Expanded police powers in border areas

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in the report.

Today we shall debate the submitted proposal for a new law with, among other things, new provisions on police powers in border areas. This is another in a series of propositions that have landed on the Riksdag's table which the red-green government took the initiative for.

We can, as an early side issue in this debate, note that the Prime Minister during Thursday's question period displayed a remarkable attitude when he questioned the fact that the majority of the bills that came from the Ministry of Justice after the change of government following the election were initiatives taken by the current opposition. The fact is that 15 of 17 bills - excluding two reports, let me add - were primarily hammered out by a Social Democratic Justice Minister who was in the speaker's chair just recently.

A tip for those who want to show decisiveness with borrowed feathers and make rhetorical counterattacks in a question period is that it is always good if one builds it on a factual basis, especially when what is, in this case, easily controlled.

In any case, the initiative we are debating today is primarily based on a public inquiry from 2021, Measures in border areas.

In the proposition, legislative changes are proposed that grant primarily the police expanded powers at certain airports, ports, and railway stations, and also at bridges for road traffic and at roads in connection with border crossings. The powers themselves involve, among other things, possibilities to intervene to prevent crime. This applies in particular to cross-border crime, whose activities have many faces. It concerns thefts of forestry vehicles and boat engines, and theft and burglary gangs.

The problem of limited possibilities to stop the export of stolen goods has long been pointed out and has been up for debate in this chamber previously. We have previously tried to expand the possibilities for the police, but with this proposal, one gets even sharper tools, not least when it comes to using camera surveillance in border areas.

After this somewhat dry overview, I intend to attempt a balancing act on a slackline like this before the summer. The bill is, in fact, not uncontroversial. There are proposals here that affect personal integrity in a profound way. It highlights several referral bodies. The Council on Legislation also points to the seriousness of the issue regarding this legislation.

Expanded police powers in border areas

There are risks here that profiling can go wrong. The law enforcement authorities are receiving new tools that are so powerful that they must be followed up and evaluated extremely carefully along the way. I will be clear: We Social Democrats do not stand behind the bill without weighing these risks. We see them, and we have thought about it a lot. But we stand behind the bill.

In connection with that, I want to make a principled reflection on this. When it comes to what we are fundamentally talking about today, we Social Democrats can never accept that we have a shadow society in our country.

On the one hand, we must have an open and strong society. Then, tens of thousands of people cannot live in Sweden in a parallel system where life is characterized by intolerable conditions, exploitation, and arbitrariness. That is not acceptable. We do not intend to accept that. On the other hand, we must also try to keep the other perspectives in mind, not least the issues of privacy.

I have often said in this speaker's chair that the refugee crisis in 2015 was not the systemic collapse that many want to claim. In many ways, it was a systemic success. It is in the ripples of that which this bill must be seen. Our country managed the challenge of receiving many refugees during an incredibly compressed period. In fact, during this time, we received more refugees per capita than any welfare nation has ever done. People stepped up, opened their homes, and showed practical solidarity. But it came at a cost. And it exposed various deficiencies in our systems during that period.

We did it because it was a historical necessity from moral and practical perspectives. I am fairly convinced that the citizens of the future will look back at that time and think that, despite everything, we managed it quite well given the circumstances. Perhaps even some politicians will get a place in the Room of Good Deeds, which is located a few meters from this chamber.

You who are listening now hear that I am trying to stand on two legs at the same time. One actually has to do that sometimes. One must rely on both legs. Fundamentally, it is about the fact that we all felt a frustration in 2015. Personally, I thought it was extremely frustrating to hear that several hundred people left the reception centers in Trelleborg and just disappeared into society without anyone having registered them or had control over who they were. So we cannot have that. Therefore, the sharper border controls came, and it was the right decision to take. I had no problem with that.

We cannot have an order where twelve people pay usurious prices to get a sleeping place on a mattress while unscrupulous leaseholders rake in. We see that the insecurity in our underprivileged areas is increasing. Not even the property owners know who is living in the houses anymore. In Södertälje, Borås and Malmö in particular, successful work has been done to clear up this black market. It is a market that we cannot have in a social democratic Sweden.

We will never accept that black labor is exploited on our construction sites, transports, or restaurants. We cannot have a situation where a person can lie deceased due to a workplace accident and the others at the workplace, neither employees nor contractors, have no idea who the person is and take no responsibility for anything. We Social Democrats can never accept that.

