Temporary ban on transporting persons without valid identity documents to Sweden

Lars Isacsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the bill Temporary prohibition on transporting persons without valid identity documents to Sweden. The bill proposes a new law that gives the government the authority to, in certain cases, issue regulations on prohibitions against transporting persons who lack valid identity documents to Sweden by certain means of transport. The government is also given the authority to issue regulations on sanction fees for those who violate such a prohibition. If a serious danger to public order or internal security in the country has arisen, the government shall be entitled to issue such regulations as are intended in the law.

The previous Social Democratic government introduced temporary border controls and identity checks during the migration crisis in 2015, a measure that was concluded in 2018. The now proposed law intends to give the government tools to act as needed to maintain order and security.

There is a considerable amount of criticism regarding the bill. We Social Democrats have submitted a specific statement in which we highlight parts that, in our opinion, are important for the government to take with them. Our assessment, however, is that despite the criticism, there is a need for Sweden's government to have this type of tool in the toolbox if a crisis similar to the migration crisis of 2015-2016 occurs again. It is needed so that we can maintain public order in a crisis situation and prevent people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden from entering the country.

In the referral response, we can read, for example, that Länsstyrelsen Skåne believes that further regulation of the influx of persons to Sweden may be needed, but that the regulation should be carried out very restrictively and after careful assessment. Several referral bodies, including Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, and Haparanda kommun, emphasize that the possibility of introducing bans requires careful assessment and must be used restrictively. The impact of the ban on the border regions must, according to SKR and Haparanda kommun, be taken into special consideration.

In our special statement, we also highlight this. We write that the experiences from previous temporary identity checks at Sweden's borders show that the impact on regular traffic to and from Sweden can be significant. For travelers, it can mean extended travel times and reduced frequency of services. The trade union organizations Kommunal, Transport, and Seko have pointed out that this can negatively affect the working conditions for the staff who are to handle the requirements for identity checks and that it can entail direct safety and work environment risks for the staff. The Government should, in the continued planning, weigh in these aspects and prepare measures that minimize the negative effects for travelers and transport operators.

It appears from the bill that the possibility of introducing a ban shall be temporary. It should be emphasized that the government, when deciding on a temporary ban, shall carefully consider the need for and the duration of such a ban and, in these respects, consider the negative consequences for travelers who are commuters.

Mr. Speaker! With the special statement, the Social Democrats move for approval of the bill.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! The proposal we are debating today has been cut by the Council on Legislation, is inadmissible according to the EU Commission, and deprives the people of their parliamentary influence. Instead of the border police controlling Sweden's borders, the government considers it a task that bus drivers and train conductors should perform.

Despite the government's tone being so high when it comes to issues of law and order, the proposals from the government are more about "Guccikepskopior" than about building a strong and sustainable country where crime prevention measures also have an effect.

When it comes to the protection of Sweden's borders and who should be allowed to pass in and out of the country, the government believes that it is bus drivers and train conductors who should protect and control Sweden. What the government's proposal on ID checks with carrier responsibility implies is that those with knowledge and authority, namely the police and customs, shall not control who crosses the borders. Instead, it is the transport companies, such as SJ, Öresundståg, and those who operate long-distance buses and ferries, who shall control that the passenger has a valid ID. If an ID is missing, it is the transport company that risks having to pay sanction fees.

The proposal means that transport companies risk having to pay sanction fees if a passenger cannot present a valid ID. The transport companies are very clear: Their staff are not trained to check ID documents. It is not a bus driver's task to do so.

During a well-attended parliamentary seminar where very many from the industry participated, a bus driver who drove in the Öresund region the last time ID checks were introduced told about a passenger who probably had a fake passport. The passenger threw the passport during the bus journey and did not have the ID document left at the end of the journey. Is it the bus driver's responsibility to ensure that the passenger does not get rid of the ID document?

Mr. Speaker! This proposal is not about protecting Sweden's border. It is ill-considered symbolic politics that will affect the economy of the Öresund region. All commuters between Sweden and Denmark will have a journey that is up to twice as long when they have to board the train, get off the train, go through an ID check, and then board again.

This is such an intrusive measure that SJ has announced that they are considering ceasing to run the high-speed trains across the Öresund if the proposal is adopted by the Riksdag. It will affect very many people, even outside the Öresund region. The proposal will result in 25 percent fewer commuters from Sweden and 2 billion in losses for the Danish economy. Skåne risks losing 2,000 full-time jobs. Unemployment in Sweden currently stands at 8 percent and is expected to rise. In Region Skåne, the Moderaterna are in power, and they are very clear: Together with all other parties, they say a firm no to the proposal.

Mr. Speaker! I debated ID checks in 2016, when I was a member of the Committee on Justice. Now I am a member of the Committee on Transport. I do not need to tell the Members of Parliament in this chamber how the train traffic has functioned during the winter. You are all, together with me, more or less accustomed long-distance train commuters. This proposal will create queues, congestion, delays, and chaos on the platforms, all of which commuters after this winter really do not need.

Let us move on to the legal perspective. The EU Commission has established that carrier liability is inadmissible for travel within Schengen. In 2018, the European Court of Justice confirmed the Commission's previous position and ruled that carrier liability at internal borders between member states is incompatible with the Schengen Agreement.

The Council on Legislation here in Sweden rejects the government's proposal and notes that according to Chapter 12, Section 4 of the Instrument of Government, tasks involving the exercise of public authority may only be delegated to legal entities or private individuals with the support of law.

The proposed authorization must not be so broadly framed that it gives the government too much room to issue its own regulations. According to the Council for Legislation's view, it is directly inappropriate for the Riksdag, when it decides to delegate the power to issue norms to the government, not to know how the government intends to utilize its authorization and whether the presented proposal even stands in accordance with the Instrument of Government and EU law.

This is a very harsh criticism in legal terms. It means that the Council on Legislation is incredibly critical of whether the Riksdag is allowed to issue the regulations. It concerns how the definition in the law will look and when the state of emergency will be used.

That the government also does not consider this to be a decision that the Riksdag should be involved in making means that it deprives the people of their voices. It is the Riksdag that should be involved in making decisions on interventionist measures in Sweden.

We are used to convening the Riksdag quickly. Should an emergency arise, we are used to getting on the train and quickly traveling to the chamber. If nothing else, the handling during the corona pandemic showed that the Riksdag can be quick and flexible.

Mr. Speaker! Gang crime has taken hold around Sweden, and the government is unable to stop the shootings and the explosions. One does not get at the weapons smuggling and narcotics via ID checks on the Öresundstågen.

What stops crime, however, is customs and internal border controls, which is a completely different thing than ID checks. I have accompanied the police and customs at the Öresund Bridge and seen the incredible work they do at the bridge. The police and customs have the knowledge, experience, and authority to carry out an official mission. That the government believes bus drivers should perform the same task is completely absurd.

If the government really wants to stop weapons and drug smuggling, catch human traffickers and stop crime, it is control of customs and police that is needed. The Öresund region's commuters are obviously not smuggling weapons along with their takeaway coffee mug.

I want to conclude by quoting Transportföretagen and Transportfacken, who have published an appeal and write: "Special border police and border control exist for a reason. Their task is not simple, and for it to be carried out in a legally secure manner, transport companies and their employees should not be responsible for it."

That the Social Democrats totally ignore the trade union movement's criticism is just as shameful as the government presenting this proposal.

I move to reject the proposal.

(TALMANNEN: Purely formally, I assume the speaker moves for approval of the reservation from V, C and MP.)

