Response to interpellation 2024/25:170 on the abolition of internal border controls against Denmark
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I consider free movement to be a fundamental principle 1, but that the current security situation requires border controls as a tool against cross-border crime 1. I argue that border controls yield results and that abolition is not an option 1, as there is a serious security situation that requires special measures 2. I emphasize that border controls are necessary against terrorism and organized crime 2 and that removal would have negative consequences for internal security. MP argues that border controls are not an effective tool and require an investigation of costs and outcomes 3. MP considers that the controls affect ordinary people.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me if I and the government are in favor of free movement within the EU, if my and the government's long-term objective is that the internal border controls against Denmark shall cease, and if I and the government have set up any criteria for when they can cease and, if so, what criteria those are. Finally, he has also asked if I and the government will conduct any investigation into how effective the internal border controls have been in relation to the costs that exist.
Free movement for persons is, as is well known, one of the EU's four freedoms and thus also one of the most fundamental and important principles that the union is built on. To safeguard and work for free movement is therefore a matter of course for me and for the government.
Free movement is expressed, among other things, through the Schengen Agreement. I will therefore give Rasmus Ling the same answer as the one I gave to, among others, the EU Commission when we informed them in October ahead of the decision on border controls at internal borders that the government made on November 7.
It is the government's absolute objective to return to a fully functioning Schengen cooperation as soon as the situation permits. A fully functioning Schengen cooperation, however, does not only mean the maintenance of free movement. It also means that a secure control over the Schengen area's external border is maintained in a way that does not always occur today. In addition to the deficiencies that exist in the control of who travels into the Schengen area, there is still a very serious security situation. Events in the outside world have consequences even in Sweden, and armed gang conflicts have become cross-border. The threat situation is therefore serious. As we have seen examples of, with several acts of violence against different targets and with different motives, it is also broad. A reintroduced border control at the internal border is therefore one of several tools that the Police Authority uses to be able to meet the threat that exists. That tool must be able to be used as long as the serious threat situation persists and as long as the tool is needed.
Through the reintroduced border control, the Swedish Police Authority also has better opportunities to monitor who is attempting to enter the country, and the controls regularly lead to discoveries and seizures linked to serious organized crime. The work is, of course, not only carried out through border controls but also with support from various types of legislation and in cooperation with both Swedish and Danish authorities.
From 1 August 2023, the police have also had extended powers in border areas - in order to be able to tackle both cross-border crime and illegal stay in Sweden with greater force. But in the serious security situation that prevails, the Police Authority needs as many tools in the toolbox as possible, not fewer. Through continuous and regular dialogue and consultations with the Police Authority, we know that the border control yields results and that it is needed. When a border control at an internal border ceases, a member state is also obliged to report to the EU Commission on, among other things, the results of the reintroduced control.
The government and I are closely following the Police Authority's work and the development of the world situation and the security situation. An abolition of the internal border control or an investigation of it is, for the reasons I have now set out, not current at the present time.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Minister, although I am also concerned about the answer that comes from the government.
The border controls turned nine years old the other day. It was on November 11, 2015, that Gunnar Strömmers predecessor's predecessor's predecessor, Anders Ygeman, held a press conference and announced that they would be introduced at noon the following day, November 12. It has, if I have counted correctly, been 3,288 days since then. After Anders Ygeman, both Morgan Johansson and Mikael Damberg have therefore been responsible for this issue before Gunnar Strömmer got it on his desk just over two years ago.
The border controls were introduced in that situation following a request from the Swedish Migration Agency. Sweden was in an exceptional situation at that time. Very many asylum seekers arrived during a short period. In October 2015, for a period, 10,000 people who sought asylum arrived every week, something that Sweden has not experienced either before or after. It was a very pressured situation for the Swedish Migration Agency and for other authorities in Sweden.
Just a few weeks after the internal border controls had been introduced, the then government also submitted a bill on ID requirements. I mention this here because it has sometimes been mixed up in the debate. I am sure that the Minister for Justice has a full grasp of it, but perhaps not all the listeners.
The ID checks that existed for a period meant that one needed an ID card just to be allowed into Sweden. They began to apply in the beginning of January 2016 and were in force until May 2017. At the time when the Riksdag decided on this, in December 2015, the Moderaterna were not for that legislation. During this parliamentary term, permanent legislation on ID checks has been produced, which fortunately is not activated. This law was adopted this spring by the Riksdag despite being rejected by both the Council of Legislation and by Moderate representatives in Skåne, not least the chairman of the regional board Carl Johan Sonesson, who comments on it by saying it was masterclass for the government in tone-deafness and "a hard blow for the Nordic's largest labor market region" and not good at all. It was hammered through anyway. This is about the ID checks.
The internal border controls have continued to apply. From initially applying for ten days in 2015, they were extended by ten days and then by one month. After that, there have been extensions of six months at a time. Most recently, they were extended by the government on November 7 and will apply until May.
