minister. The Government means that it is working as well as it can. I do not think that is sufficient.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! We still have to handle investigations and referral responses seriously. I am fully aware that there is very large support for the introduction of this. But it is not as simple to introduce it as Ingela Nylund Watz gives the impression of. Just because the will exists to introduce it, we will have it tomorrow. It is not that simple.
It is technically complicated to issue e-identification. It will be a very large task for the authority that is to be responsible for the basic identification, for example. It is not done in a heartbeat. Here, money will need to be injected. It is already done. But one will also need to organize it very extensively.
One must also see it linked to other identities and so on. Just because there is a large support for the introduction of an e-identification does not mean that it can be introduced quickly.
Now, just as with all other investigations, we will do it in the right order. We will compile the referral responses. Then we will see that it will have very large support. Then we will take a position on exactly which or which authorities will be involved in it.
How long this will take technically is very difficult for me to stand and say, because I am not a technician or an engineer. I cannot say exactly how many months it will take from the time a proposition is submitted until one can have an e-identification in hand.
To avoid promising too much, I can only say that the deadline we have is autumn 2026, as that is when we are expected to receive the European identity wallet, which requires an e-identification at the highest trust level. But no one is happier than I if we manage to get an e-identification earlier than that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.