It is in that light that we must view the proposals we are discussing today. This implies an expansion of the state's possibilities. One concrete proposal is that one has the possibility to carry out coercive measures in the form of body searches to establish the identity of someone who refuses to present a passport or identity document. This shall then occur in the same way as during internal border control according to the EU's border code. We consider this to be a proportionate measure vis-à-vis the aspect of privacy.

Everyday racism has increased in our society. Therefore, there is apprehension regarding profiling. Everyday racism creates wounds that many times never heal. But the Swedish police and customs are the world's best-trained and rest on a strong and secure set of values. My view is that lessons have been drawn from previous internal foreign national controls and the aberrations that occasionally arose in those contexts. Even here, we will follow the outcome very closely.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion - the concept of order and tidiness may be linguistically dated, to some extent perhaps also content-wise, and perceived as a bit out of date. But we Social Democrats take the risk of being the strict guardian of a perspective where society must have a grip on things. We must make tough decisions, but we must make them with respect for the people who are affected. Behind every obstacle, rejection, control, and enforcement decision, there is, after all, a human being whose dreams may have been shattered.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! For eight years, theft crimes were allowed to continue plundering Sweden. For eight years, the illegal immigration was allowed to continue. For eight years, the weapons smuggling was allowed to continue on a large scale.

I believe that the Social Democrats taking eight years to achieve an investigation will only moderately impress the voters. It is only now that we get legislation in place, thanks to a sharpened proposition from the government.

Ardalan Shekarabi expressed some self-criticism today in the area of criminal policy. Does Member Petter Löberg see any reason to be critical of the Social Democrats' sluggishness in this matter?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, one must be delightfully self-righteous and say that it has never been permitted to engage in theft and smuggling of stolen goods and the like. We have had sharp legislation, but we have not had the ability to reach all the way through. There, the entire body of society, including the politics and the Social Democrats, must be self-critical and say that we have sometimes not reached all the way through.

We have done as well as we could. We have made historically large investments in the law enforcement authorities. There is no other case in our history where so much has been invested as we did from 2014 until we handed over the baton to the current government. Never before have we made such large expansions when it comes to training, resource allocation, increased penalties, and sharpened tools. Never before have there been so many propositions within the area of criminal justice policy as under the Social Democratic-led government.

When we came to Rosenbad in 2014 - I was there at that time - there was almost a complete lack of investigations at the ministry. It may seem sluggish with an investigation that sits and lingers, waiting to become a concrete proposal. But without an investigation, there will be no propositions eventually in our well-functioning society. There was a total lack of underlying work. Furthermore, the police training at that time was downsized. Over one year, they had cut it by 90 percent.

We are extremely proud of what was achieved during those years. Are we proud and believe that we have arrived? Absolutely not. I can guarantee Member Fredrik Kärrholm that I am afraid we will be standing here again in four years and that societal challenges will not be lacking then either.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate hearing from a Social Democratic Member of Parliament that it is acknowledged that not enough was done during the previous parliamentary term.

Many other countries have had this type of solution, for example, camera surveillance to map registration numbers and identify risk vehicles in order to be able to perform more targeted, selective checks. That type of solution has existed for a very long time.

I must praise the Social Democrats for having had a good ambition during the past parliamentary terms, but we must acknowledge that they did not do enough. Now I see before me that we will do enough.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that politics, generally speaking, needs to be a bit more humble in the face of the societal challenges and the problems that exist. Had there not been shootings and problems with theft gangs or violence in close relationships, we could have devoted ourselves to something other than justice policy. But as long as we see the challenges, we will, of course, do everything we can to discuss different solutions together with the current government.

We have extended our hand and will of course continue to do so. I also believe that there is a great intrinsic value in having these discussions across block boundaries. That perspective lies in our Social Democratic DNA. So we do that when it comes to all major, long-term policy areas.

We need to talk across block boundaries, find solutions across block boundaries, and find common solutions to the problems that society has.

Humility and a large portion of openness are needed regarding the toolbox that obviously needs to be opened to meet the challenges, and this applies in particular to the crime prevention work that I know you have also started to discuss for the first time. It has been quite lonely to talk about preventive measures, but now I see with great joy that even the sitting government is trying to have these perspectives. This will not be solved with repressive measures or cameras; instead, it needs to be solved in other ways.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! What we are discussing now is the government's proposal for a new law aimed at the Police Authority and, to some extent, also at the Coast Guard, the Security Service, and the Swedish Customs, and gives them extended powers in border areas. The objectives are twofold. They are both to control foreigners' right of residence and to combat crime in border areas. It concerns body searches, house searches, and the right to camera surveillance of cars in border areas.