Yes.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The European asylum system and the internal market rest on a somewhat sympathetic but nevertheless risky principle, namely that the internal borders can in practice be abolished and replaced by external borders which are managed and protected by the external member states in solidarity for the sake of the union.

On this principle, the rules regarding relocation, distribution of responsibility for asylum seekers, and a long series of other regulations are built, which in many ways constitute one of the union's foundations.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a weakness in this. That weakness is something that has been exploited in a cynical way by socialists and liberals. It consists in the fact that the member states have no life insurance in the event that the external borders or the common rules simply cease to function. That is the reason why we are debating this bill today.

What has happened during the last decades is that the European liberal left has had as a strategy to

build up a system that is completely dependent on a functioning outer border

in different ways prevent the member states from monitoring and protecting the internal borders

build up an extremely generous subsidy system to attract as many migrants as possible to come here

undermine and subvert the function of the external borders

shrug your shoulders and say that you can do nothing when hundreds of thousands of people are allowed to walk into Sweden.

This is naturally done to reach the ideological goal of uncontrolled mass immigration. Or to quote Miljöpartiet's former spokesperson Märta Stenevi, who explained that her party's objective is to "create chaos." Behind Miljöpartiet, naturally, stands a long line of Social Democrats rubbing their hands. And chaos they succeeded in creating. There is no doubt about this.

To counter the red-green chaos machine, the government and the Sweden Democrats are putting forward a number of proposals. Part of this is to be able to demand identification from persons traveling into Sweden by train, boat or bus.

These are measures that can be implemented by the government in the event that the migration pressure towards Sweden becomes very large. It is, therefore, a question of an emergency solution to be used as a last resort.

The main purpose is, of course, that fewer people should choose to seek asylum in Sweden. It is obviously a reason that in itself is good enough. But there are also other reasons why this type of regulation is needed and is good.

Firstly, we are making asylum fraud more difficult. Many asylum seekers tend to discard their ID documents as the first thing they do when they arrive in the country where they intend to seek asylum. They do this to complicate the asylum investigation. The reason for this is, naturally, that they know from the beginning that they do not have any actual grounds for protection. Often, they want to claim to come from a different country or a different region than the one they actually come from. If they have to show an ID document upon entry and it is properly documented, that type of fraud becomes significantly harder to carry out.

Secondly, more false and incorrect identities will be uncovered. Let's say, for example, that someone poses as a couple from Afghanistan who want to seek asylum in Sweden, but have actually been sent out by the regime in Iran to commit terrorist crimes in Sweden. Then it becomes significantly harder to enter with their poorly forged Afghan ID documents, which have too poor security markers to be used for travel entry.

Thirdly, it is an important signal to the rest of the world. Sweden is no longer a foreign law free zone where anyone can enter and settle for any reason whatsoever. The adults in the room have taken over, and it is important that this is visible outwardly.

What does the opposition say about all this? As usual, there is no united opposition to speak of in these matters. The Social Democrats apparently support the proposal. That doesn't mean much because next week they could just as easily say that they have always been against the proposal or that it was they themselves who submitted the proposition. In their world, it is only imagination that sets the boundaries.

Other opposition parties, C, V and MP, however, have a reservation against the proposal based on four arguments. It concerns, on the one hand, that the right of asylum is eroded, on the other hand that the proposal may conflict with EU legislation, on the other hand that it could mean the handover of official tasks, and on the other hand that it entails negative consequences for commuters and for those people who work within transport and who must perform these ID checks.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to address the arguments briefly one by one.

The argument that this type of rule violates the right to asylum comes quite often, and in one hundred percent of cases, it comes from people who have no idea what the right to asylum actually says about this type of case.

The fundamental rule within asylum law that we are talking about is the one called non-refoulment. It means that Sweden may not send asylum seekers back to countries where they risk protection-grounding treatment, i.e., a certain degree of persecution. On the other hand, there is no prohibition whatsoever against refusing entry to a person traveling into Sweden as long as the person is refused entry to a country where he or she does not risk this type of treatment. In this case, we are talking about refusing entry to persons primarily to Denmark and Germany.

The situation where a person travels from one safe country to another safe country to seek asylum is not explicitly regulated in the UN Refugee Convention. However, it has been the subject of statements from the UNHCR's executive committee on a number of occasions. This includes, among other things, a statement from 1998 concerning exactly the situation that the reservants raise in their reservation. The committee writes: Refugees and asylum seekers who have found protection in a certain state should normally not move from there irregularly to seek protection in another state, but they should use the protection in the country through measures provided by that government or by UNHCR.

UNHCR has also confirmed the principle on a number of occasions. This is therefore the basis for the so-called first-safe-country principle, that is, the idea that one should seek asylum in the first safe country one arrives in. If one is in Denmark and does not risk being subjected to any type of oppression there, one should simply seek asylum there.

Another institution behind this conclusion is the Commission, that is, the EU's executive body, which in a 2018 communication titled Managing Migration in all its aspects writes: Asylum seekers shall not have a free choice as to in which Member State they wish to lodge an application.

It is very clear, isn't it? The argument that there is a legal right to choose where one wants to seek asylum is based on pure and utter ignorance and nothing else. But this actually matters less, I would say. If these institutions had come to the opposite conclusion, i.e., that there was such an obligation, we could naturally disregard that. It would be a completely bizarre principle, which in practice would be impossible to comply with. Controlling who enters a country is a fundamental right that belongs to all the world's states.

I must also question somewhat what is stated in the reservation that the proposal will hit hard those who have fled from war and catastrophe and who need help the most. Is it really a hard hit to have to seek asylum in Germany instead of in Sweden? What was your thinking now? Can you explain this?

The reservationists also claim that the proposal may conflict with EU law, and they are referring to the ruling Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Touring Tours und Travel GmbH. This is the case that is also referred to in the Council on Legislation's opinion. Ordinarily, when it comes to the left-wing parties, they have not quite read the case they refer to correctly. There are obviously decisive differences between this case and the law we are presenting today, not least the fact that the German case concerns permanent national legislation, Gesetz über den Aufenthalt, which obliges bus companies to carry out ID checks. It is a very big difference compared to what we are now proposing, which is a temporary measure intended to be implemented in an emergency situation.

It is completely obvious that it is possible to draft the regulation in a way that takes into account the existing practice. We must also remember that the somewhat broader question of internal border controls and the Schengen acquis will, to no small extent, be affected by who becomes the responsible commissioner after the next European Parliament election. We can hope that it is a slightly more clear-thinking person than the commissioner we have today.

The reservationists also claim that a mandate for ID checks could involve a delegation of the exercise of public authority to a legal entity, which, according to the Instrument of Government, must occur through law and not through ordinance in the manner proposed here.

The exercise of public authority has in Swedish law been defined as the power to decide on a benefit, right, obligation, disciplinary punishment, or other comparable condition for an individual. It is completely obvious that only the control of an ID card does not constitute the exercise of public authority according to current law.

It is also quite telling that the idea that the opposition is now trying to base their case on, namely that this could in theory perhaps involve the handover of the exercise of public authority, was not touched upon at all in the report submitted when these parties themselves had a nearly identical proposal in late 2015. Neither they themselves nor the Council on Legislation touched upon the issue at all that time. And why didn't they do so? Well, we were all in agreement that it was not the exercise of public authority then, and it still is not the exercise of public authority. Nothing in the Instrument of Government has changed in that part.

Last, but certainly not least, we have the question of what impact the proposal will have on traffic, especially rail traffic and the working environment for those who work within it, if it is activated. There is a negative impact here; it is completely obvious.