Madam Speaker! I mean that this is very unfortunate, especially that the government does not even want to conduct a proper investigation into this. When I speak with friends, acquaintances, and others who commute daily to Denmark, they testify that every day when one travels from Denmark from work on the way home to Skåne, one has to stop for ten minutes at Hyllie station. It is extremely rare that the checks are actually carried out, and when they do, it is often a quick look at the driver's license and nothing more. Sometimes one looks at those who jump off.
My question is: Why is it important to do it at this specific commuter line? Why is it not done between Uppsala and Stockholm, Eskilstuna and Stockholm, or in other places where many people commute and where there is organized crime?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rasmus Ling, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues today!
The background for the use of border controls is the serious security situation. We must nevertheless conclude, if we look at the time that has elapsed from 2015 until today, that the threats to Sweden's internal security have continued to be high, even though they have changed character over time and at certain points have been greater than at others.
Regarding the responsibility for the border controls during the period that elapsed from 2015 to October 2022, when we had a Social Democratic government in the country that almost until the end consisted of the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, I cannot gladly be blamed for it. Those questions must be directed to the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet, who were responsible for the government power during the lion's share of the period we are now talking about.
During the time that I can oversee and during which I have been responsible for these issues, the security situation has unfortunately worsened in a number of different respects. This applies, of course, to the threat from violent extremism and terrorism. We have seen how state actors use criminal networks in Sweden as tools to commit serious violent crimes in Sweden and possibly also, with Sweden as a starting point, in other Nordic countries. We also have organized crime as such, which is a threat to the system and which, by its nature, is also cross-border.
I do not at all share the view that we are uninterested in the practical outcome or that we do not carry out evaluations. They are done continuously and at every given occasion when the border controls are about to expire and before we are to take a position on whether they should be reintroduced, extended, or removed.
I also want to say that we do it in a broader context, because I think one must see the border controls in combination with the new legislation that entered into force last summer and which gives the police extended powers in the border areas. In that legislation also lies the potential to be able to handle border surveillance in a partially different way in the future.
However, it is a reality that the police's work according to the new legislation is not fully developed. In some respects, for example when it comes to the use of camera surveillance to an increased extent, there is much work left to do before we can see that the full potential of the new legislation is possible to extract. It is in that context that I mean it is natural to retain the possibility to also perform border controls as one of several tools to manage this situation.
Why are these checks taking place at a railway station in Malmö and not on the commuter train between Uppsala and Stockholm? It lies in the nature of the matter: border controls are handled at the country's outer border, not inside the country. The new powers regarding border areas specifically concern railway stations, airports, and border crossings for the simple reason that it is precisely about border control.
Furthermore, the threats that we intend to address with these tools are, by their nature, cross-border. It is therefore inherent in the nature of the matter that these tools are specifically directed towards the border and not towards any commuter traffic whatsoever in our country.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Just for the record: I have also held Social Democratic ministers to account on this issue, so that is said and clear.
Of course, crime is transboundary, but that does not mean it only moves across borders. It means that it also exists within the country. There is no logic in that one should therefore only look at the commuters coming from Copenhagen and on their way home to Malmo, Lund or Svalöv and not those who commute between Eskilstuna and Stockholm, Madam Speaker. It does not. We know that there is serious crime even in Eskilstuna, Södertälje and Stockholm, so to have more oversight of those who commute across the Oresund Bridge, there is actually no logical reason for that, Madam Speaker.
The arguments have, as said, shifted. Initially, it was a matter of a request from the Swedish Migration Agency, and subsequently it has been the serious security situation, which I also take with the utmost seriousness. But is it an effective tool? My answer is that it is not, and Gunnar Strömmer says that it is. But let us then see a proper investigation that actually looks at what costs have been incurred and what the outcome has been.
I don't quite buy that there is an ongoing follow-up. I looked at the website that reports on ongoing investigations the other day, and there are no fewer than 45 that have been ordered from the Ministry of Justice. They are working now, and a number of them are completed and out for consultation. Quite certainly, a number of department reports are being prepared in-house. That one would not have room to conduct a proper evaluation after such a long time is somewhat anti-intellectual. Why does one not want to obtain knowledge and see how it has looked in a collective way?
Of course, there are significant costs in this. Every day, every trip, the trains stand for ten minutes longer. When the checks are performed, the ten minutes are not enough, and the trains are delayed anyway.
Madam Speaker! I know that infrastructure issues do not lie on the Minister for Justice's desk, but he surely knows that there are both requests and needs for more fixed connections in Skåne to Denmark. All parties want it. But is it even worth striving for if it is still to be this type of controls? Can a combined metro system between Malmö and Copenhagen even be an idea with this type of border controls?
Madam Speaker! Effective tools are what would be needed instead. The Minister for Justice brought up the reform that was hammered out, for example, increased powers in border areas. There was broad agreement on expanding the possibilities for camera surveillance. Why can't Swedish Customs or Swedish Police perform the searches while the Öresundstågen trains are running? One can bring dogs to track weapons or narcotics, instead of letting the trains stop and sometimes take a quick look at the driver's licenses. It is high time to handle the issue better.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me first assure Rasmus Ling that this government is to a large extent moving the positions against organized crime across the entire country, not just at the border. We have also added many new tools to crime fighting to do that work, that is to say everything from security zones and stay-away orders to anonymous witnesses. It is also a matter of other important changes, for example, removing secrecy barriers for increased information exchange. Furthermore, new forfeiture legislation entered into force as recently as last Friday, which provides completely new opportunities to try to choke the criminal economy across the board.