What is meant by "border areas"? Yes, airports and ports that have a direct connection with the foreign countries for commercial freight or passenger traffic. This also applies to railway stations that have a direct connection with the foreign countries for commercial passenger traffic, bridges for road traffic to or from the foreign countries, and border crossing points on public roads.

Most people associate borders with southern Sweden, I believe. But the border with Norway is a full 1,620 kilometers long, from Idefjorden in Bohuslän to Treriksröset in the north. There are many roads here that are public and which cross the borders. We also have a number of border crossings to Finland. They are not as many but exist, for example, in Haparanda and on some islands. With Denmark it is easier – there the borders usually run in the water, except on the Öresund Bridge.

What does this mean then? Yes, that there are very many people who commute across the borders to reach their jobs. It also means that people of different ethnicities need to cross the borders to obtain their daily income.

I provide this background to show that this is a rather large and extensive reform proposal. Vänsterpartiet opposes the bill, and I move for the approval of our reservation, which is number 1 and which entails a rejection of the proposition.

Vänsterpartiet is in good company when it comes to criticizing the proposal. Heavyweight referral bodies do so as well: the Equality Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, Stockholm University, and Civil Rights Defenders. In addition, there is great hesitation from further referral bodies, including the Security and Integrity Protection Board.

The texts contained in the bill link foreigners to crime and criminality. Migration is portrayed as a risk. The proposed law intends measures against such serious cross-border crime as human trafficking, terrorism and violent crimes alongside measures to control foreigners' stay in the country. Violations of entry and residence regulations are perceived and branded as cross-border crime.

Vänsterpartiet and many others have - unfortunately again - had reason to express concerns that legal certainty is being set aside and see a particular risk of discrimination through the profiling based on race or ethnicity that will probably arise. JO reacts to this and argues that the requirements are set far too low for the powers to control residence rights and prevent crime.

JO writes: "I see a risk that the border areas become a form of visitation zones where everyone can be subject to coercive measures without the distinction that the legislator intended. The risk appears particularly noteworthy at train stations where a large number of people stay for various purposes." JO thus particularly highlights the risk of discrimination and ethnic profiling, which is naturally unacceptable in the eyes of both JO and others. The Chancellor of Justice considers the proposal to be disproportionate and the requirements insufficient to ensure that one does not handle this arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner.

Stockholms universitet also highlights the risk of discrimination and that we violate both the Instrument of Government and the European conventions on the protection of human rights.

The Security and Integrity Protection Board is concerned that we have once again ended up on a slippery slope where we allow more and more things to happen outside of the preliminary investigations.

The Council on Legislation has also been critical and pushed back on certain formulations. They received – better yet, I can say even though I am against the law – partial approval for some of the wording. It is specified that the controls shall be selective and that they may not be systematic, and those words are now included in the proposed legislative text. But the Council on Legislation remains critical of the government being authorized to issue further regulations.

There is also criticism regarding what are vague expressions and difficult to define in the law. The first is naturally how we know that someone is a foreigner. We do not do that, but we might interpret certain things as that one is assumed to be a foreigner. This is where the risk begins that prejudices and preconceived notions kick in, and one does not know if one has interpreted correctly until one perhaps has seen documentation in the form of ID documents. This becomes a selective internal foreign national check, for example based on risk profiles or the individual official's knowledge and experience, the government writes. Then there shall also be opportunities for body searches.

What has also been pondered is whether this proposal will affect children. Today's legal text makes no distinction between adults and children. It could be about the suspicion that someone is a foreigner or that someone is engaging in a criminal activity. In that case, one should try to assess the circumstances in the concrete situation.

Let us look at the practice, what has been accepted as criteria. In the bill, and in the committee report, it is stated that in practice it has sufficed for an official to subjectively judged that the traveler looks nervous and that this would be sufficient grounds to apply the powers - according to a JO assessment.