I personally never traveled by train across the Öresund during the time the ID checks were last active, but I have been there and met representatives for the consortium and the region, and also for the airport. I have a full understanding of the problems this creates. I myself take the commuter train every day here in Stockholm, so I know exactly how it feels to be delayed by 40 minutes.

But it is important to understand that our position from the beginning has always been that this type of measures should be a last resort, which we will only apply if we absolutely must. The Sweden Democrats have, unlike other parties in this chamber, always stood behind a strict migration policy which, if it had been implemented 20 years ago, would have made these rules completely unnecessary.

It is the red-green chaos-makers who are forcing us into this, and I would say it is something remarkably bold of the left-wing parties to try to pretend that they stand on the commuters' side in the issue, while they themselves are quite obviously the cause of the migration chaos that makes the new rules necessary. If the ID checks become a reality one day: Remember that it was you who chose this path, not us!

If, for example, Miljöpartiet wants to do something to ensure that the rules do not become a reality – start by dissolving your own party.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! Member Aspling is incredibly well-versed in migration law and all the rules surrounding it.

It impresses me that Aspling is [engaging in] a migration law debate. I, as a member of the Committee on Transport, have conducted more of a transport policy debate. What I and member Aspling are actually going to debate is the introduction of ID checks. That is what we are debating today.

Given everything the member has raised today, regarding the measures one wants to see and which one believes will work in order to achieve one's goal – to stop the imaginary mass migration – I have a very short question for the member. Is it the case that member Aspling has confused what an internal border control is and what an ID check is? Now it sounds as if the member believes that we can stop large flows of refugees by having bus drivers and train conductors request ID documents from a traveler. That is not how it works. What ID checks and the proposal that the member stands behind today actually mean is that the commuters across the borders in the Öresund region will be hit extremely hard.

My question is: Has the member confused what an internal border control is and what an ID check is? It sounds a bit like that in the speech, and I just want us to clear up the simple matter.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking you very much for the judgment that I would be "incredibly well-informed" on these matters. However, that is incorrect. I am not a specialist in asylum law. On the other hand, I know the basics of this. Linda Snecker should also do so. If one stands behind a reservation that hinges its case on asylum law, which the opposition does today, one should at least have read up on the basics, but that has obviously not been done.

I move on to the claim that mass immigration is imaginary. I can only ask the member from Vänsterpartiet to make a visit somewhere in the suburbs of Stockholm and take a look at how it looks. It is not imaginary; it is to the highest degree a reality.

Mass immigration has been ongoing for a long time. It has caused a catastrophe for Sweden, and it is in the highest degree something real. If one does not see this, I actually do not think one has anything to do in this debate, because then one is not in Sweden 2024 - mentally at least.

The last question was whether I know what the difference is between an ID check and an internal foreigner check. It is clear that I do. An internal foreigner check is when the police check if a person is allowed to be in Sweden. This can be done in connection with some type of intervention, actually any. An internal border check is when Swedish police perform a check at Sweden's borders to see if a person is allowed to enter the country. One then checks identity and so on.

An ID check is something much simpler. In that case, a person working at a transport company checks if a person has a valid ID with them.

There is a reason why this is important. When these rules were last introduced, it was noted that fewer people tried to get to Sweden. It sets up a threshold. It does not, of course, stop everyone. One can obtain false identity documents. One can buy a passport. There are many ways to get around it. But it still creates a threshold. It still does something, and something is what we must do.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the member wishes that very many should not be in the chamber, that parties should be disbanded and so on. I think we should raise the level a bit in the style of debate and how we treat each other.

I am very glad that the member has a grasp of the different controls we have. What I am more concerned about is that the member seems to believe that this ID check is something that is included in the bus driver training and something that the train attendants are experts in. I have myself heard very many bus drivers testify about how incredibly difficult it is to know what a correct ID document looks like. It is not part of their mandate to check this, and there is no staff or capacity to perform this task.

The last time we had ID checks, 2016-2017, it cost the ferry company For Sea 19.5 million, among other things, to carry them out. This is an incredibly expensive measure, and the costs for such a company will increase by 30-50 percent, i.e., approximately 1.6 million per month, to carry out the ID checks with staff who are not trained to do them, who do not have the capacity and who do not want to carry out ID checks because it involves an incredibly threatening situation.

This is not a measure that in any way addresses the problem. Regardless of whether it is about the Sweden Democrats' imaginary stopping of mass immigration or the government wanting to show decisiveness, the controls that are proposed will not be able to be carried out in a good way because the wrong category of personnel is being used.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, we can state that it is incorrect to claim that this is not part of the staff's task. The people who work within the transport sector have the task of performing what their employment contracts and their employers say. If their employers say that they must carry out ID checks because this is stated in a regulation, it becomes part of their task.

People who work in the transport sector also have to handle a lot of situations that are somewhat uncomfortable, especially those who work late in the evening. It is nothing new. We can all wish that it weren't so, but this is extremely important and they will need to do it.

Regarding the cost, is 19 million a lot of money? I also understand that it sounds like a lot of money for those listening to the debate. But what does it correspond to? Four unaccompanied children for one year or something like that? In terms of asylum migration, 19 million is something you can spend in 15 minutes. It is, like, no money at all in these contexts.

Linda Snecker speaks about how this will not address the problem. It depends somewhat on what one puts into the concept of addressing. It is not that we trust that what is proposed will stop migration to Sweden if it is introduced. On the other hand, it creates a threshold. It creates, above all, a threshold for persons who have false identities, who want to hide their identity, who do not have honest intentions and who know that they do not have any real grounds for asylum. This threshold will hopefully cause more to choose to stay and seek asylum in Denmark or Germany, or hopefully do the morally right thing and simply go home again.

I do not think this is any strange at all.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have had ID checks during a period earlier in Sweden. From January 4, 2016, until May 2017, we lived with these ID checks in the Öresund region when we were to travel from Denmark to the Swedish side. Ludvig Aspling announced from the rostrum that he himself had not experienced the ID checks because he travels with Stockholm's local transport, but that he had heard about it afterwards regarding how it was. I can personally testify that it was complete chaos and that it damaged the Öresund region something terrible. That a pandemic then came a couple of years later that the whole world had to live with has made the damage to the Öresund integration and the labor market region catastrophic.

Mr. Speaker! At the time when the ID checks were abolished in May 2017, the Sweden Democrats protested loudly. They did not want them to be removed but believed that they should continue. Now Ludvig Aspling says that these should only be introduced when it is absolutely necessary. In that case, I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what distinguishes the situation now from May 2017 when the Sweden Democrats thought it was such a catastrophic decision to abolish the ID checks.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by stating that a somewhat strange reasoning is being presented by the Green Party. They themselves go out with the stated goal of creating chaos in migration policy, to break down all borders in Europe, and to ensure that as many migrants as possible are enticed to choose just Sweden. When the situation then becomes unsustainable and it becomes necessary to introduce, for example, border controls or ID checks of the type we are now proposing, they start to cry and say: Why are you destroying it for the Öresund region?

It is not we who are ruining things for the Öresund region. It is the one who enters in to create chaos in the migration systems that makes it difficult for international commuters. This is completely obvious. The member from Miljöpartiet should understand this.

Let us move on to the issue itself. Yes, we protested when the ID checks were abolished because we wanted a little more margin of safety. When they were introduced, they were absolutely needed. There was no doubt that it was necessary to introduce them. Then the situation improved, partly thanks to them being introduced, which in a way contradicts the other argument that Rasmus Ling brings up, namely that they would have no effect at all.

When they were finally abolished, we thought it was somewhat too early. We would have preferred to see them remain a bit longer to provide a bit more safety margin.