Efforts made in our border areas, if we are to speak of intellectual integrity, cannot preferably be set in opposition to the extensive efforts being made to combat organized crime and, for that matter, other crime throughout the country.
However, it is a reality that cross-border crime, so to speak, moves across the border. The entire Schengen cooperation aims at the border. It is also about external border controls, maintaining the EU's external border. Everything focuses on the border. Let us put the border controls into a broader perspective. The legislation on extended powers - which there was very rightly a great consensus on - aims at border areas.
Let us look at other measures. We have just entered into an agreement with Finland regarding the handling of cross-border crime in Tornedalen. We are building a joint police station with Norway on the border between Värmland and that part of Norway. All of this is an expression that cross-border crime also needs to be handled in a special manner at the border.
It is inherent in the nature of the matter that special efforts are also made around a country's borders. These can naturally have different purposes. In the decisions we have made regarding the border controls, the serious security situation is emphasized, and the fact that the threats largely move into Sweden from other countries. It is therefore, of course, justified to consider what extra tools are needed to meet those threats precisely at the border or in our border areas.
Sweden is not alone in doing this in the current security situation. It occurs in our Nordic neighboring countries, and it occurs in Germany, France and Austria. It is not that we necessarily can draw conclusions from this that we also must do it in Sweden, but it is not unique that an analysis of contemporary security problems also leads to the conclusion that we must have powerful tools and act in our border areas.
I say again that the new legislation regarding the expanded powers is, of course, a legal framework that must now be filled with concrete operational content from the side of law enforcement but also from the side of other authorities. It is there that I see that we can build a robust order that makes the significance of a border control can decrease and, in the long run, be removed. But that is where we are not today. Today, it would highly have negative consequences for our internal security if, without having a full expansion of the system regarding the border areas, we were to remove the tool of border controls.
Let me conclude by saying that Rasmus Ling raised a number of other issues concerning how this is to be practically implemented in a way that involves fewer negative consequences for commuters and others. It is, of course, a discussion worth having, but in such cases it is within the framework of a remaining border control. It is more about how they should be implemented in a good way.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! The question is whether these are temporary border controls or whether we are to have a more permanent arrangement. I think that nine years is such a long time that it is starting to become a bit ridiculous to call them temporary, even though I know that they are extended at a time interval of six months at a time.
I am also aware that many countries in the EU have introduced border controls, not least Germany, Denmark, Norway and other countries. Even though it is not unique, it is nevertheless regrettable. I mean that it is not an effective way to combat organized crime. Those who get caught are ordinary people who are on their way to their jobs, want to visit friends or for other reasons want to travel. It is not the organized crime that you reach that way.
We naturally need to consider which tools are needed permanently. I think customs officers who can move on the Öresundstågen without causing disturbance and perform checks for weapons or other things would be fine - and that also applies to the passengers - but to have it in the current way is harmful for the Öresund region, Skåne, Malmö-Lund and other places. It is also bad for Denmark.
I hope, Madam Speaker, that the government can set lower requirements for abolishing the border controls than that there should be peace in the world and no threat at all. We must do an enormous amount to stop the threats, but it must be a question of effective tools and not of a more symbolic character. Furthermore, an inquiry shall be appointed to see what the effect has been - both positive and negative.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Once again, thanks to Rasmus Ling for the opportunity to discuss these pressing issues today!
For this government, it is an overriding priority to safeguard Sweden's internal security. We have a very serious security situation. We still have a four on the five-point scale when it comes to the terror threat and the terror threat level concerning Sweden.
We shall also, in a complex world, face the threat from terrorism and the violence-seeking extremism from various state actors and from organized crime. We have also, not least during the past year, seen how these different threats interact with each other in a way that is very challenging for our country.
It is also the case that a large number of these threats are cross-border in nature. It is therefore natural that we also ensure that law enforcement and various actors who contribute to it have particularly effective tools precisely when it comes to monitoring our borders.
Border controls are one of the tools. It is also true, and it is important to emphasize, that there are other tools - and there is great potential in other tools. I believe, not least, in the new legislation on extended powers in border areas. When the system is so well-developed that the full potential of that legislation can be utilized, border controls can certainly also come partly into a new light. But at the current moment, it is therefore not relevant to roll back the border controls, rather we want them to work together with other tools to counter these threats.
Let me conclude by underlining that I have great respect for the fact that this comes with a cost. I am very keen on maintaining a continued good dialogue with the local labor market and with the business community in both Skåne and Denmark if this can be done in an even better way from a practical perspective, and I know that the Police Authority shares that ambition.
I am also very pleased to hear that there is broad consensus on the need for new fixed links between Sweden and Denmark. To afford a small historical reference here on this Friday, one could say that this bridge probably would not have been built if the Moderates had not pushed for it when the time came. It is pleasing that we can do such things in broader consensus today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.