This is very solvable. The proposal also concerns something that surprises me, namely that one should be able to seize passports and ID documents to have greater opportunities to deport the person if they are a foreigner. Those decisions may not be appealed. It appears extremely insecure in terms of legal certainty and becomes another reason for me to demand a rejection of the bill.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I listened with growing astonishment to Gudrun Nordborg. It was some form of suspicion towards the law enforcement authorities, who apparently were to exercise structural racism which involves them suspecting people. There are clear and distinct instructions in the regulatory framework on how the control shall be carried out.

How should an internal immigration control, Gudrun Nordborg, function according to the Left Party's view?

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I believe that we should trust the systems that already exist more. There are opportunities to intervene in cases of suspected crimes, and they can be used.

The proposal is an enormous expansion for, among other things, the camera surveillance at all crossings, which affects everyone. It is not solely a question of those we "suspect" of being foreigners or criminals. The data is recorded and there is a right to retain the information for six months.

When it comes to person-to-person contact, we know from experience that both prejudices and preconceived notions can have an impact. I want to believe that the majority of our Swedish civil servants are not racists, but there is clear evidence that such instances also occur. I would like to be guarded so that this does not affect either the average person or the person who is a foreigner.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Over the years, there has been a system where the measures have been improved. There are also requirements for documentation, and there are requirements that govern under which conditions one can stop and check a person. Checks are carried out at workplaces to see if there are illegal workers and so on without there being a concrete suspicion of a crime. But it is apparently accepted in those cases.

It feels as though Vänsterpartiet and Gudrun Nordborg are disqualifying the law enforcement authorities and the professionalism that characterizes them. One mistake or another is certainly made, and that will remain the case within all professional groups. But it is a lack of respect that one does not start from the premise that they are doing a professional job, but instead points to the risks.

That is why I requested the floor. I think it is a disqualification and a degradation of our law enforcement authorities and the individual people who work with the assignments - they are difficult and must be balanced.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for further questions from the member.

I could turn this around and say that there are legal rules today that enable control as well as crime prevention and crime investigation activities. There, I want to emphasize strength and trust, and there are growing capacities in various ways. We can map out and follow up in a better way than before.

I see these as unnecessary additions. Such additions to our legal system undermine legal certainty and trust. These are some of the things that I perceive as honor words in the Swedish public system.

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

Katja Nyberg (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Extended police powers in border areas.

And with the fact that mobility across borders has increased, Sweden has faced an ever-growing problem with foreigners staying in the country illegally. Sweden today has major problems with a shadow society where many people who do not have the right to stay in Sweden are located, and it is an environment that entails a lot of crime.

In order for the police to be able to effectively combat crime, they need to be given expanded opportunities to use coercive measures, for example body searches and house searches, also for preventive purposes.

We need to put an end to the defensive stance towards grossly criminal foreigners, which has been guiding for far too long. Hesitation and lack of clarity from the state sends signals to criminals that Sweden has neither the courage, strength, nor will to stop individuals who are illegally present in the country.

Today's regulatory framework does not give the police sufficient opportunities to intervene against cross-border crime. A specific reason is required for the police to be allowed to carry out checks against individuals suspected of staying in the country illegally. In practice, it is difficult to build up such a suspicion, and there is therefore a tangible need to expand the possibilities to use coercive measures in certain situations.

The purpose of the proposed legislative change is that it shall give the police extended powers in border areas where there is a great need to be able to control foreigners' right of residence and combat crime. It is important to emphasize that an increase in controls will be proportionate and occur through intelligence information, risk profiles, tips, and so on. Furthermore, requirements are set that the degree of suspicion for intervention, even for preventive purposes, shall be imprisonment for more than one year.

Madam Speaker! International gangs today account for a large share of the crime of robbery in Sweden. Illegal residence in the country entails problems such as cross-border crime, which is also many times conducted in organized form, which entails both insecurity and large costs for Sweden.

When it comes to other cross-border crime, it is through smuggling that criminal groups are supplied with a large portion of the weapons used in shootings and also the drugs that are sold in the country.

We see its consequences every day, and the inability to set hard against hard leads to human tragedies and suffering that could have been stopped. I sincerely hope that all the politicians who have actively opposed a tougher and harder policy have woken up. This is not a time when Sweden needs a Sleeping Beauty's sleep. We must resolutely show all criminal elements what the rules are. It is this way, but no longer from now on.

Madam Speaker! More effective work in border areas, with the possibility of more interventions from authorities, will have a deterrent effect and lead to Sweden becoming a less attractive target both for criminals and for foreigners whose intention is to stay here illegally.