As the situation stands today, we do not see any need to introduce them right now. It is a measure that we will have in the toolbox if the situation were to worsen.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to address the nonsense about chaos that the member brings up. It is the height of nonsense. It is a lie. We have never ever expressed ourselves that way when it comes to migration. That is settled. I hope that that type of obvious lie is not repeated.

Mr. Speaker! Ludvig Aspling is trying to say that one had wanted to have it for a little longer. I have never, until now, heard the Sweden Democrats say that it was something that one did not want. They opposed with force that they should be abolished. They said it was a catastrophe, that everything would open up. But now they admit that it was not so and that it was actually right to abolish these.

Mr. Speaker! One wants this as some kind of security. It is said that it may be needed in the future.

Regardless of what one thought in 2015-2016, we can state that it was quick to produce that law. Now, the government is being given a carte blanche if a few cabinet ministers or the Sweden Democrats get a feeling and suddenly think that ID checks are needed from one week to the next. It is not something we should do. I see great risks with that.

That assessment was made then. But there is nothing that says one could not change one's mind quickly.

Mr. Speaker! The number of asylum seekers decreased during that period. It did so before January 2016. It decreased when the EU's agreement with Turkey was in place. That was what mattered for how the refugee flows moved. It had nothing to do with the ID checks.

ID checks are causing incredible chaos in the Malmö-Lund-Copenhagen area.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is very skeptical about giving the government a carte blanche. But of course, it is perfectly fine to give a carte blanche to a government that one sits in oneself; it is completely unproblematic for Miljöpartiet. But if someone else is to receive the same carte blanche, it is suddenly a major democratic problem. It is not a particularly serious way to argue.

It is completely correct that the Turkey agreement did its part. The work that the European Union did in third countries also did its part. Several other countries established border controls within the EU. That did its part. And we established our ID checks. That also contributed. Many small streams make it so that we can manage such a situation. That is why we must have these tools in place.

One must also remember that Europe lives under a fairly constant migration threat, thanks perhaps above all to the Green group in the European Parliament. If misfortune were to strike and the Greens move strongly forward in the election to the European Parliament, there is no one who knows what kind of madness they will come up with regarding the external border. They might decide to just abandon it entirely.

I know that Miljöpartiet, for example, has highlighted humanitarian residence permits. People should therefore be able to fly to Europe to seek asylum. It is an issue that Miljöpartiet has championed. In practice, it means completely getting rid of the visa requirement, which we have towards most countries in the world. It is a proposal that Miljöpartiet has championed.

Miljöpartiet is actively driving a number of proposals precisely to increase mass immigration and put Sweden in a situation such as we were in in 2016. It is an explicit goal from Miljöpartiet.

Of course, we must have in place all the tools we can possibly have to handle such a situation if it occurs in the future.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by highlighting what the Centre Party considers important in this matter.

It is important that we safeguard and maintain public order and national internal security.

It is important that we see free movement within the EU as a strength and a great asset for Sweden.

It is important to uphold the right to seek asylum.

It is important that legislation is relevant, clear, proportionate and legally certain.

Mr. Speaker! The Government states that the purpose of the proposed legislation is to, under certain circumstances within the migration area, be able to limit the number of persons attempting to travel into Sweden without their identity first having been verified. A ban shall therefore be introduced against transporting persons by bus, train, or passenger ship to Sweden if they do not have valid identity documents.

We do not see that this ban is needed, as the border police already today, under circumstances such as those the proposal intends - serious danger to public order or the internal security of the country - are permitted to carry out border controls to check that those arriving at the border have the right to enter Sweden. We believe that it is the correct authority and that it has the correct competence to do this.

The proposed ID checks will prevent persons without valid ID documents from being able to travel further to Sweden's border. Yes, the starting point is that all people traveling into Sweden should be able to present ID documents to show who they are and where they come from. But at the same time, it is not a requirement to be able to present valid ID documents in order to apply for asylum.

Centerpartiet stands for regulated immigration where the possibility to seek asylum needs to be protected and therefore does not consider that asylum seekers should be prevented from seeking protection in Sweden in the way that is proposed.

The majority of referral bodies have stated that the responsibility for border controls involving identity checks constitutes the exercise of public authority and that it therefore should not be placed on the carriers. The Government also notes that if it becomes relevant to hand over the exercise of public authority to legal entities or individuals, the matter must be revisited.

The Council on Legislation notes that tasks involving the exercise of public authority may only be delegated to legal entities or individuals with the support of law. This renders the authorization in the law currently under consideration ineffective if it is found to be a matter of the exercise of public authority.

The government shall also, according to the proposal, be permitted to issue regulations on sanction fees for those who violate the prohibition. The proposal implies that even if the carrier has checked the identity documents when the journey began, a sanction fee can be imposed if the person's identity documents are no longer present upon arrival in Sweden. The sanction fee can be collected without the need to provide any evidence that the carrier actually checked the identity documents or, when such a check has occurred, as to what may have happened between the check and the border crossing.

The regulations will, however, not give the carriers any authority to ensure that the controlled documents remain at the border crossing. This means that the carriers may be required to pay a sanction fee of at least 30,000 kronor and at most 250,000 kronor for something that is outside of their control. It also does not appear whether the fee is to be charged per person or per transport occasion. The Council on Legislation states that such a regulation is neither proportionate nor legally secure.

The government also does not go into more detail on what should be considered a valid ID document, and the Swedish Migration Agency, in its referral critique, raises the major practical challenges of checking documents from other countries and assessing what constitutes a valid ID document because they can look very different.

Mr. Speaker! I want to strongly highlight the problems and costs, which others have also highlighted, that the proposal would entail for local and regional businesses, for labor and study commuting, and for those employees within the transport sector who are to perform the inspections themselves.

In addition to these qualitative deficiencies and deficiencies in legal certainty, several referral bodies and the Council on Legislation have raised the question of whether this is compatible with European law. Here, the government argues that if such regulations are actually to be issued, these views must then be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to summarize. It has been stated from the government's side that this authorization should be granted now, even though the requirements for its use are not met, so that the government, should such a situation arise, can promptly take relevant measures. Such a way of working, with an increased general state of preparedness in Sweden, is in itself laudable and desirable. But the proposal shows that the government does not know how the proposal relates to EU law. Instead, it is written that when regulations are to be issued, the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the additional requirements that are set up must be taken into account.

The Government says, regarding the Council on Legislation's objection that this authorization may contain the exercise of public authority that cannot even be delegated through an authorization, that it does not believe that is the case but that, if it turns out to be so at a later stage, it may become relevant for the Government to return to the issue. In that case, we have not even touched upon the question of whether the exercise of public authority that it would then involve will take place in a country other than Sweden, since the control is to take place before one reaches the border.

When the Council on Legislation asks whether the proposed sanction fee of between 30,000 and 250,000 shall be charged per person or per transport occasion, this is not even addressed by me.

As a fourth example, the government states that no evidence of a violation of the prohibition needs to be presented as this is a strict liability that applies if any passenger lacks valid identification documents. Later, however, it is stated that a reduction or waiver of the fee may need to be considered in certain cases.

One can easily get the impression that the processing of the legislation regarding the authorization here and now in the Riksdag is fast, but that a fast processing of the regulations will not be possible when it actually matters. We believe that it should be the other way around.

There are too many uncertainties. It is not predictable, proportionate, or legally secure. These are laws and not some brochure that we make decisions about here in the Riksdag.

