Response to interpellation 2025/26:376 on the impact of internal border controls on Nordic integration
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers that the reintroduced border controls are a necessary tool to safeguard public order, internal security, and combat cross-border crime 1. M emphasizes that the controls are temporary and that the government is making real trade-offs between security and the region's competitiveness 1 2, where effective crime fighting is crucial for competitiveness 3. M argues that the government is listening, weighing competitiveness and security in well-considered decisions 3 and that the intention is to promote interaction, cooperation, integration, and competitiveness while ensuring order and safety 4. 5 S considers that the border controls are in opposition to the Schengen Agreement and the vision of an integrated Norden 5. S argues that the controls cause economic losses and restrict rail traffic 5. S emphasizes that there are tools within Schengen to strengthen common security 6.
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! Per-Arne Håkansson has asked EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz whether, from her area of responsibility, she assesses that the internal border controls have an impact on the overall competitiveness that the Öresund region can contribute to our country as a whole and if she intends to take any measures based on her assessment. He has further asked Jessica Rosencrantz whether she considers the ID checks in question to be temporary and if she, in that case, has a plan to phase them out. The interpellation has been submitted to me.
With its unique conditions, the Öresund region contributes significantly to Sweden's competitiveness. Every day, large flows of people, goods, and services pass over the Öresund Bridge on a scale that has no equivalent in the Nordic region. But unfortunately, not everyone who crosses the bridge does so for legitimate purposes. Both the conflicts that are constantly ongoing in the gang criminal environment and the actors who commit serious acts of violence have, on numerous occasions, crossed the Öresund and the Öresund Bridge.
That fighting serious organized crime and that the authorities have the right tools even when the crime is cross-border is, just like competitiveness, a very important issue for the government. The reintroduced border control is such a tool. The border control contributes to safeguarding public order and internal security and to combating the serious threat that comes from cross-border crime. Through continuous adaptation of its methods and through dialogue with carriers and other actors, the Swedish Police Authority strives for as little impact as possible on travel and trade in the region. It is therefore pleasing to take part in the Öresund Institute's figures that 2025 became a record-breaking year for commuting across the Öresund, as for the first time more than 40 million passenger trips were made by car, train, or ferry across the Sound.
The reintroduced border control is temporary, and every decision is preceded by a new assessment that takes into account the trade-offs that I have now set out. In those trade-offs, the government safeguards both public order and internal security as well as the Øresund region's competitiveness and development.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Minister for Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the answer to the interpellation I submitted to EU and Nordic Minister Jessica Rosencrantz. I have submitted it against the background of the work I have been and am involved in within the Nordic Council regarding the importance of facilitating cross-border cooperation and exchange with our neighboring countries, my roles in the Committee on the Constitution, where I, on behalf of my party, specifically monitor EU issues, and in the EU Committee, as well as the meetings and conversations I have with citizens and representatives in my Scania constituency, where the Swedish-Danish relations are particularly palpable.
I perceive that there is the utmost respect for the reasons cited by the Minister for Justice and which, once ten years ago, during the intense days of the refugee crisis, led to the decision on internal border controls in Sweden. But after the border controls have now existed for over ten years, there is still reason for reflection, as they have throughout this entire period been designated as merely temporary and extraordinary – this in light of both the now 74-year-old close Nordic cooperation as well as the cooperation within the EU and Schengen.
For my part, I have grown up, lived, and worked during a longer period when free movement between Sweden and Denmark has been part of everyday life. Between 1952 and 2015, there were no border controls between Skåne and Denmark, all in accordance with the Nordic passport union and subsequently also the entered Schengen Agreement. One should keep in mind that even during this time, there were a number of challenges concerning the rise of cross-border crime, with the activities of motorcycle gangs in the 1980s and 1990s and an increasing extent of drug smuggling as a couple of examples.
Sweden and Denmark have had four different reasons for introducing these border controls, which have also occurred on the Danish side. The justifications provided have been based on the control of asylum reception, prevention of terrorism, strengthening of national security, and countering cross-border crime. But the border controls stand in opposition to the spirit of the Schengen Agreement and to the vision that the Nordic Council, in which the Swedish government has been highly involved, set up that the Nordic region should be the world's most sustainable and integrated region by 2030.
The border controls also entail clear practical limitations for rail traffic. According to Trafikverket, five more trains per hour and direction could run across the Öresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden if it were not for the ID checks. Gunnar Strömmer mentions the increased traffic, but there is thus potential to increase the traffic further.