Individuals with criminal intent should, when the finger on the map lands on Sweden, think of limitations and not of opportunities. They should simply know that Sweden has a new approach - an approach that means that their previous free zone is abolished.

The Swedish Police Authority, the Coast Guard, the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish Customs Service therefore need to be given extended powers in border areas. Through these new powers, the authorities will receive new opportunities to intervene against individuals to check their right of residence in Sweden as well as to prevent crime. These authorities will also need extended opportunities to use camera surveillance.

Madam Speaker! The new law will also apply to persons under 18 years of age. Given that children living without residence permits in Sweden are marginalized from society and run a high risk of being exploited or drawn into crime, it is important that children are also included in the bill. I hardly need to mention that precisely this is of utmost importance given the horrific crimes that have been committed in this country by persons under 18 years of age.

Regarding expanded camera surveillance of traffic flows, it will, among other things, provide a basis for interventions against persons who are to transport stolen goods or illegal goods out of the country. The possibilities to carry out such interventions will be significantly improved when the camera surveillance is conducted not only in border areas but also at roads in the vicinity of these areas. The authorities can, for example, receive information that a certain vehicle is heading towards an area, and then be given time to prepare an intervention, which is not possible to the same extent today.

The voters gave a clear mandate in the election for a policy that would once and for all settle the previous "saft-och-bulle" policy. We are now seeking clarity, sharpness, and a significantly higher level of ambition when it comes to combating crime wherever it appears. The proposal is another step on the way and a link in building a safer and more secure Sweden.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is often said that the Öresund region shall be the world's most integrated region. People shall be free to move, live on one side and work on the other, and go to concerts, sporting events, or just stroll around, go to a restaurant, and then go home again in the evening. It is, at least, an ambition that is often put forward by politicians outside of Stockholm, but here in the capital, the politicians want neither to invest in Scanian infrastructure nor to facilitate everyday life in different ways across the borders between Denmark and Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We have lived with border controls from Denmark since November 11, 2015. At that time, the government decided that border controls should be introduced and continue for the following ten days. It is almost eight years since then. The border controls still remain. They affect commuters, and they affect families with children who have been on holiday in Denmark and who are stopped when they drive across in the middle of the night with sleeping children in the car.

During a period, from January 2016 to May 2017, we also had ID checks. Perhaps not many remember the difference between border controls and ID checks, but the latter meant that one was not allowed to enter the country or cross the Swedish border without ID documents confirming who one was.

The purpose was that refugees without ID documents should not be allowed in, but it also had the consequence that retirees who traveled to Helsingør could not return to Helsingborg because they had forgotten their passports at home.

It also had drastic consequences for the work commute. The time from home to work round trip could be extended by two hours a day, which naturally resulted in the integration between Sweden and Denmark being significantly worsened. The ID checks were abolished, thank goodness, Madam Speaker, but we will have to see how it becomes moving forward.

I have asked the new government and the Minister for Justice how they view the issue of border controls and whether they have the ambition to abolish them in the future, just as Denmark has done at its borders with both Sweden and Germany. It is no exaggeration to say that the Minister for Justice does not seem over-enthusiastic about that line, even though the controls contravene EU law. On the contrary, the Tidö Agreement states that ID checks, i.e., the worse kind of controls, could become the new normal. The Nordic passport-free travel, which we have lived with for over 50 years, would then be a mere memory.

Madam Speaker! The report contains proposals for expanded powers for authorities to conduct immigration controls. There is a part that the Green Party (MP) supports, and that is the part concerning camera surveillance of vehicles and storage of data for vehicles in border areas. It is not an intervention that would shake up the lives of everyone who lives or works on the other side or travels over in other ways, but it is a way for authorities to monitor flows and see if a car crosses the Öresund Bridge very often or similar. It would be helpful to get a better picture of such and also have frequent exchanges of such data between authorities in Denmark and Sweden.

We do, however, see risks with other parts of the bill. It concerns the risk of so-called racial profiling. We are not alone in this fear; a long line of referral bodies warn sharply against this and have objections. Civil Rights Defenders, the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Stockholm University and the Bar Association are some of those who have objections of various kinds.

It should be emphasized that there is currently a possibility to conduct internal foreign national checks, which is often done if there is a suspicion that a person does not have the right to stay here. But now it is about far-reaching powers to conduct body and vehicle searches without any suspicion.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation number 4.