Overall, the Centre Party cannot support this legislation. We move for approval of the reservation.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today's debate concerns a new law that makes it possible for the government to decide on temporary bans on transporting persons without valid ID documents to Sweden. The need for such a measure became clear in 2015. Immigration to Sweden had increased for many years while the Social Democratic government and its supporting parties did nothing, except to unfairly attack those who pointed out where it was heading.

The red-green government finally realized that the migration pressure was unsustainably high. In a single week, 10,000 new asylum seekers arrived. A temporary law was then swiftly enacted, which meant that identity checks were introduced in order to reduce the unsustainably high immigration. This was a necessary and correct measure, but it happened too late and in a panic.

Now, the Moderate-led government is carrying out a systemic shift within migration policy. The intended effect, which we are now achieving, is a reduced immigration to Sweden – despite the fact that immigration to Europe is increasing. But for the event that Sweden should once again end up in a situation where the migration pressure suddenly rises, the government needs to be able to take measures similar to those that were taken in 2015.

We unfortunately have an unfortunate track record in Sweden, with governments that have not seen things coming and then, in hindsight, concluded that one had been naive. We have unfortunately also witnessed this analytical inability during today's debate. But today we have, thank goodness, a government and a supporting party that are proactive.

The Schengen cooperation and the control of the Schengen Area's external border constitute and shall also continue to constitute the primary tool for managing migration flows to the EU. However, it cannot be ruled out that measures that do not need to be taken today will need to be taken in the future to counter irregular migration. This is due to global factors beyond Swedish political control.

The number of migrants in the world can be expected to continue to increase. The vast majority migrate for economic reasons.

Mr. Speaker! There are therefore grounds to enable the government to take other types of measures than those covered by the Schengen Agreement specifically in situations where a serious danger to public order or internal security arises and it needs to be possible to quickly take measures of a very intrusive nature.

The situation that arose in 2015, with a very high influx of asylum seekers, meant that we could not receive these asylum seekers in an orderly and secure manner. This is an example of a situation where the government needs to be able to decide on ID checks, but other situations can also be considered relevant according to the government.

Mr. Speaker! The proposed law means that the government may issue regulations on prohibitions on transporting persons who lack valid identity documents to Sweden by bus, train, or passenger ship. The government shall also be allowed to issue regulations on sanction fees. This is fully reasonable and absolutely necessary. The unpredictability in our global environment makes a permanent law corresponding to the one introduced in 2015 justified.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! When government representatives such as Member Kärrholm debate this issue, the context is immigration and asylum. It sounds as if bus companies will at any moment fill their buses with asylum seekers and drive across the Öresund Bridge.

It is absolutely not what this proposal is about. In reality, this proposal means that the transport companies will be hit extremely hard. The entire transport industry is incredibly critical of the government's proposal. It means that commuters in the Öresund region will have double the commuting time.

The Öresund region exists in reality and represents an incredible development potential for Sweden. But for the government in Stockholm, it seems as if Skåne and Copenhagen are as far away as Kabul and other places.

This will also hit the region's economy incredibly hard. It cost many millions the last time the ID checks were introduced.

I therefore have a question: Why does a Moderate-led government want to punish companies with large sanction fees for something that, according to the member, is beyond the government's control? For something that the government cannot control, the same Moderate-led government will therefore impose penalty fees on the transport companies. Why does member Kärrholm think this is a good policy?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I then request to inform Member Linda W Snecker that the government's absolute goal is to not have to make this decision so that one does not have to impose a requirement on transporters to check ID. I have great respect for the consequences it entails for entrepreneurs and commuters in the southern parts of the country.

That the government is now making a systemic shift in migration policy aims to reduce immigration to Sweden, and all the measures being taken within the migration policy reduce the risk of having to make a decision on regulations in accordance with this Act.

In the same way, I believe we are all very careful about fire safety at home. We put out candles and are careful. But if the worst happens, one needs to use a fire extinguisher even if it entails negative consequences in the household. There is, therefore, a conflict of objectives here. If it is required, this power needs to exist. It will have negative consequences if it is used, but it can be necessary in certain situations.

As far as possible, the government therefore works to avoid having to use this power.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kärrholm, for the answer!

I do not think we should describe asylum seekers as a fire to be extinguished. They are actually real people. But, again, the introduction of ID checks is not something that stops asylum seekers from coming to Sweden.

I think the member Kärrholm's party comrades Carl Johan Sonesson with several others in Moderaterna i Skåne are very clear about what this proposal means in reality. It is not about symbolic politics and keeping the Sverigedemokraterna in hand in order to be able to remain in power, but this is a proposal that truly affects every person who works in the border areas of the Öresund region.

I do not think the government has truly understood what it means if this law is introduced. Carl Johan Sonesson from Moderaterna and all parties in Skåne are deeply critical of the proposal, because they were there. It was they who saw the economy collapse in Skåne and the Öresund region. It was they who saw their voters struggle to get to work. It was they who saw how unemployment rose because people could no longer manage the commute.

This is for real. It is so real that, as the member from Centerpartiet pointed out, it is a check that is not to be carried out on Swedish soil but at the station in Kastrup. Permits will be needed from Danish authorities to set up terminals on Danish soil in order to be able to carry out these checks.

My question to Member Kärrholm is how this is to take place. What does the dialogue with Denmark look like? What will it cost to set up these checkpoints, and who is going to pay? Is it the transport companies, or is it the government that will be footing the bill?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think the member is mixing up the cards somewhat. It is expressed as if when this law is enacted, it will lead to immediate consequences. That is not the case. When we have enacted this law in this chamber, it will not affect anything in Skåne and Malmö. Nothing will change in practice. Everyday life will continue exactly as usual.

This means, therefore, an opportunity in an extreme situation for the government to make a decision. That decision needs, of course, to be avoided as far as possible. But in the event that the decision needs to be made, I am confident that the government will carefully consider all the aspects that have been addressed here today.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I did not personally think that the ID checks would be introduced in 2015-2016. But regardless of what one thought and thinks in that matter, one can say nothing other than that the situation was strained at that time. It looked very different then compared to today; I believe that is something one can state.

I would like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, because Fredrik Kärrholm asserts that this government is so on point and that it is a paradigm shift, that one understands things that the previous government did not understand and so on.

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Kärrholm's party did not vote for ID checks last time. The Moderates have some kind of ill will in their entire bodies after Fredrik Reinfeldt's period, after those eight years. They usually criticize and complain, blame, or whatever one says, him. At that time, Tobias Billström, Maria Malmer Stenergard, Tomas Tobé, and Ulf Kristersson were present. None of these voted for this. And this was not 2010. This was 2015-2016. I cannot quite reconcile that with Fredrik Kärrholm's argumentation.

This does not lead to immediate consequences, Fredrik Kärrholm also says. Obviously, he has not experienced the ID checks in the Öresund region.

Just the signal that this decision is being made has immediate consequences. SJ, Skånetrafiken and other actors do not know from one day to the next when the government gets the feeling and introduces this. It can happen at any time. Next week is spring break in Skåne. It is the Eurovision Song Contest in a few months. Those who transport people across the Sound do not know what will apply, Mr. Speaker.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

"Gets a feeling and presents this here" - I don't know if that type of representation is based on Miljöpartiet's own attitude towards politics or if it is rather another example of a lack of grounding in reality and misconceptions about the government.

In the event that this power is exercised by the government, Sweden would find itself in an extreme situation similar to the one we had in 2015-2016, which the member himself noted involved a very strained situation. This can therefore be described as a form of emergency measure.

It is symptomatic that politicians on the left wing once again exhibit a complete naivety, are totally uninterested in having any kind of preparedness, and again want to place themselves in a situation where one needs to hastily and sloppily rush through this type of legislation if it were needed in the future. I do not think it is an appropriate working model. I think it is important that we learn from what has been and are well-prepared for all eventualities in the future.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Allow me to smile.