The Swedish-Danish cooperation body Greater Copenhagen, which includes all Skåne municipalities as well as municipalities in Halland and in Danish Zealand, along with Region Skåne and Region Halland, recently produced the report 10 years of temporary internal border control. It shows that the border controls have caused losses of 47 million kronor every year. Reference is also made there to data showing that only 0.03 percent of the persons who were checked at the internal border control in Region Syd lacked valid identification. It is also rare for border controls to take place at all.
In light of the answer that Gunnar Strömmer gave and the considerations he referred to, I would therefore like to ask if he intends to initiate an analysis or if he has a plan for how long temporary border controls such as these can continue.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Per-Arne Håkansson for raising and discussing this important issue here in the chamber today. The issue is important for Sweden as a country and very important for southern Sweden. It is also important for the Greater Copenhagen region: for the regions on the Swedish side that are involved in the work, for all citizens who are affected in their daily lives, and for the counterparts on the Danish side. During the years I have had these issues on my desk, I have committed myself to listening and having a dialogue with different actors in the region in order to constantly obtain a broad perspective on the issues.
There is no doubt that there are conflicting objectives. If we were only to think about regional development and competitiveness without weighing in issues of public order and security, it is clear that we would have very strong reasons not to have this type of controls. What Per-Arne Håkansson said about how many more trains could run if traffic were not slowed down in this way is, of course, an expression of that. At the same time, it is difficult to think in that way, because there are other very legitimate interests here. Public order, security, and safety in our society also have great importance for competitiveness, so the issues are connected in that way as well.
Some think it becomes a bit of a play on words when one says that the controls are temporary because they have, until now, since they were introduced in 2015, been reviewed and reintroduced every six months. I want to emphasize that a review is indeed taking place where these reasons must be weighed in.
Over the years, one also sees that it is a reality that the reasons have partially changed, as Per-Arne Håkansson pointed out. When they were initiated, it was in the light of an acute migration crisis, and it has since been about broader issues such as combating organized crime, terrorism, and the types of threats that have motivated the controls to be reintroduced.
In the current situation, I cannot report any specific timetable other than to say that the government reviews the issue every six months in the manner that is to be done. At that point, we of course weigh the whole and the different opposing interests.
I would, however, like to emphasize that we have been keen to ensure that the police also have other tools to achieve this safety or security effect, not least by giving the police expanded opportunities to use different powers specifically in border areas. I believe that over time this makes it possible to build up a model and a body of work that can make this type of control unnecessary or, in any case, on the margins, not as fully necessary as they are today.
The government is working long-term on the issue, at all times in close dialogue with relevant actors in the southern part of the country and at all times by completely openly acknowledging that there are partially conflicting interests where we must find a good balance moving forward.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! The fight against cross-border crime and gang criminality is, of course, a decisive and prioritized issue.
When it comes to Schengen, my view is that it is primarily a great success for European integration and the free movement of people. There is also popular support for this cooperation and a consensus that it is for the benefit of people in their everyday lives.
Within Schengen, as I have understood it, a number of tools and bodies have been created precisely to strengthen the common protection. It is about developing information between our countries, about information systems for checks, about border and coast guard authorities, and about registration systems for entries and exits, which are also a part of the Schengen cooperation.
All this is initiatives that our countries are developing to strengthen common security. What I can see is that over the years a number of facts have emerged that need to be highlighted further in this debate.
Recently, at the beginning of 2025, the OECD published a report where the labor market situation is mentioned as particularly urgent to promote in a cross-border manner. One example is Danish Helsingør, where unemployment is 3 percent, while it in Helsingborg on the Swedish side is 11 percent. Here, unemployment could be pushed back if there were further incentives to strengthen integration in the area.
Madam Speaker! It can also be mentioned in this context that when the Öresund Bridge recently celebrated 25 years, the Swedish government honored the jubilee with a gift aimed at further strengthening the Swedish-Danish integration. This was done through a declaration aimed at strengthening cooperation in defense, security, and preparedness, developing regional and European competitiveness and research, combating cross-border organized crime, and promoting initiatives for increased mobility in the Öresund region. I assume that these are efforts behind which there is a genuine will to carry out.
In this context, it can also be pointed out that Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, in her argumentation, often returns to the point that a priority area is to stop criminals from Sweden from entering Denmark. Despite this, there are currently, as far as I have been able to understand, no border controls on the Danish side. There have been controls, but they have not become long-lasting.