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

Fredrik Kärrholm (M)

Madam Speaker! Every day, foreign gangs transport tons of stolen goods out of Sweden. On the other hand, into the country, weapons pour in. Simultaneously, extensive illegal immigration is occurring. Year after year, this has been allowed to continue, but now we are taking action. The Police, the Coast Guard, and the Swedish Customs Service have received more resources and are now granted expanded powers. Sweden's borders shall be protected.

The new law intends for expanded powers in so-called border areas. We have just been explained to us that it concerns airports, ports, railway stations, bridges and roads that constitute connections with the outside world. The authorities are given, with these expanded powers, new possibilities to intervene against individuals to control their right to stay in Sweden and to prevent crime. One also gets expanded possibilities to conduct camera surveillance.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had a growing problem with persons who reside in the country illegally. Experiences from the temporarily reintroduced border controls show that people who lack the right to stay in Sweden move across the borders in large numbers. This is a problem.

The Government notes in the bill - and the committee does the same in its report - that it is of fundamental importance that the authorities have sufficiently effective tools to be able to verify that persons staying in Sweden also have the right to do so. If such tools are lacking, the principle of regulated immigration, which is the basis for Swedish immigration legislation, is threatened in the long run.

The Swedish Police Authority has previously been tasked by the government to prioritize work with internal foreign national controls. With the new law, the police also receive expanded powers to conduct such internal foreign national controls at the borders.

Madam Speaker! Sweden also has a major problem with cross-border crime. It is conducted in an organized form, affects the entire country, and causes insecurity and high costs. According to the police, foreign theft gangs are responsible for half of all residential burglaries and 90 percent of all car thefts and thefts of agricultural machinery. The values amount to billions of kronor. When it comes to other cross-border crime, it is clear that it is, for example, through smuggling that criminal groups gain access to the weapons used in shootings.

More measures must now be taken to prevent and detect this type of criminal activity when it involves crimes for which imprisonment of more than one year is prescribed. This involves, on the one hand, body searches, and on the other hand, searching vehicles. Persons attempting to get away shall be pursued, stopped, and checked. All of this is self-evident powers, and the question is only why they have not been introduced long ago.

Madam Speaker! The camera surveillance act sets high requirements for cameras to be used in places where the public has access. That proper balancing of interests is carried out is reasonable and important. In border areas, however, this interest is obvious and general, and it is therefore very welcome that it will now be easier to use cameras at, for example, bridges and harbors.

Video surveillance shall also be permitted on the way towards border crossings. This gives the authorities the opportunity to identify vehicles that need to be checked in advance. Suspected vehicles can then be identified, and an intervention can be prepared so that, for example, it can be prevented that stolen goods are taken out of the country.

Video surveillance of traffic flows also enables the collection of data. Now, it is possible to collect, for example, registration numbers for vehicles passing through border areas. Such data shall be allowed to be stored for six months. The purpose is to prevent, deter, and detect criminal activity. With these data collections, the police will have significantly better conditions to carry out different types of selective interventions, and conditions are created for more successful criminal investigations.

With these expanded powers, an increased risk of interventions from the authorities is created. This can be expected to have a deterrent effect and lead to Sweden becoming a less attractive target for arms smugglers, theft gangs, and foreigners who do not have the right to stay here.

Madam Speaker! I hereby move for the approval of the bill. The new law and associated legislative amendments will contribute to making Sweden a safer country with less crime.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Being a politician is, in many ways, about adapting laws and regulations to the developments occurring in society. We shall, of course, be both proactive and clearly normative, and we shall introduce incentives. But often it is about adapting to a world in constant development, with a constant adaptation from the public sector's side.

To uphold respect for our country's borders and the regulated immigration we have, to combat increasingly cross-border crime, to take into account how new technology is used and new behaviors, and to adapt the legislation so that it fulfills its purpose even in new times are our tasks here today.

At the same time as we do this, we need to take into account eternal values that should not change over time, such as people's fundamental rights and freedoms. It is about the right not to be subjected to body searches, not to be discriminated against, and not to be subjected to controls if there are no well-founded and legally regulated reasons for this. It is about the importance of decisions being based on objective reasons and not on things such as, for example, appearance, language, or name.

Finding a balance between effective legislation that benefits both the public and the individual is what is important, and it is this that is crucial in legislation such as that now proposed.