Why, Fredrik Kärrholm, has the government put forward this proposal with a significantly shortened referral period? Why has there been a shortened motion period, and why is the vote being postponed today if we are not finished with this debate at 15:20? Is it because we have a situation where this cannot wait a week, two weeks, or three weeks? Why is there such a hurry if there is no glaringly obvious risk that the government just gets a feeling and, from one day to the next, wants to introduce ID checks with everything that entails for the entire Öresund region, on the Danish side and on the Swedish side?

There is no reason whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, against the background of the incredibly hasty and sloppy process the government has had to force through this legislation, to believe that one would not want to exploit this at any given moment. A concrete question, Mr. Speaker: Why else has it been forced through in this way?

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

This legislation has been prepared according to all the rules of the art. As has been stated here, the proposal has been referred. There has been plenty of time to read up on the matter, and it has been treated in the committee. We stand here today and have a debate about it.

Regarding several other reforms, the government is moving somewhat faster than what is conventional. There are good reasons for that. We need to get legislation in place in Sweden faster. I welcome that.

I particularly welcome that we will today vote through this law, which enables the government to make necessary decisions should we again experience an uncontrolled, high immigration to Sweden that poses a serious danger to public order and internal security. The latter, Miljöpartiet appears to be consistently completely uninterested in.

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

TALMANNEN

I remind Fredrik Kärrholm somewhat cautiously that one usually begins by saying: "Mr. Speaker!"

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This bill is a catastrophe. The Riksdag should reject the bill in its entirety. I shall therefore begin by moving for approval of the reservation.

What is the meaning of this proposal then? I want to go back to the autumn of 2015. On November 10, the border controls that have been in effect since then were announced. First, they applied for ten days, after which the Swedish Migration Agency had extended them to get better control of the situation when very many arrived in Sweden. After that, it has been extended. I believe it was in ten-day increments after that, and thereafter the time periods were expanded. In recent years, it has been done in six-month increments. The border controls are illegal but continue nonetheless.

The meaning of the border controls is that people are checked when they arrive in Sweden. They are an inconvenience. They are inefficient and resource-intensive but occur quite randomly in most cases.

The ID checks being carried out today are something else than the law the government wants in place, which means that the government should be able to introduce ID checks and receive such an authorization. The law means that one needs to have ID to even get to Sweden. During 2016, the ID checks had, for example, the consequence that elderly people from Helsingborg who traveled to Helsingør but did not have their driver's license with them were stranded on the other side of the Sound.

Mr. Speaker! There are reasons to also say something about the preparation of this proposal. It may sound dull, dry, and formalistic, but I still think there are such reasons. It is stated that the ID checks can be introduced by the government in a situation where many asylum seekers arrive, and that it is a requirement. Despite this, no asylum rights organizations have been allowed to respond to the referral. No SOU, state public inquiry, has been conducted; instead, a government memorandum was produced without any political reference group. This is criticized by the referral bodies overall. It is also criticized by the Council on Legislation, which the government chooses to ignore.

The referral period has in the customary Government Order been short. They also want shortened motion time, and the voting time is pushed forward, as stated, if the debate is not finished, so that the government shall have the authority to shut down travel in the Öresund region if they feel like it in time for the sports holiday. It is hasty and sloppy. We have unfortunately had to get used to this from Strömer's Ministry of Justice and unfortunately now also from Carlson's Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure. It is regrettable.

Mr. Speaker! I shall say something about what the referral bodies think and submit.

The Sydsvenska handelskammaren states, among other things, that the proposal violates EU law and conventions, that it is counterproductive, and that it is equivalent to withdrawal from Schengen. That is their opinion.

Region Skåne, which is governed by the same right-wing parties that govern in the Swedish Riksdag, argues that the proposal cannot be implemented because it requires Danish consent and, furthermore, a completely enormous physical and digital infrastructure. It is, therefore, the chairman Carl Johan Sonesson from Moderaterna who has put forward this.

SJ has said that they will not be able to operate to Copenhagen if ID checks are introduced.

Svensk Kollektivtrafik considers that the state should not outsource the execution of official tasks, such as the control of identity documents, to private operators in the form of transport providers.

The Committee on Commerce states that they have pointed out in previous statements that the introduction of ID checks constitutes an obstacle to free movement and therefore must undergo a proportionality assessment under EU law.

Greater Copenhagen is the most determined.

Transportarbetareförbundet points out that the profession is a service profession and describes the serious deterioration of the working environment that it would entail to be given such a responsibility for control.

Mr. Speaker! What does Lund University think? They are a very important actor in the region, but they have not been consulted. They have the gigantic facilities ESS and MAX IV, which are located on both sides of the Öresund and to which we have given multi-billion amounts, but they are not consulted.

In summary, there is no one in Skåne or southern Sweden who wants this - hardly even the Sverigedemokraterna.

Mr. Speaker! How did it go the last time we had ID checks and they were activated between January 2016 and May 2017? Yes, they were introduced to reduce the number of asylum seekers, but it was not the ID checks that caused it to decrease, but the agreement with Turkey. It decreased in the entire EU. The cost, however, became high and long-lasting. Job opportunities disappeared, travel times increased, and integration became worse. The South Swedish Chamber of Commerce has calculated the cost to 1.5 billion per year. Travel also dropped drastically.

Today, there are 16,000 commuters who live and work on different sides of the border. To that come, of course, all others who travel for various reasons such as temporary job meetings, partners or people living apart, leisure, events and so on. All of this is affected by ID checks. Just the possibility that the government can introduce them with short notice will affect the region.

Mr. Speaker! A significant question in this context is also who is responsible for the control. In the proposal, it is the carrier. This means one can end up in a situation where the carrier performs a check that the passenger has an ID document, but it is lost or discarded during the journey. In that case, it is still the carrier who is liable and can be subject to a fine or penalty of up to 250,000 kronor. It has not been defined whether this applies per occasion or per passenger, and it is actually incomprehensible.

Mr. Speaker! Is security not something one needs to gain control? I am sorry to disappoint you even on this point, but that is not how the ID checks work. One looks at the ID, but one does not collect any information and performs no register checks or controls. This does not, therefore, lead to increased security. It is, in that case, a false sense of security. One does not get any picture of who is present in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I truly regret that the right-wing government is presenting this. I also regret that the Social Democrats choose to stand behind this and leave it to Jomshof, Strömmer, or Carlson to decide from one day to the next when this shall be introduced.

I move again for the reservation to be approved. Reject this harmful, bad proposal!

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are therefore debating ID checks for persons transported into Sweden from other countries. In the reservation from Miljöpartiet, it says as follows: "We believe that there is a clear risk that the proposal could erode and restrict the right to asylum." I find this quite interesting, because it raises a number of questions about how Miljöpartiet views precisely the right to asylum.

Another measure that has exactly the same purpose is the agreement signed between the European Union and Turkey. The agreement says, in simplified terms, that persons traveling from Turkey, especially Syrian refugees, to Greece shall be stopped and sent back to Turkey. The agreement is based on the principle of the first safe country, i.e., that asylum seekers shall seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. The agreement was approved by the Swedish government in 2016, and as we all remember, Miljöpartiet was in the government at that time. Miljöpartiet, therefore, stood behind the agreement with Turkey which aims to stop asylum seekers from traveling from Turkey to Greece.

If one applies the right of asylum, as Rasmus Ling writes about in his reservation, it is a bit difficult to see how one can argue that the agreement with Turkey would be in line with the right of asylum while the Swedish ID checks would not be. It is about two measures that have exactly the same purpose.