One can also refer to some reports that have emerged recently. Docent Göran Lövestam recently described the situation in Svenska Dagbladet. He has been an active official in the EU Commission for a couple of decades and presented in the article critical views from both legal as well as political and societal perspectives.
There is also a government investigation, Öresundsförbindelser 2050 – behov av kapacitet, redundans och svenskt-danskt samarbete, which concerns today's border controls. There, it is referred to that the border controls can be considered inefficient and affect the trust between citizens and authorities.
There are, therefore, quite a few points of view to take note of, and I would like to ask the Minister for Justice whether he rejects these points of view at this stage or if he intends to consider them in future work ahead.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Let me briefly touch upon the issues that Per-Arne Håkansson raises.
What I reject is parts of the sharpest legal argumentation. The Government's firm opinion is that we have a very solid legal basis to extend the controls. There have also been changes in the Schengen system in relation to border controls recently that give us good reason to believe that we, so to speak, have it in the bag when it comes to the legal aspect.
Furthermore, I want to emphasize that all the points raised are relevant. I believe everyone understands that this type of border obstacle has a negative impact on development power, growth, and competitiveness. This applies even if they are designed in a flexible and—what I still believe—effective way from an international perspective, and even if they are combined with other measures that are even less intrusive toward the flows of goods and people across the Sund on the margin.
I also say regarding my warning that it has turned out to be extremely important for competitiveness that one can ensure credible crime fighting. If one looks at what many entrepreneurs, for example, list as the primary obstacle to expansion, one notices that it all too often is precisely organized crime and its impact on business activity. It is therefore connected.
I want to emphasize that the government reads everything, takes note of everything, and listens to everything that is said. We, of course, take it upon ourselves that every time this is to be reassessed – and it is, after all, every six months – we do not just perform a routine extension but also justify the extension at the time of the decision. A real balancing of opposing interests must be made there, and it is also done. So yes, the government takes note of and listens to other views, including, admittedly, the legal ones.
Let me conclude by taking note of something that Per-Arne Håkansson highlighted and which I think is important. It concerns the joint declaration that Sweden and Denmark adopted in connection with the 25th anniversary of the Öresund Bridge last year. It is a declaration that truly paves the way for deepening cooperation, strengthening competitiveness, increasing security overall, and strengthening integration in the region.
I take note of what Per-Arne Håkansson says regarding the underlying ideas when it comes to Schengen, the Nordic cooperation and the cross-border work, and how significant it is that we succeed in safeguarding this also in a time when the security threats are undoubtedly extensive and quite complex.
In summary: The Government listens, takes note of everything that is said and continuously weighs competitiveness and security to reach decisions that are as well-balanced as is possible.
Per-Arne Håkansson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer for the discussion and the dialogue.
I assume that different aspects for strengthening Nordic integration and European cross-border cooperation within trade, the labor market, and crime fighting are taken ad notam.
When the temporary border controls, which we have spoken about here, were introduced in 2015, there was strong public support, and that was also the case during the pandemic. Now that the controls remain constantly, perhaps many do not describe them as temporary and sometimes question the effectiveness and utility. Even though they have become part of everyday life, I believe it is natural that people who constantly move across the borders question the utility based on how it works in practice.
Cooperation between authorities in our countries is an important tool regardless of border controls or not. It is the views that have been expressed in everyday life in the border area between Sweden and Denmark that I have taken note of here. Based on the answers Gunnar Strömmer has provided, I perceive it as the Justice Minister also seeing many reasons to strengthen the cooperation between our authorities on both sides of the border. This is needed so that we can strengthen trade, tourism, and cultural exchange and at the same time, of course, be effective against crime.
I do, however, think that there is a possibility to perhaps act a bit more offensively in the future on the areas we have touched upon here today. Thank you for the debate!
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Per-Arne Håkansson, for these important questions having been raised here in the chamber! It underscores that the questions, which admittedly have their basis in reality in southern Sweden, are a matter for all of Sweden.
I would like to conclude by underlining the intention, which is truly shared by the government and which is lived out in everyday life, not least in Skåne, Halland and the parts that are an integrated part of the Greater Copenhagen region, that we shall do everything we can to promote precisely interaction, cooperation, integration and competitiveness and at the same time do it in such a way that we can guarantee order, security and safety for the citizens on both sides of the Sound.
In that work, it is of course extremely important to be responsive and listen to and take part of the testimonies, analyses, and views that emerge, including in today's contribution from Per-Arne Håkansson. That dialogue will continue. I believe that our dialogue today is an important contribution to that work.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.