Madam Speaker! We from the Centre Party share the government's assessment that better protection and more tools are needed to protect our borders and combat cross-border crime. These are also tools that uphold the systems that provide protection to those in need and additionally provide the country with necessary labor. We see it as reasonable to today give the police and the Coast Guard the new powers that are now proposed.

But as I have said on similar occasions, the responsibility now lies heavily on the government and its agencies to carry this out - to use the tools we give them here. I want to particularly emphasize the importance that these powers must not be used to a greater extent or more extensively than what is required for the purpose of the measure, as well as the importance that the documentation of these decisions is handled.

I have great confidence in our law enforcement authorities, but I still want to remind of the responsibility to, in the daily work, make a balanced assessment between the repressive and the rule-of-law principles precisely in the borderline areas.

In conclusion, a heavy responsibility also rests on the government to ensure that the authorities and the employees have the right support, resources, tools, and above all leadership to carry this out.

With this said, the Centre Party supports the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on a new law that primarily aims to give the police powers in border areas. The proposals aim to ensure the ability to control foreigners' right of residence in Sweden and to combat crime in border areas.

This legislation should actually have been in place much earlier. Sweden became a member of the European Union in 1995, and there one speaks of the four freedoms, of which free movement for persons is one. A few years later, Sweden joined the Schengen Agreement and its regulatory framework, which resulted in the previous border controls being abolished. It thus became easy for citizens in the Schengen countries to travel freely across land borders. The very purpose is that one should be able to cross the borders without undergoing personal or passport controls.

Opening the internal borders is one side of the coin. The other is to guarantee the citizens' security. For that reason, the agreement allows for the fact that there are, in practice, internal border controls. The Schengen Agreement clearly states that national authorities, in our case primarily the police, may carry out random checks either at the border or in border areas, if this is done on the basis of general information and experience and does not involve systematic passport controls. That is what the agreement says. At the same time, individuals are obliged to carry certain travel documents, normally a passport or a national ID card.

I mean that Sweden made a misjudgment here. The previous border controls were phased out, and police resources were moved to other activities. The compensatory measures that were required and the implementation of a new regulatory framework in accordance with the Schengen Agreement were not realized. In reality, they became more or less open gates, where people could travel in and out without risking being checked. Admittedly, a smaller resource was assigned to intelligence work to work on the issue—and then particularly with a focus on human trafficking and people smuggling—but it resulted in relatively few operational interventions.

Another attempt was made in the so-called REVA project with internal foreign national control, but it was scrapped following criticism of alleged racial profiling and ethnic discrimination.

In connection with the massive influx of migrants in 2014-2015, it was noted that the situation was unsustainable. Only much later was a decision made to introduce internal border controls. These have been extended for the sixth month and are still ongoing. According to the agreement, a Schengen country may in exceptional cases introduce border controls, initially for up to 30 days, if a serious threat to public order or internal security exists. But now we are, as mentioned here, in the eighth year!

Madam Speaker! The legislation that is now proposed is thus entirely in accordance with the Schengen framework, where the police and other law enforcement authorities are given the opportunity to obtain the tools and powers that should have been introduced when Sweden joined the agreement. In that way, 20 years later - better late than never - we can state that it is now underway.

But one must also note that otherwise we would certainly have had better control over the border crossings and perhaps even to some extent could have prevented the recent years' development of the establishment of cross-border and organized crime with its consequences in the form of serious violent crimes. We perhaps also would have had better control over who is in the country.

Madam Speaker! Specifically, the new legislation means expanded opportunities to conduct internal foreign national checks in border areas. Checks may be conducted when there is a reasoned ground to assume that the foreign national lacks the right to stay in the country or when there is another reason for the check. The checks continue to be based on certain criteria, such as observations, intelligence, risk profiles, tips, and the like.

As mentioned and implied here earlier, it continues to apply that internal foreign national controls may not be carried out solely because a person has an appearance perceived as foreign or because he or she speaks a certain language or has a certain name.

In order to establish the identity of a person, the police or other law enforcement authorities may conduct a body search and perform a search of transport vehicles to look for identity documents. It is a natural consequence if the person does not wish to identify themselves and there are doubts regarding the identity.