I want to assert that Rasmus Ling has interpreted the right of asylum completely incorrectly and that it absolutely does not create a right to choose which country one seeks asylum in. But I wonder how it looks from Rasmus Ling's perspective: Why is it okay to stop migrants traveling between Turkey and Greece but not between Copenhagen and Malmö?

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Aspling, for an important and good question!

I think that the agreement that the EU has with Turkey is problematic. There is no doubt about that, not least considering that President Erdogan, who is a very authoritarian leader, receives many millions of euros and has received them for many years, but it is also about the fact that the system between the EU and Turkey is maintained in this way.

In the best of worlds, we would have had a system that looked different, but against the background that the right of asylum as such is threatened, there are great risks in fundamentally restructuring the system. There are forces such as the Sverigedemokraterna who basically want to abolish the right of asylum, so that people who have grounds for protection cannot have their case examined at all.

In the previous exchange, we briefly touched upon humanitarian visas. It could have been a way to ensure that those in the greatest need of protection could have their cases examined to a greater extent and receive asylum in Sweden or in other European democratic free countries, and not have to take the dangerous route across the Mediterranean or other routes that are common today.

But the major dividing line between our parties nevertheless concerns how one fundamentally views that people with protection needs should be able to find sanctuary somewhere else. I believe that we should have a humanitarian view in Sweden and other democratic countries, but Ludvig Aspling does not think so.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, Rasmus Ling, the big difference between our parties is that we have principles that we act according to, while Miljöpartiet has no principles.

Rasmus Ling cannot manage to answer the rather simple question of why it is okay to stop migrants between Turkey and Greece but not between Copenhagen and Malmö. Rasmus Ling says that the agreement with Turkey is "problematic." Yes, it is. But the Green Party (MP) still stood behind it. Against that background, one can ask: If it, as Rasmus Ling claims, is a violation of asylum rights to stop a migrant traveling from Denmark to Sweden, why is it then not a violation of asylum rights to stop the same migrant when he enters Greece through Turkey?

The only reason Rasmus Ling might have but doesn't quite dare to say is that he believes it is okay when Miljöpartiet is in government, because then the right of asylum does not play such a big role, while Miljöpartiet is happy to nag about it when others are in government and it can be used as a whipping boy.

Now this is irrelevant in a material sense, because Rasmus Ling does not understand what the asylum law says in these cases. There is no right to travel from a safe country to another safe country to seek asylum. There is no right to choose in which country one seeks asylum. This has been clearly established, among other things by the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR. It also appears from EU law and from the Swedish Aliens Act that these principles shall apply.

But let us go back to the question. Rasmus Ling claims that the proposal we are debating today, namely ID checks, violates the right to asylum because it prevents people from traveling into Sweden. Does the Turkey agreement not also violate the right to asylum, and why did Miljöpartiet, in that case, sign the Turkey agreement? Was it because it is okay when Miljöpartiet does it – is that the only principle that governs Miljöpartiet?

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The right to asylum is just as fundamental and important regardless of which government is in power. I said in my previous speech that the agreement between the EU and Turkey is problematic and that it involves a disregard for the right to asylum. It prevents people from coming and seeking asylum, and that is serious. It should not be so, but in the pot, nevertheless, lay that the entire right to asylum should be torn up at its core, and that could have had completely catastrophic consequences.

Mr. Speaker! The power granted to the government if one prevents people from seeking asylum is in the same way a restriction of the right to asylum. In that way, these two are therefore not different but rather the same.

One has a right to seek asylum. One does. That is how it works. One has the right to have one's case examined. There have been Sweden Democrats who have lived in Skåne and sought asylum in Denmark. They have not been granted asylum, but the right to seek it applies nonetheless. If one comes to Swedish soil and wants to have one's grounds for asylum examined, one has the right to have that. I think that is good. It is an important principle for me and my party. I know that Ludvig Aspling's party thinks otherwise.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! For the Christian Democrats, there is no doubt that migration policy must be orderly, sustainable, and legally secure. We need to have control over who enters Sweden, so that we can also detect persons who may pose a security threat. It is also about preventing organized crime and the problems with growing shadow societies when persons come to Sweden illegally.

We live in an uneasy world, and we see that the flows of refugees around the world are increasing. If the government does not have all the tools in place, there is a risk that we will once again end up in a situation reminiscent of the migration crisis in 2015, which has been mentioned here. The government at that time decided to introduce temporary internal border controls because other measures were not sufficient. In 2016, a carrier responsibility was also introduced, which was abolished the following year.

To take responsibility and ensure that Sweden does not once again end up in a situation where an organized reception cannot be maintained, the Christian Democrats and the government now see to it that this type of tool is in place in a more permanent law. But this also entails that the government, in consultation with relevant transport operators, creates the conditions for an efficient and smooth control activity.

It is about being prepared if a similar situation arises again. Therefore, we now give the government the authority to, in certain cases, issue regulations on temporary prohibitions against transporting persons who lack valid identity documents to Sweden using certain means of transport.

I want to emphasize "in some cases," because it concerns a kind of preparedness legislation, where we give the government a tool to pull out under extraordinary conditions. It is therefore not about any permanent internal border controls. The hope is that we will not have to end up in a situation where the legislation needs to be applied; I want to be clear about that. We hope, of course, that we will never have to launch this law.

I am from Malmö myself and know how important the Öresund region is, not only for the region itself but also for the entire Nordic region and our competitiveness. In fact, Öresund is the entire Nordic region's largest labor market region. Many hard-working people commute across the Sound every day to work or run businesses. It concerns about 17,000 commuters who every day cross the border to get to their jobs. Together, they are part of and contribute to Öresund producing more than a quarter of Sweden's and Denmark's combined GDP.

These people are an important engine for the Scanian and Swedish economy. We therefore need to safeguard the possibility of commuting across the border and create good conditions for jobs and growth in the region. As a Christian Democrat, I therefore want to be clear that border controls, in cases where they are used, shall be used in a sensible way and in a way that, to the greatest extent possible, takes into account and facilitates for all those people who daily commute across the Sound and contribute to the Swedish economy. One thing could be to work with new technology to make the border controls more efficient. Then both commuters and the border police can save time and resources.

That being said, there is no doubt that migration policy must be orderly and that we must have control over our borders. But we must be able to keep two things in mind at the same time.

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing when we debate an orderly migration policy is the EU's external border, and it is that which must be strengthened. Sweden faces an EU election where migration policy will once again become one of the most important issues for the voters. We Christian Democrats have during the mandate period in Brussels been involved in and agreed upon a new migration pact with several important proposals to strengthen the EU's external border. It is about achieving a more orderly and sustainable migration policy where it is we in Europe and our asylum law, not smugglers, who decide who enters the union.

The migration pact that has been concluded is good. After many years of political deadlock, it is a large and important step on the way towards a common and more orderly migration policy. At the same time, we see that more will be required as it does not solve all issues. We need to see how the proposals in the migration pact are applied in practice and follow up with further reforms during the coming mandate period.

I can also mention that the Commission is currently analyzing the conditions for the collection and processing of passenger data also from sea and land transport. A regulatory framework that is in accordance with what we are now debating could therefore very well be in the works for the entire EU.

Mr. Speaker! When the EU fails to maintain the external border, Sweden needs to have its own preparedness to be able to quickly take responsibility in difficult situations. We need to have the possibility to perform border controls ourselves in order to maintain our internal security. That is why we Kristdemokrater and the government are now presenting this bill. The highest priority is, as I say, to maintain the EU's external border so that we do not, in the first place, end up in a situation like during the migration crisis in 2015 where we need to implement this type of emergency legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a couple of rather short questions for Torsten Elofsson.

I asked the first question earlier but received no answer. If this is something that is not to be introduced now, why is there such an incredible hurry with this proposal? Why has this been forced through with both shortened motion time and referral time, and can the vote be postponed today if it is not something that one intends to introduce?

The next question, Mr. Speaker, concerns the referral process. Torsten Elofsson stated earlier that this is something to be done if many asylum seekers arrive, that is to say, that it has to do with the refugee situation. Why, then, has the proposal not been referred to organizations that work with migration, asylum, and refugee issues?

A third and final question: Why has this been referred to Stockholm University and excluded Lund University, which reasonably should be even more affected by this?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Rasmus Ling for the questions!

When it comes to the speed, this has been prepared in the customary manner but in a shorter time. One can also observe that we live in a very restless world. The world around us is changing very quickly, and the situation can also become acute very quickly. Therefore, it is important that we get the legislation in place so that we can work with it if it should, against all odds, occur – hopefully never. As I was clear about, we actually do not want this legislation to have to be applied at any time at all.

But we live, as said, in a changing world. The world around us is restless. We have a high level of conflict in different parts of the world, so there is certainly every reason to ensure that we get this in place here.

I did not mention asylum primarily, but I spoke about migrants traveling in and out. There are many who try to enter illegally for completely different reasons, perhaps. One does not know. But there is a risk that there will be large migrant flows that we must have better control over.

When it comes to Lund University, I am at a loss. I do not know why they are not included as a referral body.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let that pass, but why is it that there are no organizations at all working on any of the issues in the migration area, regardless of whether it concerns asylum seekers or any other type of migrants? The Swedish Migration Agency is an authority that is involved, but civil society organizations are completely absent. Even if the member does not have detailed knowledge of Lund University, which should still be important in this context, I think that Elofsson should be able to answer the bigger question.

Mr. Speaker! This has been done hastily and sloppily by the government, with shortened time in all the different stages. It is very important that the Riksdag actually knows what the consequence will be of what is decided. The Council on Legislation has rejected this precisely because uncertainties can be pointed out. The Council on Legislation can, therefore, also not see what the proposal actually means in all parts.

A very important part is the sanctions. The Council on Legislation asks whether the fine amount shall be issued per occasion or per passenger. I would therefore like to know, Mr. Speaker, if the Christian Democrats can give a clear answer to that question so that we actually know what applies in the event that the government decides that this should be introduced.

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the asylum organizations that Rasmus Ling referred to, it has been mentioned here previously that there is a regulatory framework stating that one should seek asylum in the first safe country. When one then arrives at the border of Sweden after having traveled through all of Europe and passed a number of these safe countries, it can be reasonably questioned why one has not sought asylum in Denmark or Germany, for example.

"Hasty and sluggish" is what Rasmus Ling says. I do not think it has been either hasty or sluggish. The Council on Legislation has raised relevant issues that must also be answered.

I mentioned in the speech that it is important that the government, together with the transport operators, develops a fast and efficient control operation that, above all, does not affect the daily commuters between Copenhagen and Malmö. Both Rasmus Ling and I, as residents of Malmö, protect them.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Act on temporary prohibitions on transporting persons without valid identity documents to Sweden is a law that will hopefully never need to be used.

Why is it then so important to have the possibility to check the identity documents of those traveling into Sweden in the event of a crisis similar to the one that occurred in 2015? It is a reasonable question.

Of course, it is about maintaining public order and addressing threats to national security. But it is also – and this is important – about preventing the emergence of a shadow society. We do not want shadow societies in our country where people are exploited, simply because they stand outside of society. No authority knows that they exist, no authority asks questions, and no authority ensures protection and health.

The law was needed. In the best of all worlds, there would have been no need for the law, but with experience of what happened in 2015, we know that if it happens again, we must handle it better next time.

We were not prepared in 2015, and we were caught off guard. It was then required that a temporary law be drafted, and it was adopted in 2015. It was a law that gave the relevant authorities the right to demand that carriers check the identity of those arriving in Sweden from another state. It applied then, as it does now, to buses, trains, and passenger ships.

The reason why they wanted the controls, that is, of the identity of those who came to Sweden, was as I mentioned earlier that otherwise there was a danger to public order or a danger to internal security. One simply could not control the asylum reception, and it became overloaded and difficult to manage. They wanted to know who had grounds for protection, who did not intend to seek asylum, and who did not even have the right to travel into Sweden.

I am aware of the frustration that, for example, the residents in the Öresund region experienced in 2016-2017, when one had to show identification in order to travel to and from work or to and from their places of study. I am aware of the frustration that was experienced then with the extra time the travel took due to all the controls. I take for granted that if the law, against all probability, must be launched and used again, directives, provisions or regulations have been drawn up on how this shall be resolved so that the residents are not affected.

A question that those who are critical of the law should ask themselves is the following: Is it not better for the state to enact laws that in good time explain what applies when or if there is a crisis?

Why do as in 2015 and stand unprepared and be quickly forced to produce measures that no one could have prepared for? For me, it is an important principle that the state's measures are predictable. This law makes Sweden's actions in a crisis situation more predictable for those at the forefront who will initially handle the crisis when or if it comes.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am grateful to be able to ask the question that I did not receive an answer to when I asked it to Torsten Elofsson, and the question concerned the sanctions. If the law is activated and the government decides that identity checks shall take place, what will it look like? Will the carrier that cannot show that the passenger has a valid identity document receive a fine per passenger or per occasion?

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! That was a good question, Rasmus Ling. It was the same discussions in 2015 when the previous law was enacted. Then, the responsibility of the carriers, training, and sanctions were also discussed. There were sanctions even then; I believe it was 50,000 kronor.

The fact is that it was resolved. I have tried to search for information on this, and I have not found any information on whether any carrier actually received a fine decision because a migrant who entered Sweden lacked an ID document. I have not seen any such information.

There must be a fine, but how it is used and who judges whether it has been done incorrectly or not must be crystal clear in black and white. I can also see the problem with a carrier checking an ID document and the ID document then disappearing on the way to Sweden. The regulatory framework must be taken out - and I hope that wise people will do that.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The wise people could be us who enact laws in the chamber - just an idea.

The Council on Legislation has stated that the bill is not clear. I understand that it is difficult even for Martin Melin to answer the question directly. But in light of the fact that one gives a speech where one says that foresight is important and that it is important to know what applies well in advance, so that one does not end up in the situation that prevailed in 2015, it appears a bit illogical to be unable to answer.

Why didn't they let two weeks, three weeks, or a month pass to address the Council for Legislation's relevant objections instead of submitting the proposal before the sports holiday break to be voted on in the Riksdag, so that the government can hold another press conference? Why don't they ensure that the work is done properly, instead of standing helpless and not knowing what applies in the event that the government activates the law? I think it is sloppy and haphazard.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Rasmus Ling is well within his rights to think that the issue has been handled in a poor way. That does not mean that Rasmus Ling is right.

I think the law has been developed in a good way. It is legally secure and well-elaborated, and I am convinced that it will work - if it needs to be activated.

I also think it is better to produce such a law now before anything happens. We can imagine a crisis, and unmanageable flows of refugees arrive. Should we then produce a law very quickly and, in addition, figure out how the carriers' potential fines should be handled or how they should be trained? Now they are being served this, and they can plan and train the carriers in good time, as well as produce guidelines and directives. There is no crisis today.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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