Cross-border crime constitutes, as previously mentioned, a major problem. Stolen goods for large amounts are largely transported out of the country. The current regulatory framework makes it difficult for the police to point to circumstances that constitute grounds for decisions on house searches. Many times, extensive surveillance and investigation are required to uncover the foreign gangs that have entered the country with the intent to carry out extensive theft tours. The proposal means that the police will now have expanded opportunities to check suspected vehicles and also to body-search and search vehicles for preventive purposes.

Thus, the proposal regarding the exemption from the requirement for a balancing of interests for camera surveillance is welcome. There are large traffic flows, not least on the Öresund Bridge, which has also been mentioned in the debate, where between 80,000 and 100,000 people and around 30,000 vehicles pass every day. Camera surveillance is there an important, and almost indispensable, tool for locating persons and vehicles of interest. Automatic number plate recognition is not specifically mentioned in the proposal, but it is a tool that is of invaluable help for locating wanted vehicles in connection with entry and exit at the border.

As has also been mentioned, for over 16,000 commuters on the Öresund Bridge in eight years, daily checks and delays have been endured due to the current border controls. As a resident of the southern part of the country, I particularly welcome the consideration, as access to the proposed powers reduces the need for the temporary – if we can consider eight years to be temporary – reintroduced border controls at the internal border.

It provides better conditions to prioritize other and more effective police measures in the future, entirely in accordance with the Schengen Agreement and the European Union's thoughts on free movement combined with measures to ensure citizens' demands for safety and security.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of the bill and the rejection of the present motions.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! In Skåne, we discuss a great deal regarding the Öresund region, mobility between our countries, and the possibility of working, experiencing entertainment, and more. I believe that Torsten Elofsson is well acquainted with the discussions.

Three municipalities in Skåne - Landskrona, Helsingborg and Malmö - all want new fixed connections across the Öresund. In Malmö, the issue of a metro is being driven, which would go faster to Copenhagen and be integrated into their subway system. Landskrona wants its own route, and Helsingborg is talking about having one to Helsingør.

This is happening at the same time as there is more talk in the Riksdag in Stockholm about how one can increase control and make mobility more difficult. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am curious to hear how Torsten Elofsson stands on the question in principle. Does Torsten Elofsson and Kristdemokraterna want free mobility between Denmark and Sweden, or how should one interpret the writings in the Tidö Agreement regarding that there shall be permanent ID checks?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! If Rasmus Ling reads the bill, he will see that it states that one opens up the possibility to abolish the static border controls and have a more flexible solution for the internal border control. That is what we are actually talking about.

As late as Friday, I had a meeting with the head of the border police in the South region, who also sees that this will become a significantly better tool for the police to work with. There is no request from the border police's side to maintain the static border control, rather they want to be able to work in a more flexible and mobile way.

There will also continue to be random spot checks. But it is possible to avoid the stop that Rasmus Ling is aware of, Hyllie, which constitutes a delay for commuters. We will have to see how it works. I believe that one should leave it to the police to develop the working methods they find best and most appropriate.

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

Rasmus Ling (MP)

Madam Speaker! I also believe that the police have the best ability to determine those types of matters. But nevertheless, it works in such a way that if the government says that this is something that should exist, be done and prioritized, the police will do it.

I have asked the Minister for Justice both in writing and orally during the question period whether he has any ambition to remove the border controls, but I have not received any positive answer. He has, on the contrary, said that this is something that is needed. The new legislation has been known at the times he has been asked the question. Once is not once, one could say, but twice is actually something that one must interpret as a statement.

Madam Speaker! It is still good that Torsten Elofsson says that he wants to go in this direction and that this may come to enable the border controls to be removed. But, Madam Speaker, it is up to be proven! The government can say: Now we have this legislation, and the police have the tools they need. One gets the opportunity for camera surveillance, which we fully support. But please – can the government and the parties that are the government base or are part of the government not put their foot down and clearly say that it will abolish the border controls as soon as it is possible?

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

Torsten Elofsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is probably no desire from anyone to maintain border controls if they are not needed. But when they were introduced in 2015, there was a risk. And the assessment has been that there is still a risk to public safety and a risk to Sweden as a country, and that we need to maintain the border controls in that manner.

But I also see - it is implied in the bill and by the border police - that with the new legislation one can transition to a more flexible form of internal border control or internal immigration control - one can play with the words however one likes. But some form of control must exist when it comes to entry and exit in different ways. How it should be designed, I cannot provide an answer on. But the new legislation gives, as said, the possibility for a completely different flexibility and a different methodology than what is had today in the static control.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 June.)

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